Sorry, you're right. I blame the font on my phone.
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>(2012/12/10 10:34), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> You're changing the array from an array of insn_attr_t to pointers to
>insn_attr_t?
>
>No, please look at the code carefully,
>
>- print "const insn_attr_t const *inat_e
(2012/12/10 10:34), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> You're changing the array from an array of insn_attr_t to pointers to
> insn_attr_t?
No, please look at the code carefully,
- print "const insn_attr_t const *inat_escape_tables[INAT_ESC_MAX + 1]" \
^^
+
You're changing the array from an array of insn_attr_t to pointers to
insn_attr_t?
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>(2012/12/10 10:03), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yes, if you add a * it becomes an array of pointers.
>
>Right, I would like to make each pointer in the array read-only.
>
>And, of course, th
(2012/12/10 10:03), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes, if you add a * it becomes an array of pointers.
Right, I would like to make each pointer in the array read-only.
And, of course, the data itself which pointed by the pointer
is already protected.
You can see this in (builddir)/arch/x86/lib/inat_tab
Yes, if you add a * it becomes an array of pointers.
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>(2012/12/10 0:50), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> No, that would really be wrong - changing the type.
>
>What would be wrong? IMHO, this is just a fix to add a fool
>proof 'const' to array instance itself.
>...Or, am I misse
(2012/12/10 0:50), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> No, that would really be wrong - changing the type.
What would be wrong? IMHO, this is just a fix to add a fool
proof 'const' to array instance itself.
...Or, am I missed anything?
Thank you,
> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>> (2012/12/08 8:17), Cong Ding
No, that would really be wrong - changing the type.
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>(2012/12/08 8:17), Cong Ding wrote:
>>> Patch description please?
>> there are 2 consts in the definition of one variable
>>
>
> Please put in an actual patch description. The first line
>(subject
>
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 02:24:55PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2012/12/08 8:17), Cong Ding wrote:
> >> Patch description please?
> > there are 2 consts in the definition of one variable
> >
>
> Please put in an actual patch description. The first line (subject
> li
(2012/12/08 8:17), Cong Ding wrote:
>> Patch description please?
> there are 2 consts in the definition of one variable
>
Please put in an actual patch description. The first line (subject
line) is a title; the patch should make sense without it.
>>> sorry for that. so l
On 12/07/2012 03:17 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:06:13PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 12/07/2012 03:03 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:56:16PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 12/07/2012 02:49 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800,
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:06:13PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 03:03 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:56:16PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>On 12/07/2012 02:49 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Patch
11 matches
Mail list logo
