Re: question about linker

Em 11/28/2024 5:33 PM, Keith Thompson escreveu:

If an object is const because of its definition, then that object is
itself read-only, and anything that bypasses that (pointer casts, etc.)
causes undefined behavior.

Yes. This is my point. When the object itself cannot change, I used the name immutable. And "ready only" when we don´t know if the object is immutable or not - like pointer to const object.
In any, case it is just a matter of definition. I think it is clear for both of us. (I am not claiming these definitions are part of C standard)
 >> For compile that computation what matters is the guarantee that the
 >> compiler knows the values (it knows because it always the same value
 >> of initialization) when using the object. (It does not depend on flow
 >> analysis)
 > There's no requirement for the compiler to "know" the value of a const
 > object.
When the expression is required to be constant expression like in switch case, then the compiler must know the value.
Sorry if I am begin repetitive, but here is my motivation to say that const was already ready for that, no need to new keyword constexpr.
Consider this sample
void f(const int a)
{
   const int b = 1;
   switch (a){
      case a: break; // OPS
      case b: break; // should be OK
   }
}
The compiler does not know the value of 'a' even it is declared as constant object; on the other hand the compiler knows the value of 'b';
So, here is my point - In init-declarators. const and constexpr becomes similar.
Em 11/28/2024 5:33 PM, Keith Thompson escreveu:
 >> Sample why no-storage is useful
 >>
 >> void F()
 >> {
 >>     register const int i = 1;
 >>     //lets way we have lanbdas in C
 >>     f( []()
 >>       {
 >>           //safe to use i even in another thread, or even after exiting F
 >>           int k = i;
 >>       }
 >>     );
 >> }
 > Without "register", since i is const, its value will never change
 > (barring undefined behavior), so it should be safe to use anyway.
 > How is eliminating the storage for i useful?  You can just ignore
 > it, and the compiler may be able to optimize it away.
If lambdas were implemented in C, a decision has to be made about capture. Is it allowed or not?
Objects with no storage could be allowed to be captured because this will never imply in lifetime problems; for instance if the lambdas is called by another thread.
C23 also added constexpr in compound literal.
(constexpr struct X ){ }
I also don´t understand why not just use const for that.
I also allow static.
(static const struct X ){ }
I think in this case it makes sense.