Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Does extern "const" allocate storage?
Message-ID: <3117@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 88 22:24:51 GMT
References: <7712@apple.Apple.Com> <3034@haddock.ISC.COM> <613@mcrware.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 12

In article <613@mcrware.UUCP> jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes:
>In article <3034@haddock.ISC.COM>, karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) writes:
>>If you use "static int const foo=3;" and never take its address, a good
>>compiler ought to be able to inline it wherever it's used.
>
>Is this really true [since "const" really means "readonly", not "constant"]?

An object which is declared const but not volatile can never be modified by a
correct program.  A conforming implementation is allowed to take advantage of
this knowledge, by putting it in read-only memory and/or by inlining it.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint