Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

Yes, that's true. They are supposed to be stored in 'unmutable' memory though, and will cause a segfault if you try to write to them.

  jam@jam-desktop:~$ cat y.c
  main()

  {
        char * s = "abc";

        *s = 'c';
  }
  jam@jam-desktop:~$ ./y
  Segmentation fault

But you're right that they are a part of the language.

View on HN

Platform-dependent behavior; what crashes on your Linux box doesn't necessarily crash on the embedded system running your flight control software...

The immutability of string literals (at least, the property Jacques is demonstrating) isn't platform-dependent.

From the standard [6.5.4][String literals]:

"If the program attempts to modify such an array, the behavior is undefined."

Hence there is no requirement to segfault.

This is just message board geekery. Nobody could reasonably argue that the requirement is to "segfault"; C runs in many places where there's no such concept. Jacques point was that C string literals are immutable. Stop bickering with him; he's right.

I appreciate your confidence, but you are wrong:

OpenSolaris/suncc, Jacques' program:

  $ cat immutable.c
  #include <stdio.h>

  int main()
  {
    char * s = "abc";
    *s = 'c';
    printf("%s\n", s);
    return 0;
  }

  $ cc -o immutable immutable.c 
  $ ./immutable 
  cbc

EDIT: I can't reply to you, so I have to take this route. I also think that this behavior is not desirable. However, I do not see the passage in the the standard that forbids writable strings. On the contrary, in Annex J writable string literals are explicitly allowed as an extension, and I don't see any indication that the presence of writable strings make an implementation non-conforming.

Perhaps you could point to the passage in the standard that requires string literals to be immutable (your words, not mine) or that requires a compiler to issue a warning if a string literal is modified.

If you still wonder why I'm arguing this: It is not for the sake of nitpicking, but to support kabdib's post.

That Sun's CC does something goofy here has nothing to do with the argument. Code written to depend on that weird behavior is unreasonable. Why are you arguing this point? I don't get what you think you're proving here.

There are plenty of platforms that C runs on that are incapable of making anything immutable, including program text itself. That doesn't make C strings less immutable. Why isn't your compiler yelling at you for doing that? I think it's broken!

  char *s = "Hi, Jacques"; // is immutable

  char s[] = "Hi, Jacques"; // is writeable

  "Hi, Jacques"[0] = 'S'; // is nonsensical

Reply on news.ycombinator.com