Question

Clarification: Given that a string literal can be rewritten as a const
char[] (see below), imposing a lower max length on literals than on
char[]s is just a syntactic inconvenience. Why does the C standard
encourage this?

---

The C89 standard has a translation limit for string literals:

509 characters in a character string literal or wide string literal (after concatenation)

There isn’t a limit for a char arrays; perhaps

32767 bytes in an object (in a hosted environment only)

applies (I’m not sure what object or hosted environment means), but at any rate it’s a much higher limit.

My understanding is that a string literal is equivalent to char array containing characters, ie: it’s always possible to rewrite something like this:

const char* str = "foo";

into this

static const char __THE_LITERAL[] = { 'f', 'o', 'o', '\0' };
const char* str = __THE_LITERAL;

So why such a hard limit on literals?

Answer 1

The limit on string literals is a compile-time requirement; there’s a similar limit on the length of a logical source line. A compiler might use a fixed-size data structure to hold source lines and string literals.

(C99 increases these particular limits from 509 to 4095 characters.)

On the other hand, an object (such as an array of char) can be built at run time. The limits are likely imposed by the target machine architecture, not by the design of the compiler.

Note that these are not upper bounds imposed on programs. A compiler is not required to impose any finite limits at all. If a compiler does impose a limit on line length, it must be at least 509 or 4095 characters. (Most actual compilers, I think, don’t impose fixed limits; rather they allocate memory dynamically.)