Hi Alain,
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>
>>> src/main.c | 12 ++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/main.c b/src/main.c
>>> index ca27f313d..cea50a3d2 100644
>>> --- a/src/main.c
>>> +++ b/src/main.c
>>> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static enum {
>>> MPS_MULTIPLE,
>>> } mps = MPS_OFF;
>>>
>>> -static const char *supported_options[] = {
>>> +static const char * const supported_options[] = {
>>> "Name",
>>> "Class",
>>> "DiscoverableTimeout",
>>> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static const char * const controller_options[] = {
>>> NULL
>>> };
>>>
>>> -static const char *policy_options[] = {
>>> +static const char * const policy_options[] = {
>>> "ReconnectUUIDs",
>>> "ReconnectAttempts",
>>> "ReconnectIntervals",
>>> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ static const char *policy_options[] = {
>>> NULL
>>> };
>>>
>>> -static const char *gatt_options[] = {
>>> +static const char * const gatt_options[] = {
>>> "Cache",
>>> "KeySize",
>>> "ExchangeMTU",
>>> @@ -146,8 +146,8 @@ static const char *gatt_options[] = {
>>> };
>>>
>>> static const struct group_table {
>>> - const char *name;
>>> - const char **options;
>>> + const char * const name;
>>> + const char * const * const options;
>>> } valid_groups[] = {
>>> { "General", supported_options },
>>> { "Controller", controller_options },
>>> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static enum jw_repairing_t parse_jw_repairing(const char *jw_repairing)
>>>
>>>
>>> static void check_options(GKeyFile *config, const char *group,
>>> - const char **options)
>>> + const char * const * const options)
>>> {
>>> char **keys;
>>> int i;
>>> --
>>> 2.27.0.rc0.183.gde8f92d652-goog
>>>
>>
>> I wonder how usufull is to tell it is a constant pointer to a constant
>> character given that is so rarely in the kernel and userspace,
>> something like const char * const * const would be very hard to keep
>> it readable.
>
> I'm personally a big fan of leveraging the compiler to find bugs, but
> in this case it also allows the compiler to put all the strings into
> read only sections. In this example, it will catch code trying to
> write into the string or prevent code execution in the read only
> sections if there is ever a bug that leverages this data section to
> store code that can be manipulated. For readability, I've seen other
> platforms use type definitions LPCSTR to typedef const char * const
> etc.. I'm happy to follow guidance here.
I am a big fan of letting the compiler help us, but the readability concerns me a bit in this case. Can we explore what kind of macros we might be able to introduce to make this easier on the eyes.
Regards
Marcel
