Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!compass!worley
From: worley@compass.com (Dale Worley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why didn't ANSI make initialisation consistent ????
Message-ID: <WORLEY.91Apr25105107@sn1987a.compass.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 14:51:07 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.141206.18103@grep.co.uk>
Sender: root@compass.com
Organization: Compass, Inc., Wakefield, MA, U.S.A.
Lines: 35
In-reply-to: vic@grep.co.uk's message of 24 Apr 91 14:12:06 GMT

In article <1991Apr24.141206.18103@grep.co.uk> vic@grep.co.uk (Victor Gavin) writes:
   I traced it back to my use of
	   char *fred = "bert"

   Could anyone tell me whether the ANSI committee pondered over the problem of
   tidying up the inconsistencies of the C initializations ?

Actually, initializations *are* consistent -- other than the object
named in the declaration, an initialization *never* allocates memory.
What is allocating the "extra" memory is the string literal "bert".
String literals *always* allocate memory for themselves, except in the
special case when they are used as the initializer for an array of
chars.  For instance,

	char *p;

	p = "1234";

allocates 5 bytes of memory to hold the string literal.

Dale Worley		Compass, Inc.			worley@compass.com
--
So you want to have a shameful affair?
Yet, somehow you can't justify it?

The next time you are contemplating a decision in which you are debating
whether or not to go for the gusto, ask yourself this Important Question:

	How long will I be dead?

With that perspective, you can now make a free, fearless choice to do
just about any goddamned sneaky thing your devious little mind can think
up.  Go ahead.  Have your fun.  You're welcome.  Go on.  See you in
Hell.
		--Matt Groening