I'm curious -- how does it cause warnings to have a const in the prototype of a function you're calling with non-const data? It seems odd to me that this would cause a problem... Perhaps there's something else going on here?
I mean, we're writing the functions, and we know we're not going to change that data, right? (Or is the issue that when we pass some of the data through to execve() or whatever, it's making less strict promises than our wrapper does, so we'd have to, ick, cast?) -K [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > -1. From the execve man page on Linux: > > int execve (const char *filename, char *const argv [], > char *const envp[]); > > and Single UNIX: > > > int execve(const char *path, char *const argv[], char *const envp[]); > > > And we use execve. We shouldn't be holding our users up to a higher level > on const-ification than POSIX calls for. Plus, this causes warnings that > are almost impossible to get rid of in Apache. > > Ryan > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 406 29th St. > San Francisco, CA 94131 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
