[ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [ast-users] const vs. readonly data

[Peter Fales]

K&R says on page 40 that "the result is implementation-defined if an
attempt is made change a const."   On page 211, it says that such
objects "may" be placed in read only memory.   As far as I know, it's
unusual for a compiler to actually do so.


On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:22:23PM -0400, Glenn Fowler wrote:
> 
> I've been at this so long you think I should know better
> 
> I've been under the apparently mistaken assumption that
> if I dilligently pepper struct definitions and subsequent
> declarations and initializations with "const" that the compiler
> will attempt to place that data in readonly text
> 
> I've done this with the libast tables in conftab.c lc.c
> but nm and size show the data going to the .data section
> 
> am I expecting too much from cc to do this without prodding?
> is there a set of options that at least works for gcc on
> multiple architectures? or at least for solaris and the ksh93
> integration?
> 
> thanks
> 
> -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ast-users mailing list
> ast-users at research.att.com
> https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users

-- 
Peter Fales
Alcatel-Lucent
Member of Technical Staff
2000 Lucent Lane
Room: 1C-436
Naperville, IL 60566-7033
Email: psfales at alcatel-lucent.com
Phone: 630 979 8031