Peter Pentchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My explanation was a reply to a suggestion to remove the 'const' in
> the structure definition.
My fault. The code that I should have shown was without the 'const'.
With gcc 2.95.3 and 'gcc -O -g -Werror -Wall -W -Wcast-qual -c foo.c'
I don't get any errors with the const-less program (below). I was
wondering if this is something that has changed in recent gcc.
/assar
struct validation_fun {
char *name;
void *fun;
int dyn;
};
struct validation_fun val_init[] = {
{"init", 0, 0}
};
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: free() and const warnings Warner Losh
- Re: free() and const warnings Peter Pentchev
- Re: free() and const warnings Thomas David Rivers
- Re: free() and const warnings Peter Pentchev
- Re: free() and const warnings Thomas David Rivers
- Re: free() and const warnings Peter Pentchev
- Re: free() and const warnings Thomas David Rivers
- Re: free() and const warnings T. William Wells
- Re: free() and const warnings Assar Westerlund
- Re: free() and const warnings Peter Pentchev
- Re: free() and const warnings Assar Westerlund
- Re: free() and const warnings Peter Pentchev
- Re: free() and const warnings Mike Smith
- Re: free() and const warnings Thomas David Rivers
- Re: free() and const warnings Matt Dillon
- Re: free() and const warnings Matt Dillon
- Re: free() and const warnings Matt Dillon

