This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] argv needs to be writable
- To: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] argv needs to be writable
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:41:13 -0700
- Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien at NUXI dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000614095105.D26867@wolery.cumb.org> <12015.961001255@upchuck>
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 10:47:35AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
> In message <20000614095105.D26867@wolery.cumb.org>you write:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 09:19:37AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 09:53:29AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > > Actually, I would prefer you to find out if any of the lang_specific_dr
> > iver
> > > > routines actually modify argv (if you already did, then just tell me wh
> > ich
> > > > one).
> > >
> > > gccspec.c(lang_specific_driver) does not, but
> > > cppspec.c(lang_specific_driver) does. Of course the signature of these
> > > two functions must match.
> >
> > cppspec.c could probably be fixed to not modify argv
> Someone can certainly do that, then re-constify argv at that point. However
> we need to settle on the signature of this stuff since it bleeds into other
> front-ends that aren't necessarily in our source tree (like gpc for example).
Hm, thinking about it a bit more, is there any advantage to having
argv be const char ** (or const char *const *)? Or to having it not
be?
zw