From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:30:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sparse: Fix mingw_main() argument number/type errors
Message-ID: <517F02B1.3030304@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <517E9B88.1040807@lsrfire.ath.cx>

René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 28.04.2013 21:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
>>
>>> Why not take the opposite direction with a patch like this?
>>> ...
>>> diff --git a/compat/mingw.h b/compat/mingw.h
>>> index 389ae01..74e7b87 100644
>>> --- a/compat/mingw.h
>>> +++ b/compat/mingw.h
>>> @@ -452,11 +452,11 @@ int xwcstoutf(char *utf, const wchar_t *wcs, size_t utflen);
>>>
>>>   void mingw_startup();
>>>   #define main(c,v) dummy_decl_mingw_main(); \
>>> -static int mingw_main(); \
>>> +static int mingw_main(int, const char **); \
>>>   int main(int argc, const char **argv) \
>>
>> But traditionally main is declared like
>>
>> 	int main(int argc, char *argv[]);
>>
>> without const, no?
> 
> Yes, http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html and basically everybody else 
> agree.  Now that I actually think about it, the only benefit of 
> declaring argv constant I can find is that the const'ness could easily 
> spread to other variables and function arguments where it may actually 
> matter.  So please ignore my interjection.  Or perhaps it might be worth 
> mentioning in the commit message that removal of that "const" improves 
> the code's standard compliance.

Hmm, well, strictly speaking, I can't say that is true! (see previous
email). It is certainly true that it more closely follows the *spirit*
of the standard, if not the letter of the law.

ATB,
Ramsay Jones