René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 28.04.2013 21:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> René Scharfe <rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
>>> Why not take the opposite direction with a patch like this?
>>> diff --git a/compat/mingw.h b/compat/mingw.h
>>> index 389ae01..74e7b87 100644
>>> --- a/compat/mingw.h
>>> +++ b/compat/mingw.h
>>> @@ -452,11 +452,11 @@ int xwcstoutf(char *utf, const wchar_t *wcs, size_t
>>> void mingw_startup();
>>> #define main(c,v) dummy_decl_mingw_main(); \
>>> -static int mingw_main(); \
>>> +static int mingw_main(int, const char **); \
>>> int main(int argc, const char **argv) \
>> But traditionally main is declared like
>> int main(int argc, char *argv);
>> without const, no?
> Yes, http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html and basically everybody else
> agree. Now that I actually think about it, the only benefit of
> declaring argv constant I can find is that the const'ness could easily
> spread to other variables and function arguments where it may actually
> matter. So please ignore my interjection. Or perhaps it might be worth
> mentioning in the commit message that removal of that "const" improves
> the code's standard compliance.
Hmm, well, strictly speaking, I can't say that is true! (see previous
email). It is certainly true that it more closely follows the *spirit*
of the standard, if not the letter of the law.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html