Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxm!mhuxo!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!rutgers!seismo!mcnc!rti!dg_rtp!meissner
From: meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Why put constants on the stack?
Message-ID: <2111@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jun-87 13:30:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.2111
Posted: Mon Jun 15 13:30:45 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jun-87 02:33:05 EDT
References: <165700009@uiucdcsb> <354@formtek.UUCP>
Reply-To: meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP (Michael Meissner)
Organization: Data General (Languages @ Research Triangle Park, NC.)
Lines: 23


	/* somebody else from uiucdcsb */
> When a local variable is declared ``const,'' the compiler appears to
> assume that it is automatic as well.

> Why are ``const'' variables (other than parameters, of course) not
> assumed to be static?


In article <354@formtek.UUCP> kls@formtek.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes:
> In dpANSI C, const functions as a type-modifier (even though) they
> don't call it that.  Thus, "const int foo" has no explicit storage-
> class and is therefore assumed to be automatic (within a function
> definition); the "const" has no effect in this regard.
> 
> Perhaps C++ is thinking along the same lines?

Ughhhh, it was the other way around, dpANSI adopted const from C++ (and
then added volatile to allow optization on memory mapped I/O).
-- 
	Michael Meissner, Data General	Uucp: ...mcnc!rti!dg_rtp!meissner

It is 11pm, do you know what your sendmail and uucico are doing?