On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:28:37 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I think it is good when small core functions like this are strict and
use 'const' whenever possible, even though 'const' is so imperfect in C.
Let me give an example from my own experience. I was writing code which
was using the kernel RB trees, and I was trying to be strict and use
'const' whenever possible. But because the core functions like 'rb_next'
do not have 'const' modifier, I could not use const in many many places
of my code, because gcc was yelling. And I was not very enthusiastic to
touch the RB-tree code that time.
The problem is that you end up with two sets of functions (one taking const
another taking non-const), a bunch of macros or a function that takes const
but returns non-const. If we settle on anything I would probably vote for
the last option but the all are far from ideal.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxx>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>