Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Question on const applied to typedef'd pointer
Message-ID: <9709@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 25 Feb 89 05:25:01 GMT
References: <9078@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <9078@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>1>	const char * const	foo;
>	typedef char *		bar;
>2>	const bar const		baz;
>The question for the gurus:  should line 1 above have the same meaning as
>line 2 above, despite gcc's warning?

No; you can't slip a qualifier "inside" an existing typedef.
GCC is correct; both "consts" apply at the same lexical level,
namely to the "bar" type.  The line tagged "2>" above is the
same as
	char * const const	foo;