linux-kernel - Re: memparse(), simple

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45D8EFB8.4050805@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:30:48 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: memparse(), simple_strtoul() prototypes...

Francis Moreau wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I must miss something...
> 
> Looking at these prototypes
> 
> unsigned long simple_strtoul(const char *cp, char **endp,unsigned int base)
> unsigned long long memparse (char *ptr, char **retptr)
> 
> I'm really wondering why not all parameters are not all 'const'. None
> of these functions modify any pointer containts. And simple_strtoul()
> ends up doing sometghing like:
> 
> if (endp)
>         *endp = (char *)cp;
> 
> Could anyone shed some light ?

The C standard behaves like that, too, mostly because C doesn't have a 
way to say "X is const iff Y is const" (unlike C++, btw.)

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/