Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: const in latest draft
Message-ID: <1989May30.170530.336@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <16259@gryphon.COM>
Date: Tue, 30 May 89 17:05:30 GMT

In article <16259@gryphon.COM> sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen) writes:
>... I have the Jan. 11, 1988
>version of the draft standard and would like to know if there have been any
>substantive changes in the rules regarding type qualifiers since then, other
>than dropping the noalias qualifier.

In a word, yes.  I don't even remember what the Jan 88 draft said, but it
is almost certainly badly out of date by now.  The qualifier situation was
a mess, and has been cleaned up considerably.

>	In particular, I would like to know if the clause in 3.5.3 stating
>that "For two qualified types to be compatible, both shall have the identically
>qualified version of a compatible type" is still present?

Yes.

>...is the
>footnote on the previous page stating "The implementation may place a const
>object that is not volatile in read-only storage" still present?

Yes.

>I presume
>that it is still true that "All declarations that refer to the same object
>or function shall have compatible type; otherwise the behavior is undefined"
>(as per 3.1.2.6).

Yes.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu