[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2261) [Patch] Remove const
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: |
undisclosed-recipients:; |
Subject: |
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2261) [Patch] Remove const |
From: |
"Raimar Falke via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:03:28 -0800 |
Reply-to: |
rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:43:46PM -0800, Anthony J. Stuckey via RT wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:56:07AM -0800, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> > The attached patch removes superfluous consts in the type of the
> > return value of various functions.
>
> I'm probably showing my ignorance of C esoterica here, but why are
> these superfluous?
>
> Is the fact that they are functions (which can theoretically return
> anything) destructive of the "const"-ness of their return? One could
> imagine a string pointer initialized and never changed through the rest of
> execution. (Is that not strong enough to deserve "const"?)
There are two kinds of consts (see
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q11.9.html). The intel compiler has
the idea that a constant pointer doesn't make sense as a return
type. This is plausible because the "virtual" return variable is only
set once in the callee (at the time of the return).
Raimar
--
email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Last year, out in California, at a PC users group, there was a demo of
smart speech recognition software. Before the demonstrator could begin
his demo, a voice called out from the audience: "Format c, return. Yes,
return." Damned short demo, it was.
|
|