Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:03:04 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Assar Westerlund <assar@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: free() and const warnings Message-ID: <20010608160304.G7671@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <5ld78frunz.fsf@assaris.sics.se>; from assar@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 03:02:56PM %2B0200 References: <20010608114957.C19938@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <200106081055.GAA49069@lakes.dignus.com> <20010608154249.A7671@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <5ld78frunz.fsf@assaris.sics.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 03:02:56PM +0200, Assar Westerlund wrote:
> Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> writes:
> > 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 :)
>
> What version of gcc is this? 2.96?
>
> All versions of 2.95.x that I've tried seems to eat the following
> program with:
>
> gcc -O -g -Werror -Wcast-qual -c foo.c
>
> /assar
>
> struct validation_fun {
> const char *name;
> void *fun;
> int dyn;
> };
>
> struct validation_fun val_init[] = {
> {"init", 0, 0}
> };
My explanation was a reply to a suggestion to remove the 'const' in
the structure definition.
G'luck,
Peter
--
If I had finished this sentence,
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?20010608160304.G7671>