>>> On 04.10.16 at 10:49, <johan...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: >> > > If that was the case, everyone should have seen such warnings >> > > from the day the original patch got introduced. >> > >> > Only if they run sparse. Clearly people don't, or we wouldn't have >> > a history of a ton of such problems, e.g. >> >> No - you say "which gcc declares with (void *, int type) prototype". >> If that was the case, there would need to be a warning. > > There would need to be a warning when?
If the declaration used "void *" instead of "const void *". Jan
