[dpdk-dev] [RFC 10/35] eal: introduce RTE_DECONST macro

[Olivier MATZ]

>> If you have a better alternative, without duplicating the code,
>> I'll be happy to learn.
> 
> I really don't like this dropping of const either, but I do see the problem.
> I'd nearly rather see two copies of the function than start dropping the const
> in such a way.

I don't think duplicating the code is a good option.

> Also, I'd see having the function itself be a wrapper around a
> macro as a better alternative too, assuming such a construction is possible.

Sorry, I'm not sure to understand. Could you please elaborate?


Regards,
Olivier