On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:38 AM Derrick Stolee
<derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/24/2022 11:20 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 7:02 AM Kevin Locke <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 14:57 -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> >>> On 5/21/22 9:53 AM, Kevin Locke wrote:
> >>>> + free((char*)tmp_original_cwd);
> >>>
> >>> Hm. I'm never a fan of this casting, but it existed before. It's
> >>> because tmp_original_cwd is exposed globally in cache.h, which
> >>> is _really widely_. However, there are only two uses: setup.c,
> >>> which defines it, and common-main.c, which initializes it during
> >>> process startup.
> ...>> This approach seems reasonable to me, as does casting to free(). It's
> >> not clear to me which is preferable in this case. How to balance the
> >> trade-offs between exposing const interfaces, limiting (internal)
> >> interfaces to headers, and avoiding casts might be worth discussing
> >> and documenting a matter of project coding style. `grep -rF 'free(('`
> >> lists about 100 casts to free, suggesting the discussion may be
> >> worthwhile. Introducing a free_const() macro could be another option
> >> to consider.
> >
> > I'd prefer either a free_const() as you suggest (though as a separate
> > patch from what you are submitting here), or leaving the code as-is.
> > free() could have been written to take a const void* instead of just
> > void*, since it's not going to modify what the pointer points at. The
> > reason we call free() is because the variable isn't needed anymore,
> > and using a non-const value after freeing is just as wrong as using a
> > const one after freeing, so casting away the constness cannot really
> > cause any new problems. So, I think the signature of free() is just
> > wrong: it should have taken a const void* all along. Unfortunately,
> > the wrong type signature sadly makes people feel like they have to
> > choose between (a) dropping the added safety of const that the
> > compiler can enforce for you during the lifetime of the variable, or
> > (b) leaking memory you no longer need. I think it's a bad choice and
> > you should just typecast when free'ing, but clearly others just don't
> > want to see any typecasts and are willing to dispense with const on
> > constant variables.
>
> I mostly agree with you: if free() didn't have the const, then the
> answer would be simple. We probably wouldn't also have the convention
> of "const pointers are for memory we don't own".
>
> Specifically with 'const char *' this can sometimes point to a
> compiled string literal, so I tend to be more careful than usual
> around these kinds of casts.
Ah, fair enough.
> I'm willing to concede this point as it is much messier than just
> the goals of this patch.
:-)
