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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à l c 
Sujet : Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?
De : candycanearter07 (at) *nospam* candycanearter07.nomail.afraid (candycanearter07)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 02. Aug 2024, 07:30:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : the-candyden-of-code
Message-ID : <slrnvaorkl.34j6.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote at 17:56 this Thursday (GMT):
On 01/08/2024 16:40, Michael S wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 08:06:57 +0000
Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote:
 
This program segfaults at the commented line:
>
#include <ctype.h>
#include <stdio.h>
>
void uppercase_ascii(char *s) {
     while (*s) {
         *s = toupper(*s); // SEGFAULT
         s++;
     }
}
>
int main() {
     char* text = "this is a test";
     printf("before [%s]\n", text);
     uppercase_ascii(text);
     printf("after  [%s]\n", text);
}
>
 
The answers to your question are already given above, so I'd talk about
something else. Sorry about it.
 
To my surprise, none of the 3 major compilers that I tried issued the
warning at this line:
   char* text = "this is a test";
If implicit conversion of 'const char*' to 'char*' does not warrant
compiler warning than I don't know what does.
Is there something in the Standard that explicitly forbids diagnostic
for this sort of conversion?
 
BTW, all 3 compilers issue reasonable warnings when I write it slightly
differently:
   const char* ctext = "this is a test";
   char* text = ctext;
 
I am starting to suspect that compilers (and the Standard?) consider
string literals as being of type 'char*' rather than 'const char*'.
 
>
Your suspicions are correct - in C, string literals are used to
initialise an array of char (or wide char, or other appropriate
character type).  Perhaps you are thinking of C++, where the type is
"const char" (or other const character type).
>
So in C, when a string literal is used in an expression it is converted
to a "char *" pointer.  You can, of course, assign that to a "const char
*" pointer.  But it does not make sense to have a warning when assigning
it to a non-const "char *" pointer.  This is despite it being undefined
behaviour (explicitly stated in the standards) to attempt to write to a
string literal.
>
The reason string literals are not const in C is backwards compatibility
- they existed before C had "const", and making string literals into
"const char" arrays would mean that existing code that assigned them to
non-const pointers would then be in error.  C++ was able to do the right
thing and make them arrays of const char because it had "const" from the
beginning.
>
gcc has the option "-Wwrite-strings" that makes string literals in C
have "const char" array type, and thus give errors when you try to
assign to a non-const char * pointer.  But the option has to be
specified explicitly (it is not in -Wall) because it changes the meaning
of the code and can cause compatibility issues with existing correct code.


-Wwrite-strings is included in -Wpedantic.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Aug 24 * relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?98Mark Summerfield
1 Aug 24 +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Mark Summerfield
1 Aug 24 i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Ben Bacarisse
1 Aug 24 +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?33Richard Harnden
1 Aug 24 i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Mark Summerfield
1 Aug 24 i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?31Bart
1 Aug 24 i `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?30Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24 i  +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?20Bart
1 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
2 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  i+* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?16Kaz Kylheku
2 Aug 24 i  ii`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?15Bart
2 Aug 24 i  ii +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Richard Damon
2 Aug 24 i  ii `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?13James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  ii  +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Bart
3 Aug 24 i  ii  +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Aug 24 i  ii  i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i  ii  i +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Joe Pfeiffer
4 Aug 24 i  ii  i +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
12 Aug 24 i  ii  i `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i  ii  `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?6Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i  ii   +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
16 Aug 24 i  ii   i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Tim Rentsch
16 Aug 24 i  ii   i `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24 i  ii   `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2James Kuyper
16 Aug 24 i  ii    `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
4 Aug 24 i  i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Bonita Montero
12 Aug 24 i  `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?9Tim Rentsch
13 Aug 24 i   `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?8Vir Campestris
13 Aug 24 i    +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24 i    i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i    i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
14 Aug 24 i    `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i     `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24 i      `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Kaz Kylheku
14 Aug 24 i       `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24 +* No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?38Michael S
1 Aug 24 i`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?37David Brown
2 Aug 24 i `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?36candycanearter07
2 Aug 24 i  +* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?34Keith Thompson
2 Aug 24 i  i+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?28Richard Harnden
2 Aug 24 i  ii+- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  ii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?24Keith Thompson
2 Aug 24 i  iii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Richard Damon
2 Aug 24 i  iiii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  iiiii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Richard Damon
12 Aug 24 i  iiiii `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
12 Aug 24 i  iiii`- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
2 Aug 24 i  iii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?15Chris M. Thomasson
3 Aug 24 i  iiii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?14Ben Bacarisse
3 Aug 24 i  iiii `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?13Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii  `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?12Ben Bacarisse
5 Aug 24 i  iiii   `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?11Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii    +- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii    `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?9Ben Bacarisse
5 Aug 24 i  iiii     `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?8Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii      `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?7Ben Bacarisse
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       +* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Chris M. Thomasson
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       i`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Ben Bacarisse
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       i `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Chris M. Thomasson
7 Aug 24 i  iiii       i  `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Ben Bacarisse
13 Aug 24 i  iiii       i   `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Chris M. Thomasson
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Chris M. Thomasson
12 Aug 24 i  iii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Tim Rentsch
12 Aug 24 i  iii `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Keith Thompson
3 Sep 24 i  iii  `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
25 Aug 24 i  ii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2dave thompson 2
25 Aug 24 i  ii `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
12 Aug 24 i  i`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Tim Rentsch
12 Aug 24 i  i `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Keith Thompson
13 Aug 24 i  i  `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Tim Rentsch
13 Aug 24 i  i   `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2David Brown
13 Aug 24 i  i    `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
3 Aug 24 i  `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
1 Aug 24 +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1James Kuyper
1 Aug 24 `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?23Kaz Kylheku
1 Aug 24  +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?20Bart
1 Aug 24  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Ben Bacarisse
2 Aug 24  i+* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Kaz Kylheku
2 Aug 24  ii+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Bart
12 Aug 24  ii`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
3 Aug 24  i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?14David Brown
4 Aug 24  i +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?12Keith Thompson
4 Aug 24  i i+* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Aug 24  i ii`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?9Keith Thompson
4 Aug 24  i ii +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Richard Damon
12 Aug 24  i ii i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
5 Aug 24  i ii `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?6Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Aug 24  i ii  `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Keith Thompson
5 Aug 24  i ii   `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Aug 24  i ii    `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
6 Aug 24  i ii     `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Bart
6 Aug 24  i ii      `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
4 Aug 24  i i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
4 Aug 24  i `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24  +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24  `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal