This question already has answers here:
Can we change the value of an object defined with const through pointers?
(11 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am able to change the value of const modified variable in gcc but not in other compilers.
I have tried this code on gcc, which updates the value of i and j (11). With an online compiler, I get different values.
#include<stdio.h>
void main() {
const int i=10;
int *j;
j = &i;
(*j)++;
printf("address of j is %p address of i is %p\n",j,&i);
printf("i is %d and j is %d\n",i,*j);
}
Yes, you can do it with a little hack.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
const int a = 0;
*(int *)&a = 39;
printf("%d", a);
}
In the above code, a is a const int. With the little hack, you can change the constant value.
Update: Explanation
In the above code, a is defined as a const. For example a has a memory addr 0x01 and therefore &a returns the same. When it is casted with (int *) it becomes another variable referred as a pointer to the const. When it is accessed with * again, the another variable can be accessed without violation of the const policy because it is not the original variable, but the changes are reflected because it is referred as address to the pointer.
This will work on older versions like Borland C++ or Turbo C++, however no one is using it now a days.
It's "undefined behaviour", meaning that based on the standard you can't predict what will happen when you try this. It may do different things depending on the particular machine, compiler, and state of the program.
In this case, what will most often happen is that the answer will be "yes". A variable, const or not, is just a location in memory, and you can break the rules of const and simply overwrite it. (Of course this will cause a severe bug if some other part of the program is depending on its const data being constant!)
However in some cases -- most typically for const static data -- the compiler may put such variables in a read-only region of memory. MSVC, for example, usually puts const static ints in .text segment of the executable, which means that the operating system will throw a protection fault if you try to write to it, and the program will crash.
In some other combination of compiler and machine, something entirely different may happen. The one thing you can predict for sure is that this pattern will annoy whoever has to read your code.
Try this and let me know.
How to modify value of const variable?
No! You shouldn't modify a const variable.
The whole point of having a const variable is to be not able to modify it. If you want a variable which you should be able to modify, simply don't add a const qualifier on it.
Any code which modify's a const forcibly through (pointer)hackery invokes Undefined Behavior.
An Undefined Behavior means that the code is non conforming to the standard specifications laid out by the C standard and hence not a valid code. Such a code can show any behavior and it is allowed to do so.
By defining i as const, you promised not to modify it. The compiler can rely on that promise and assume that it's not modified. When you print the value of i, the compiler can just print 10 rather than loading whatever value is currently stored in i.
Or it can choose to load the value. Or it can cause your program to crash when you try to modify i. The behavior is undefined.
You'll likely see different behavior with gcc depending on the optimization options (-O1, -O3).
Oh, and void main() is incorrect; it should be int main(void). If your textbook tells you to use void main(), you should get a better book.
Take a look at Can we change the value of an object defined with const through pointers?
Long story short, it's an undefined behaviour. It can result dependently on compiler/machine.
You can not modify the value of const variable if you compile this code in gcc it will show
error: invalid conversion from ‘const int*’ to ‘int*’ [-fpermissive]
and show undefined behave
The maiin thing is that we can only modify the variable when we can access the address without address we can't do anything. That's the same thing with Register storage class.
Related
Suppose we declare a variable
int i = 10;
And we have these 2 statements-
printf("%d",i);
printf("%d",*(&i));
These two statements print the same value, i.e. 10
From my understanding of pointers, not just their output is same, but the above two statements mean exactly the same. They are just two different ways of writing the same statement.
However, I came across an interesting code-
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
const int i = 10;
int* pt1 = &i;
*pt1 = 20;
printf("%d\n", i);
printf("%d\n", *(&i));
return 0;
}
To my surprise, the result is-
10
20
This suggests that i and *(&i) don't mean the same if i is declared with the const qualifier. Can anyone explain?
The behavior of *pt1 = 20; is not defined by the C standard, because pt1 has been improperly set to point to the const int i. C 2018 6.7.3 says:
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…
Because of this, the behavior of the entire program is not defined by the C standard.
In C code with defined behavior, *(&i) is defined to produce the value of i. However, in code with behavior not defined by the C standard, the normal rules that would apply to *(&i) are canceled. It could produce the value that the const i was initialized to, it could produce the value the program attempted to change i to, it could produce some other value, it could cause the program to crash, or it could cause other behavior.
Think of what it means to declare something as const - you're telling the compiler you don't want the value of i to change, and that it should flag any code that has an expression like i = 20.
However, you're going behind the compiler's back and trying to change the value of i indirectly through pt1. The behavior of this action is undefined - the language standard places no requirements on the compiler or the runtime environment to handle this situation in any particular way. The code is erroneous and you should not expect a meaningful result.
One possible explanation (of many) for this result is that the i in the first printf statement was replaced with the constant 10. After all, you promised that the value of i would never change, so the compiler is allowed to make that optimization.
But since you take the address of i, storage must be allocated for it somewhere, and in this case it apparently allocated storage in a writable segment (const does not mean "put this in read-only memory"), so the update through pt1 was successful. The compiler actually evaluates the expression *(&i) to retrieve the current value of i, rather than replacing it with a constant. On a different platform, or in a different program, or in a different build of the same program, you may get a different result.
The moral of this story is "don't do that". Don't attempt to modify a const object through a non-const expression.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
#include<stdio.h>
void main() {
const int convalue=64;
int *point;
point = &convalue;
(*point)++;
printf("address of point is %p address of convalue is %p\n",point,&convalue);
printf("convalue is %d and point is %d\n",convalue,*point);
}
How can i modify the constant variable value
How can i modify the constant variable value
You cannot change the value of a constant1 after initialisation. That's what "constant" means.
You can change the program by removing the const qualifier. Then you can change the value. Or, you can conditionally choose another value during initialisation.
1 Except if the constant is of class type, then you can change mutable members of the object.
void main()
The pogram is ill-formed. main must return int in C++. It may not return void.
point = &convalue;
The pogram is ill-formed. A pointer to const doesn't implicitly convert to pointer to non-const. The type system of the language protects you from making mistakes such as this.
(*point)++;
The behaviour of the program is undefined. Const objects must not be modified. This is a bug. Don't write this in a program.
We can't and should never try to modify the value of a const variable. Also,
Any attempt to modify a const object results in undefined behavior.
Also,
note that undefined behavior means anything can happen including but not limited to program being successfully compiled and giving your expected output. But don't rely on the output of a program that has undefined behavior.
For more reading on undefined behavior you can refer to undefined behavior's documentation which mentions:
there are no restrictions on the behavior of the program.
Mistake 2
There is another mistake(in addition to undefined behavior) in your program(in C++). In particular, you should replace
int *point;//INCORRECT
with
const int *point;//CORRECT, note i have added const here
Mistake 3
You should replace void main() with
int main()
Because void main() is not standard C++ as Bjarne Stroustrup made this quite clear in this article
The definition void main() is not and never has been C++, nor has it even been C.
Simply – you can't. "Constant" is constant.
If you need to, you have to use variable instead.
Anyway, there is one possibility to get what you (maybe) want – preprocessor. Question is a bit strange, so I think you could be satisfied by that.
Using preprocessor you can determine what is the initial value of const. (And more, but that's not this case.) Still you can't modify it after it's initialized, but maybe it will be enough for you. For example:
#include<stdio.h>
void main() {
const int convalue=
#ifdef CLI_PROVIDED
CLI_PROVIDED;
#undef CLI_PROVIDED
#else
64;
#endif
int *point;
point = &convalue;
(*point)++;
printf("address of point is %p address of convalue is %p\n",point,&convalue);
printf("convalue is %d and point is %d\n",convalue,*point);
}
Normal compilation will initialize const with value 64. Compilation with option g++ -DCLI_PROVIDED=123 will modify initial value of const BEFORE compilation (this is just text operation) and then compile it with value 123.
Preprocessor is working with code before compilation.
If you want to (for example) create program for multiple operating systems, it will be useful.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
const int a = 12;
int *p;
p = &a;
*p = 70;
}
Will it work?
It's "undefined behavior," meaning that based on the standard you can't predict what will happen when you try this. It may do different things depending on the particular machine, compiler, and state of the program.
In this case, what will most often happen is that the answer will be "yes." A variable, const or not, is just a location in memory, and you can break the rules of constness and simply overwrite it. (Of course this will cause a severe bug if some other part of the program is depending on its const data being constant!)
However in some cases -- most typically for const static data -- the compiler may put such variables in a read-only region of memory. MSVC, for example, usually puts const static ints in .text segment of the executable, which means that the operating system will throw a protection fault if you try to write to it, and the program will crash.
In some other combination of compiler and machine, something entirely different may happen. The one thing you can predict for sure is that this pattern will annoy whoever has to read your code.
It's undefined behaviour. Proof:
/* program.c */
int main()
{
const int a = 12;
int* p;
p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
gcc program.c
and run it. Output will be 70 (gcc 4.3)
Then compile it like this:
gcc -O2 program.c
and run it. The output will be 12. When it does optimisation, the compiler presumably loads 12 into a register and doesn't bother to load it again when it needs to access a for the printf because it "knows" that a can't change.
Modifying a const qualified object through a pointer invokes undefined behaviour, and such is the result. It may be something you'd expect from a particular implementation, e.g. the previous value unchanged, if it has been placed in .text, etc.
It does indeed work with gcc. It didn't like it though:
test.c:6: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type
But the value did change when executed. I won't point out the obvious no-no...
yes, you can make it done by using such code. but the code do not apply when when a is global (a gcc-compiled program gave me segmentation fault.)
generally speaking, in beloved C, you can almost always find someway to hack things that are not supposed to be changed or exposed. const here being a example.
But thinking about the poor guy(maybe myself after 6 months) maintains our code, I often choose not do so.
Here the type of pointer p is int*, which is being assigned the value of type const int* (&a => address of a const int variable).
Implicit cast eliminates the constness, though gcc throws a warning (please note this largely depends on the implementation).
Since the pointer is not declared as a const, value can be changed using such pointer.
if the pointer would be declared as const int* p = &a, you won't be able to do *p = 70.
This code contains a constraint violation:
const int a = 12;
int *p;
p = &a;
The constraint violated is C11 6.5.16.1/1 "Simple assignment"; if both operands are pointers then the type pointed to by the left must have all the qualifiers of the type pointed to by the right. (And the types, sans qualifiers, must be compatible).
So the constraint is violated because &a has type const int *, which has const as a qualifier; but that qualifier does not appear in the type of p which is int *.
The compiler must emit a diagnostic and might not generate an executable. The behaviour of any executable would be completely undefined, since the program does not comply with the rules of the language.
You cannot change the value of a constant variable by using a pointer pointing to it. This type of pointer is called as Pointer to a constant.
There is also another concept called Constant Pointer. It means that once a pointer points to a memory location you cannot make it point to the another location.
Bad, BAD idea.
Also, the behavior is platform- and implementation-specific. If you're running on a platform where the constant is stored in non-writable memory, this obviously won't work.
And, why on earth would you want to? Either update the constant in your source, or make it a variable.
The problem with changing the value of const variable is that the compiler will not expect that to happen. Consider this code:
const int a = 12;
int * p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", a);
Why would the compiler read a in the last statement? The compiler knows that a is 12 and since it is const, it will never change. So the optimizer may transform the code above into this:
const int a = 12;
int * p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", 12);
This can lead to strange issues. E.g. the code might work as desired in debug builds without optimization but it will fail in release builds with optimization.
Actually a good optimizer might transform the entire code to this:
printf("%d\n", 12);
As all other code before has no effect in the eye of the compiler. Leaving out code that has no effect will also have no effect on the overall program.
On the other hand, a decent compiler will recognize, that your code is faulty and warn you, since
int * p = &a;
is actually wrong. Correct would be:
const int * p = &a;
as p is not a pointer to int, it is a pointer to const int and when declared like that, the next line will cause a hard compile error.
To get rid of the warning, you have to cast:
int * p = (int *)&a;
And an even better compiler will recognize that this cast breaks the const promise and instruct the optimizer to not treat a as const.
As you can see, the quality, capabilities and settings of the compilerwill decide in the end what behavior you can expect. This implies that the same code may show different behavior on different platforms or when using different compilers on the same platform.
If the C standard had defined a behavior for that case, all compilers would have to implement it and no matter what the standard had defined, it would have been hard to implement, putting a huge burden on everyone who wants to write a compiler. Even if the standard had just said "This is forbidden", all compilers would have to perform complex data flow analysis to enforce this rule. So the standard just doesn't define it. It defines that const values cannot be changed and if you find a way to change them anyway, there is no behavior you can rely on.
Yes, you can change the value of a constant variable.
Try this code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
const int x=10;
int *p;
p=(int*)&x;
*p=12;
printf("%d",x);
}
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
const int a = 12;
int *p;
p = &a;
*p = 70;
}
Will it work?
It's "undefined behavior," meaning that based on the standard you can't predict what will happen when you try this. It may do different things depending on the particular machine, compiler, and state of the program.
In this case, what will most often happen is that the answer will be "yes." A variable, const or not, is just a location in memory, and you can break the rules of constness and simply overwrite it. (Of course this will cause a severe bug if some other part of the program is depending on its const data being constant!)
However in some cases -- most typically for const static data -- the compiler may put such variables in a read-only region of memory. MSVC, for example, usually puts const static ints in .text segment of the executable, which means that the operating system will throw a protection fault if you try to write to it, and the program will crash.
In some other combination of compiler and machine, something entirely different may happen. The one thing you can predict for sure is that this pattern will annoy whoever has to read your code.
It's undefined behaviour. Proof:
/* program.c */
int main()
{
const int a = 12;
int* p;
p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
gcc program.c
and run it. Output will be 70 (gcc 4.3)
Then compile it like this:
gcc -O2 program.c
and run it. The output will be 12. When it does optimisation, the compiler presumably loads 12 into a register and doesn't bother to load it again when it needs to access a for the printf because it "knows" that a can't change.
Modifying a const qualified object through a pointer invokes undefined behaviour, and such is the result. It may be something you'd expect from a particular implementation, e.g. the previous value unchanged, if it has been placed in .text, etc.
It does indeed work with gcc. It didn't like it though:
test.c:6: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type
But the value did change when executed. I won't point out the obvious no-no...
yes, you can make it done by using such code. but the code do not apply when when a is global (a gcc-compiled program gave me segmentation fault.)
generally speaking, in beloved C, you can almost always find someway to hack things that are not supposed to be changed or exposed. const here being a example.
But thinking about the poor guy(maybe myself after 6 months) maintains our code, I often choose not do so.
Here the type of pointer p is int*, which is being assigned the value of type const int* (&a => address of a const int variable).
Implicit cast eliminates the constness, though gcc throws a warning (please note this largely depends on the implementation).
Since the pointer is not declared as a const, value can be changed using such pointer.
if the pointer would be declared as const int* p = &a, you won't be able to do *p = 70.
This code contains a constraint violation:
const int a = 12;
int *p;
p = &a;
The constraint violated is C11 6.5.16.1/1 "Simple assignment"; if both operands are pointers then the type pointed to by the left must have all the qualifiers of the type pointed to by the right. (And the types, sans qualifiers, must be compatible).
So the constraint is violated because &a has type const int *, which has const as a qualifier; but that qualifier does not appear in the type of p which is int *.
The compiler must emit a diagnostic and might not generate an executable. The behaviour of any executable would be completely undefined, since the program does not comply with the rules of the language.
You cannot change the value of a constant variable by using a pointer pointing to it. This type of pointer is called as Pointer to a constant.
There is also another concept called Constant Pointer. It means that once a pointer points to a memory location you cannot make it point to the another location.
Bad, BAD idea.
Also, the behavior is platform- and implementation-specific. If you're running on a platform where the constant is stored in non-writable memory, this obviously won't work.
And, why on earth would you want to? Either update the constant in your source, or make it a variable.
The problem with changing the value of const variable is that the compiler will not expect that to happen. Consider this code:
const int a = 12;
int * p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", a);
Why would the compiler read a in the last statement? The compiler knows that a is 12 and since it is const, it will never change. So the optimizer may transform the code above into this:
const int a = 12;
int * p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", 12);
This can lead to strange issues. E.g. the code might work as desired in debug builds without optimization but it will fail in release builds with optimization.
Actually a good optimizer might transform the entire code to this:
printf("%d\n", 12);
As all other code before has no effect in the eye of the compiler. Leaving out code that has no effect will also have no effect on the overall program.
On the other hand, a decent compiler will recognize, that your code is faulty and warn you, since
int * p = &a;
is actually wrong. Correct would be:
const int * p = &a;
as p is not a pointer to int, it is a pointer to const int and when declared like that, the next line will cause a hard compile error.
To get rid of the warning, you have to cast:
int * p = (int *)&a;
And an even better compiler will recognize that this cast breaks the const promise and instruct the optimizer to not treat a as const.
As you can see, the quality, capabilities and settings of the compilerwill decide in the end what behavior you can expect. This implies that the same code may show different behavior on different platforms or when using different compilers on the same platform.
If the C standard had defined a behavior for that case, all compilers would have to implement it and no matter what the standard had defined, it would have been hard to implement, putting a huge burden on everyone who wants to write a compiler. Even if the standard had just said "This is forbidden", all compilers would have to perform complex data flow analysis to enforce this rule. So the standard just doesn't define it. It defines that const values cannot be changed and if you find a way to change them anyway, there is no behavior you can rely on.
Yes, you can change the value of a constant variable.
Try this code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
const int x=10;
int *p;
p=(int*)&x;
*p=12;
printf("%d",x);
}
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
const int a = 12;
int *p;
p = &a;
*p = 70;
}
Will it work?
It's "undefined behavior," meaning that based on the standard you can't predict what will happen when you try this. It may do different things depending on the particular machine, compiler, and state of the program.
In this case, what will most often happen is that the answer will be "yes." A variable, const or not, is just a location in memory, and you can break the rules of constness and simply overwrite it. (Of course this will cause a severe bug if some other part of the program is depending on its const data being constant!)
However in some cases -- most typically for const static data -- the compiler may put such variables in a read-only region of memory. MSVC, for example, usually puts const static ints in .text segment of the executable, which means that the operating system will throw a protection fault if you try to write to it, and the program will crash.
In some other combination of compiler and machine, something entirely different may happen. The one thing you can predict for sure is that this pattern will annoy whoever has to read your code.
It's undefined behaviour. Proof:
/* program.c */
int main()
{
const int a = 12;
int* p;
p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
gcc program.c
and run it. Output will be 70 (gcc 4.3)
Then compile it like this:
gcc -O2 program.c
and run it. The output will be 12. When it does optimisation, the compiler presumably loads 12 into a register and doesn't bother to load it again when it needs to access a for the printf because it "knows" that a can't change.
Modifying a const qualified object through a pointer invokes undefined behaviour, and such is the result. It may be something you'd expect from a particular implementation, e.g. the previous value unchanged, if it has been placed in .text, etc.
It does indeed work with gcc. It didn't like it though:
test.c:6: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type
But the value did change when executed. I won't point out the obvious no-no...
yes, you can make it done by using such code. but the code do not apply when when a is global (a gcc-compiled program gave me segmentation fault.)
generally speaking, in beloved C, you can almost always find someway to hack things that are not supposed to be changed or exposed. const here being a example.
But thinking about the poor guy(maybe myself after 6 months) maintains our code, I often choose not do so.
Here the type of pointer p is int*, which is being assigned the value of type const int* (&a => address of a const int variable).
Implicit cast eliminates the constness, though gcc throws a warning (please note this largely depends on the implementation).
Since the pointer is not declared as a const, value can be changed using such pointer.
if the pointer would be declared as const int* p = &a, you won't be able to do *p = 70.
This code contains a constraint violation:
const int a = 12;
int *p;
p = &a;
The constraint violated is C11 6.5.16.1/1 "Simple assignment"; if both operands are pointers then the type pointed to by the left must have all the qualifiers of the type pointed to by the right. (And the types, sans qualifiers, must be compatible).
So the constraint is violated because &a has type const int *, which has const as a qualifier; but that qualifier does not appear in the type of p which is int *.
The compiler must emit a diagnostic and might not generate an executable. The behaviour of any executable would be completely undefined, since the program does not comply with the rules of the language.
You cannot change the value of a constant variable by using a pointer pointing to it. This type of pointer is called as Pointer to a constant.
There is also another concept called Constant Pointer. It means that once a pointer points to a memory location you cannot make it point to the another location.
Bad, BAD idea.
Also, the behavior is platform- and implementation-specific. If you're running on a platform where the constant is stored in non-writable memory, this obviously won't work.
And, why on earth would you want to? Either update the constant in your source, or make it a variable.
The problem with changing the value of const variable is that the compiler will not expect that to happen. Consider this code:
const int a = 12;
int * p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", a);
Why would the compiler read a in the last statement? The compiler knows that a is 12 and since it is const, it will never change. So the optimizer may transform the code above into this:
const int a = 12;
int * p = &a;
*p = 70;
printf("%d\n", 12);
This can lead to strange issues. E.g. the code might work as desired in debug builds without optimization but it will fail in release builds with optimization.
Actually a good optimizer might transform the entire code to this:
printf("%d\n", 12);
As all other code before has no effect in the eye of the compiler. Leaving out code that has no effect will also have no effect on the overall program.
On the other hand, a decent compiler will recognize, that your code is faulty and warn you, since
int * p = &a;
is actually wrong. Correct would be:
const int * p = &a;
as p is not a pointer to int, it is a pointer to const int and when declared like that, the next line will cause a hard compile error.
To get rid of the warning, you have to cast:
int * p = (int *)&a;
And an even better compiler will recognize that this cast breaks the const promise and instruct the optimizer to not treat a as const.
As you can see, the quality, capabilities and settings of the compilerwill decide in the end what behavior you can expect. This implies that the same code may show different behavior on different platforms or when using different compilers on the same platform.
If the C standard had defined a behavior for that case, all compilers would have to implement it and no matter what the standard had defined, it would have been hard to implement, putting a huge burden on everyone who wants to write a compiler. Even if the standard had just said "This is forbidden", all compilers would have to perform complex data flow analysis to enforce this rule. So the standard just doesn't define it. It defines that const values cannot be changed and if you find a way to change them anyway, there is no behavior you can rely on.
Yes, you can change the value of a constant variable.
Try this code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
const int x=10;
int *p;
p=(int*)&x;
*p=12;
printf("%d",x);
}