const char * VS char const * const (Not about what is const)

Question

So, I know the differences between char const *, char * const, and char const * const. Those being:

char* the_string : I can change the char to which the_string points, and I can modify the char at which it points.

const char* the_string : I can change the char to which the_string points, but I cannot modify the char at which it points.

char* const the_string : I cannot change the char to which the_string points, but I can modify the char at which it points.

const char* const the_string : I cannot change the char to which the_string points, nor can I modify the char at which it points.

(from const char * const versus const char *?)

Now, my question is: Let's say I'm writing a function that would not modify the C string that is passed to it, for example:

int countA(??? string) {
    int count = 0;
    int i;
    for (i=0; i<strlen(string); i++) {
         if (string[i] == 'A') count++;
    }
    return count;
}

Now, what should the header be?

int countA(char const * string); 
int countA(char const * const string);

My feeling is that I should use the second one, because I'm not going to modify the pointer itself, neither the contents of the array. But when I look to the header of standard functions they use the first one. Example

char * strcpy ( char * destination, const char * source );

Why?

(In fact char const * doesn't really make sense to me, because if you're thinking about the abstract string, either you are not modifying the string (so, char const * const because you are not modifying the pointer, neither the contents) or you will modify the string (so just char * because, you may modify the contents and you may need to allocate more memory, so you may need to modify the pointer)

I hope someone can make all this clear to me. Thanks.

Answer 1

In this case, it does not matter whether the pointer itself is const or not, because it is passed by-value anyway: Whatever strcpy does to source will not affect the caller's variable, because strcpy will operate on a copy of the caller's source on the stack, not the original. Note I am talking about the pointer value, not what the pointer points to, which should obviously not be changed since it is the source parameter.

char dest[10];
char const * source = "Hello";
strcpy( dest, source );
// no matter what strcpy does, the value of source will be unchanged

Within strcpy, you need to iterate pointers over the arrays pointed to by destination and source anyway. Not declaring the parameters as const allows the function to use the values from the stack directly, without copying / casting them first.