Re: Shouldn't g_quark_from_static_string be const?

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick technisys com ar> writes:

> Hi!
> 
> Shouldn't g_quark_from_static_string be declared with G_GNUC_CONST (
> __attribute__(__const__) ) ?
> 
> As the static string won't ever change, it's safe for the compiler to
> assume that the function output is entirely dependant on the pointer
> value itself.
> 
> This way GCC will be able to take the function call out of
> loops... What do you think?

A thing to think about here, is that G_GNUC_CONST also means
side-effect-free, while g_quark_from_static_string() does have
a side effect - it creates the quark.

So, 

 g_quark_from_static_string ("foo");
 g_quark_try_string ("foo");

Will change in behavior since GCC will optimize out the first call;
this came up some when we added G_GNUC_CONST to the get_type() 
functions.

Regards,
                                        Owen