On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:10:40PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > In lockfile.c, I guess that clang can only handle guarded-by on > > pointers? Otherwise I don't see why one would introduce the new > > lock_table variable as a level of indirection. Assuming that's true, > > can we declare lock_table as a const pointer, e.g. > > static struct hmap *const lock_table OVS_GUARDED_BY(lock_table_mutex) > > = &lock_table__; > > (That is, the pointer is const, not what it points to.) > > Yes, this is fairly annoying. Clang doesn't consider taking the > address of a variable as a read. Technically they're right, but that > opens the door to all kinds of unsafety. In my experience, this > change catches bugs, so I think it's worth the ugliness.
Yeah, I understand the rationale, I just want to know whether we can make the pointer const. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
