Re: [PATCH 02/13] hrtimer: remove useless const

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

"linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <linux-os@analogic.com> wrote:
>
> 
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> 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