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