Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: "Emmanuel Delahaye" <emdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 11:55:16 +0200
Robert Gamble wrote on 04/06/05 :
I thought about clarifying that but decided not to assuming that the "without invoking undefined behavior" part was implied and trying not to be too pedantic as I know what Emmanuel meant ;)
Ok, I rephrase it:
"The C langage doesn't guarantee that a string literal is mutable".
-- Emmanuel The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html
"Mal nommer les choses c'est ajouter du malheur au monde." -- Albert Camus.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- References:
- why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: baumann@pan
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Emmanuel Delahaye
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Robert Gamble
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Robert Gamble
- why debug step by step, it s ok
- Prev by Date: Re: Why compiler not generating any warning ?
- Next by Date: Re: How to test whether strstr() returns a null pointer or not?
- Previous by thread: Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- Next by thread: Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- Index(es):