char *lbasename(const char *) VS const char *lbasename() ...

char *lbasename(const char *) VS const char *lbasename() ...

[Andrew Cagney]

Hello,

libiberty recently added the function:

	char *lbasename (const char *name);

with semantics roughly equivalent to:

	return (char *) name;

I'm thinking (serious :-) of sending a patch to the maintainers (GCC 
list) asking that it changed to:

	const char *lbasename (const char *name);

so that the fact that the string was constant isn't lost across the call 
(If you're wondering, GDB will (once I've committed a recently posted 
patch) compile with -Werror against either function).

Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions before I try and do this :-)

	Andrew

Re: char *lbasename(const char *) VS const char *lbasename() ...

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> libiberty recently added the function:
> 
> 	char *lbasename (const char *name);
> 
> with semantics roughly equivalent to:
> 
> 	return (char *) name;
> 
> I'm thinking (serious :-) of sending a patch to the maintainers (GCC 
> list) asking that it changed to:
> 
> 	const char *lbasename (const char *name);
> 
> so that the fact that the string was constant isn't lost across the call 

I agree: if the argument is a `const char *', and the return value is
guaranteed to be within the argument string, it should also be `const
char *'.