From: Donald G P. <don...@ni...> - 2009-07-15 23:19:25
|
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > Hi Jan, > > I'm really ignorant about const-nightmares. I would just like a tiny > piece advice on how to handle CONST86 qualifiers that are present in > the generic stubs stable and thus could be accessed by extensions. > More concretely, Thread has a bunch of warnings due to not using the > qualifier when calling Tcl_GetObjType and assigning the result. > So: should extensions use CONST86 too ? (I know it is a compile-time > value, but it doesn't affect the ABI, right ?) The statements tossing warnings all seem to be examples of what I called "Type II" when giving migration advice for CONST84. See http://wiki.tcl.tk/3669 . That said, these all appear to be calls to Tcl_GetObjType() which we have increasing agreement is a dicey thing at best for extensions to be calling. Especially bad that there appears to be no safety checks for NULL returns. If Thread really needs access to the internals of the Tcl_ObjTypes defined by Tcl itself, should Thread really get on a path to just become part of Tcl? -- | Don Porter Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division | | don...@ni... Information Technology Laboratory | | http://math.nist.gov/~DPorter/ NIST | |______________________________________________________________________| |