CODEWITHSUNDEEP
cpointersconst-correctness
Nibor
Nibor

Reputation: 1258

Why is an implicit conversion from non-const to const allowed for pointers in the first place?

I understand that implicit conversion from non-const to const is not dangerous when handling values, by example:

int mutable = 5;
const int immutable = mutable;

However, when working with pointers, I can do something as follows:

int some_number = 5;
int *mutable = &some_number;
const int *immutable = mutable;    // <= Legal, but isn't it dangerous?

// Let's try to break const
printf("%d\n", *immutable);        // Prints 5
mutable[0] = 10;
printf("%d\n", *immutable);        // Prints 10

By the way, for double pointers this is not allowed (at least you get a warning)! See this question and the references therein.

Upvotes: 1

Views: 1012

Answers (1)

Siguza
Siguza

Reputation: 23830

From the C11 standard (draft N1570):

6.7.3 Type qualifiers

Syntax

  1. type-qualifier:
    const
    restrict
    volatile
    _Atomic

[...]

Semantics:

  1. The properties associated with qualified types are meaningful only for expressions that are lvalues.

[...]

EXAMPLE 1

An object declared

extern const volatile int real_time_clock;

may be modifiable by hardware, but cannot be assigned to, incremented, or decremented.

In simple terms:

const doesn't mean a value never changes. It only means that you are not allowed to change it1.

For callees , const is a restriction, not a promise.
For callers however, it is a promise. Passing a const pointer to a function, you can safely assume that the function will not change your data2, thus is "making a promise to you".

1 ...through the identifier with the const qualifier.
2 ...through the const argument passed to it.

Upvotes: 5

Related Questions