??? 05/15/09 22:28 Read: times |
#165399 - using 'const' for 'code' would be very bad Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I would be very worried by a 8051 compiler that decides that the 'const' keyword should mean the 'code' memory area. That would break code that uses 'const' to just say that the program may not modify a variable. In short, it would say that the compiler vendor don't understand the C language and have made a very, very broken decision that should have them banned. |
Topic | Author | Date |
C lang. question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Confused | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Did you get the job? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Do you _want_ the job? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Same same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes, that was exactly what I meant! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re:job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I wouldn't have thought so? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Who knows | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not really applicable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Still missing the point. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
using 'const' for 'code' would be very bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Two examples | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Different issues | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
architectual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Actually irrelevant to the const keyword | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
if it is irrelevant, then why ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Because they are not equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Exactly. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Standard mechanisms for extensions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
volatile applies to data - not functions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Delay loops in 'C' (or any other HLL) | 01/01/70 00:00 |