Should useless type qualifiers on return types be used, for clarity?

by

It’s usually better for your code to describe as accurately as possible what’s going on. You’re getting this warning because the const in const int foo(); is basically meaningless. The API only seems clearer if you don’t know what the const keyword means. Don’t overload meaning like that; static is bad enough as it is, and there’s no reason to add the potential for more confusion.

const char * means something different than const int does, which is why your tool doesn’t complain about it. The former is a pointer to a constant string, meaning any code calling the function returning that type shouldn’t try to modify the contents of the string (it might be in ROM for example). In the latter case, the system has no way to enforce that you not make changes to the returned int, so the qualifier is meaningless. A closer parallel to the return types would be:

const int foo();
char * const foo2();

which will both cause your static analysis to give the warning – adding a const qualifier to a return value is a meaningless operation. It only makes sense when you have a a reference parameter (or return type), like your const char * example.

In fact, I just made a little test program, and GCC even explicitly warns about this problem:

test.c:6: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type

So it’s not just your static analysis program that’s complaining.

More Related Contents:

  1. What is the difference between char s[] and char *s?
  2. Can a const variable be used to declare the size of an array in C?
  3. Are string literals const?
  4. Setting variable to NULL after free
  5. typedef pointer const weirdness
  6. constant pointer vs pointer on a constant value [duplicate]
  7. Constant pointer vs Pointer to constant [duplicate]
  8. Opaque C structs: various ways to declare them
  9. what is the reason for explicitly declaring L or UL for long values
  10. Shall I prefer constants over defines?
  11. Variably modified array at file scope
  12. Difference between char* and const char*?
  13. Why am I being allowed to use a const qualified variable as an array size in C?
  14. __attribute__((const)) vs __attribute__((pure)) in GNU C
  15. Unsigned hexadecimal constant in C?
  16. Unable to free const pointers in C
  17. How to initialize const in a struct in C (with malloc)
  18. Confusion regarding modification of const variable using pointers
  19. srand function is returning same values
  20. Strange warning in a C function const multidimensional-array argument
  21. Why do most C developers use define instead of const? [duplicate]
  22. Deep Analysis of Const Qualifier in C
  23. Why declare a struct that only contains an array in C?
  24. Is the sizeof(enum) == sizeof(int), always?
  25. Isn’t the const modifier here unnecessary? [duplicate]
  26. Do you prefer “if (var)” or “if (var != 0)”? [closed]
  27. Ignoring return values in C
  28. Is it Undefined Behaviour to cast away the constness of a function parameter?
  29. Why is “typedef struct foo foo;” considered harmful?
  30. Need for prefixing a function with (void)

Leave a Comment