From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <002301c01e48$24674480$89c584c3@cybercable.fr> From: "Boyd Roberts" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <200009131811.TAA15840@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>, <02c301c01db9$8141c3e0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr> <39BFF408.BF3B8EE@null.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] no const? Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:34:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 07bc2dd8-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" > Since "const" doesn't mean "constant", again it's evident that > you're criticizing something that you do not understand. i know what i means; this value/object cannot be modified. you could use it with the arg to strlen; a pointer to const char. if you really wanna smash memory 'const' will not save you; say you malloc the arg to strlen. later on (not in strlen) you could smash it. const overly complicates the language and adds little value. > > volatile? yeah, i remember times when i coulda used it. like in > > the 8th ed tu-16 tape driver that john mackin and i fixed. > > volatile would been nice, but we fixed it with a macro (no assembler). > > I don't know the specific problem you encountered, but the PDP-11 > PCC had a specific hack to disable optimization for certain kinds > of access that could be identified as potentially within the I/O > page. I don't recall whether Ritchie's compiler performed the > optimization in the first place. hmm, 8th ed ran on VAXen, not 11's; only about 10 licences were granted. but, it was some 16 bit reference in the interrupt routine. 8th ed was based on 4.1BSD and so i don't rightly recall what compiler it was running. ken should know. > It's easy to complain about what others do, but also pointless. really? criticism serves no purpose? nonsense.