Re: question about linker

On 28/11/2024 23:20, Keith Thompson wrote:

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 28/11/2024 22:38, Keith Thompson wrote:

    T x;           // defines a readonly variable (which probably needs
                   // initialising)
    T* y;          // defines a variable pointer
>
'const' is out of the picture.

You say T is an alias (what, a macro?) for 'const int', you show code
using T, and then you say "'const' is out of the picture".  If you
have a point, it escapes me.

>
Well, can you see 'const' in my example? You can't tell x is readonly
by only looking at this.

 Yes, you said that T is an alias for 'const int'.  Not sure why you
wrote "alias".  Is it a macro, or a typedef, or something else?
 I suggest that hiding "const" behind a macro or typedef is usually a bad
idea.  Why did you do it here?  Is your example based on real code, or
did you contrive it to be as confusing as possible?

It's to illustrate that the constness of a variable may depend on something which is remote from its declaration.
Which is unlike how it usually works elsewhere.
(And if it matters, the alias used a typedef.)
For extra confusion, consider this version:
   T x, *y;
The storage for x is read-only; for y it isn't. Or is it the other way around?