Re: memcopy, memmove Implementation
In <3EF724B3.9E63E781@eton.powernet.co.uk> Richard Heathfield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Dan Pop wrote:
>> In <email@example.com> Richard Heathfield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> >const void *s2 means that s2 points to an unknown object whose value must
>> >not be changed through this pointer.
>> Which is kinda redundant: being a void pointer, you can't dereference
>> it at all ;-)
>Of course. Nevertheless, you can't even (legitimately) change it through
>this pointer /value/, once that value has been "const-poisoned".
>I'm using the term "value" rather loosely here, I know.
Very loosely, I'd say.
>What I am
>getting at is that casting away the constness doesn't help you, in terms
>of the "definedness" of the code.
The "definedness" of the code is *entirely* determined by the way the
function was called.
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
|All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.