Now strPtr and strArray are considered to be string literals.
No, they aren't. String literals are the things you see in your code. For example, the "Hello"
. strPtr
is a pointer to the literal (which is now compiled in the executable). Note that it should be const char *
; you cannot legally remove the const
per the C standard and expect defined behavior when using it. strArray
is an array containing a copy of the literal (compiled in the execuable).
Both the above statements should be illegal. compiler should throw errors in both cases.
No, it shouldn't. The two statements are completely legal. Due to circumstance, the first one is undefined. It would be an error if they were pointers to const char
s, though.
As far as I know, string literals may be defined the same way as other literals and constants. However, there are differences:
// These copy from ROM to RAM at run-time:
char myString[] = "hello";
const int myInt = 42;
float myFloats[] = { 3.1, 4.1, 5.9 };
// These copy a pointer to some data in ROM at run-time:
const char *myString2 = "hello";
const float *myFloats2 = { 3.1, 4.1, 5.9 };
char *myString3 = "hello"; // Legal, but...
myString3[0] = 'j'; // Undefined behavior! (Most likely segfaults.)
My use of ROM and RAM here are general. If the platform is only RAM (e.g. most Nintendo DS programs) then const data may be in RAM. Writes are still undefined, though. The location of const data shouldn't matter for a normal C++ programmer.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…