On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:26:02PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote: > silly warnings. The code _must_ do what it _should_ not do. :-) And so > I think what I said about __UNCONST() being unnecessary remains. The
I agree. As for the legitimate reasons of usage, third-party code was largely the reason why I wrote the manual page in the first place. Linux is (in)famous for not following any kind of "const correctness". And as we have third-party code developed on Linux, and largely for Linux, these issues creep also to NetBSD. Fixing these "problems" in highly complex third-party code is not a trivial nor rewarding task, especially if the upstream refuses to acknowledge the issue. So from a practical point of view, __UNCONST() has its virtues. - Jukka.
