Brandon Casey [off-list ref] writes:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Brandon Casey [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
the first place?
My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would have used a
single instance of const char in a read-only segment, instead of
such a macro.
I think you mean something like this:
const char * const strbuf_slopbuf = "";
Rather, more like "const char slopbuf[1];"
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Brandon Casey [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Brandon Casey [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
the first place?
My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would have used a
single instance of const char in a read-only segment, instead of
such a macro.
I think you mean something like this:
const char * const strbuf_slopbuf = "";
Rather, more like "const char slopbuf[1];"
You'd think that would be sufficient right? Apparently gcc and clang
will only place a variable marked as const in the read-only section if
you initialize it with a constant too. (gcc 4.9.2, clang 3.8.1 on
linux, clang 8.1.0 on osx)
I might have to adjust my stance on initializing global variables
moving forward :-)
-Brandon