Re: Patch to execve

["Kevin M. Kilbride" <kmk@xxxxxxx>]

Ooops. Replied to sender instead of to the list. Sorry.

> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> > Impossible / unacceptable. The interface is not type-compatible with
> > SUS if you do. Read the rules about implicit const conversions in
> > ISO C90/C99, if you have questions.
> >  
>
> Implicit type conversion works just fine, obviously---the code 
> compiled before these changes, after all. You simply cannot make the 
> code WARNS=6 compliant without passing that const through to execve, 
> that's all. The compiler will complain if you pass the const 
> implicitly and it will complain if you explicitly cast the const away. 
> You can't win, either way. (Well, maybe "writable strings" will turn 
> it off...).