On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 12:40:12AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > > > > Log Message: > > > > apply __UNCONST() if it exists. > > > > > > Reminds me: should/can __UNCONST() be revisited w.r.t. the thread below? > > > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2013-May/014371.html > > > >How/why? Yes, it's unsafe. That's the *point*. > > Well, there is an advantage that the FreeBSD one has over ours. It can be > used in c++ with -Wold-style-cast, if defined as: > > #define __DECONST(t, a) const_cast<t>(a)
and I suppose one could also do something like this: #define __DECONST(t, v) \ (sizeof((v) - (const t)0) ? (t)(unsigned long)(v) : 0) to make it more or less typesafe at the cost of expanding the value more than once. (And someone might be able to come up with a version that doesn't require that.) As for the unsigned long, we could just use uintptr_t and expect users of the macro to include stdint.h themselves; after all it isn't supposed to be used at all except in certain known special cases. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
