Re: So You Think You Can Const?

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

On 01/07/25 11:32 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>

E.g. consider this little internal helper of mine
(which implements an interface that is public to
do an internal thing...), where I am casting to
pointer to non-constant data in order to free the
pointed data (i.e. without warning):
>
```c
static int MyStruct_free_(MyStruct_t const *pT) {
     assert(pT);
>
     free((MyStruct_t *)pT);
>
     return 0;
}
```
>
Assuming, as said, that the data was originally
allocated with malloc, is that code safe or
something can go wrong even in that case?

 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"?
-Julio