From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 29 18:49:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C60616A4F3 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from corbulon.video-collage.com (corbulon.video-collage.com [64.35.99.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F211443D2F for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:49:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from 250-217.customer.cloud9.net (195-11.customer.cloud9.net [168.100.195.11])i5TInbn0040772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from localhost (mteterin@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i5TInVPp035925; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:49:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com) From: Mikhail Teterin Organization: Virtual Estates, Inc. To: lbland Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:49:31 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200406291411.46266@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406291449.31105@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version devel-20040615, clamav-milter version 0.73a on corbulon.video-collage.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: select(2)'s timeout argument X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:49:58 -0000 =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