> >> + static uint8_t bcast[] = {0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff};
> >
> > 'const'?
>
> It may be good practice but practically speaking, I don't think it will
> generate different code. The only thing that uses bcast is memcmp()
> which should be a builtin. Since bcast doesn't otherwise escape the
> function, it's an obvious candidate for optimization. I think the
> compiler already has enough information that const doesn't tell it
> anything more.
const is as much for the programmer as the compiler[1]. Modifying this
variable is just plain wrong, so it's a good idea to let the compiler enforce
that.
Paul
[1] In many cases (especially when combined with pointers) "const" doesn't
actually mean what may people think it does. Ask your local C language expert
if you don't know what I'm talking about.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
