On Thursday 07 March 2013 17:47:02 Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi Tijs,
>
> > In general it's good to inform/promise the compiler when the program is
> > not
> > going to change data (using const). However, you'll have to adjust to the
> > function definition types of the other functions that you are going to use
> > in your new function.
>
> Agreed: If you need to pass the pointer on to functions that do not have
> their arguments declared as non-const, you can't use const yourself
> either (which indicates that const-correctness only really works when
> all of the codebase uses it consistently).
>
> > When compiled with the appropriate flags, when passing a
> > const pointer to a function as argument, which is by definition typed non-
> > const, it should produce a warning/error.
>
> Eh? Are you saying here that you can't declare a pointer argument as
> const? I'm pretty sure you can?
>
> E.g, this compiles:
>
> void func(const char *foo) {}
>
> void main() {
> const char *x = "foo";
> func(x);
> }
>
> But removing the const from the definition of func makes the compiler
> complain.
This is what I meant ;-) Supplying a const pointer to a function which
requires a non-const pointer as argument should make the compiler complain,
because the function "intents" to change the data in the memory address the
pointer is referring to.
> Gr.
>
> Matthijs
Thanks,
Tijs
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
