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]

Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:03:13 +0100
From:	"Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: memparse(), simple_strtoul() prototypes...

Hi,

On 2/19/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> 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.)
>

hm, I don't get your point. I understand why we cast 'cp' into a (char
*) but that's not my point. My point is why aren't all function
parameters are not const ?

-- 
Francis
-
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/