Re: [RFA] "constify" parse_exp_1

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On 03/08/2013 05:00 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > This is perfectly fine:
> >
> >   	  for (loc = t->base.loc; loc; loc = loc->next)
> >   	    {
> > -	      p = tmp_p;
> > +	      const char *q;
> > +
> > +	      q = tmp_p;
> > -	      exp = parse_exp_1 (&p, loc->address,
> > +	      exp = parse_exp_1 (&q, loc->address,
> > 				 block_for_pc (loc->address), 1);
> > +	      p = (char *) q;
> >
> > It's perfectly valid, as we know Q on output must point within
> > the object/string TMP_P pointed at on entry.
> > This reads much more intuitively to me, no funny arithmetic, and
> > gets rid of the aliasing issue with the other suggestion, and
> > no new function necessary.
>
> And confirmed this approach is valid.

I have a revision, but after this morning's fiasco, I'm a bit leery of 
submitting it until substantial further review. My focus is waxing 
quickly right now.

I've also got amendments to address Tom's comments.

Thanks,
Keith