Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvlx!billf
From: billf@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Bill F. Faus)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Think C:  Initialization puzzle??
Message-ID: <101780005@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com>
Date: 22 Mar 90 22:57:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA
Lines: 43

Question:

    Can someone help me understand why this initialization is legal:

        char     a[] = "hunky dory";
        char *   p = a;

        char     b = 'x';
        char *   q = &b;  

   And this isn't:

       char *    q = "wishy washy";
       char *    p = q;

   This question has come up as I want to initalize 120K of string
   data and use the STRS option of Think C so I don't have to worry
   about data segments.  As in:

       char *    bit_map_A  = "\012\013\014....";
       char *    bit_map_B  = "\230\231\232....";
                 .........
       char *    bit_map_ZZ = "\001\002\003....";


   If instead I had used char arrays instead of char pointers:
 
       char *    bit_map_A[] = "\012\013\014...."; 

   Then I could subsequently intialize an array of bitmaps like:

       char *    bit_map_ptr[] = {bit_map_A, bit_map_B, ...., bit_map_ZZ};

   The 'bind' I get in is that arrays intialized with string literals 
   get allocated in the main data segment, so I run out of room but
   I CAN use the nifty feature of referring to the array name in
   subsequent initialization statments. Whereas pointers initialized to 
   string literals get allocated to the automatic STRS data segments
   but I CANNOT refer to the pointer names in subsequent initialization
   statements.

---------------
billf@cv.hp.com