[英]Why converting Foo** → const Foo** is an error in C++, but only a warning in C?
char const c = 'x'; /* 1 */
char *p1; /* 2 */
char const **p2 = &p1; /* 3 */
*p2 = &c; /* 4 */
*p1 = 'X'; /* 5 */
Line 3 is disallowed in C and is invalid in C++.第 3行在C 中是不允许的,在 C++ 中无效。 However, one gets an error in C++, but only a warning in C. The question is - why only a warning?
然而,一个人在 C++ 中得到一个错误,但在 C 中只有一个警告。问题是 - 为什么只有一个警告?
Both C & C++ deal with statement 3 as that "Assigning const char**
with char**
discards the const
qualifier" The difference is; C 和 C++ 都将语句 3 处理为“使用
char**
分配const char**
char**
会丢弃const
限定符”,区别在于; C++ is more strict than C and doesn't allow const
qualifier discarding. C++ 比 C 更严格,并且不允许丢弃
const
限定符。 This is really convenient in C++ and does lead to no issues contrary to C.这在 C++ 中非常方便,并且不会导致与 C 相反的问题。
Imagine the following code:想象一下以下代码:
char const c = 'x';
char *p1 = &c;
*p1 = 'A';
printf("c address: 0x%X, p1 is pointing to: 0x%X\n", &c, p1);
printf("%c\n", c);
printf("%c\n", *p1);
This is a compilable C code.这是一个可编译的 C 代码。 One would think that assigning a new value to
*p1
should not be possible as it points to a const
variable.有人会认为为
*p1
分配一个新值应该是不可能的,因为它指向一个const
变量。 Also one would think that if it did happen and we could change the value of what p is pointing at this will also change the value of c
But this is not the case!!还有人会认为,如果它确实发生了,我们可以改变 p 指向的值,这也会改变
c
的值,但事实并非如此!!
The above code surprisingly generates:上面的代码出人意料地生成:
c address: 0xEF3E146B, p1 is pointing to: 0xEF3E146B
x
A
So allowing this const qualifier to be discarded does lead to undefined behavior (which means it's up to the compiler to decide what to do).因此,允许丢弃这个 const 限定符确实会导致未定义的行为(这意味着由编译器决定要做什么)。 This is fixed in C++ to avoid such ambiguities.
这在 C++ 中是固定的,以避免这种歧义。
C has much more relaxed pointer rules than C++. C 的指针规则比 C++ 宽松得多。 C++ enforces a lot more type safety than C. Some of this is up to compilers to decide only to warn in C.
C++ 比 C 强制执行更多的类型安全。其中一些取决于编译器决定只在 C 中发出警告。
One example to look at is malloc, where char* str = malloc(50);
要查看的一个示例是 malloc,其中
char* str = malloc(50);
is perfectly fine C but must be char* str = (char*) malloc(50);
非常好 C 但必须是
char* str = (char*) malloc(50);
in C++.在 C++ 中。
The short answer is: because they are different languages and have different rules.简短的回答是:因为它们是不同的语言并且有不同的规则。 There is no C/C++ language.
没有 C/C++ 语言。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.