Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] livepach: Add .livepatch.hooks functions and test-case

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:46:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.08.16 at 20:01, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > @@ -70,7 +71,11 @@ struct payload {
> >> >> >      unsigned int nsyms;                  /* Nr of entries in .strtab 
> >> >> > and 
> >> >> > symbols. */
> >> >> >      struct livepatch_build_id id;        /* 
> >> >> > ELFNOTE_DESC(.note.gnu.build-id) of the payload. */
> >> >> >      struct livepatch_build_id dep;       /* 
> >> >> > ELFNOTE_DESC(.livepatch.depends). */
> >> >> > -    char name[XEN_LIVEPATCH_NAME_SIZE]; /* Name of it. */
> >> >> > +    livepatch_loadcall_t **load_funcs;   /* The array of funcs to 
> >> >> > call after */
> >> >> > +    livepatch_unloadcall_t **unload_funcs;/* load and unload of the 
> >> >> > payload. */
> >> >> 
> >> >> These both seem like they want a const in the middle.
                                                      ^^^^^^
                                                      Right there
.. snip..
> Odd. I've tried this simple example:
.. snip..
> test1() and test2() get compiled identically. test3(), using the field
> with the misplaced const, oddly enough gets compiled slightly
> differently (and without a warning despite one would seem
> warranted), yet the call doesn't get omitted. If, however, I change
> the return type of fn_t to void, the function body of test3() ends
> up empty, which is a compiler bug afaict, but which also suggests
> that you've tried the variant with the misplaced const.

<sigh>

If I had read your email more carefuly (see above) I would not have
wasted your time on this! Sorry about that!

This 'const' business is quite interesting.

> 
> Jan
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel