Re: compiler warnings on the buildfarm

Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
>>>> So pam_message ** isn't const.
>>>
>>> Ah, thanks. I see luna_moth is giving the same warning, so it's still
>>> not const in Solaris 11 either.
>>>
>>> Is it worth working around this? It's strictly cosmetic AFAICS.
>>>
>>> The main issue in my mind would be how to determine whether to use
>>> const or not. If all Solaris releases are like this, and can be
>>> expected to stay that way,
>>
>> I think yes. It is defined as X/Open standard says.
>>
>
> Not according to the link you sent earlier. My reading says that
> Solaris has it defined wrong and pg has it right.

If I look there
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/008329799/chap5.htm#tagcjh_06

in "Call Back Information" section. The structure is defined as

struct pam_conv{ int (*conv) (int, struct pam_message **, struct
pam_response **, void *); void *appdata_ptr; };

I don't see any "const" keyword there.

Zdenek