On 05 Jan 2016 07:32, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Would be more useful if we could use "const char * const *", but there's
> > a long standing bug where gcc warns about incompatible pointers when you
> > try to pass in "char **".
>
> That's
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Would be more useful if we could use "const char * const *", but there's
> a long standing bug where gcc warns about incompatible pointers when you
> try to pass in "char **".
That's not a bug. It's how C works. http://c-faq.com/ansi/cons
Would be more useful if we could use "const char * const *", but there's
a long standing bug where gcc warns about incompatible pointers when you
try to pass in "char **". We can at least constify the array itself as
gcc will not warn in that case.
include/:
2016-01-03 Mike Frysinger