Volatile binding for const?

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #5834

#5834

From: David Keppel
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1989 18:52

16 lines
1106 bytes

I'm confused about the proper binding for the `const' and `volatile'
keywords.  Both of my `pANS conformant' (:-) compilers tell me
something about storage qualifiers that I find counter-intuitive.

	char const *s, *t;	=is=>  {char const *} s, t
	char *const s, *t;	=is=>  char {const *s}, *t

The second one makes sense to me.  The first one doesn't.  Is this
behavior correct?  Is there a rationalle that would help my
intuition get a little closer to reality?

	;-D on  ( temper_t volatile * const hothead; )  Pardo
--
		    pardo@cs.washington.edu
    {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo

Technical Details

Message-ID: <PARDO.89Mar28105228@uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET!pardo

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET!pardo
From: pardo@uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET (David Keppel)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Volatile binding for const?
Message-ID: <PARDO.89Mar28105228@uw-june.stars.flab.Fujitsu.JUNET>
Date: 28 Mar 89 18:52:29 GMT
Sender: news@june.cs.washington.edu
Organization: Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Kawasaki, Japan.
Lines: 16