Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:21:06 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/13] hrtimer: remove useless const |
| |
"linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <linux-os@analogic.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> > >> > const arguments to functions are pretty useful for code readability and > >> > maintainability too, if you use them consistently. > >> > >> I could understand that argument, if gcc would warn about it in any way. > > > > It does. If a function tries to modify a formal argument which was marked > > const you'll get a warning. > > > > We're talking about different things here. My point is that it is > > perverted and evil for a function to modify its own args (unless it's very ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > small and simple), and a const declaration is a useful way for a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > maintenance programmer to be assured that nobody has done perverted and > > evil things to a function. > > - > > This is evil???? > > void foo(int len) > { > while(len--) > do_something(); > } > > I don't think so. The function already owns "len". Why should it > create another copy? y - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |