René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 28.04.2013 21:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> René Scharfe <> 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 
>>> utflen);
>>>   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, 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.

Ramsay Jones

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to