Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?
Date	2024-08-06 23:59 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87zfpp9s1b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <v8rd2g$11vvn$2@dont-email.me> <87frribsgs.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v8rkb3$156mh$1@dont-email.me> <875xsdc2jq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v8tuls$1q1od$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> On 8/6/2024 4:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I must have completely missed it. Sorry about that. Please redefine?
>> It's going to seem silly after all these exchanges.  I simply wanted to
>> know why you chose to use const as you originally posted:
>> | struct object_prv_vtable {
>> |       int (*fp_destroy) (void* const);
>> |       int (*fp_read) (void* const, void*, size_t);
>> |       int (*fp_write) (void* const, void const*, size_t);
>> | };
>> because that looks peculiar (to the point of being arbitrary) to me.
>> You went on to talk about "self" pointers being const pointers to const
>> void, but that was not what you wrote, so it did not address what I was
>> asking about.
>> In general, const qualified argument types are rarely used and are even
>> more rarely used in function (or type) declarations because there have
>> no effect at all in that position.  For example, I can assign fp_destroy
>> from a function declared without the const-qualified parameter:
>>     int destroy(void *self) { /* ... */; return 1; }
>>     ...
>>     vtab.fp_destroy = destroy;
>> or, if I do want the compiler to check that the function does not alter
>> its parameter, I can add the const in the function definition (were it
>> can be useful) even if it is missing from the declaration:
>>    struct object_prv_vtable {
>>          int (*fp_destroy) (void*);
>>          /* ... */
>>    };
>>    int destroy(void *const self) { /* ... */; return 1; }
>>    ...
>>    vtab.fp_destroy = destroy;
>> But if you want the const there so that the declaration matches the
>> function defintion, why not do that for all the parameters?  Basically,
>> I would have expercted either this (just ine const where it matters):
>> struct object_prv_vtable {
>>        int (*fp_destroy) (void *);
>>        int (*fp_read) (void *, void *, size_t);
>>        int (*fp_write) (void *, void const *, size_t);
>> };
>> and the actual functions that get assigned to these pointers might, if
>> you want that extra check, have all their parametera marked const.  Or,
>> for consistency, you might have written
>> struct object_prv_vtable {
>>        int (*fp_destroy) (void * const);
>>        int (*fp_read) (void * const, void * const, size_t const);
>>        int (*fp_write) (void * const, void const * const, size_t const);
>> };
>> even if none of the actual functions have const parameters.
>> Finally, if you had intended to write what you later went on to talk
>> about, you would have written either
>> struct object_prv_vtable {
>>        int (*fp_destroy) (const void *);
>>        int (*fp_read) (const void *, void *, size_t);
>>        int (*fp_write) (const void *, void const *, size_t);
>> };
>> or
>> struct object_prv_vtable {
>>        int (*fp_destroy) (const void * const);
>>        int (*fp_read) (const void * const, void * const, size_t const);
>>        int (*fp_write) (const void * const, void const * const, size_t const);
>> };
>> TL;DR: where you put the consts in the original just seemed arbitrary.
>> I'll also note that the term "const pointer" is often used when the
>> pointer is not const!  It most often mean that the pointed-to type is
>> const qualified.  As such, it's best to avoid the term altogether.
>
> I wanted to get across that the pointer value for the first parameter
> itself should not be modified. I read (void* const) as a const pointer to a
> "non-const" void. Now a const pointer to a const void is (void const*
> const), from my code, notice the first parameter?
>
> I consider the first parameter to be special in this older OO experiment of
> mine. It shall not be modified, so I wrote it into the API:

You could have said that when I asked many posts ago!  I can't see a
sound technical reason to put a const there but that parameter is in
some way different I suppose.  The effect on readers is likely to be a
puzzled, mild confusion.

Note that is not really "in the API" as it is entirely optional whether
the implementation has a const first parameter.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-01 08:06 +0000
  Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-01 08:24 +0000
    Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-01 11:53 +0100
  Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-08-01 09:38 +0100
    Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-01 08:54 +0000
    Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-01 11:12 +0100
      Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 13:59 -0700
        Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-01 22:07 +0100
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 14:28 -0700
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-01 20:20 -0400
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-02 01:06 +0000
            Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-02 10:43 +0100
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-08-02 11:03 -0400
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-02 14:19 -0400
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-02 19:33 +0100
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-03 01:31 +0000
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-08-02 22:01 -0400
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2024-08-03 08:32 -0600
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-04 01:05 +0000
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 02:52 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-13 17:46 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-13 18:44 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 16:00 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 16:27 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-14 10:33 -0400
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 16:05 -0700
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 15:52 +0200
        Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 14:11 -0700
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-13 15:34 +0100
            Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-13 13:08 -0700
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-13 17:41 -0700
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-14 10:40 +0200
            Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-13 17:40 -0700
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-13 18:47 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-14 03:16 +0000
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-13 20:49 -0700
  Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-01 13:28 +0000
  No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-01 17:40 +0300
    Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-01 19:56 +0200
      Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-08-02 05:30 +0000
        Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-02 03:02 -0700
          Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-08-02 13:04 +0100
            Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-02 09:59 -0400
            Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-02 11:24 -0700
              Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-08-02 14:42 -0400
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-02 14:58 -0400
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-08-02 15:11 -0400
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 08:32 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 08:27 -0700
              Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-02 12:27 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-02 23:29 +0100
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-02 16:11 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-05 02:06 +0100
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 19:37 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 19:38 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-05 12:03 +0100
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-05 13:35 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-05 21:54 +0100
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-05 15:39 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-06 12:29 +0100
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-06 12:48 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-06 23:59 +0100
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-12 16:18 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-08-05 15:44 -0700
              Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 14:38 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-12 14:55 -0700
            Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-08-25 16:52 -0400
              Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 14:26 -0700
          Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 14:33 -0700
            Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-12 14:45 -0700
              Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 16:05 -0700
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-13 13:08 +0200
                Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-13 13:00 -0700
        Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-03 19:54 +0200
  Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-01 12:02 -0400
  Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-01 19:39 +0000
    Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-01 21:42 +0100
      Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 14:13 -0700
      Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-01 22:40 +0100
      Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-02 00:37 +0000
        Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-02 11:36 +0100
        Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 13:47 -0700
      Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-03 00:14 +0200
        Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-03 17:07 +0000
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 17:11 -0700
        Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 17:07 -0700
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-04 01:08 +0000
            Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 19:58 -0700
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-08-04 07:22 -0400
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 02:55 -0700
              Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-05 06:33 +0000
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 23:38 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-05 21:27 +0000
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-05 15:40 -0700
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-06 16:57 +0100
                Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-06 20:40 +0200
          Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-04 17:20 +0200
    Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 14:06 -0700
    Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-13 17:43 -0700

csiph-web