From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Christoph Egger" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add -Wcast-qual flag Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:56:11 +0100 Message-ID: <200612211556.11442.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> References: <458A915B.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <458AA5C8.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <458AA5C8.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Cc: Keir Fraser , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thursday 21 December 2006 15:18, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Keir Fraser 21.12.06 14:28 >>> > > > >On 21/12/06 12:51, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >> While I'd really like to see all Xen code become const-correct (because > >> I do believe this helps with code quality, like does marking read only > >> data read only in the page tables), I don't think adding the warning > >> here is appropriate - after all, in C this is one of the purposes of > >> adding explicit casts (although I agree it's questionable to use casts > >> for this purpose). And no, I don't think that many people screwing up > >> const placement is a proper argument for not using const where possible. > > > >Well, I'm inclined to take the clean-up parts of the patches but leave out > >__UNCONST() and -Wcast-qual. I really dislike the compiler thinking it > > knows better than an explicit cast, and casting via unsigned long is just > > a kludge. > > This I completely agree with. Me, too. I mentioned in my first mail, these parts with __UNCONST() must be reworked to get rid of it. There was no obvious solution for me at least. If someone knows a way, I am for it.