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...).