* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In contrast, "address-of lvalue" is _guaranteed_ to not do anything > stupid like that, and gives just the address-of. > > Oh, and I was wrong about the &*x losing the 'const'. It doesn't. So I > think Stephen's patch is fine after all - if somebody tries to modify > the end result through the pointer, it will give a big compiler > warning. yeah, both variants do that, i've checked it earlier today - i tried to find a way to get something more drastic than a compiler warning. (but failed) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
