> So, just as when [...], the only portable way to initialize a struct
> iovec for writev() (without having GCC complain to you and without
> using -fwritable-strings) is to allocate writable storage and copy
> the string constants into it.

I disagree.

What's nonportable about this?

...
	void *deconst(const void *cvp)
	{
	 void *vp;
	
	 bcopy(&cvp,&vp,sizeof(void *));
	 return(vp);
	}
...
	 struct iovec v[3];
...
	 v[2].iov_base = deconst("some long string here");

(If you want to be pedantic about BSD vs SysV religion, replace the
bcopy call with the corresponding memset call.  You could also replace
it with a loop copying sizeof(void *) chars.)

It certainly "works", in that it it produces no warnings for me, with
-Wcast-qual -Wwrite-strings.

> In C it is simply impossible to portably discard 'const' without
> copying the data from read-only storage to writable storage.

What's nonportable about the above?  Note it's copying only
sizeof(void *) bytes, regardless of the data pointed to; if this is
what you meant, I submit that you phrased it badly ("the data" appears
to refer to the data that will not be written to, the string contents
in my example).

> Hmmm.... I just noticed that GCC with '-Write-strings" does allow
> string constants to be assigned to non-const char arrays without
> complaint (even if the definitions are global or static):

> 	char fooarray[] = "abc";

This is not an assignment; it is an initialization.  Arrays cannot be
assigned.

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