Subject: Re: __UNCONST(a)
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 06/30/2004 02:47:25
>> #define __UNCONST(a) ((void *)(unsigned long)(const void *)(a))
> Is this to work around gcc and/or lint being overly aggressive in
> enforcing "const"ness of a type?  Or bugs in those tools?

"Overly" aggressive?  I would speculate - and it is not entirely
uninformed speculation, as I have wanted something with equivalent
semantics myself often enough - that it is so that programs can get the
benefit of the strict checking of -Wcast-qual -Wwrite-strings while
still using interfaces (like writev()) that are broken with respect to
those checks.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B