On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Emese Revfy wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:50:47 +0000 (GMT) > Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Actually, it looks like Emese Revfy is going to merge the GCC plugin > > > constify stuff sooner rather than later so maybe adding all these consts > > > isn't going to be needed. > > > > Is there any advantage of const over the plugin? The consts are easy to > > add. > > Hi, > > I think it's a very good advantage that the plugin constifies automatically > without regular maintenance (e.g., generate patches with coccinelle, > send patches to the maintainers every new kernel version). ;) > But if it doesn't convince you, I did constification by hand (with a coccinelle > script) some years ago. > There are too many types that can be const and it took too long to prepare and > get the maintainers to accept the patches. > And it never ends as there are always new types that can be const. What happens if some structures cannot be made const because there is a reassignment somewhere? Is there any feedback about the problem? julia > > > Does the plugin help for structures that have non-function fields? > Yes, it does. See __do_const here: > http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2015/11/06/11 > or more about the constify plugin: > https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/PaXTeam-H2HC13-PaX-gcc-plugins.pdf > > -- > Emese > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
