Re: MSDN const_cast sample



Hi Ben,


I have used Visual Studio 2008 tested your code works. The output is 425.

I do not quite understand what do you mean,

I see no reason to believe that the compiler won't use the register used to
hold j instead of reading memory again. For that matter, it is probably
allowable to delay assigning a value to j until after the call to mutate.

What do you mean *won't use the register* and *delay assigning*? Is it some
special approaches to do optimization? Could you provide more descriptions
please?


regards,
George

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" wrote:

Otherwise, a compiler is non-compliant if casting away const doesn't
work.
Assuming this code:

void mutate( int const& i) {
const_cast<int&>(i) = 42;
}

int i = 5;
mutate(i);
std::cout << i << std::endl;

I would assume the compiler to behave properly and output 42. Do you know
of
any compilers that don't?

It should. It is only undefined behaviour if the variable/object being
modified was originally created as const. Here, i is not. And hence,
the modification should work. Don't know of a compiler that would go
against the above though.

I don't think "originally created as non-const" is sufficient.

For example:

void mutate( int const& i) {
const_cast<int&>(i) = 42;
}

void f(const int* const p)
{
int j = *p;
mutate(*p);
std::cout << *p << j << std::endl;
}

int i = 5;
f(&i);

I see no reason to believe that the compiler won't use the register used to
hold j instead of reading memory again. For that matter, it is probably
allowable to delay assigning a value to j until after the call to mutate.



.