On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 16:11, Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > How does it make any sense to declare const on the return type of a > function > > that doesn't return a pointer??? It's not returning by reference, it's > > returning a copy so const on the return type of the function means > nothing. > > > Seems like you missed a similar nitpick in commit > edf3113aeddcf66cb24906e53a2d4f41616f8985 > Dropping the const from get_px_size_sa() or adding one here will both > make the compiler happy. > > Let me know what you prefer - I'm fine either way. > I'd rather drop both. I didn't even know returning a const thing was valid C. > Thanks > Emil > P.S. Can I interest you in using plain text emails ;-) >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
