Ok, no problem :) I was just checking that you hadn't overlooked it; despite being clear with specifying "1/2" and "2/2", oftne times people just don't seem to read things at all properly, and the two emails looked very similar. No rush :) On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 23:37 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 17:57 +0100, jnqnfe at gmail.com wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 13:28 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 01:49 +0100, jnqnfe at gmail.com wrote: > > > > Constification patch set ** 1 of 2 ** > > > > > > > > Collection of 16 patches constifying pointers in various parts > > > > of > > > > the > > > > API. > > > > > > > > This collection of patches has interdependencies, they must be > > > > applied > > > > in (roughly) the given order. > > > > > > > > These start off with constifying some core hashmap functions, > > > > which > > > > then allows various proplist related functions to be changed. A > > > > couple > > > > of tagstruct functions are in there, and finally a couple of > > > > context+proplist related functions. > > > > > > > > I have not been in a position to try and compile these changes. > > > > I > > > > have > > > > identified one possible problem - the hashmap.c BY_HASH macro - > > > > I'm > > > > not > > > > certain offhand if a const version will be required or if the > > > > compiler > > > > will be happy casting as is. Otherwise I'm fairly certain there > > > > are > > > > no > > > > (obvious) issues. > > > > > > Thanks! I pushed these to the "next" branch. The only issue was > > > in > > > the > > > last patch - the function reused the constified variable when > > > creating > > > a new proplist, and the compiler didn't like when that temporary > > > proplist was freed. I took the liberty of amending your patch > > > with a > > > fix. > > > > No problem, thanks :) > > I noticed set 2/2 isn't there... > > Yes, I didn't get around to 2/2 yet. I thought I'd review it today, > but > I ended up doing other things instead... I'll be away until Monday, > so > you'll need to wait for a bit still (unless someone else reviews the > patches). >
