On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:25:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
quoted text
> Why do you make that mistake, when it is PROVABLY NOT TRUE!
> 
> Try this trivial program:
> 
> 	int main(int argc, char **argv)
> 	{
> 	        int i;
> 	        const int *c;
> 	
> 	        i = 5;
> 	        c = &i;
> 	        i = 10;
> 	        return *c;
> 	}
> 
> and realize that according to the C rules, if it returns anything but 10, 
> the compiler is *buggy*.

That's not how this works (as we obviously agree).

Please consider a rewrite of your example, demonstrating the usefulness and
proper application of const pointers:

extern foo(const int *);

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
 int i;

 i = 5;
 foo(&i);
 return i;
}

Now, if the program returns anything else than 5, it means someone cast away
const, which is generally considered a bad idea in most other software
projects, for this very reason.

*That* is the purpose of const pointers.

Besides, for most debugging-enabled free() implementations, free() does indeed
touch the memory pointed to by its argument, which makes giving it a const
pointer completely bogus except for a single potential optimized special-case
where it might actually not touch the memory.

-- 

 / jakob

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/