C-Style strings to std::string conversion clarification - c++

Question

I've got a couple questions that I think will be quite easy for someone with C++ experience to answer, I'll bold the quesitons for the TL;DR
Given the following code:
void stringTest(const std::string &s)
{
std::cout << s << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
stringTest("HelloWorld");
}
Hopefuly someone can point out the error in my thought process here:
Why does the parameter in stringTest have to be marked const when passed a C-Style string? Isn't there an implicit conversion to an std::string that takes place using its cstyle string constructor, therefore "s" is no longer a reference to a literal (and is not required to be const).
Furthermore, what would a cstyle string constructor look like, and how does the compiler know to invoke this upon seeing:
stringTest("HelloWorld");
Does it simply recognize a string literal to be something like a char*?
I've stumbled upon these questions while studying copy constructors. Another quick quesiton for my own clarification...
In the case of something like:
std::string s = "HelloWorld";
Is the cstyle string constructor used to instantiate a temporary std::string, and then the temporary string is copied into "s" using the string copy constructor?:
std::string(const std::string&);

Answer 1

Why does the parameter in stringTest have to be marked const when passed a C-Style string?
It only has to when the parameter is a reference, since a temporary std::string is constructed from the char const* you pass in and a non-const reference to a temporary is illegal.
Does it simply recognize a string literal to be something like a char*?
A string literal is a char const array, which decays to char const*. From that, the compiler infers that it should use the non-explicit constructor std::string::string(char const *) to construct the temporary.
Is the cstyle constructor used to instantiate a temporary std::string, and then the temporary string is copied into "s" using the string copy constructor?
It's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, a temporary is created. But the copy constructor may or may not be called; the compiler is allowed to skip the copy construction as an optimization. The copy constructor must still be provided, though, so the following won't compile:
class String {
String(char const *) {}
private:
String(String const &);
};
int main()
{
String s = "";
}
Also, in C++11 the move constructor will be used, if provided; in that case, the copy constructor is not required.

Answer 2

Does it simply recognize a string literal to be something like a
char*?
This part of the original question wasn't answered as clearly as I'd have liked. I fully endorse (and up-voted) Yossarian's answer for the rest though.
Basically, you need to understand what the compiler is doing when it sees a string literal in the code. That array of chars (as any c-style string really is) is actually stored in a completely different location than the code it's a part of (depending on the architecture, numeric literals can be stored at the location itself as part of the assembly/binary instruction). The two blocks of code here are "more or less" equivalent (ignore lack of includes or namespace declarations) :
int main(void)
{
cout << "Hello!" << endl;
return 0;
}
This is closer to what's "really" happening:
const char HELLO_STR[] = { 'H', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o', '!', 0 };
int main(void)
{
cout << HELLO_STR << endl;
return 0;
}
Forgive me if I made an error in array init or whatever, but I think this expresses what I mean as for where the string literal is "really" stored. It's not in-line, but is an invisible constant to another part of the program where it's defined. In addition, some (most?) compilers out there also arrange the string literals "together" so that if you have the same literal used in 50 places, it only stores one of them, and all of them refer back to the same constant, saving memory.
So remember that any time you're using a string literal, you're using a const char[N] that exists "invisibly" somewhere, that is implicitly converted to const char*.

Answer 3

Why does the parameter in stringTest have to be marked const when passed a C-Style string?
EDIT:
Temporaries must be immutable. See larsmans comment and answer, he is right.
Simple reason:
void change(std::string& c) { c = "abc"; }
change("test"); // what should the code exactly do??
Furthermore, what would a cstyle string constructor look like, and how does the compiler know to invoke this upon seeing:
It looks up std::string for string(char*) constructor
In the case of something like:
std::string s = "HelloWorld";
Is the cstyle constructor used to instantiate a temporary std::string, and then the temporary string is copied into "s" using the string copy constructor?:
std::string(const std::string&);
No. In this exact case (TYPE variable = SOMETHING), it is the same as writing TYPE variable(SOMETHING);. So, no copying is used.

Answer 4

The const string & s is in this example required to invoke the constructor from the argument "HelloWorld". The constructor used is the type-conversion construction.
A string& s won't do because s is directly referencing a string object.
The type conversion is defined by something similar to
basic_string(const _CharT* __s);
With a typedef
typedef basic_string<char> string;
So the declaration would evaluate to
basic_string(const char * __s)