On 12/05/2012 03:28 PM, Justen, Jordan L wrote:
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 11:26 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 12/05/2012 07:32 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
On 12/04/2012 04:55 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
+/**
+ * This function is an iterator over the hash table.
+ *
+ * Pass in NULL for the first entry, as in the start of a for loop.
Note that
+ * an iteration over the table is O(table_size) not O(entries).
+ */
+struct set_entry *
+_mesa_set_next_entry(struct set *ht, struct set_entry *entry)
Should ht be const-qualified here too?
Since the returned set_entry isn't const-qualified, probably not. I
think the compiler will generate an error.
I added const to ht, and it is still building for me. (GCC 4.7)
I plan to push this series with Brian's feedback. Or, do
you suspect different compilers might take issue with it?
It doesn't generate any warnings or anything? Eventually you're
generating a non-const pointer from something const, so it sure seems
like it should complain. If it doesn't, I'm always fine with adding
more const.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
