[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why is the kfree() argument const?
    On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:31:16PM +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
    > Do you see anything that casts the const away? No? Me neither. Still,
    > the memory that p points to was changed, because there was another
    > pointer and that was not const.

    *another* being key here.

    > > *That* is the purpose of const pointers.
    > The only thing that const can tell you is that you should not modify the
    > value _yourself_, using that pointer _directly_.

    Which is pretty damn useful.

    Think about it. Don't you ever use const? Is it ever only in the way?

    {snip long explanation about how one can avoid the benefits of const, without
    using casts}
    > If you want to restrict the set of pointers that can be invalidated by
    > an other pointer, you'll have to use something else because const does
    > not talk about invalidating aliasing pointers.

    Precisely, so why are we discussing this?

    I claim that const is useful. You claim that it can't solve all the worlds
    problems. I agree with that, but I maintain it is still useful.

    But, in order for it to be useful, it requires that people do not circumvent it
    in the wrong places (such as kfree).


    / jakob

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-18 15:57    [W:0.029 / U:3.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site