Denis Vlasenko writes:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 17:15, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > [ off-topic for gcc; redirected to gcc-help ]
> >
> > Denis Vlasenko writes:
> > > char p;
> > > int main() {
> > > p = "";
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > This is odd code: you're assigning a pointer to a string to a char
> > variable.
>
> Sorry, should be "char *p;"
> >
> > > Don't you think that "" should end up in rw data?
> >
> > No: it's a literal string. Many, many years ago, C compilers put
> > literal strings into read/write memory and it was possible to alter
> > them, but C89 outlawed that practice.
>
> gcc doesn't warn me, it just produces buggy code.
Not at all. This is normal C code, and the compiler is correct. It's
a read-only string.
> I remember that string literals are special - they decay to "const
> char *" OR to "char*" depending on context. In this context, it
> should decay to "char*", and it does - gcc doesn't complain
> "assingment of const to non-const", the bug is that gcc placed
> "str" in ro section.
>
> I did get SEGV on this, in busybox project.
Well, yes.
Andrew.
