Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>
To:        rivers@dignus.com, roam@orbitel.bg
Cc:        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: free() and const warnings
Message-ID:  <200106081301.JAA50018@lakes.dignus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010608155527.D7671@ringworld.oblivion.bg>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:51:54AM -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> > > 
> > > GCC complains when I try to initialize the structure with something like:
> > > 
> > > struct validation_fun	val_init[] = {
> > > 	{"init",	valfun_init,	0}
> > > };
> > > 
> > > This can be avoided by:
> > > 
> > > struct validation_fun	val_init[] = {
> > > 	{(char *) (uintptr_t) "init",	valfun_init,	0}
> > > };
> > > 
> > > ..but as a matter of fact, static, pre-initialized valfun structs are
> > > the rule rather than the exception in this program, so having this
> > > syntax for all of them seems.. well.. ugly :)
> > > 
> > 
> >  Ah..   I see..
> > 
> >  (I don't think you need (uintptr_t) - you can cast a (const char *)
> >   to a (char *) without having to go "through" that - I believe.)
> 
> Errrr.. this was the whole point of this thread.  I *can't* cast
> a (const char *) to a (char *) when using the -Wcast-qual gcc flag -
> the -Wcast-qual flag produces exactly this type of warnings, to make
> sure you don't treat const * pointers as normal pointers, and pass them
> to functions that do stupid things like modify them or free them :)

 Yes - I see now... sorry for being slow on the "uptake" :-)

> 
> >  Is this C, or C++.. there are some differences in the type of
> >  a constant character string between the two...
> > 
> >  But - basically, what you are trying to describe is a field which
> >  is sometimes 'const' and othertimes isn't... which doesn't make 
> >  sense in the context of the C standard...  you'll need a cast
> >  for the initialization, or some other approach besides static
> >  initialization I believe... (or, just "live" with the warning...
> >  which isn't pleasant at all.)
> 
> Well, I can't live with the warning with -Werror ;)  So I guess I'll
> live with casting in free() :)

 It's not pretty either way... is it? 

	- Dave R. -

--
rivers@dignus.com                        Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106081301.JAA50018>