On 07/15/2014 02:44 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> >> I take the 'const' as a sign of the fact that I won't be modifying >> any part of the string. Just adding 'const' to a pointer should be >> perfectly OK, but I have not objections to your idea, so I squashed >> this in: > > Well, I look at free()-ing as modification of the pointee. Therefore > freeing a const pointer is in fact its modification and hence should be > rejected.
I agree. > It's just that our VIR_FREE throws away the const-ness of > passed pointers. Maybe (as completely separate patchset) we may fix the > VIR_FREE() macro which is obviously const-incorrect. That's due to the number of legacy callers that were already const-incorrect at the time I beefed up VIR_FREE months ago to be more type-safe. But now that the tree is a lot cleaner, I'm in favor of such a cleanup (I see you already started it, but I had more comments in that thread, and now I'm on the hook to provide a v2...). -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
