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 >>> 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, 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. ATB, Ramsay Jones -- 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
