Does const'ing primitive types in function parameters result in a significant performance boost?

Question

A friend told me that it's more efficient to do

int addNumbers(const int number1, const int number2);

than

int addNumbers(int number1, int number2);

assuming of course that number1 and number2 won't be assigned new values. Does this result in a significant performance boost? Are there any other side effects I should know about?

Answer 1

const correctness is more of letting compiler help you guard against making honest mistakes. Declaring the const-ness of a parameter is just another form of type safety rather than a boost for performance.

Most of the modern compiler will be able to detect if a variable is really constant or not, and apply correct optimizations. So do not use const-correctness for performance reasons. rather use it for maintainability reasons & preventing yourself from doing stupid mistakes.

Answer 2

I hope you are aware that in terms of function declarations these two are identical, that is they declare the same function!!!

Now, as far as the definitions go, I can't say if there's any boost at all, but I can promise you there is no significant boost. I don't believe modern compilers are stupid. Most of them are smarter than you and I. ))

There's another side. Some programmers will prefer to add const wherever it's applicable, to be genuinely const-correct. This is a valid point of view and practice. But again, I wouldn't do it just for performance issues.