An incomprehensible problem in C++

You and your colleagues don’t understand it quite right

Let’s differentiate:

char *p="sdfjsd";

char p[7]="sdfjsd";

char *p="sdfjsd";

The compiler will optimize and save "sdfjsd" in the constant area," sdfjsd" is also used as a constant,

and p points to the first address of this constant string.

So *p='a' means assigning a value to the constant area, so an error is reported.

char p[7]="sdfjsd";,

The compiler allocates 7 char type continuous address spaces in the stack area,

and p Points to the first address of this stack area.

So *p='a' means assigning value to the stack area, no problem.

Let’s talk about another difference:

char *p="sdfjsd";

char *q="sdfjsd";

Written like this, p and q actually point to the same address.

As I just said, for constant strings, the compiler will optimize and save only one "sdfjsd" in the constant area.

So p and q point to the same address

char p[7]="sdfjsd";

char q[7]="sdfjsd";

p>

Written like this, p and q point to different addresses. This is relatively simple, so I won’t go into details

================== ==============

Question supplement: In fact, I also think that "sdfjsd" is a constant string, so there will be an exception when assigning a value to it, but if so , why doesn’t the compiler report an error during compilation instead of waiting until runtime to report an exception? For example, the compiler can require us to use a Const type pointer to reference during initialization, const char *p="sdkfjls ";

===============================

The compiler does not It's so smart,

If you use a code static analysis tool (for example: QAC), you can find it out.