🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.std.c, Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<Is there any good reason why free shouldn't be declared as:

<void free(const void *ptr);

<in the standard? I don't believe there is any notion of altering a variable
<when it is destroyed - after all const auto variables are destroyed just like
<any other auto variable when they go out of scope.

I like implementations of free() that scribble on the memory they free,
at least as a compile time option. I have the sense that, as const
promises no modification to the object, that there would be some
murky water there.
I certainly would not want a compiler to assume that 

    int *p;
    p = malloc(sizeof(*p)); /* assume nonNULL return */
    *p = 3;
    free(p); /* goodbye *p, free will piddle on you */
    use(*p); /* hey! The compiler planted use(3) here! Blast that const! */

could safely assume that free(p) didn't modify *p, which the const
would imply. I'd rather have a free() that deliberately mucked *p and
then take the consequences, without the compiler hiding them.

(Yes, I know this code fragment is immoral and undefined. That's the
point. I want the runtime to have the right to trip me up and the
compiler not to "optimize" that tripping-up out of existance.)

-- 
Alt.devilbunnies - it's not a job, it's an adventure