On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:46:19AM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:36:02AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: >>> On 2007-Jul-10 19:41:48 +0400, Andrey Chernov <ache_at_nagual.pp.ru> wrote: >>> >To say strictly, copying somewhere is not neccessary since this way works >>> >too: >>> > >>> >static char *s = "PATH=/bin"; >>> > >>> >putenv(s); >>> >>> I thought the C compiler was still free to place the string into RO >>> memory and/or coalesce it with other strings in that case. >>> >>> Wouldn't the following be clearer (s is forced to be writable): >>> >>> static char s[] = "PATH=/bin"; >>> >>> putenv(s); >> >> This two are the same, since there is no "const", so compiler can't put >> static char *s >> into RO memory. > > Not the pointer, but the string it points to can be put into read-only > memory. > > Example: > > static char *s = "PATH=/bin"; > static char *t = "PATH=/bin"; > > > Here both 's', and 't' can point into read-only memory where the string > "PATH=/bin" has been placed. Not only that, they may point to the same > place, i.e. there need only be one copy of the string "PATH=/bin" in > the program (but there may be two distinct copies if the compiler does not > coalesce identical string constants.) > > > If on the other hand you use > > static char s[] = "PATH=/bin"; > static char t[] = "PATH=/bin"; > > > Then 's' and 't' are no longer pointers to a string constant, but arrays > that are initialized with the string "PATH=/bin". These arrays are > modifiable and distinct - i.e. there will be (at least) two copies of the > string "PATH=/bin" in memory. > > > > > -- > <Insert your favourite quote here.> > Erik Trulsson > ertr1013_at_student.uu.se I'm confused what you're referring to as RO memory -- I thought that only const applied in this case: #include <stdio.h> int main () { static char *s = "PATH=/bin"; s = "PATH=/sbin"; printf("%s\n", s); return 0; } filc9175[409]% gcc -o try try.c filc9175[410]% ./try PATH=/sbin Doesn't static (in terms of variables) only state that the memory address and values are not to be released to the heap again after the function scope exits? -GarrettReceived on Tue Jul 10 2007 - 22:05:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:14 UTC