Re: [PATCH 1/6] fix implicit typecast for strict compilers

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 7,  9:13pm, Nikolas Garofil wrote:
}
} > Wouldn't the right thing here be to declare
} >
} > 	const char *p1, *p2;
} >
} > instead of casting?
} 
} The p1 and p2 pointers are increased at the end of the line to walk 
} through the string so that wouldn't work

The "s" pointer is declared const char * and it's incremented as well.
I'm not suggesting "char * const p1".