From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add -Wcast-qual flag Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:51:23 +0000 Message-ID: <458A915B.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <200612211105.21248.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Christoph Egger , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> Keir Fraser 21.12.06 11:41 >>> >On 21/12/06 10:05, "Christoph Egger" wrote: > >> The xen-cast.diff adds the -Wcast-qual flag. > >We don't enable this flag precisely because we end up needing to scatter >const all over the place like confetti. I'm not convinced that use of const >improves code quality. I fear we'd end up with 'const foo * const bar' all >over the place -- ugly and confusing to most programmers (who frequently >mess up const placement, in my experience). 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. Jan