Re: [RFA] "constify" parse_exp_1

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 03/08/2013 05:00 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> This is perfectly fine:
>>
>>   	  for (loc = t->base.loc; loc; loc = loc->next)
>>   	    {
>> -	      p = tmp_p;
>> +	      const char *q;
>> +
>> +	      q = tmp_p;
>> -	      exp = parse_exp_1 (&p, loc->address,
>> +	      exp = parse_exp_1 (&q, loc->address,
>> 				 block_for_pc (loc->address), 1);
>> +	      p = (char *) q;
>>
>> It's perfectly valid, as we know Q on output must point within
>> the object/string TMP_P pointed at on entry.
>> This reads much more intuitively to me, no funny arithmetic, and
>> gets rid of the aliasing issue with the other suggestion, and
>> no new function necessary.
>
> And confirmed this approach is valid.

I have a revision, but after this morning's fiasco, I'm a bit leery of 
submitting it until substantial further review. My focus is waxing 
quickly right now.

I've also got amendments to address Tom's comments.

Thanks,
Keith