Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] mm: make read-only accessors take const pointer parameters | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:20:19 +0200 | From | "Michal Nazarewicz" <> |
| |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:28:37 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is good when small core functions like this are strict and > use 'const' whenever possible, even though 'const' is so imperfect in C. > > Let me give an example from my own experience. I was writing code which > was using the kernel RB trees, and I was trying to be strict and use > 'const' whenever possible. But because the core functions like 'rb_next' > do not have 'const' modifier, I could not use const in many many places > of my code, because gcc was yelling. And I was not very enthusiastic to > touch the RB-tree code that time.
The problem is that you end up with two sets of functions (one taking const another taking non-const), a bunch of macros or a function that takes const but returns non-const. If we settle on anything I would probably vote for the last option but the all are far from ideal.
-- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@google.com>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
| |