Karen Shaeffer wrote: > 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.
> I can live with that. My problem was that the addresses cannot > be correct. In my opinion, the undefined behavior should be > limited to the value in the address or in some form of error. Your opinion about undefined behaviour is not shared by the C Standard committee: undefined code may do anything. As the saying goes, "Demons might fly our of your nose." > But to let the buggy code execute with addresses that are not > accurate is a liberty I would hope could have been avoided. It > just looks bad. I do realize, no one should have a gripe, because > the code is buggy to begin with. But addresses should always be > reported accurately IMHO. Of course, I obviously know nothing > about compilers. (smiles ;) For what it's worth, this is a common misunderstanding. A proper understanding of the true meaning of "undefined behaviour" comes later. Andrew.
