Alan Stern <stern@...> writes:
> > Given that hid_mouse_ignore_list[] actually contains the proper
> > (USB_VENDOR_ID_APPLE, USB_DEVICE_ID_APPLE_WELLSPRING2_ISO) pair
> > as far as I can make out and assuming a properly working compiler,
> > hid_match_one_id() returns FALSE only if the hdev's members in question
> > are not properly set up. And I wouldn't know where to look for /that/.
>
> You ought to be able to figure out what's going on by adding a few
> debugging statements in suitable places.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What are those ominous places?
> > On a side note, I'm a little surprised that the arguments to …
> > are not const-qualified, although none of their members are actually
> > mutated there …
>
> That sort of thing happens all the time. People don't remember to add
> const qualifications because it's not obvious when they _could_ be
> added,
How can it not be obvious to the author(s) of their own code? Does
the semantics of the language randomly change when nobody's watching?
> the compiler doesn't complain about it,
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-libgcj-multifile
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada --enable-java-awt=gtk
--disable-dssi --disable-plugin
--with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0/jre --with-cpu=generic
--host=x86_64-redhat-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-51)
$ gcc -Wall member.c -o member
member.c: In function ‘g’:
member.c:12: error: assignment of read-only location
$ cat member.c
struct A {
int x, y;
};
void f( struct A * a )
{
a->x = 1;
}
void g( const struct A * a )
{
a->y = 2;
}
int main( int argc, char * argv[] )
{
struct A a;
f(&a);
g(&a);
return 0;
}
This one does. And I'm positive all newer versions do, too.
> and it doesn't make much
> difference anyway.
I disagree. It's precisely what aids in avoiding situations like the
current one where nobody seems to know what's going on anymore. That's
what const-qualifications where invented for (if there is such a thing).
Somewhere a member's value is changed where it shouldn't. How can that
not make a difference?
Cheers,
Christian
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
