"Rolf Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> foo(char* const) is no different from foo(char*), from the perspective
> of linking/overloading.
>
> Did you mean foo(char const *)?
>
I meant foo(char* const). not foo(char const *).
Thanks.
===
YES, there ARE a noticeable difference between GCC 3.2 and MS VisualC 7.1
struct A {
virtual void foo(char* a) { std::cout << "A"; }
};
struct B: public A {
virtual void foo(char* const a) { std::cout << "B"; }
};
int main() {
B b;
A* a = &b;
a->foo("");
}
This example prin
foo(char* const) is no different from foo(char*), from the perspective
of linking/overloading.
Did you mean foo(char const *)?
Alex Vinokur wrote:
==
Windows 2000 Professional
CYGWIN_NT-5.0 1.5.4(0.94/3/2)
GNU gcc version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
GNU objd
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Ronald Landheer-Cieslak
> AFAIK, const is a compiler directive - there is nothing in the assembler
> that make a symbol const. You should see const more like a promise: "I
> promise I won't change the value of this variable". That pro
AFAIK, const is a compiler directive - there is nothing in the assembler
that make a symbol const. You should see const more like a promise: "I
promise I won't change the value of this variable". That promise can be
broken by a const-cast, and the assembler code doesn't know anything about
it (AFA
"Alex Vinokur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==
> Windows 2000 Professional
> CYGWIN_NT-5.0 1.5.4(0.94/3/2)
> GNU gcc version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
> GNU objdump 2.14.90 20030901
> =
6 matches
Mail list logo
