3 ms·
Where do you see this confusion? I don't think it's there. The author points out that it is not necessarily undefined behavior to take your second prototype, c
by heinrich5991 10y ago
Where do you see this confusion? I don't think it's there.
The author points out that it is not necessarily undefined behavior to take your second prototype, cast the const away and modify the pointed-to object if you ensure that it is only called with non-constant objects.
- peeyek 10y agoIn 2nd paragraph, the author states: void foo(const int *); ... > The function foo takes a const pointer, which is a promise from the author of foo that it won’t modify the value of x. Given this information, it would seem the compiler may assume x is always zero, and therefore y is always zero.
- Sharlin 10y agoIt is clear that the author means "pointer to const" there.