This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgHi Neels, On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:28:30AM +0100, Harald Welte wrote: > > Why does gsm48_hdr_pdisc() not take a 'const struct gsm48_hdr *' > > argument in the first place? I don't think it modifies the contents of > > the structure... > > Yes, Holger has applied the patch with exactly that change. > > Yet this has me confused. A while back I concluded that C doesn't allow > passing non-const instances to functions that expect a const arg. We do that all the time in Osmocom projects. Especially for functions that have input pointers (should be "const foo *") and output pointers (should be "foo *), you can easily safeguard agaist some common cases where the caller swaps the arguments this way. This is standard practise, see the definition of memcpy: void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n); > http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/2016-January/001051.html > http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/2016-January/001055.html > > How is this different from the conclusion that Jacob confirmed two months > ago? Is it int (primitives) vs. struct?? from a quick look, the above discussion was about passing the address of a pointer, and of course if you pass that into a function, you expect the function to be able to modify the pointer stored at that address? -- - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)