dmitry at baikal.ru
Sat Apr 24 09:30:51 CDT 2004
"Francois Gouget" <fgouget at free.fr> wrote:
> We find the same issues with an added twist: now that we can use
> literals we can write things like:
> const char* str = "String literal";
> However this is slightly different from:
> static const char* str = "String literal";
> The difference is that in the first case sizeof(str) returns 4 (on 32
> bit machines<g>) while in the latter we get 15. Some of our code relies
> on this so care must be taken when converting the latter to the former.
My understanding of this is that in the first case you declare a const
pointer and hope that a compiler is smart enough to place a pointed by
it object into a read only section, while in the second case you explicitly
say to a compiler to place the whole object into a read only section.
I prefer to not rely on a compiler's good will.
More information about the wine-devel