From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: GDB Discussion <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: char *lbasename(const char *) VS const char *lbasename() ...
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:01:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010613120157.16126U-100000@is>
References: <3B2671D9.8070203@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00099.html

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 *'.