Re: [PATCH] microMIPS support

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> >  But are you absolutely sure that it was a supported construct with C89 or 
> > are you only assuming having no counter-evidence?
> 
> (a) C89 == C90: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C89_%28C_version%29#C89
> (b) The suggested 'const' construct is compliant with 'gcc -std=c89 -pedantic'.
>     This does not prove it is really C89 compliant but:

 In the absence of an actual copy of the standard itself checking with a 
third-party known-C89/C90-only compiler would be better.

> (c) GDB codebase is already not C90 compliant, at least not
>     with 'gcc -std=c89 -pedantic', as discussed in the thread
>     Re: [no-commit-intention] Naive unnamed fields for main_type
>     http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-02/msg00146.html

 These are merely bugs IMO, that should simply be fixed instead (and some 
are outside GDB, readline for one is not a part of GDB, just bundled for 
convenience, and optional, though I'd agree that using GDB's CLI without 
readline is a bit painful).  We shouldn't deliberately create new bugs on 
the basis we already have some. ;)

 As I say I'd be first happy to hear we can finally switch to C99.

> I checked according to C90 const array means const elements of the array.
> And 'const type *var;' does not make 'var' const - my conclusion is qualifier
> 'const' is therefore independent for 'var' and the target type.

"const type *var" is a pointer to a variable of "const type" type.
"type *const var" is a const pointer to a variable of "type" type.

> >  At the time I learnt C (some 18 years ago) that certainly wasn't a 
> > construct I had seen in any language reference
> 
> I do not see any problem using const for an array, what specifically do you
> see wrong here?

 Not a const array, but a const pointer.

> >  AFAIK we still require our code to conform to C89 (fortunately not K&R 
> > anymore) or we could use lots of good stuff,
> 
> I agree.  I find const arrays compliant with C89.

 But this is about an array of const pointers, I wouldn't see any problem 
with an array of const arithmetic-type elements.

 So far it's your word against mine, I'd like to hear from someone else 
too.  I'll accept whatever their decision will be.

  Maciej