Re: [RFA] "constify" parse_exp_1

Keith Seitz
2013-03-09T01:04:12Z

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