const again

[Don Clugston]

Kris wrote:
> "guslay" <guslay at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:fjao2r$ii4$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>> Yes for that reason, and the other reason is one rarely wants storage
>>> allocated for manifest constants. windows.d has 10,000 declarations in
>>> it, who wants 40K of executable bloat from const declarations?
>>>
>> const int x = 1;
>>
>> Doesn't x get substituted by 1 everywhere in a constant propagation pass?
>> I thought it didn't take storage, at least in optimization mode.
>>
> 
> all those Win32 constants actually adds over 50KB of bloat. Tango would up 
> using enum instead, and pulled some silly linker stunts to eliminate the 
> bloat. I think you can take the address of a const? 

No, you can't, but IIRC Walter said that was actually a bug. Currently they 
create bloat, but are inaccessable!