On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 9:36 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Oct 2018, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:38 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Let the passed in array be const (and thus placed in rodata) instead of > >> a mutable array of const pointers. > > > > I'm not sure if the changes guarantee what you want. If I'm not > > mistaken, they just mean that the function itself cannot modify either > > the pointer passed to it, or the contents of the array pointed to by > > that pointer. They don't imply the location of the array itself, > > though. > > I mean, this change allows the caller to add the appropriate const > qualifiers to the array definition, allowing the placement in > rodata. Can't do that withouth the extra const in the function. I figured that out, but the changelog is a bit unclear. If you said "Allow ..." instead of "Let ...", it would be somewhat clearer IMO. :-) _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
