C++ – Non-Const Reference to Non-Const Pointer to Const Object

c++pointersreference

In simple words I have a simple pointer:

int* a;

now, I would like to change value of this pointer. I want to do this in a function. Function assures, that it will not change object, that pointer points to, but will change a pointer itself. This is why I would like this function to take argument like: non-const reference (because value of pointer will be changed) to the non-const pointer(pointer itself can be changed) pointing to const object (function assures, that object, that pointer points to will not be changed).

The simplest function would be:

void function(const int*& a){
    a = 0;
}

but when I try to call this function:

int main(){
    int* a;
    function(a);
    return 0;
}

Compiler is unhappy and says:

invalid initialization of non-const reference of type 'const int*&' from an rvalue of type 'const int*'
function(a);

I cannot quite understand this error, as for me there is no rvalue involved (I am passing a reference to object, that already exists on the stack.)

Question is, how can I do it properly?

Example can be found here: https://ideone.com/D45Cid

EDIT:

It was suggested, that my question is simillar to the Why isn't it legal to convert "pointer to pointer to non-const" to a "pointer to pointer to const"

My question is different as I do not use pointer to pointer I use only pointer to object/value and store reference to it, therefore situation like in the answer to that question:

const char c = 'c';
char* pc;
const char** pcc = &pc;   // not allowed
*pcc = &c;
*pc = 'C';                // would allow to modify a const object

Is impossible in my case, as I cannot dereference the top level pointer (I do not have such a pointer).

Moreover I questioned about nice and clean solution to this problem, which is not covered in a question

Best Answer

I cannot quite understand this error, as for me there is no rvalue involved (I am passing a reference to object, that already exists on the stack.)

int* and const int* are different things. When you pass a of type int* to function(const int*&), it need to be implicitly casted to const int* firstly, which is temporary, i.e. rvalue, and couldn't be bound to non-const referece. That's why compiler complains.

Question is, how can I do it properly?

You could change the type of a or the parameter type of function() to make them match exactly (might be const int* if you won't change the value pointed by the pointer), to avoid the implicit conversion and temporary variable. Or as @TartanLlama suggested, return the new value of pointer from function().

Dynamic allocation

In your question, you've demonstrated two ways of creating an object. The main difference is the storage duration of the object. When doing Object myObject; within a block, the object is created with automatic storage duration, which means it will be destroyed automatically when it goes out of scope. When you do new Object(), the object has dynamic storage duration, which means it stays alive until you explicitly delete it. You should only use dynamic storage duration when you need it. That is, you should always prefer creating objects with automatic storage duration when you can.

The main two situations in which you might require dynamic allocation:

You need the object to outlive the current scope - that specific object at that specific memory location, not a copy of it. If you're okay with copying/moving the object (most of the time you should be), you should prefer an automatic object.
You need to allocate a lot of memory, which may easily fill up the stack. It would be nice if we didn't have to concern ourselves with this (most of the time you shouldn't have to), as it's really outside the purview of C++, but unfortunately, we have to deal with the reality of the systems we're developing for.

When you do absolutely require dynamic allocation, you should encapsulate it in a smart pointer or some other type that performs RAII (like the standard containers). Smart pointers provide ownership semantics of dynamically allocated objects. Take a look at std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr, for example. If you use them appropriately, you can almost entirely avoid performing your own memory management (see the Rule of Zero).

Pointers

However, there are other more general uses for raw pointers beyond dynamic allocation, but most have alternatives that you should prefer. As before, always prefer the alternatives unless you really need pointers.

You need reference semantics. Sometimes you want to pass an object using a pointer (regardless of how it was allocated) because you want the function to which you're passing it to have access that that specific object (not a copy of it). However, in most situations, you should prefer reference types to pointers, because this is specifically what they're designed for. Note this is not necessarily about extending the lifetime of the object beyond the current scope, as in situation 1 above. As before, if you're okay with passing a copy of the object, you don't need reference semantics.
You need polymorphism. You can only call functions polymorphically (that is, according to the dynamic type of an object) through a pointer or reference to the object. If that's the behavior you need, then you need to use pointers or references. Again, references should be preferred.
You want to represent that an object is optional by allowing a nullptr to be passed when the object is being omitted. If it's an argument, you should prefer to use default arguments or function overloads. Otherwise, you should preferably use a type that encapsulates this behavior, such as std::optional (introduced in C++17 - with earlier C++ standards, use boost::optional).
You want to decouple compilation units to improve compilation time. The useful property of a pointer is that you only require a forward declaration of the pointed-to type (to actually use the object, you'll need a definition). This allows you to decouple parts of your compilation process, which may significantly improve compilation time. See the Pimpl idiom.
You need to interface with a C library or a C-style library. At this point, you're forced to use raw pointers. The best thing you can do is make sure you only let your raw pointers loose at the last possible moment. You can get a raw pointer from a smart pointer, for example, by using its get member function. If a library performs some allocation for you which it expects you to deallocate via a handle, you can often wrap the handle up in a smart pointer with a custom deleter that will deallocate the object appropriately.

C++ – Difference Between const int, const int const, and int const *

Read it backwards (as driven by Clockwise/Spiral Rule):

int* - pointer to int
int const * - pointer to const int
int * const - const pointer to int
int const * const - const pointer to const int

Now the first const can be on either side of the type so:

const int * == int const *
const int * const == int const * const

If you want to go really crazy you can do things like this:

int ** - pointer to pointer to int
int ** const - a const pointer to a pointer to an int
int * const * - a pointer to a const pointer to an int
int const ** - a pointer to a pointer to a const int
int * const * const - a const pointer to a const pointer to an int
...

If you're ever uncertain, you can use a tool like cdecl+ to convert declarations to prose automatically.

To make sure we are clear on the meaning of const:

int a = 5, b = 10, c = 15;

const int* foo;     // pointer to constant int.
foo = &a;           // assignment to where foo points to.

/* dummy statement*/
*foo = 6;           // the value of a can´t get changed through the pointer.

foo = &b;           // the pointer foo can be changed.



int *const bar = &c;  // constant pointer to int 
                      // note, you actually need to set the pointer 
                      // here because you can't change it later ;)

*bar = 16;            // the value of c can be changed through the pointer.    

/* dummy statement*/
bar = &a;             // not possible because bar is a constant pointer.

foo is a variable pointer to a constant integer. This lets you change what you point to but not the value that you point to. Most often this is seen with C-style strings where you have a pointer to a const char. You may change which string you point to but you can't change the content of these strings. This is important when the string itself is in the data segment of a program and shouldn't be changed.

bar is a constant or fixed pointer to a value that can be changed. This is like a reference without the extra syntactic sugar. Because of this fact, usually you would use a reference where you would use a T* const pointer unless you need to allow NULL pointers.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

C++ – Why Use a Pointer Instead of the Object Itself

Dynamic allocation

Pointers

C++ – Difference Between const int*, const int * const, and int const *

Related Question

C++ – Difference Between const int, const int const, and int const *