Comments by Yuvaraj Gogoi (Top 34 by date)

Yes, its true for static const and extern const or const folding. For local const, there is some other behaviour.

Thanks again for your post.Cheers,Yuvaraj

I also think so. I also thought that const are always stored in data segment. But it is not so now. For local const, it is stored also in stack as SA has rightly explained. Here I am talking about Visual Studio 2010 compiler and GNU compiler.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway thanks a lot for your kind effort.

Cheers,
Yuvaraj

Thanks!!!

hehehehe.... No, not at all. But I had many misconceptions with "const" keyword. I hope I didn't disturb you!!!

Thanks for your kind reply!

nonsense....

Thanks a lotz!! I had many misconceptions which is now clear.

Also I have one more query regarding const data that are stored. How is it internally implemented? How is it made non-writable but can be initialized? Also what does const_cast do internally to a pointer such that the const-ness is removed?

I think I will make a separate thread for this because I feel this topic is little bit different.

Is contant char * stored in stack also inside the function?

e.g. char *str = "Hello";

Thanks for the answer?
Is Data Execution Prevention only for Windows? Or is this valid for Linux also?

Good example!!
This is because class C is not a friend of class final_lock.

Yes, I agree to Emilio. It is because of
friend class Base;
in class final_lock. I hope everything is clear now. Thanks to all for spending their precious time in this topic.

compiler switches are the default ones. I have not changed any of them.

I am using g++ compiler(GNU compiler). Version is 4.4.1 [gcc-4_4-branch revision 150839] (SUSE Linux)

///most-derived-class's ctor directly invokes the virtual base class's ctor.

So if there is no virtual inheritence, then the base class constuctor is called by the immediate next derived constructor. Am I right?
Thanks a lot for the answer!!!

Cheers!!!
Yuvaraj Gogoi

Thanks for the answar!

////When strings are in memory, it's up to the program to decide what is the most efficient representation
////for its purposes.
Does it mean that for space(" "), a notepad in windows is not able to find the efficient representation and so displaying some magic characters?

Thanks a lot for the answar!

Thanks for the answar!
But I still didn't get any answar for my second question!
We see a magic character something like '0' but it is not '0' for "space" if we open the binary file in notepad in Windows! Does it mean that the notepad is unable for conversion from binary to ascii. If this is the case then, how does it do the coversion for other ascii characters like "A", "B", ...?
I have created the binary file in C. Thanks again for your reply!

Thanks for your answar!

////////////////////
'far' pointers have an explicit selector. However when you do pointer arithmetic on them the selector isn't modified.

'huge' pointers have an explicit selector. When you do pointer arithmetic on them though the selector can change.
////////////////////////

By selector, do u mean to say it using the same selector in far pointers?Then what is its difference to near pointers? It also refers to same segment!

Thanks a lot for replying!

I have google it! But I didn't get much of the difference between far and huge pointers,except that far is not normalized and huge is normalized!

Thanks for the clarification!

So providing multiple default arguments for all, but the first will work with explicit. Am I clear?
Thanks again for the input!

thanks again!

I am not getting what your last line tells "has a clue only in constructor taking one argument, since are the ones used in conversions".
If we provide constructor with more than one arguement and with default arguements,will the keyword explicit work?

Thanks a lot for your answer!

So implementation of explicit is primarily the compilers job.
Thanks for the answer...

So its the compiler's job to mark constructors as explicit if given.
Thanks for your answer!

Thanks for the answer... Its pretty clear now!

Can I know why if explicit keyword is used and even the copy-initialisation syntax won't work? I have this doubt because copy-initialisation syntax doesn't involve any automatic type casting!
Thanks for your answer again!

Reason for my vote of 1
Sry... the answer was not what I expected!

But my question was on explicit copy constructor not explicit constructor!
Anyway thanks for the answer.