> From: Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> unnecessary, and error prone (as evidenced by string literal memory >>> references not being properly identified as READONLY, although their >>> equivalent array representations are treated properly for example?) >> >> If true, that sounds like a bug. This is the only interesting issue >> here from my point of view. You might consider filing a bug report into >> bugzilla for this. Or contributing a patch. > > This might just be the special case for string constants in C, that > their type is "char*" despite their being allocated in read-only > memory. Paul, before filing a bug, find out whether -Wwrite-strings > makes this alleged misbehavior go away; if it does, it's not a bug.
I just double checked, neither -Wwrite-strings nor -fconst-strings seems to affect the READONLY attribute which should be associated with memory references to static const strings; an earlier PR was already filed: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21018 (with respect to: -Wwrite-strings, I would have thought that the option, although presently depreciated and disabled by default, would only have enabled writes to string literal references be specified at the language front-end level, but not affect the READONLY attribute associated with them at the tree level, as regardless of the option enabling such writes to be accepted, the objects are still a static literal constants, and may simply not be physically writeable regardless of -Wwrite-strings?)
