Re: linux-next: build failure

Ingo Molnar
2008-07-29T16:43:32Z

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> In contrast, "address-of lvalue" is _guaranteed_ to not do anything
> stupid like that, and gives just the address-of.
>
> Oh, and I was wrong about the &*x losing the 'const'. It doesn't. So I
> think Stephen's patch is fine after all - if somebody tries to modify
> the end result through the pointer, it will give a big compiler
> warning.

yeah, both variants do that, i've checked it earlier today - i tried to
find a way to get something more drastic than a compiler warning. (but
failed)

Ingo