Re: Minor cleanup after adding more warnings to CFLAGS

"Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:52:49 +0800

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.mutt.devel
Message-ID	<aeBrIdb9AfVxgC9Z@qinghai>

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 06:25:27AM +0200, Rene Kita wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 09:16:52AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
>> I'd be interested if we could get a little further along to safety by
>> adopting the same mechanism glibc recently did for strchr and the others.  I
>> haven't looked into what dark arts were involved.
>
>Do you have some pointer for me to where I can get more infos about
>those changes in glibc?

I haven't looked into this previously, but a little Googling turned up 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C23_(C_standard_revision)> and 
specifically reference #57 next to "Make the functions bsearch(), 
bsearch_s(), memchr(), strchr(), strpbrk(), strrchr(), strstr(), and 
their wide counterparts wmemchr(), wcschr(), wcspbrk(), wcsrchr(), 
wcsstr() return a const qualified object if one was passed to them."

So... I guess this is C23.  Which I know almost nothing about :-D.  In 
any case, we're a long ways away from getting to that level of C 
standard support in Mutt.

So the only other alternative might be something like the other approach 
of a "const char *" function and a "char *" wrapper.  I don't insist on 
that though; it was just brainstorming.

-- 
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)