> From: Jamey Sharp <ja...@minilop.net> > Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:40:51 -0700 > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> > wrote: > >> From: Jamey Sharp <ja...@minilop.net> > >> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:53:13 -0700 > >> > >> @@ -179,7 +169,7 @@ xf86AutoConfig(void) > >> Â Â Â xf86MsgVerb(X_DEFAULT, 3, "--- End of built-in configuration > >> ---\n"); > >> > >> Â Â Â xf86initConfigFiles(); > >> - Â Â xf86setBuiltinConfig(builtinConfig); > >> + Â Â xf86setBuiltinConfig((const char **) builtinConfig); > > > > That cast isn't really necessary isn't it? > > I wasn't happy about it either, but at least according to GCC, while > "const char *" is assignment-compatible from "char *", "const char **" > is not compatible with "char **". So I was going to have to cast > either at the call to free or this call to xf86setBuiltinConfig, and > this seemed more sane to me.
Ugh, pointers to pointers continue to confuse me, so I wouldn't be able to tell if GCC is on crack here or not. Thanks for the explanation.
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
