Is it possible to make a const& truely immutable?
int* side_effect;
void function(int const& i){
*side_effect = 123;
}
int main(){
int i = 0;
side_effect = &i;
//based on the function signature, i is suspected not to change.
//however, that is not the case.
function(i);
}
Are there any compiler warnings, attributes, compiler extensions, or language features I can employ to avoid these kinds of problems?
If you want a value to be a true constant, you can pass it as a template value argument.
template<int i>
void function(){
*side_effect = 123;
}
there is no way for any operation to modify i.
This requires that the input be a compile-time constant (and verified so by the compiler at compile time).
So this doesn't work:
int main(){
int i = 0;
side_effect = &i;
function<i>();
}
as i is not a compile-time constant. If we instead made it:
int main(){
const int i = 0;
side_effect = &i;
function<i>();
}
the function<i> line works, but the side_effect = &i doesn't work. If we add in a cast:
int main(){
const int i = 0;
side_effect = const_cast<int*>(&i);
function<i>();
}
now the operation *side_effect = 123 becomes UB within function.
Another approach which doesn't require that the value being passed in is a true compile-time constant is to not take a reference:
void function(int i){
*side_effect = 123;
}
and instead take a local copy (either int or const int as the argument, depending on if we want function to have the rights to modify i).
The full strength version of what you want -- that we take a reference to external data, and then ensure that the external data remains unchanged -- can pretty easily be shown to be equivalent to the halting problem in the general case.
Related
const int* additional(int* s, int* f){
const int* ts = reinterpret_cast<const int*>(*s + *f);
return ts;
}
int main() {
int a = 10, b = 20;
const int* oc = additional(&a, &b);
std::cout << *oc;
return 0;
}
I've tried using static, although it produces the same error
There are many things wrong with your code.
*s + *f is an int, not a pointer (you add the dereferenced values).
you are doing a reinterpret cast which isn't needed at all. Just pass the int's directly without pointers and you are good to go.
const int additional(int s, int f){
return s + f;
}
int main() {
int a = 10, b = 20;
const int oc = additional(a, b);
std::cout << oc;
return 0;
}
You reinterpret the number 30 as a pointer to const int and attempt to read through the reinterpreted pointer. The operating system noticed that the process was attempting to access an address wasn't mapped for the process and sent the segfault signal to terminate the process in order to protect the badly behaving process from itself.
Reinterpret casting is unsafe. Don't use it unless you know what you're doing. And when you know what you're doing, you'll know that it's quite rare to need to use it.
I was aiming to shorten the int t = *f + *s;
That is already extremely short. The function that you defined is much longer and so is even a call to the function. Note that the initialiser expression that you quote has type int while your function returns const int*. That, along with the broken reinterpret cast are the problem.
If you wanted to make the indirection shorter, then how about using references instead of pointers:
const int& f = a;
const int& s = b;
int t = a + b; // shorter
#include <array>
int value1(int param) {
return param * 2;
}
constexpr int value2(int param) {
return param * 2;
}
int main() {
const int i = 10;
std::array<int, value1(i)> starr1 = {}; // 1
std::array<int, value2(i)> starr2 = {}; // 2
return 0;
}
2 is okay, but 1 gives a compile error because std::array has to make static size array. value2() returns compile-time constant value because of constexpr keyword.
So, how does the compiler infer that value2(i) is compile-time constant? Does it call the function value2() while compiling?
const int value1(int param) {
return param * 2;
}
int main() {
const int i = 10;
std::array<int, value1(i)> starr1 = {}; // 3
return 0;
}
>>> error: call to non-constexpr function ‘const int value1(int)’
Also, 3 still tgives a compile error. Is value1(i) not compile-time constant even though const keyword is applied to the function value1()?
So, how compiler infer value2(i) is compile-time constant?
It doesn't infer that. You state that explicitly when you annotate it with constexpr. It might infer that for functions not marked with constexpr, though. This still won't allow you to use their results in compile-time expressions, and is only used as an optimization strategy.
Does it call the function value2() while compiling?
In a sense, yes. It's probably closer to interpreting it directly, since I don't think any compiler actually compiles that function for the purposes of executing it during the build. What matters is that it's able to establish its result before the entire program is built and ran, and that it can use that result to e.g. determine the size of your array when generating the code.
Is value1(i) not compile constant even though const keyword is applied to the function value1()?
It's not. const only applies to the return type (and in this case, it's effectively useless), not the evaluation possibility in compile-time.
This is a C++ programming code to display the values of array1 and array2 but I am getting a compile time error as 'Constant Expression Required'. Please Help
void display(const int const1 = 5)
{
const int const2 = 5;
int array1[const1];
int array2[const2];
for(int i = 1 ; i < 5 ; i++)
{
array1[i] = i;
array2[i] = i * 10;
std::cout << array1[i] << std::endl;
}
}
void main()
{
display(5);
}
In C++, const is not always constexpr. Back in the days, constexpr didn't exist, so the only way of having a compile time constant was to either use const with a literal, or to use enum, because both of these are easy for the compiler to check the value.
However, in C++11, we added constexpr, which guaranties that a constexpr variable has a value available at compile-time, and state that constexpr function can be evaluated aat compile time if all arguments are constexpr too.
In your code, you can write your variable const2 like this:
void display(const int const1=5)
{
constexpr int const2 = 5;
// ...
}
Now your code is much more expressive about what you are doing. instead of relying that the const may be available at compile time, you say "this variable has a value known at compile time, here's the value".
However, if you try to change const1, you'll get an error. Parameters, even with default value always as a value known at runtime. If the value is only known at runtime, you can't use it in template parameters or array size.
If you want your function to be able to receive the value const1 as a constant expression from where you can receive it as a template parameter, since template parameters are always known at compile time.
template<int const1 = 5>
void display()
{
constexpr int const2 = 5;
int array1[const1];
int array2[const2];
}
You will have to call your function like that:
// const1 is 5
display();
// const1 is 10
display<10>();
If you want to know more about templates, go check Function templates, or this tutorial
This question already has answers here:
How do I use arrays in C++?
(5 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I have looked at all the other posts with a similar topic, and none help, so please don't flag as a duplicate.
I am defining in main() a const int SIZE = 20;. Then, I pass this as an argument to my function, Mode:
int* Mode(int* numbers, int & mode, const int SIZE)
{
int occurences[SIZE];
// Calcualte mode
}
However, I get the error, expression must have a constant value.
My function call (in main) looks like this:
int* occurencesPtr = Mode(numbersPtr, mode, SIZE);
With SIZE being defined at the beginning to the literal 20.
I understand that the error is because the function's version of SIZE only acquires its value when the function is called (?), but I don't know how I could work around this.
I have even tried passing to the function a const int * const SIZEPtr = &SIZE, but that didn't work either. Help?
EDIT: I am not trying to use a variable size!! Notice that I have made SIZE a const everywhere! I just want to use that same SIZE constant to declare my array.
EDIT: Dynamic arrays are not what I need. I just want a normal, named, array, defined with a constant size value passed to the function.
There is a misconception here with what const means, probably because it's a little confusing that this works:
const int SIZE = 20;
int array[SIZE];
but this doesn't:
void foo(const int SIZE) {
int array[SIZE];
// ...
}
const int SIZE = 20;
foo(SIZE);
The issue is that the array size in an array declaration must be a core constant expression. Simplified, that means an expression that's evaluatable at compile time to be a constant. That is true in the first case (you can see that SIZE is the integral constant 20) but that is not true in the second case. There, the SIZE function parameter is just const - in the sense that it is nonmodifiable - and not a core constant expression. You can see the difference in that I can call foo() with something that is clearly unknowable until runtime:
int x;
if (std::cin >> x) {
foo(x);
}
In order to pass an argument into foo, and have that argument be used as an array bound, it is not enough to have it be const - the actual integral value must be encoded into the type (unless you call foo() as constexpr which I'm assuming is not the case here). In which case, you'd have to do something like:
template <int SIZE>
void foo() { ... }
const int SIZE = 20;
foo<SIZE>();
or:
template <int SIZE>
void foo(std::integral_constant<int, SIZE > ) { ... }
const int SIZE = 20;
foo(std::integral_constant<int, SIZE>{} );
or simply have SIZE be a global constant or otherwise accessible to foo() in a way that doesn't have to do with its arguments.
Or, there's always the simple option: use std::vector:
void foo(const int SIZE) {
std::vector<int> v(SIZE);
...
}
I understand that the error is because the function's version of SIZE only acquires its value when the function is called (?), but I don't know how I could work around this.
Option 1
Instead of defining SIZE in main, add a constexpr function. Use the constexpr function instead of passing the size.
constexpr int getSize()
{
return 20;
}
int* Mode(int* numbers, int & mode)
{
int occurences[getSize()];
// ...
}
Option 2
Use std::vector instead of array.
int* Mode(int* numbers, int & mode, int size)
{
std::vector<int> occurences[size];
// ...
}
Option 3
Use a function template.
template <size_t SIZE>
int* Mode(int* numbers, int & mode, int size)
{
int occurences[SIZE];
// ...
}
Option 4
Use a function template and std::array.
template <size_t SIZE>
int* Mode(int* numbers, int & mode, int size)
{
std::array<int, SIZE> occurences;
// ...
}
You're confusing things. A constant expression has nothing to do with const (at least not that much) ;).
let's think we are the compiler and face this function:
void foo(const int SIZE) { }
The constmerely says "we are not able to change the function-local variable SIZE inside the function body.
We need to compile it without assuming that SIZE is compile time constant. Why?
Because there is noone stoping us from doing something like:
int i{};
std::cin >> i;
foo(i);
You can pass any (matching/convertible) value to a by value const function argument.
What should happen when the compiler assumed the value passed to foo was a compile time constant expression?
If you want to pass compile time constants, use templates and while you're at it use std::array instead of T[N]:
template<std::size_t N>
void foo()
{
std::array<int, N> occurences;
}
const isn't doing what you think it's doing in your Mode function.
When const is used in function definition, const is simply telling the compiler that the function will not change the argument declared const inside of the scope of it's function. But that does not make the argument a constant, it is actually called a constant expression. Some compilers enforce this, others do not, and so will allow you to change const expressions (arguments passed with const keyword).
In order to use a globally accessible constant value which you can use, like SIZE, you'll need to declare a global constant before the function is called; which could be declared outside of main(), or at least outside the scope of all other functions but main(), if you must declare all inside main. Pass the global constant to the Mode function just as you would any other variable.
Oh, and, main() needs a return type.
I've edited the code to meet your specific constraints.
Here is a variation on your original code:
int main(){
//Declare constants first.
const int SIZE = 20; /*Could declare here instead.*/
//Declare variables next.
int *intPtr = 0; // to hold the pointer passed from Mode.
int *numbersPointer = 0;
int mode = 0;
//Define Mode (using OP's code.)
int* Mode(int* numbers, int & mode, const int size){
int occurences[size];
// Calculate mode
}
/*Now use constants, variables, and functions.*/
intPtr = Mode(numbersPointer, mode, SIZE); //Call mode.
return 0;
}
So I just had a thought, is it possible to return a parameter sent when a function is called. And if it is, is this considered fine or is it bad style?
Example:
int main()
{
...
int value = 1;
value = Foo(value);
...
}
int Foo(int i)
{
i = i * 2;
return (i);
}
As the parameter is being passed in and returned by value, this is fine - there is an implicit copy occurring when you call the function and when it returns.
For example
int value=1,other=0;
other=Foo(value);
other is now 2, value will still be 1
If you were passing in a reference or pointer then you would potentially run risks.
e.g. if the signature of Foo was
int Foo( int &i )
Then after the code chunk I used above, both other and value would be 2
There's no problem with "returning a parameter" in your example. You are not really "returning a parameter" at all. You are simply using the parameter in the argument expression of return. It is the result of that expression (the value of i) that gets returned, not the parameter itself.
One can argue that the "undesirable" property of your code sample is the fact that you are modifying the parameter inside the function, i.e. you are using the parameter as an ordinary local variable. There's nothing formally wrong with it, but sometimes people prefer to preserve the original parameter values throughout the function body. I.e. from that point of view your function would look better as
int Foo(int i)
{
return i * 2;
}
or as
int Foo(int i)
{
int i2 = i * 2;
return i2;
}
but, again, it is not really about "not returning a parameter", but rather about leaving the original value of i untouched inside the function.
There's no problem with doing that and it makes it very clear what's going on.
That's one valid approach to do this, but you might also like the idea of passing by reference:
int main()
{
...
int value = 1;
Foo(value);
...
}
void Foo(int &i)
{
i = i * 2;
}
The drawback to this approach is that you have to pass what's called an lvalue into the function-- basically, something that can be on the left side of an assignment statement, which here means a variable. A call with a literal or temporary, such as Foo(2), will fail to compile. The way you had written it originally will instead do an implicit copy by value into the local scope of the Foo function. Note that the return value is now also void.
Technically, there is no problem, but semantically, it is not advisable: in most cases the input of the function and the return value of the function are not the same, so you are reusing the variable to mean something different. It is clearer in next example
int main()
{
double i = 5;
i = getSquareSurface(i); // i was a length and is now a surface
}
This should be:
int main()
{
double length = 5;
double surface = getSquareSurface(length);
}
Of course, there are cases like the addOne() or in this case the Foo() function where the meaning doesn't change.