On 7 September 2015 at 13:53, Ville Syrjälä
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:34:12PM +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Wood <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tests/gem_pwrite_snooped.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/gem_pwrite_snooped.c b/tests/gem_pwrite_snooped.c
>> index d3f6223..29142c3 100644
>> --- a/tests/gem_pwrite_snooped.c
>> +++ b/tests/gem_pwrite_snooped.c
>> @@ -76,14 +76,14 @@ static void blit(drm_intel_bo *dst, drm_intel_bo *src,
>> intel_batchbuffer_free(batch);
>> }
>>
>> -static void *memchr_inv(const void *s, int c, size_t n)
>> +static void const *memchr_inv(const void *s, int c, size_t n)
>
> Oh, and I'll just note that I wrote it the way I did orignally so that
> it matches memchr(). But I suppose matching memchr() exactly is not all
> that important.
It may actually be more useful to remove const from the function
parameter rather than add it to the return type. Other than adding or
removing the const annotations, there doesn't seem to be any other way
of avoiding the warning from -Wcast-qual in this case.
>
>> {
>> const unsigned char *us = s;
>> unsigned char uc = c;
>>
>> while (n--) {
>> if (*us != uc)
>> - return (void *) us;
>> + return (void const *) us;
>> us++;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
