🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BRUCEC.91Feb21132333@phoebus.labs.tek.com> brucec@phoebus.labs.tek.com (Bruce Cohen;;50-662;LP=A;) writes:
>
>As a developer of software tools for a company which employs several
>hundred embedded systems programmers (somewhat fewer than a company like
>AT&T), I disagree with the implication that readonly memory is only a
>convenience.  For us it's a fact of life...

That seems to be true around here also.

>...In fact I support very strongly some sort of statement in the standard
>which guarantees me some conditions in which I can be sure I can ROM an
>object.  Otherwise I have to negotiate that separately with each compiler
>writer, probably getting a different solution and a different set of
>conditions from each.

Hummm... I'll bet you would like to see the data object called `array' in
the following example be able to go into ROM.  Interestingly, I think
that the semantics currently defined for the initialization of local
static objects might effectively prohibit such treatment.

	void foobar ()
	{
		static const char array[] = "Hello world.\n";

		// ...
	}

This is probably not the best example I could have cooked up, but if you
read the bottom half of page 92 in the ARM, you may see the problem that
I'm getting at.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// New motto:  If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.