Re: So You Think You Can Const?

On 09/01/2025 12:21, Keith Thompson wrote:

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:

On 08/01/2025 17:48, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

[...]

It is perfectly safe. One can even argue that standard declaration
if `free` as `void free(void *)` is defective. It should have been
`void free(const void *)` from the very beginning.

>
I do not understand that: `free` is changing the pointed data, so how
can `const void *` even be "correct"?

 No, `free` doesn't (necessarily) change the pointed-to data.
Any attempt to access the allocated data after free() has undefined
behavior,

I would indeed call that a change!
Anyway I see the point, thanks for explaining.
-Julio

so it might be modified, but all free() needs to do is
make it available for further allocation.  It might do so without
touching the data itself.