Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:49:31 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> To: lbland <lbland@vvi.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: select(2)'s timeout argument Message-ID: <200406291449.31105@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> In-Reply-To: <FE73F1A2-C9F9-11D8-835B-0030659A531A@vvi.com> References: <200406291411.46266@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> <FE73F1A2-C9F9-11D8-835B-0030659A531A@vvi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=On Jun 29, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = => Why is the pointer to the `struct timeval' not declared as `const'? => Can select(2) ever modify the structure pointed to? Thanks! Thank you very much, Lance, for the quick response! =Some versions of Linux modified timeval. Posix.1g specifies const =qualifier. I think most unixes don't modify it. I think ?? in the old =days some unixes did modify it. legacy and compatibility issues. If Posix.1g specifies const-ness and we don't, in fact, modify it, is it a bug, we don't declare it const? -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406291449.31105>