Imagine I have this C function (and the corresponding prototype in a header file)
void clearstring(const char *data) {
char *dst = (char *)data;
*dst = 0;
}
Is there Undefined Behaviour in the above code, casting the const
away, or is it just a terribly bad programming practice?
Suppose there are no const-qualified objects used
char name[] = "pmg";
clearstring(name);
The attempt to write to *dst
is UB if the caller passes you a pointer to a const object, or a pointer to a string literal.
But if the caller passes you a pointer to data that in fact is mutable, then behavior is defined. Creating a const char*
that points to a modifiable char
doesn't make that char
immutable.
So:
char c;
clearstring(&c); // OK, sets c to 0
char *p = malloc(100);
if (p) {
clearstring(p); // OK, p now points to an empty string
free(p);
}
const char d = 0;
clearstring(&d); // UB
clearstring("foo"); // UB
That is, your function is extremely ill-advised, because it is so easy for a caller to cause UB. But it is in fact possible to use it with defined behavior.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With