Although coming from a Fedora mailing list, I think this would be relevant for any C++ developer using the GNU tool chain.
Cheers, Debarshi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]> Date: 2009/1/30 Subject: stricter C++ prototypes To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <[email protected]> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sometime soon we'll have gcc 4.4 in rawhide as the new system compiler. This alone might bring with it changes in the C++ language acceptance (I don't know details). What I want to warn people about is another change which will come in combination with the next glibc. For a long time some of the function prototypes for string functions you get when including <cstring> and <cwchar> (or the underlying C headers) are wrong. Only for C++, C is not affected. char *strchr (const char *, int) should be char *strchr (char *, int) and const char *strchr (const char *, int) I.e., the const is preserved correctly. The result of this that some incorrect programs might not compile anymore. For strchr this might look like this: int foo (const char *s) { char *p = strchr (s, 'f'); return p == 0 || p[1] == '\0'; } Previously this worked fine. strchr returned a value of type char*. Now, and correctly, it returned a const char*. But in C++ assigning a const T* value to a T* variable is an *error* (not a cause for a warning). I expect the fixes are simple in most cases. Don't just use casts, use correct types for the variables etc. This type safety helps to eliminate bugs in the code. - -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmCTnsACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHQFYACdHhWrdTZ9pheyuhurPnSW5fn0 cd4AoKkBmdKyVrpLV4NxxFgMk35gxEry =gGoC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list _______________________________________________ Ilug-cal-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.ilug-cal.org/mailman/listinfo/ilug-cal-discuss
