Re: __const or const?

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

>>>>> Ulrich Drepper writes:

Uli> Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
>> I'm currently cleaning up some more header files in glibc 2.2.  Is it
>> ok to replace __const by const?

Uli> We should continue to use __const.  It's no extra burden since this is
Uli> a keyword with gcc recognizes directly.

I found in the meantime the following in my libc-hacker archive:
You wrote with message-ID <m3g0zmbfzn.fsf@localhost.localnet> 12 weeks
ago:
> I really think this is not acceptable anymore.  K&R is dead, at least
> on GNU platforms.  Therefore I would like to drop all K&R
> compatibility.  This means, all headers will loose the __P and the
> __const and whatever junk we have.  I think this can considerably
> speed up the preprocessor.

I didn't know that gcc recognizes __const directly - but the patches I
made were nearly no work (thanks to perl!) and it's consistent to use
const in all places.

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