Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
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: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 02:06:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <875xsfdbhf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <IoGcndcJ1Zm83zb7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<20240801174026.00002cda@yahoo.com> <v8gi7i$29iu1$1@dont-email.me>
	<slrnvaorkl.34j6.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
	<87zfpvfdk4.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<v8ii17$2q5p1$1@dont-email.me>
	<87v80ig4vt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<v8jbvj$2vat1$1@dont-email.me> <87le1ed0dl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v8jp3f$321h8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 03:06:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2414c6952e13c70edf3b01ba5b91a78";
	logging-data="344408"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XxJHdwmm83lmIx7LP55/FQ/WKSLt4WBw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9jGg+7yrbdB2SuAxkUN3syYjKP0=
	sha1:yowepgLR8+9vdJmVc9bgN52S7kg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.1e294e084d4f66cceae2.20240805020636BST.875xsfdbhf.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 3057

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

> On 8/2/2024 3:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> For some reason I had a sort of a habit wrt const pointers:
>>>
>>> (experimental code, no ads, raw text...)
>>> https://pastebin.com/raw/f52a443b1
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> /* Interfaces
>>> ____________________________________________________________________*/
>>> #include <stddef.h>
>>>
>>>
>>> struct object_prv_vtable {
>>>    int (*fp_destroy) (void* const);
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> struct device_prv_vtable {
>>>    int (*fp_read) (void* const, void*, size_t);
>>>    int (*fp_write) (void* const, void const*, size_t);
>>> };
>> Why?  It seems like an arbitrary choice to const qualify some pointer
>> types and some pointed-to types (but never both).
>
> I just wanted to get the point across that the first parameter, aka, akin
> to "this" in C++ is a const pointer. Shall not be modified in any way shape
> or form. It is as it is, so to speak:
>
> void foo(struct foobar const* const self);
>
> constant pointer to a constant foobar, fair enough?

No.  If you intended a const pointer to const object why didn't you
write that?  My point was that the consts seems to be scattered about
without any apparent logic and you've not explained why.

>>> ;^)
>> Does the wink mean I should not take what you write seriously?  If so,
>> please ignore my question.
>
> The wink was meant to show my habit in basically a jestful sort of
> way.

Your habit of what?

-- 
Ben.