On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 20:15 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:14:56PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 17:05 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > [...] > > > I might end up myself using > > > free_const() everywhere not to figure out if it is const or not, > > > because I don't really care. > > > > That seems not a good practice. Const-correctness may help you to > > catch > > bugs via unwanted modifications. If constness is unnecessarily cast > > away, it's looses such hints from the compiler. > > Why should I care if the pointer is const or not if what I need to > free it? There might be a mistake/bug, and the thing should not actually be freed. We need every help from the compiler we can get (compiler warnings, strong typing/const-correctness, static assertions). Normally, the compiler would help and complain against free() of a const pointer. With xfree()/free_const() used eagerly, it does not help. Thomas
