On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 13:20 +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > 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. I think it is fine to take const and return non-const. Yes, it is not beautiful, but we could live with this. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (ÐÑÑÑÐ ÐÐÑÑÑÐÐÐ) -- 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>