%% Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's not the issue - the issue is that if you declare something const
>> the compiler can assume it doesn't change over the function call. If it
>> does, then things can break.
rs> No, because "noalias" was removed from the standard.
rs> You're correct if I declare an object to be const, but the compiler
rs> cannot make any assumptions about "const TYPE *" because there may be
rs> multiple pointers.
This restriction (or, lack of ability to assume) only takes effect
when stepping across function calls, doesn't it?
Or, do we have to worry about signal()?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Methods & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
