X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From:	paubert AT iram DOT es
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:17:04 +0200
From:	Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Banging my head against the guile-for-windows wall
Message-ID:	<20140924081704.GA32079@visitor2.iram.es>
References:	<20140923045453 DOT 56dc3de2 AT akka>
	<CAOuGh8_bfL2KJDLt-qkU7v0wS3UBkbHeej6ScVLJJfHnOR_6oQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<lvssr7$lun$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
	<5421FF2E DOT 4010709 AT sbcglobal DOT net>
	<lvtcdd$53a$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
	<20140924040432 DOT 22429 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<20140924062143 DOT GA21949 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<201409240635 DOT s8O6ZqOw019084 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<201409240635.s8O6ZqOw019084@envy.delorie.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spamina-Bogosity:	Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score:	-0.2 (/)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report:	Content analysis details: (-0.2 points)
	pts rule name description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
	0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
	[score: 0.5004]
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:35:52AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > > This is ugly but if void * and int are the same size it is harmless.
> 
> I've seen way too many platforms where pointers and "int" are
> different sizes, to give this one a pass...
> 
> Worse, on the msp430, large-model pointers are neither int-sized nor
> long-sized.  Not that gEDA will ever run on an msp430 ;-)
> 
> > I consider this one a spurious warning, it may probably be silenced by inserting
> > an useless and ugly cast, but I really wonder on which drugs the compiler
> > writers were when they decided to add it. You should always be able to pass
> > a non-const argument to a const parameter.
> 
> You're confusing a const argument with an argument which is a *pointer
> to* a const value.  It's the latter that gcc is warning about, because
> the pointed-to types are different.

No, I don't confuse them, I just disagree with the warning.
> 
> One could still argue that gcc should ignore pointer-to-nonconst
> passed as pointer-to-const (and perhaps the trunk gcc does) but
> otherwise the logic is sane - the pointers point to different types.

Not different enough to elicit a warning IMHO.

> It's like passing "struct foo *" when the function wants "struct bar *".

That's where I disagree. Having to add a casts to eliminate this warning
makes the source code uglier without any real benefit.

- Raw text -