"linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Roman Zippel <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
