On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:01:31AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ output ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > $ const_ints > > const int ic = 0 *cip = 5 *ip = 5 > > &ic = 0xbfbd72a0 cip = 0xbfbd72a0 ip = 0xbfbd72a0 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > The global variable code would segfault, as I expected. But the > > auto variable code gives this illogical result. I would appreciate > > comments. I am not on this list, so please ensure I am cc'd with > > any responses. I'll be happy to file a bug, if it is a bug. > > Modifying a variable which is declared const is undefined behaviour. > You can not predict what happens. > > Ian Hi Ian, I can appreciate that. My point was the addresses are not valid here. In my opinion, it seems reasonable to limit the undefined behavior to the value of the variable, or to some form of failure and error, up to and including crashing the process. But to implement the code in such a way to let the process proceed without error, and to have incorrect addresses as we see here, seems to be beyond the common sense scope of the bounds of what this assignment's undefined behavior potential effects might be. It is interesting. Thank you for your comment.
Thanks, Karen -- Karen Shaeffer Neuralscape, Palo Alto, Ca. 94306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neuralscape.com
