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

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?
void
foo(struct foobar const* const self)
{
    //self is there... Do not mutate it!
    //Please for self is "special"?
}

 

;^)

 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. Some people did not seem to like it very much, even though its was just me doing my thing. I can adapt rather quickly.