278

What's the difference between

char* name

which points to a constant string literal, and

const char* name
5
  • what do you mean by "constant string literal" in C (not C++)
    – gbulmer
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 4:49
  • 1
    ... char *name can be made to point to a constant string literal
    – Iceman
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 15:15
  • the constant in "constant string literal" is redundant, since all string literals are in theory constant entities. It's the contents of the variable that can be made either constant or mutable. The "const" declaration simply will throw a compile time error if you try to change the contents of the character pointed to by "name"
    – Cupcake
    Commented Jul 31, 2016 at 4:49
  • 1
    Simple: "char *name" name is a pointer to char, i.e. both can be change here. "const char *name" name is a pointer to const char i.e. pointer can change but not char.
    – akD
    Commented Apr 27, 2017 at 6:20
  • 2
    Read these things from right to left.
    – JP Zhang
    Commented May 24, 2020 at 16:14

9 Answers 9

582

char* is a mutable pointer to a mutable character/string.

const char* is a mutable pointer to an immutable character/string. You cannot change the contents of the location(s) this pointer points to. Also, compilers are required to give error messages when you try to do so. For the same reason, conversion from const char * to char* is deprecated.

char* const is an immutable pointer (it cannot point to any other location) but the contents of location at which it points are mutable.

const char* const is an immutable pointer to an immutable character/string.

7
  • 5
    Confusion can get cleared up with the use of a variable after the statements mentioned above and by giving reference to that variable. Commented Oct 8, 2013 at 9:16
  • 5
    @ankit.karwasra, You missed out one more: char const *
    – Pacerier
    Commented May 13, 2015 at 3:27
  • 3
    Won't mutating char * give segmentation fault while running? Commented Feb 21, 2017 at 8:52
  • 1
    So I use const if I want the compiler to give error if I forgot and changed the data by mistake, right ? Commented Apr 6, 2019 at 22:12
  • 7
    @DivyanshuMaithani It depends where char * is created. For example: char *s = "A string" puts "A string" in to the code section (RO memory) of your binary. Writing to this memory seg faults. But char *s = malloc(sizeof(char) * 10) allocates memory on the heap, and this memory section is writeable and hence doesn't seg fault on write.
    – d4rwel
    Commented Apr 21, 2020 at 12:39
48
char *name

You can change the char to which name points, and also the char at which it points.

const char* name

You can change the char to which name points, but you cannot modify the char at which it points.
correction: You can change the pointer, but not the char to which name points to (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/whkd4k6a(v=vs.100).aspx, see "Examples"). In this case, the const specifier applies to char, not the asterisk.

According to the MSDN page and http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/declarations, the const before the * is part of the decl-specifier sequence, while the const after * is part of the declarator.
A declaration specifier sequence can be followed by multiple declarators, which is why const char * c1, c2 declares c1 as const char * and c2 as const char.

EDIT:

From the comments, your question seems to be asking about the difference between the two declarations when the pointer points to a string literal.

In that case, you should not modify the char to which name points, as it could result in Undefined Behavior. String literals may be allocated in read only memory regions (implementation defined) and an user program should not modify it in anyway. Any attempt to do so results in Undefined Behavior.

So the only difference in that case (of usage with string literals) is that the second declaration gives you a slight advantage. Compilers will usually give you a warning in case you attempt to modify the string literal in the second case.

Online Sample Example:

#include <string.h>
int main()
{
    char *str1 = "string Literal";
    const char *str2 = "string Literal";
    char source[] = "Sample string";

    strcpy(str1,source);    //No warning or error, just Undefined Behavior
    strcpy(str2,source);    //Compiler issues a warning

    return 0;
}

Output:

cc1: warnings being treated as errors
prog.c: In function ‘main’:
prog.c:9: error: passing argument 1 of ‘strcpy’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type

Notice the compiler warns for the second case but not for the first.

7
  • Thanks.. i was mixing with the constant string literal, which is defined as: char* name = "String Literal"; Changing "String Literal" is undefined..
    – Iceman
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 4:20
  • @user1279782: Err, Wait! Are you talking about pointes pointing to string literals here? In that case You should not modify the char to which the name points in either case.It could result in UB.
    – Alok Save
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 4:24
  • Yes, that was the point. So in that case char* name and const char* name behave similar, right?
    – Iceman
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 4:28
  • 4
    This answer is either extremely ambiguous or just plain wrong. I would interpret "You cannot change the char to which name points, but You can modify the char at which it points." As not being able to modify the pointer itself, but being able to modify the memory location that it points to, which is incorrect: ideone.com/6lUY9s alternatively for pure C: ideone.com/x3PcTP Commented Jan 4, 2013 at 23:34
  • 1
    @shroudednight: You need to learn a little more about Undefined behaviors, and need to distinguish between: allowed and should not be done. :)
    – Alok Save
    Commented Jan 5, 2013 at 5:29
27
char mystring[101] = "My sample string";
const char * constcharp = mystring; // (1)
char const * charconstp = mystring; // (2) the same as (1)
char * const charpconst = mystring; // (3)

constcharp++; // ok
charconstp++; // ok
charpconst++; // compile error

constcharp[3] = '\0'; // compile error
charconstp[3] = '\0'; // compile error
charpconst[3] = '\0'; // ok

// String literals
char * lcharp = "My string literal";
const char * lconstcharp = "My string literal";

lcharp[0] = 'X';      // Segmentation fault (crash) during run-time
lconstcharp[0] = 'X'; // compile error

// *not* a string literal
const char astr[101] = "My mutable string";
astr[0] = 'X';          // compile error
((char*)astr)[0] = 'X'; // ok
4
  • 1
    None of your pointers point to "constant string literals" as per the question.
    – caf
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 4:25
  • 1
    It's worth noting that changing the char * value gives segmentation fault since we are trying to modify a string literal (which is present in read only memory) Commented Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50
  • 1
    Can you explain the last line I couldnot get it.
    – lorem1213
    Commented Jul 16, 2022 at 20:09
  • @lorem1213 ((char*)astr)[0] = 'X';: This line casts the constant pointer astr to a non-constant character pointer using a type cast (char*). This is a dangerous practice as it bypasses the intended const-ness of the variable and can lead to undefined behavior and potential program crashes. In this specific case, it allows modifying the first character of the string literal, but it's important to remember that this is not good practice and can have unintended consequences.
    – Aravind
    Commented Feb 15 at 7:23
13

In neither case can you modify a string literal, regardless of whether the pointer to that string literal is declared as char * or const char *.

However, the difference is that if the pointer is const char * then the compiler must give a diagnostic if you attempt to modify the pointed-to value, but if the pointer is char * then it does not.

6
  • 1
    "In neither case can you modify a string literal, regardless of whether ... [it] is declared as char * or const char *" I agree that the programmer should not try, but are you saying that every C compiler, on every platform will reject the code, arrange for the code to fail at run time, or something else? I believe, one file could have the definition and initialisation, and another file might contain extern ... name and have *name = 'X';. On 'proper operating system', that might fail, but on embedded systems, I'd expect it to do something platform/compiler specific.
    – gbulmer
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 4:44
  • @gbulmer: You cannot modify a string literal in a correct C program. What an incorrect C program which tries may result in is neither here nor there.
    – caf
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 5:27
  • @gbulmer: One useful definition is a program that doesn't break any constraints specified by the C language standard. In other words, a program that modifies a string literal is incorrect in the same way as one that dereferences a null pointer or performs a division by 0 is incorrect.
    – caf
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 14:26
  • caf - I thought that might be what you meant. Then "In neither case can you modify a string literal" seems to be over stating it. It would be accurate to say "In both cases the constraints specified by the C language standard have been broken, regardless.... It is not possible for the compiler or run time system to identify breaches of the standard in all cases." I assume the standard takes the position that the effect is undefined?
    – gbulmer
    Commented Mar 23, 2012 at 14:48
  • 1
    When a standard can't assert anything either way, I think defining behaviour as being 'undefined' seems to be exactly the right boundary and helpful. To assert the relation a 'correct C program' 'cannot dereference a null pointer' sounds equivalent to proving the halting problem. But I don't mind. I wouldn't do it and expect to get away with it 'scott free' :-)
    – gbulmer
    Commented Mar 24, 2012 at 1:15
9

CASE 1:

char *str = "Hello";
str[0] = 'M'  //Warning may be issued by compiler, and will cause segmentation fault upon running the programme

The above sets str to point to the literal value "Hello" which is hard-coded in the program's binary image, which is flagged as read-only in memory, means any change in this String literal is illegal and that would throw segmentation faults.

CASE 2:

const char *str = "Hello";
str[0] = 'M'  //Compile time error

CASE 3:

char str[] = "Hello";
str[0] = 'M'; // legal and change the str = "Mello".
0
3

The question is what's the difference between

char *name

which points to a constant string literal, and

const char *cname

I.e. given

char *name = "foo";

and

const char *cname = "foo";

There is not much difference between the 2 and both can be seen as correct. Due to the long legacy of C code, the string literals have had a type of char[], not const char[], and there are lots of older code that likewise accept char * instead of const char *, even when they do not modify the arguments.

The principal difference of the 2 in general is that *cname or cname[n] will evaluate to lvalues of type const char, whereas *name or name[n] will evaluate to lvalues of type char, which are modifiable lvalues. A conforming compiler is required to produce a diagnostics message if target of the assignment is not a modifiable lvalue; it need not produce any warning on assignment to lvalues of type char:

name[0] = 'x'; // no diagnostics *needed*
cname[0] = 'x'; // a conforming compiler *must* produce a diagnostic message

The compiler is not required to stop the compilation in either case; it is enough that it produces a warning for the assignment to cname[0]. The resulting program is not a correct program. The behaviour of the construct is undefined. It may crash, or even worse, it might not crash, and might change the string literal in memory.

2

The first you can actually change if you want to, the second you can't. Read up about const correctness (there's some nice guides about the difference). There is also char const * name where you can't repoint it.

1
1

Actually, char* name is not a pointer to a constant, but a pointer to a variable. You might be talking about this other question.

What is the difference between char * const and const char *?

1

I would add here that the latest compilers, VS 2022 for instance, do not allow char* to be initialized with a string literal. char* ptr = "Hello"; throws an error whilst const char* ptr = "Hello"; is legal.

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.