X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:35:52 -0400 Message-Id: <201409240635.s8O6ZqOw019084@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com CC: geda-user AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <20140924062143.GA21949@visitor2.iram.es> (message from Gabriel Paubert on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:21:44 +0200) Subject: Re: [geda-user] Banging my head against the guile-for-windows wall References: <20140923045453 DOT 56dc3de2 AT akka> <5421FF2E DOT 4010709 AT sbcglobal DOT net> <20140924040432 DOT 22429 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <20140924062143 DOT GA21949 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es> 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 Precedence: bulk > > 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. 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. It's like passing "struct foo *" when the function wants "struct bar *".