Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...)

schwarz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Konrad Schwarz)
18 Apr 1996 00:33:27 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (1996-04-02)
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) KingD@rnd1.indy.tce.com (King Dale) (1996-04-11)
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) cdg@nullstone.com (1996-04-12)
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) cdg@nullstone.com (1996-04-12)
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) sharris@fox.nstn.ca (1996-04-13)
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) mfinney@inmind.com (1996-04-16)
Re: const and static (was: C vs. assembly...) schwarz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1996-04-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: schwarz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Konrad Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 Apr 1996 00:33:27 -0400
Organization: TU Wien
References: 96-03-106 96-04-086 96-04-097
Keywords: C, comment

Christopher Glaeser <cdg@nullstone.com> wrote:
>. . . many C programmers use const as a replacement for
>#define, and . . . expect the code to be as efficient as #define.


This is off-topic, but the best way to do this is to define constants
as the enumeration constants of an unnamed enum.


Konrad Schwarz
[All true, but end of thread. -John]
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.