Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12712 comp.lang.c++:1636
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: const comparison in C and C++
Message-ID: <782@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 18 Sep 88 06:30:11 GMT
References: <709@paris.ICS.UCI.EDU> <8500@smoke.ARPA> <1411@solo3.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 15
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <1411@solo3.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
: In article <8500@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes:
: \Essentially, C++ "const" means "constant"; ANSI C "const" means "readonly".
:
: Aha! That means the following is correct?
:
: const volatile int * const clock;     /* clock is a readonly pointer to */
:                                       /* a readonly and volatile int    */

Almost.  As specified, it is not initialized and so contains a
null pointer.  You should initialize it to the right address.

---
Bill
novavax!proxftl!bill