Am 28.04.2013 21:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
René Scharfe <rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
Why not take the opposite direction with a patch like this?
...
diff --git a/compat/mingw.h b/compat/mingw.h
index 389ae01..74e7b87 100644
--- a/compat/mingw.h
+++ b/compat/mingw.h
@@ -452,11 +452,11 @@ int xwcstoutf(char *utf, const wchar_t *wcs, size_t
utflen);
void mingw_startup();
#define main(c,v) dummy_decl_mingw_main(); \
-static int mingw_main(); \
+static int mingw_main(int, const char **); \
int main(int argc, const char **argv) \
But traditionally main is declared like
int main(int argc, char *argv[]);
without const, no?
Yes, http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html and basically everybody else
agree. Now that I actually think about it, the only benefit of
declaring argv constant I can find is that the const'ness could easily
spread to other variables and function arguments where it may actually
matter. So please ignore my interjection. Or perhaps it might be worth
mentioning in the commit message that removal of that "const" improves
the code's standard compliance.
René
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
