Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
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: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:38:24 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v8pdv0$fgau$2@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xsfdbhf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v8pdsn$fgau$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 04:38:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8fb2bf3bc0b69bac1b2db0bf88076279";
	logging-data="508254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pjFr8LZ+96NdE+YmRnxQlCg+r8lf55nk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zC0NzLK+t77GV5qb6mxABk7ar2E=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8pdsn$fgau$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3828

On 8/4/2024 7:37 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/4/2024 6:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "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?
>>
> 
> To write the declaration with names and the const access I want, so:
> 
> extern void (void const* const ptr);
> 
> void (void const* const ptr)
> {
>     // ptr is a const pointer to a const void
> }
> 
> 
> 

Perhaps give the function a name... ;^)

To write the declaration with names and the const access I want, so:

extern void foobar(void const* const ptr);

void foobar(void const* const ptr)
{
    // ptr is a const pointer to a const void
}