Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?

dave_thompson_2@comcast.net writes:

On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:04:55 +0100, Richard Harnden
<richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
[string literals not typed const in C even though writing prohibited]
>

Is there any reason not to always write ...
 
static const char *s = "hello, world";
 
... ?
 
You get all the warnings for free that way.

>
But sizeof s is 8 or 4 regardless of the string, while sizeof "some
string" is the length of the string plus 1 (for the null terminator).
>
static const char s[] = "hello, world";
// autosized by initializer
>
would be a better replacement, or in C99+ if at file scope
>
(const char[]){"hello, world"}

Most uses of that string are very likely to be via function arguments.

If it's defined at file scope, defining s as an array rather than as a
pointer can be useful for any code that refers to it directly (and needs
its size), but as soon as you pass it to a function you lose the size
information (and probably need to pass an extra argument for the
length).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */