* Andrew Morton ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:39:14 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > * Jesper Juhl ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >
> > > > * Jesper Juhl ([email protected]) wrote:
[...]
> > Which looks to me like a misunderstanding of the C99 standard. What you
> > do is:
> >
> > static struct page **relay_alloc_page_array(unsigned int n_pages)
> > {
> > const size_t pa_size = n_pages * sizeof(struct page *);
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > So the compiler has no choice but to emit code that will fill in the
> > value of pa_size at runtime, because it depends on "n_pages", a
> > parameter received by the function. So pa_size is everything but
> > constant.
> >
> > The C99 standard, section 6.7.3 (Type qualifiers) states:
> >
> > "The implementation may place a const object that is not volatile in a
> > read-only region of storage. Moreover, the implementation need not
> > allocate storage for such an object if its address is never used."
> >
> > So maybe gcc is kind here and it just removes this const specifier
> > without complaining, but a different compiler might be more strict and
> > fail to compile because you would be dynamically assigning a value to a
> > variable placed in read-only storage.
Actually, "object" in the C99 standard refers to global variables, not
local variables. The misunderstanding was on my part.
Sorry about that,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com