This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: why are we not using const?

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caipclassic dot rutgers dot edu>
Cc: gcc at gnu dot org, lopezibanez at gmail dot com, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
Date: 29 Jun 2006 08:10:26 +0200
Subject: Re: why are we not using const?
References: <6c33472e0606270551i1d5abe04j9d6c9839219539e8@mail.gmail.com> <m3bqseprw2.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <22A52D62-0078-4140-A944-55C31E1810A7@physics.uc.edu> <200606282314.k5SNEPgw005651@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>

"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> writes:

[...]

| I'd like to do for tree and rtx what I did for const char *, namely
| constify those tree/rtx functions that aren't supposed to modify their
| arguments.  This would require introducing the const_tree and
| const_rtx typedefs Tristan suggested.

Yes, totally agreed -- that would be more profitable.

-- Gaby

References:
- why are we not using const?
  - From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]