>>Not unless there's a 'notconst' keyword or something. I've tried
>>getting rid of these, and as far as I can tell it's impossible. If
>>you've got something like
>>
>> void foo(STRING* arg);
>>
>> void bar(const STRING* arg) {
>> foo(arg);
There is a notconst
At 9:45 PM -0800 3/17/02, Brent Dax wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock:
># On Sunday 17 March 2002 00:23, Melvin Smith wrote:
># > encodings/utf32.c:62: warning: cast discards qualifiers
># from pointer
># target
># > type
>#
># Is this solvable?
>
>Not unless there's a 'notconst' keyword or something. I'v
>as you add 2 boolean fields, then you lose.
Where is my grammar cap?
As soon as you add 1 boolean you lose.
+2 would put you back to where you started.
-Melvin
Bryan C. Warnock:
# On Sunday 17 March 2002 00:23, Melvin Smith wrote:
# > Makes ok, alignment warnings. Tests run ok. Most warnings are
# > from -Wpadded. I was able to eliminate 1 or 2 by rearranging
# > members in structs, but some are due to unions of different size
# > types.
# >
# > We can e
At 10:29 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Ditching BOOLVAL in favor of UINTVAL might fix a couple as well.
>
>Until we want to add another one. In either case, UINTVAL is the wrong
>type. We'd want the natural word size, which I haven't figured out (beyond
>benchmarking) how to te
On Sunday 17 March 2002 00:23, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Makes ok, alignment warnings. Tests run ok. Most warnings are
> from -Wpadded. I was able to eliminate 1 or 2 by rearranging
> members in structs, but some are due to unions of different size
> types.
>
> We can either turn off -Wpadded or manu
Makes ok, alignment warnings. Tests run ok. Most warnings are
from -Wpadded. I was able to eliminate 1 or 2 by rearranging
members in structs, but some are due to unions of different size
types.
We can either turn off -Wpadded or manually pad the structs
by changing types or adding placeholders (
