Solaris is complaining about the following

[parag_paul]

static char* nullStr = "null";
This line in the solaris mode64 ( cc -m64 flag, gives out the
following warning message )

"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.
1 Warning(s) detected.

Now our builds are strict and dont allow this warning too in the
building. Can we remove this by any other way.

[Eric Sosman]

pa********@hotmail.com wrote:

static char* nullStr = "null";
This line in the solaris mode64 ( cc -m64 flag, gives out the
following warning message )

"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.
1 Warning(s) detected.

Now our builds are strict and dont allow this warning too in the
building. Can we remove this by any other way.

Two-and-a-half suggestions:

1) static const char* nullStr = "null";

2) Use a C compiler rather than a C++ compiler.

2a) ... or take further questions to comp.lang.c++

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[MisterE]

<pa********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...

static char* nullStr = "null";
Now our builds are strict and dont allow this warning too in the
building. Can we remove this by any other way.

static char nullStr[] = "null";

[Flash Gordon]

Eric Sosman wrote, On 28/09/07 13:10:

pa********@hotmail.com wrote:

> static char* nullStr = "null";
This line in the solaris mode64 ( cc -m64 flag, gives out the
following warning message )

"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.
1 Warning(s) detected.

Now our builds are strict and dont allow this warning too in the
building. Can we remove this by any other way.

Two-and-a-half suggestions:

1) static const char* nullStr = "null";

Yes.

2) Use a C compiler rather than a C++ compiler.

2a) ... or take further questions to comp.lang.c++

cc on most versions of Unix *is* a C compiler, at least when fed a file
with a name ending in ".c". Since the warning is about a string literal
being converted to char* I see no reason to assume the OP was compiling
as C++, although I would say the warning is badly worded.
--
Flash Gordon

[=?iso-2022-kr?q?Harald_van_D=0E=29=26=0Fk?=]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:41:05 +0100, Flash Gordon wrote:

Eric Sosman wrote, On 28/09/07 13:10:

>pa********@hotmail.com wrote:

>>Now our builds are strict and dont allow this warning too in the
building. Can we remove this by any other way.

Two-and-a-half suggestions:

1) static const char* nullStr = "null";

Yes.

> 2) Use a C compiler rather than a C++ compiler.

2a) ... or take further questions to comp.lang.c++

cc on most versions of Unix *is* a C compiler, at least when fed a file
with a name ending in ".c".

cc on most versions of Unix is *not* a C compiler, but a C-like compiler.
Possibly, it will include options to cause it to conform to the C
standard, but typically this is not the default.

Since the warning is about a string literal
being converted to char* I see no reason to assume the OP was compiling
as C++,

Neither do I, but...

although I would say the warning is badly worded.

some not fully conforming implementations give string literals the type
const char []
rather than the unqualified version the standard requires. On those
implementations, the warning is correct. I do not know if this is the
case on this specific implementation, but it's very well possible.

[Tor Rustad]

Flash Gordon wrote:

[...]

cc on most versions of Unix *is* a C compiler

The Single UNIX ® Specification, Version 2:

NAME
c89 - compile standard C programs

--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>
"I have stopped reading Stephen King novels. Now I just read C code instead"

[Ian Collins]

Flash Gordon wrote:

>
cc on most versions of Unix *is* a C compiler, at least when fed a file
with a name ending in ".c". Since the warning is about a string literal
being converted to char* I see no reason to assume the OP was compiling
as C++, although I would say the warning is badly worded.

In this case, Eric knows the tools. Sun CC gives this warning, which is
valid for C++.

--
Ian Collins.

[Eric Sosman]

Flash Gordon wrote On 09/28/07 16:41,:

Eric Sosman wrote, On 28/09/07 13:10:

>>pa********@hotmail.com wrote:

>> static char* nullStr = "null";
This line in the solaris mode64 ( cc -m64 flag, gives out the
following warning message )

"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.
1 Warning(s) detected.

Now our builds are strict and dont allow this warning too in the
building. Can we remove this by any other way.

Two-and-a-half suggestions:

1) static const char* nullStr = "null";

Yes.

> 2) Use a C compiler rather than a C++ compiler.

2a) ... or take further questions to comp.lang.c++

cc on most versions of Unix *is* a C compiler, at least when fed a file
with a name ending in ".c".

Bingo.

Since the warning is about a string literal
being converted to char* I see no reason to assume the OP was compiling
as C++, although I would say the warning is badly worded.

There are two reasons to suspect the baleful presence
of That Other Language. First, the complaint is exactly
what one would expect from T.O.L., since the type it gives
a string literal is not the same as the type used by C.
Seccond, there's a cclue that may have esccaped your
noticce when you first sccanned the diagnosticc.

--
Er*********@sun.com

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <1g************@news.flash-gordon.me.ukFlash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites:
....

"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in

....

cc on most versions of Unix *is* a C compiler, at least when fed a file
with a name ending in ".c".

But is that the case here?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Flash Gordon]

Eric Sosman wrote, On 28/09/07 23:31:

Flash Gordon wrote On 09/28/07 16:41,:

>Eric Sosman wrote, On 28/09/07 13:10:

>>pa********@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>>>"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in

<snip>

>Since the warning is about a string literal
being converted to char* I see no reason to assume the OP was compiling
as C++, although I would say the warning is badly worded.

<snip>

Seccond, there's a cclue that may have esccaped your
noticce when you first sccanned the diagnosticc.

Yes, I did miss that. You were correct.
--
Flash Gordon

[Old Wolf]

On Sep 29, 10:31 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

>

>[e-mail] wrote:

> static char* nullStr = "null";

>>"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.

There are two reasons to suspect the baleful presence
of That Other Language. First, the complaint is exactly
what one would expect from T.O.L., since the type it gives
a string literal is not the same as the type used by C.

The code doesn't require a diagnostic in T.O.L.
Even though string literals are const char[] in that
language, it has an implicit conversion from string
literals to char* .

[Eric Sosman]

Old Wolf wrote:

On Sep 29, 10:31 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

>>>[e-mail] wrote:
static char* nullStr = "null";
"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.

There are two reasons to suspect the baleful presence
of That Other Language. First, the complaint is exactly
what one would expect from T.O.L., since the type it gives
a string literal is not the same as the type used by C.

The code doesn't require a diagnostic in T.O.L.
Even though string literals are const char[] in that
language, it has an implicit conversion from string
literals to char* .

Yet another reason to avoid T.O.L., I'd say. If you
report truly, string literals are "ignorably const char[]."
Or, "String literals are const, and I'm shocked, shocked
to learn that you might treat them otherwise." Sounds like
a language afraid to face up to its own flaws.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Ian Collins]

Eric Sosman wrote:

Old Wolf wrote:

>On Sep 29, 10:31 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

>>>>[e-mail] wrote:
> static char* nullStr = "null";
>"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to
>char* in
>initialization.
There are two reasons to suspect the baleful presence
of That Other Language. First, the complaint is exactly
what one would expect from T.O.L., since the type it gives
a string literal is not the same as the type used by C.

The code doesn't require a diagnostic in T.O.L.
Even though string literals are const char[] in that
language, it has an implicit conversion from string
literals to char* .

Yet another reason to avoid T.O.L., I'd say. If you
report truly, string literals are "ignorably const char[]."
Or, "String literals are const, and I'm shocked, shocked
to learn that you might treat them otherwise." Sounds like
a language afraid to face up to its own flaws.

Or one weighed down by the flaws of its parent :)

--
Ian Collins.

[Wade Ward]

and rodney king have the same IQ."
"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:5m************@mid.individual.net...

Eric Sosman wrote:

>Old Wolf wrote:

>>On Sep 29, 10:31 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:
>[e-mail] wrote:
>> static char* nullStr = "null";
>>"virvpirw.cc", line 371: Warning: String literal converted to
>>char* in
>>initialization.
There are two reasons to suspect the baleful presence
of That Other Language. First, the complaint is exactly
what one would expect from T.O.L., since the type it gives
a string literal is not the same as the type used by C.

The code doesn't require a diagnostic in T.O.L.
Even though string literals are const char[] in that
language, it has an implicit conversion from string
literals to char* .

Yet another reason to avoid T.O.L., I'd say. If you
report truly, string literals are "ignorably const char[]."
Or, "String literals are const, and I'm shocked, shocked
to learn that you might treat them otherwise." Sounds like
a language afraid to face up to its own flaws.

Or one weighed down by the flaws of its parent :)

:-)
--
wade ward
"The final irony is that cops