This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [PATCH] argv needs to be writable

To: Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] argv needs to be writable
From: Kamil Iskra <kamil at wins dot uva dot nl>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:50:33 +0200 (CEST)
cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> 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?

Come to think of it, is a program that uses "const char**" as the second
argument for main() valid? Sure, it will work with every compiler and
machine I've seen, but is it actually a valid ISO C code?

-- 
/ Kamil Iskra  kamil@wins.uva.nl                                          \
| Section Computational Science, Faculty FNWI, Universiteit van Amsterdam |
| tel. +31 20 525 75 35  fax. +31 20 525 74 90                            |
\ Kruislaan 403  room F.202  1098 SJ Amsterdam (NL)                       /

References:
- Re: [PATCH] argv needs to be writable
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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