static int* p= (int*)(&foo);
I just know p points to a memory in the code segment.
But I don't know what exactly happens in this line.
I thought maybe it's a pointer to a function but the format to point a function is:
returnType (*pointerName) (params,...);
pointerName = &someFunc; // or pointerName=someFunc;
You take the address of foo and cast it to pointer to int.
If foo and p are of different types, the compiler might issue a warning about type mismatch. The cast is to supress that warning.
For example, consider the following code, which causes a warning from the compiler (initialization from incompatible pointer type):
float foo = 42;
int *p = &foo;
Here foo is a float, while p points to an int. Clearly - different types.
A typecasting makes the compiler treat one variable as if it was of different type. You typecast by putting new type name in parenthesis. Here we will make pointer to float to be treated like a pointer to int and the warning will be no more:
float foo = 5;
int *p = (int*)(&foo);
You could've omitted one pair of parenthesis as well and it'd mean the same:
float foo = 5;
int *p = (int*)&foo;
The issue is the same if foo is a function. We have a pointer to a function on right side of assignment and a pointer to int on left side. A cast would be added to make a pointer to function to be treated as an address of int.
A pointer of a type which points to an object (i.e. not void* and not a
pointer to a function) cannot be stored to a pointer to any other kind of
object without a cast, except in a few cases where the types are identical
except for qualifiers. Conforming compilers are required to issue a
diagnostic if that rule is broken.
Beyond that, the Standard allows compilers to interpret code that casts
pointers in nonsensical fashion unless code aides by some restrictions
which, as written make such casts essentially useless, for the nominal
purpose of promoting optimization. When the rules were written, most
compilers would probably do about half of the optimizations that would
be allowed under the rules, but would still process pointer casts sensibly
since doing so would cost maybe 5% of the theoretically-possible
optimizations. Today, however, it is more fashionable for compiler writers
to seek out all cases where an optimization would be allowed by the
Standard without regard for whether they make sense.
Compilers like gcc have an option -fno-strict-aliasing that blocks this
kind of optimization, both in cases where it would offer big benefits and
little risk, as well as in the cases where it would almost certainly break
code and be unlikely to offer any real benefit. It would be helpful if they
had an option to block only the latter, but I'm unaware of one. Thus, my
recommendation is that unless one wants to program in a very limited subset
of Dennis Ritchie's language, I'd suggest targeting the -fno-strict-aliasing
dialect.
Related
Now before people start marking this a dup, I've read all the following, none of which provide the answer I'm looking for:
C FAQ: What's wrong with casting malloc's return value?
SO: Should I explicitly cast malloc()’s return value?
SO: Needless pointer-casts in C
SO: Do I cast the result of malloc?
Both the C FAQ and many answers to the above questions cite a mysterious error that casting malloc's return value can hide; however, none of them give a specific example of such an error in practice. Now pay attention that I said error, not warning.
Now given the following code:
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
// #include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char * p = /*(char*)*/malloc(10);
strcpy(p, "hello");
printf("%s\n", p);
return 0;
}
Compiling the above code with gcc 4.2, with and without the cast gives the same warnings, and the program executes properly and provides the same results in both cases.
anon#anon:~/$ gcc -Wextra nostdlib_malloc.c -o nostdlib_malloc
nostdlib_malloc.c: In function ‘main’:
nostdlib_malloc.c:7: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ‘malloc’
anon#anon:~/$ ./nostdlib_malloc
hello
So can anyone give a specific code example of a compile or runtime error that could occur because of casting malloc's return value, or is this just an urban legend?
Edit I've come across two well written arguments regarding this issue:
In Favor of Casting: CERT Advisory: Immediately cast the result of a memory allocation function call into a pointer to the allocated type
Against Casting (404 error as of 2012-02-14: use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine copy from 2010-01-27.{2016-03-18:"Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt."})
You won't get a compiler error, but a compiler warning. As the sources you cite say (especially the first one), you can get an unpredictable runtime error when using the cast without including stdlib.h.
So the error on your side is not the cast, but forgetting to include stdlib.h. Compilers may assume that malloc is a function returning int, therefore converting the void* pointer actually returned by malloc to int and then to your pointer type due to the explicit cast. On some platforms, int and pointers may take up different numbers of bytes, so the type conversions may lead to data corruption.
Fortunately, modern compilers give warnings that point to your actual error. See the gcc output you supplied: It warns you that the implicit declaration (int malloc(int)) is incompatible to the built-in malloc. So gcc seems to know malloc even without stdlib.h.
Leaving out the cast to prevent this error is mostly the same reasoning as writing
if (0 == my_var)
instead of
if (my_var == 0)
since the latter could lead to a serious bug if one would confuse = and ==, whereas the first one would lead to a compile error. I personally prefer the latter style since it better reflects my intention and I don't tend to do this mistake.
The same is true for casting the value returned by malloc: I prefer being explicit in programming and I generally double-check to include the header files for all functions I use.
One of the good higher-level arguments against casting the result of malloc is often left unmentioned, even though, in my opinion, it is more important than the well-known lower-level issues (like truncating the pointer when the declaration is missing).
A good programming practice is to write code, which is as type-independent as possible. This means, in particular, that type names should be mentioned in the code as little as possible or best not mentioned at all. This applies to casts (avoid unnecessary casts), types as arguments of sizeof (avoid using type names in sizeof) and, generally, all other references to type names.
Type names belong in declarations. As much as possible, type names should be restricted to declarations and only to declarations.
From this point of view, this bit of code is bad
int *p;
...
p = (int*) malloc(n * sizeof(int));
and this is much better
int *p;
...
p = malloc(n * sizeof *p);
not simply because it "doesn't cast the result of malloc", but rather because it is type-independent (or type-agnositic, if you prefer), because it automatically adjusts itself to whatever type p is declared with, without requiring any intervention from the user.
Non-prototyped functions are assumed to return int.
So you're casting an int to a pointer. If pointers are wider than ints on your platform, this is highly risky behavior.
Plus, of course, that some people consider warnings to be errors, i.e. code should compile without them.
Personally, I think the fact that you don't need to cast void * to another pointer type is a feature in C, and consider code that does to be broken.
If you do this when compiling in 64-bit mode, your returned pointer will be truncated to 32-bits.
EDIT:
Sorry for being too brief. Here's an example code fragment for discussion purposes.
main()
{
char * c = (char *)malloc(2) ;
printf("%p", c) ;
}
Suppose that the returned heap pointer is something bigger than what is representable in an int, say 0xAB00000000.
If malloc is not prototyped to return a pointer, the int value returned will initially be in some register with all the significant bits set. Now the compiler say, "okay, how do I convert and int to a pointer". That's going to be either a sign extension or zero extension of the low order 32-bits that it has been told malloc "returns" by omitting the prototype. Since int is signed I think the conversion will be sign extension, which will in this case convert the value to zero. With a return value of 0xABF0000000 you'll get a non-zero pointer that will also cause some fun when you try to dereference it.
A Reusable Software Rule:
In the case of writing an inline function in which used malloc(), in order to make it reusable for C++ code too, please do an explicit type casting (e.g. (char*)); otherwise compiler will complain.
A void pointer in C can be assigned to any pointer without an explicit cast. The compiler will give warning but it can be reusable in C++ by type casting malloc() to corresponding type. With out type casting also it can be use in C, because C is no strict type checking. But C++ is strictly type checking so it is needed to type cast malloc() in C++.
The malloc() function could often require a conversion cast before.
For the returned type from malloc it is a pointer to void and not a particular type, like may be a char* array, or a string.
And sometimes the compiler could not know, how to convert this type.
int size = 10;
char* pWord = (char*)malloc(size);
The allocation functions are available for all C packages.
So, these are general functions, that must work for more C types.
And the C++ libraries are extensions of the older C libraries.
Therefore the malloc function returns a generic void* pointer.
Cannot allocate an object of a type with another of different type.
Unless the objects are not classes derived from a common root class.
And not always this is possible, there are different exceptions.
Therefore a conversion cast might be necessary in this case.
Maybe the modern compilers know how to convert different types.
So this could not be a great issue, when is doing this conversion.
But a correct cast can be used, if a type conversion is possible.
As an example: it cannot be cast "apples" to "strawberries". But these both, so called "classes", can be converted to "fruits".
There are custom structure types, which cannot be cast directly.
In this case, any member variable has to be assigned separately.
Or a custom object would have to set its members independently.
Either if it is about a custom object class, or whatever else...
Also a cast to a void pointer must be used when using a free call.
This is because the argument of the free function is a void pointer.
free((void*)pWord);
Casts are not bad, they just don't work for all the variable types.
A conversion cast is also an operator function, that must be defined.
If this operator is not defined for a certain type, it may not work.
But not all the errors are because of this conversion cast operator.
With kind regards, Adrian Brinas
Are there limits on what I can do to allocated memory?(standard-wise)
For example
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct str{
long long a;
long b;
};
int main(void)
{
long *x = calloc(4,sizeof(long));
x[0] = 2;
x[3] = 7;
//is anything beyond here legal( if you would exclude possible illegal operations)
long long *y = x;
printf("%lld\n",y[0]);
y[0] = 2;
memset (x,0,16);
struct str *bar = x;
bar->b = 4;
printf("%lld\n",bar->a);
return 0;
}
To summarize:
Can I recast the pointer to other datatypes and structs, as long as the size fits?
Can I read before I write, then?
If not can I read after I wrote?
Can I use it with a struct smaller than the allocated memory?
Reading from y[0] violates the strict aliasing rule. You use an lvalue of type long long to read objects of effective type long.
Assuming you omit that line; the next troublesome part is memset(x,0,16);. This answer argues that memset does not update the effective type. The standard is not clear.
Assuming that memset leaves the effective type unchanged; the next issue is the read of bar->a.
The C Standard is unclear on this too. Some people say that bar->a implies (*bar).a and this is a strict aliasing violation because we did not write a bar object to the location first.
Others (including me) say that it is fine: the only lvalue used for access is bar->a; that is an lvalue of type long long, and it accesses an object of effective type long long (the one written by y[0] = 2;).
There is a C2X working group that is working on improving the specification of strict aliasing to clarify these issues.
Can I recast the pointer to other datatypes, as long as the size fits?
You can recast1 to any data type that is at most as large as the memory you allocated. You must write a value however to change the effective type of the allcoated object according to 6.5p6
Can I read before I write, then?
If not can I read after I wrote?
No. Except when otherwise specified (calloc is the otherwise)2, the value in the memory is indeterminate. It may contain trap values. A cast in order to reinterpret a value as another type is UB, and a violation of strict aliasing (6.5p7)
Can I use it with a struct smaller than the allocated memory?
Yes, but that's a waste.
1 You'll need to cast to void* first. Otherwise you'd get a rightful complaint from the compiler about incompatible pointer types.
2 Even then some types may trap on a completely 0 bit pattern, so it depends.
Most compilers offer a mode where reads and writes of pointers will act upon the underlying storage, in the sequence they are performed, regardless of the data types involved. The Standard does not require compilers to offer such a mode, but as far as I can tell all quality compilers do so.
According to their published rationale, the authors of the Standard added aliasing restrictions to the language with the stated purpose of avoiding compilers to make pessimistic aliasing assumptions when given code like:
float f;
float test(int *p)
{
f=1.0f;
*p = 2;
return f;
}
Note that in the example given in the rationale [very much like the above], even if it were legal to modify the storage used by f via pointer p, a reasonable person looking at the code would have no reason to think it likely that such a thing would ever happen. On the other hand, many compiler writers recognized that if given something like:
float f;
float test(float *p)
{
f=1.0f;
*(int*)p = 2;
return f;
}
one would have to be deliberately obtuse to think that the code would be unlikely to modify the storage used by a float, and there was consequently no reason why a quality compiler should not regard the write to *(int*)p as a potential write to a float.
Unfortunately, in the intervening years, compiler writers have become increasingly aggressive with type-based aliasing "optimizations", sometimes in ways that go clearly and undeniably beyond what the Standard would allow. Unless a program will never need to access any storage as different types at different times, I'd suggest using -fno-strict-aliasing option on compilers that support it. Otherwise one may have code that complies with the Standard and works today, but fails in a future version of the compiler which has become even more aggressive with its "optimizations".
PS--Disabling type-based aliasing may impact the performance of code in some situations, but proper use of restrict-qualified variables and parameters should avoid the costs of pessimistic aliasing assumptions. With a little care, use of those qualifiers will enable the same optimizations as aggressive aliasing could have done, but much more safely.
I wrote some thing similar to this in my code
const int x=1;
int *ptr;
ptr = &x;
*ptr = 2;
Does this work on all compilers? Why doesn't the GCC compiler notice that we are changing a constant variable?
const actually doesn't mean "constant". Something that's "constant" in C has a value that's determined at compile time; a literal 42 is an example. The const keyword really means read-only. Consider, for example:
const int r = rand();
The value of r is not determined until program execution time, but the const keyword means that you're not permitted to modify r after it's been initialized.
In your code:
const int x=1;
int *ptr;
ptr = &x;
*ptr = 2;
the assignment ptr = &x; is a constraint violation, meaning that a conforming compiler is required to complain about it; you can't legally assign a const int* (pointer to const int) value to a non-const int* object. If the compiler generates an executable (which it needn't do; it could just reject it), then the behavior is not defined by the C standard.
For example, the generated code might actually store the value 2 in x -- but then a later reference to x might yield the value 1, because the compiler knows that x can't have been modified after its initialization. And it knows that because you told it so, by defining x as const. If you lie to the compiler, the consequences can be arbitrarily bad.
Actually, the worst thing that can happen is that the program behaves as you expect it to; that means you have a bug that's very difficult to detect. (But the diagnostic you should have gotten will have been a large clue.)
Online C 2011 draft:
6.7.3 Type qualifiers
...
6 If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a const-qualified type through use
of an lvalue with non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined. If an attempt is
made to refer to an object defined with a volatile-qualified type through use of an lvalue
with non-volatile-qualified type, the behavior is undefined.133)
133) This applies to those objects that behave as if they were defined with qualified types, even if they are
never actually defined as objects in the program (such as an object at a memory-mapped input/output
address).
Emphasis added.
Since the behavior is left undefined, the compiler is not required to issue a diagnostic, nor is it required to halt translation. This would be difficult to catch in the general case; suppose you had a function like
void foo( int *p ) { *p = ...; }
defined in it's own separate translation unit. During translation, the compiler has no way of knowing if p could be pointing to a const-qualified object or not. If your call is something like
const int x;
foo( &x );
you may get a warning like parameter 1 of 'foo' discards qualifiers or something similarly illuminating.
Also note that the const qualifier doesn't necessarily mean that the associated variable will be stored in read-only memory, so it's possible the above code would "work" (update the value in x) in that you'd successfully update x by doing an end-run around the const semantics. But then you might as well just not declare x to be const.
There is a good discussion of this here:Does the evil cast get trumped by the evil compiler?
I would expect gcc to compile this because:
ptr is allowed to point to x, otherwise reading it would be impossible, although as the comment below says it's not exactly brilliant code and the compiler should complain. Warning options will (I guess) affect whether or not it's actually warned about.
when you write to x, the compiler no longer "knows" that it is writing to a const, all this is in the coders hands in C. However, it does really know, so it may well warn you, depending on the warning options you've selected.
whether it works or not, however, will depend on how the code is compiled, the way const is implemented for the compile options selected and the target CPU and architecture. It may work. Or it may crash. Or you may write to a "random" bit of memory and cause (or not) some freaky effect. It's not a good coding strategy, but that wasn't your question :-)
Bad programmer. No Moon Pie!
If you need to modify a const, copy it to a non-const variable and then work with it. It's const for a reason. Trying to "sneak" around a const can cause serious runtime issues. i.e. the optimizer has likely used the value inline, etc.
const int x=1;
int non_const_x = x;
non_const_x = 2;
I wrote some thing similar to this in my code
const int x=1;
int *ptr;
ptr = &x;
*ptr = 2;
Does this work on all compilers? Why doesn't the GCC compiler notice that we are changing a constant variable?
const actually doesn't mean "constant". Something that's "constant" in C has a value that's determined at compile time; a literal 42 is an example. The const keyword really means read-only. Consider, for example:
const int r = rand();
The value of r is not determined until program execution time, but the const keyword means that you're not permitted to modify r after it's been initialized.
In your code:
const int x=1;
int *ptr;
ptr = &x;
*ptr = 2;
the assignment ptr = &x; is a constraint violation, meaning that a conforming compiler is required to complain about it; you can't legally assign a const int* (pointer to const int) value to a non-const int* object. If the compiler generates an executable (which it needn't do; it could just reject it), then the behavior is not defined by the C standard.
For example, the generated code might actually store the value 2 in x -- but then a later reference to x might yield the value 1, because the compiler knows that x can't have been modified after its initialization. And it knows that because you told it so, by defining x as const. If you lie to the compiler, the consequences can be arbitrarily bad.
Actually, the worst thing that can happen is that the program behaves as you expect it to; that means you have a bug that's very difficult to detect. (But the diagnostic you should have gotten will have been a large clue.)
Online C 2011 draft:
6.7.3 Type qualifiers
...
6 If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a const-qualified type through use
of an lvalue with non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined. If an attempt is
made to refer to an object defined with a volatile-qualified type through use of an lvalue
with non-volatile-qualified type, the behavior is undefined.133)
133) This applies to those objects that behave as if they were defined with qualified types, even if they are
never actually defined as objects in the program (such as an object at a memory-mapped input/output
address).
Emphasis added.
Since the behavior is left undefined, the compiler is not required to issue a diagnostic, nor is it required to halt translation. This would be difficult to catch in the general case; suppose you had a function like
void foo( int *p ) { *p = ...; }
defined in it's own separate translation unit. During translation, the compiler has no way of knowing if p could be pointing to a const-qualified object or not. If your call is something like
const int x;
foo( &x );
you may get a warning like parameter 1 of 'foo' discards qualifiers or something similarly illuminating.
Also note that the const qualifier doesn't necessarily mean that the associated variable will be stored in read-only memory, so it's possible the above code would "work" (update the value in x) in that you'd successfully update x by doing an end-run around the const semantics. But then you might as well just not declare x to be const.
There is a good discussion of this here:Does the evil cast get trumped by the evil compiler?
I would expect gcc to compile this because:
ptr is allowed to point to x, otherwise reading it would be impossible, although as the comment below says it's not exactly brilliant code and the compiler should complain. Warning options will (I guess) affect whether or not it's actually warned about.
when you write to x, the compiler no longer "knows" that it is writing to a const, all this is in the coders hands in C. However, it does really know, so it may well warn you, depending on the warning options you've selected.
whether it works or not, however, will depend on how the code is compiled, the way const is implemented for the compile options selected and the target CPU and architecture. It may work. Or it may crash. Or you may write to a "random" bit of memory and cause (or not) some freaky effect. It's not a good coding strategy, but that wasn't your question :-)
Bad programmer. No Moon Pie!
If you need to modify a const, copy it to a non-const variable and then work with it. It's const for a reason. Trying to "sneak" around a const can cause serious runtime issues. i.e. the optimizer has likely used the value inline, etc.
const int x=1;
int non_const_x = x;
non_const_x = 2;
Now before people start marking this a dup, I've read all the following, none of which provide the answer I'm looking for:
C FAQ: What's wrong with casting malloc's return value?
SO: Should I explicitly cast malloc()’s return value?
SO: Needless pointer-casts in C
SO: Do I cast the result of malloc?
Both the C FAQ and many answers to the above questions cite a mysterious error that casting malloc's return value can hide; however, none of them give a specific example of such an error in practice. Now pay attention that I said error, not warning.
Now given the following code:
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
// #include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char * p = /*(char*)*/malloc(10);
strcpy(p, "hello");
printf("%s\n", p);
return 0;
}
Compiling the above code with gcc 4.2, with and without the cast gives the same warnings, and the program executes properly and provides the same results in both cases.
anon#anon:~/$ gcc -Wextra nostdlib_malloc.c -o nostdlib_malloc
nostdlib_malloc.c: In function ‘main’:
nostdlib_malloc.c:7: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ‘malloc’
anon#anon:~/$ ./nostdlib_malloc
hello
So can anyone give a specific code example of a compile or runtime error that could occur because of casting malloc's return value, or is this just an urban legend?
Edit I've come across two well written arguments regarding this issue:
In Favor of Casting: CERT Advisory: Immediately cast the result of a memory allocation function call into a pointer to the allocated type
Against Casting (404 error as of 2012-02-14: use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine copy from 2010-01-27.{2016-03-18:"Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt."})
You won't get a compiler error, but a compiler warning. As the sources you cite say (especially the first one), you can get an unpredictable runtime error when using the cast without including stdlib.h.
So the error on your side is not the cast, but forgetting to include stdlib.h. Compilers may assume that malloc is a function returning int, therefore converting the void* pointer actually returned by malloc to int and then to your pointer type due to the explicit cast. On some platforms, int and pointers may take up different numbers of bytes, so the type conversions may lead to data corruption.
Fortunately, modern compilers give warnings that point to your actual error. See the gcc output you supplied: It warns you that the implicit declaration (int malloc(int)) is incompatible to the built-in malloc. So gcc seems to know malloc even without stdlib.h.
Leaving out the cast to prevent this error is mostly the same reasoning as writing
if (0 == my_var)
instead of
if (my_var == 0)
since the latter could lead to a serious bug if one would confuse = and ==, whereas the first one would lead to a compile error. I personally prefer the latter style since it better reflects my intention and I don't tend to do this mistake.
The same is true for casting the value returned by malloc: I prefer being explicit in programming and I generally double-check to include the header files for all functions I use.
One of the good higher-level arguments against casting the result of malloc is often left unmentioned, even though, in my opinion, it is more important than the well-known lower-level issues (like truncating the pointer when the declaration is missing).
A good programming practice is to write code, which is as type-independent as possible. This means, in particular, that type names should be mentioned in the code as little as possible or best not mentioned at all. This applies to casts (avoid unnecessary casts), types as arguments of sizeof (avoid using type names in sizeof) and, generally, all other references to type names.
Type names belong in declarations. As much as possible, type names should be restricted to declarations and only to declarations.
From this point of view, this bit of code is bad
int *p;
...
p = (int*) malloc(n * sizeof(int));
and this is much better
int *p;
...
p = malloc(n * sizeof *p);
not simply because it "doesn't cast the result of malloc", but rather because it is type-independent (or type-agnositic, if you prefer), because it automatically adjusts itself to whatever type p is declared with, without requiring any intervention from the user.
Non-prototyped functions are assumed to return int.
So you're casting an int to a pointer. If pointers are wider than ints on your platform, this is highly risky behavior.
Plus, of course, that some people consider warnings to be errors, i.e. code should compile without them.
Personally, I think the fact that you don't need to cast void * to another pointer type is a feature in C, and consider code that does to be broken.
If you do this when compiling in 64-bit mode, your returned pointer will be truncated to 32-bits.
EDIT:
Sorry for being too brief. Here's an example code fragment for discussion purposes.
main()
{
char * c = (char *)malloc(2) ;
printf("%p", c) ;
}
Suppose that the returned heap pointer is something bigger than what is representable in an int, say 0xAB00000000.
If malloc is not prototyped to return a pointer, the int value returned will initially be in some register with all the significant bits set. Now the compiler say, "okay, how do I convert and int to a pointer". That's going to be either a sign extension or zero extension of the low order 32-bits that it has been told malloc "returns" by omitting the prototype. Since int is signed I think the conversion will be sign extension, which will in this case convert the value to zero. With a return value of 0xABF0000000 you'll get a non-zero pointer that will also cause some fun when you try to dereference it.
A Reusable Software Rule:
In the case of writing an inline function in which used malloc(), in order to make it reusable for C++ code too, please do an explicit type casting (e.g. (char*)); otherwise compiler will complain.
A void pointer in C can be assigned to any pointer without an explicit cast. The compiler will give warning but it can be reusable in C++ by type casting malloc() to corresponding type. With out type casting also it can be use in C, because C is no strict type checking. But C++ is strictly type checking so it is needed to type cast malloc() in C++.
The malloc() function could often require a conversion cast before.
For the returned type from malloc it is a pointer to void and not a particular type, like may be a char* array, or a string.
And sometimes the compiler could not know, how to convert this type.
int size = 10;
char* pWord = (char*)malloc(size);
The allocation functions are available for all C packages.
So, these are general functions, that must work for more C types.
And the C++ libraries are extensions of the older C libraries.
Therefore the malloc function returns a generic void* pointer.
Cannot allocate an object of a type with another of different type.
Unless the objects are not classes derived from a common root class.
And not always this is possible, there are different exceptions.
Therefore a conversion cast might be necessary in this case.
Maybe the modern compilers know how to convert different types.
So this could not be a great issue, when is doing this conversion.
But a correct cast can be used, if a type conversion is possible.
As an example: it cannot be cast "apples" to "strawberries". But these both, so called "classes", can be converted to "fruits".
There are custom structure types, which cannot be cast directly.
In this case, any member variable has to be assigned separately.
Or a custom object would have to set its members independently.
Either if it is about a custom object class, or whatever else...
Also a cast to a void pointer must be used when using a free call.
This is because the argument of the free function is a void pointer.
free((void*)pWord);
Casts are not bad, they just don't work for all the variable types.
A conversion cast is also an operator function, that must be defined.
If this operator is not defined for a certain type, it may not work.
But not all the errors are because of this conversion cast operator.
With kind regards, Adrian Brinas