4 ms·

So I don't write much C code these days, but I recently encountered strtol() again and am I mistaken or does the interface also violate const correctness? I mea

So I don't write much C code these days, but I recently encountered strtol() again and am I mistaken or does the interface also violate const correctness? I mean it takes a const char* as the first parameter and then gives you back a (non-const) char* potentially pointing into the same string, right? Like, does strtol() get a pass because it's old, or is const correctness (still) not generally a concern of C programmers?

jefftk 1y ago
There are unfortunately a lot of old C library functions that violate const correctness. Consider dirname: https://www.jefftk.com/p/dirname-is-evil https://www.jefftk.com/p/dirname-is-evil
spyrja 1y ago
More than a few C library functions do that kind of thing. Like `strstr`, which takes const strings as arguments but returns a readily modifiable pointer to char. Const-correctness just wasn't on the top of the list when they standardized this stuff, I guess. (Heck, back in those days, most PROGRAMS for that matter weren't written with much care for it.)
- wahern 1y ago
  It's a consequence of the peculiarity of C type semantics, which disallows implicit conversions of pointer-to-pointer to pointer-to-pointer-to-const. C23 6.5.16.1 EXAMPLE 3 explains why: const char **cpp; char *p; const char c = ’A’; cpp = &p; // constraint violation *cpp = &c; // valid *p = 0; // valid The first assignment is unsafe because it would allow the following valid code to attempt to change the value of the const object c. There are proposals on the table for C2y to redefine various APIs, including strtol, strchr, memcpy, etc, to preserve const correctness. Implementations might make use of _Generic (there are some issues there, though), newly specified language features, or possibly use internal extensions not available in the language proper, to accomplish this.
tedunangst 1y ago
The idea is that if the input was not const, it's really inconvenient to get a const endptr back out. If your intention is to break your program, there are easier ways to do so than washing the pointer through strtol.

jefftk 1y ago

There are unfortunately a lot of old C library functions that violate const correctness. Consider dirname: https://www.jefftk.com/p/dirname-is-evil https://www.jefftk.com/p/dirname-is-evil

spyrja 1y ago

More than a few C library functions do that kind of thing. Like `strstr`, which takes const strings as arguments but returns a readily modifiable pointer to char. Const-correctness just wasn't on the top of the list when they standardized this stuff, I guess. (Heck, back in those days, most PROGRAMS for that matter weren't written with much care for it.)

wahern 1y ago
It's a consequence of the peculiarity of C type semantics, which disallows implicit conversions of pointer-to-pointer to pointer-to-pointer-to-const. C23 6.5.16.1 EXAMPLE 3 explains why: const char **cpp; char *p; const char c = ’A’; cpp = &p; // constraint violation *cpp = &c; // valid *p = 0; // valid The first assignment is unsafe because it would allow the following valid code to attempt to change the value of the const object c. There are proposals on the table for C2y to redefine various APIs, including strtol, strchr, memcpy, etc, to preserve const correctness. Implementations might make use of _Generic (there are some issues there, though), newly specified language features, or possibly use internal extensions not available in the language proper, to accomplish this.

tedunangst 1y ago

The idea is that if the input was not const, it's really inconvenient to get a const endptr back out. If your intention is to break your program, there are easier ways to do so than washing the pointer through strtol.