From: Chen Gang F T <chen.gang.flying.transformer@gmail.com>
To: antoine.trux@gmail.com
Cc: fa.linux.kernel@googlegroups.com,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
clameter@sgi.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:10:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F26BE0.7020005@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <379cc523-8f08-4c7f-ae20-20f216352a01@googlegroups.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3946 bytes --]
Hello Antoine:
after read through the whole reply of Linus Torvalds for it
(the time stamp is "Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:39:00 -0800 (PST)").
at least for me, his reply is correct in details.
although what you said is also correct,
it seems you misunderstanding what he said.
all together:
kfree() should use 'const void *' as parameter type
the free() of C Library is incorrect (it use void *).
于 2013年01月13日 03:18, antoine.trux@gmail.com 写道:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:39:48 PM UTC+2, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> "const" has *never* been about the thing not being modified. Forget all
>> that claptrap. C does not have such a notion.
>
> I beg your pardon?!
>
> C has had that very notion ever since its first standard (1989). Here is an excerpt from that standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1990, section 6.5.3):
>
> "If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined."
>
>
>> "const" is a pointer type issue, and is meant to make certain mis-uses
>> more visible at compile time. It has *no* other meaning, and anybody who
>> thinks it has is just setting himself up for problems.
>
> 'const' is also a pointer issue, but not only - see above quote from the C Standard.
>
>
> Defining an object 'const' can have an impact on optimization (and also on whether the object is placed in read-only memory). Here are trivial examples to illustrate:
>
> <Program1>
>
> <foo1.c>
> void foo1(const int* pi)
> {
> *(int*)pi = 1;
> }
> </foo1.c>
>
> <main1.c>
> #include <stdio.h>
> void foo1(const int* pi);
> int main(void)
> {
> int i = 0;
> foo1(&i);
> printf("i = %d\n", i);
> return 0;
> }
> </main1.c>
>
> </Program1>
>
> Program1 defines 'i' non-const, and modifies it through a const pointer, by casting const away in foo1(). This is allowed - although not necessarily wise.
>
> Program1 has well defined behavior: it prints "i = 1". The generated code dutifully retrieves the value of 'i' before passing it to printf().
>
>
> <Program2>
>
> <foo2.c>
> void foo2(const int* pi)
> {
> }
> </foo2.c>
>
> <main2.c>
> #include <stdio.h>
> void foo2(const int* pi);
> int main(void)
> {
> const int i = 0;
> foo2(&i);
> printf("i = %d\n", i);
> return 0;
> }
> </main2.c>
>
> </Program2>
>
> Program2 defines 'i' const. A pointer to 'i' is passed to foo2(), which does not modify 'i'.
>
> Program2 has well defined behavior: it prints "i = 0". When it generates code for main1.c, the compiler can assume that 'i' is not modified, because 'i' is defined const.
>
> When compiling main2.c with gcc 4.4.7 with optimizations turned off (-O0), the generated code retrieves the value of 'i' before passing it to printf(). With optimizations turned on (-O3), it inlines the value of 'i', 0, in the call to printf(). Both versions have the same, correct behavior.
>
>
> <Program3>
>
> <foo3.c>
> void foo3(const int* pi)
> {
> *(int*)pi = 1;
> }
> </foo3.c>
>
> <main3.c>
> #include <stdio.h>
> void foo3(const int* pi);
> int main(void)
> {
> const int i = 0;
> foo3(&i);
> printf("i = %d\n", i);
> return 0;
> }
> </main3.c>
>
> </Program3>
>
> Program3 defines 'i' const, and attempts to modify it through a const pointer, by casting const away in foo3().
>
> On my particular system, when compiling Program3 with gcc 4.4.7 with optimizations turned off (-O0), the program prints "i = 1". With optimizations turned on (-O3), it prints "i = 0".
>
> The question of which of these two behaviors is "correct" would be pointless, since Program3 has undefined behavior.
>
>
> Antoine
> --
--
Chen Gang
Flying Transformer
[-- Attachment #2: chen_gang_flying_transformer.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 67 bytes --]
begin:vcard
fn:Chen Gang
n:;Chen Gang
version:2.1
end:vcard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-13 8:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.cHMztHfqJXv7vw5O0nQ8SdTrma0@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.V9M+5l8C/um5KEiBtZOjbJDQmu4@ifi.uio.no>
2013-01-12 19:18 ` Why is the kfree() argument const? antoine.trux
2013-01-13 8:10 ` Chen Gang F T [this message]
2013-01-13 17:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-01-14 1:45 ` Chen Gang F T
2013-01-13 20:54 ` Cong Ding
2013-01-14 1:18 ` Chen Gang F T
2008-01-18 19:10 ecolbus
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-01-18 16:45 ecolbus
2008-01-18 18:20 ` Olivier Galibert
2008-01-18 12:45 ecolbus
2008-01-18 15:20 ` Giacomo A. Catenazzi
[not found] <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKIEGIJJAC.davids@webmaster.com>
2008-01-17 21:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-17 22:28 ` David Schwartz
2008-01-17 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-18 0:56 ` David Schwartz
2008-01-18 1:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-18 5:02 ` David Schwartz
2008-01-18 15:38 ` Chris Friesen
2008-01-18 16:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-18 20:55 ` David Schwartz
2008-01-18 17:37 ` Olivier Galibert
2008-01-18 18:06 ` DM
2008-01-18 7:51 ` Giacomo Catenazzi
2008-01-18 8:20 ` Giacomo Catenazzi
2008-01-18 13:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2008-01-18 17:24 ` Olivier Galibert
2008-01-18 22:29 ` J.A. Magallón
2008-01-18 23:44 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2008-01-18 13:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2008-01-18 19:14 ` Vadim Lobanov
2008-01-18 19:31 ` Zan Lynx
2008-01-18 19:55 ` Vadim Lobanov
2008-01-18 8:30 ` Vadim Lobanov
2008-01-18 9:48 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2008-01-18 11:47 ` Giacomo A. Catenazzi
2008-01-18 14:39 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2008-01-18 19:06 ` Vadim Lobanov
2008-01-18 13:31 ` Björn Steinbrink
2008-01-18 14:53 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2008-01-16 16:32 Johannes Weiner
2008-01-16 16:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-01-16 17:34 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2008-01-16 17:45 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-01-16 18:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-16 22:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-01-16 22:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-01-16 22:37 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-01-16 23:13 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-01-16 23:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-16 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-16 22:33 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50F26BE0.7020005@gmail.com \
--to=chen.gang.flying.transformer@gmail.com \
--cc=antoine.trux@gmail.com \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=fa.linux.kernel@googlegroups.com \
--cc=hannes@saeurebad.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).