This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: __const or const?

To: drepper at cygnus dot com (Ulrich Drepper)
Subject: Re: __const or const?
From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Date: 31 Dec 1999 18:29:30 +0100
Cc: GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
References: <u8n1qrw4rv.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de> <m366xf9ico.fsf@localhost.localnet> <u8vh5ft5qj.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de> <m31z839hr9.fsf@localhost.localnet>

>>>>> Ulrich Drepper writes:

 > Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
>> I found in the meantime the following in my libc-hacker archive:
>> You wrote with message-ID <m3g0zmbfzn.fsf@localhost.localnet> 12 weeks
>> ago:

 > Search for Roland's reply.  He suggested to keep __const.

I've found it, thanks.  Ok, in this case don't apply my two __const ->
const patches.  The "tidying up" patch has one or two __const -> const
patches in it.  Shall I send you a new one next year?

I suggest to write up a small summary on the usage of keywords for
glibc.  This should document at least __const and __THROW.  What else
should we mention?  I can try to write something up.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de

Follow-Ups:
- Re: __const or const?
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

References:
- __const or const?
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: __const or const?
  - From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: __const or const?
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: __const or const?
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]