string literals

[Tech07]

Why can't I change them? Apparently someone is walking the fence and doesn't
know. Hmm? Ask him! (BTW, I know why).

 

[Nick Keighley]

you should try to make your posts "standalone". Please include the
subject in the
body of your post.

Why can't I change [string literals]?

because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
literal.
Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
or other
read-protected address space.

<snip Tech gibberish>

 

[Michael Tsang]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

you should try to make your posts "standalone". Please include the
subject in the
body of your post.

Why can't I change [string literals]?

because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
literal.
Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
or other
read-protected address space.

<snip Tech gibberish>

Because a string literal is a "const char[]"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrTOh4ACgkQG6NzcAXitM9eBACfTZgW8WXA5Tu5ZXXMIYqYupLB
XRUAn3y91zFjXYwKYwJgwh1D8kApVK4j
=euxR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Nick Keighley]

snipped PGP stuff

On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <[email protected]> wrote:

Why can't I change [string literals]?

because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
literal.
Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
or other read-protected address space.

<snip Tech gibberish>

Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

no it isn't. A string is still a char* but it is undefined behaviour
to modify it. C++ may have different rules but these are the C rules.

 

[Seebs]

Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

Not in C.

There's no const qualifier, just something it's undefined behavior to modify.

-s

 

[James Kuyper]

Michael Tsang wrote:
....

Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

Those are the C++ rules. This is comp.lang.c. You made exactly the same
mistake on 9/29, and two similar mistakes on 10/7. Please pay more
attention to the differences between these two languages.

 

[Tech07]

you should try to make your posts "standalone". Please include the
subject in the
body of your post.

Why can't I change [string literals]?

because the standard says

Good answer. Not necessarily right, but it is the vehicle of the gestapo.

it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
literal.

Is that limeric? On what platform? With what compiler? Apparently your
politics are just that. Hmm?

Many platforms

Oh. A PLATFORM. So you actually know what that is. Trully interesting.

take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
or other
read-protected address space.

I think that may have relevance/value. Until I kow that though, I'm coding
around it.

<snip Tech gibberish>

I do do that.

 

[Tech07]

snipped PGP stuff

On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <[email protected]> wrote:

Why can't I change [string literals]?

because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a
string literal.
Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
or other read-protected address space.

<snip Tech gibberish>

Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

no it isn't. A string is still a char* but it is undefined behaviour
to modify it. C++ may have different rules but these are the C rules.

I'm going to do it tomorrow. OK, maybe Wednesday, but I assure you I am
going to do it. I will hold off on doing it unless there is world wide
agreement that I can conduct such nuclear testing. I am going to attempt to
.... (whew, this is tough)... I am going to write to a string literal. I
want Natalie to know (she doesn't care) that I loved her a lot from afar.
Sarah, you are a princess, and I do love you. Y'all do what you want or have
to do, but come Wednesday, I'm going to write to a string literal. "God help
us all".