https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85858
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Mike Sharov from comment #8) > My mental model here is actually of const correctness, not C++ specifically. > When I pass around a const object I expect it to stay unmodified. Consider a > function that takes a const T* argument. The signature suggests that the > passed-in object will only be read and will not be modified. No, no, no. It says **that function** can't modify it **through that pointer**. If the pointee was not actually declared const then it can still be changed. > If that > function deletes the pointer, "bad things" will likely happen. Suddenly the > object contains garbage and you can't figure out how it happened. Your assumption that const T* means the pointer remains valid is just completely unjustifiable: int* p = new int(); const int* pc = p; delete p; // pc is valid here, nobody can delete it due to "const correctness" (wrong) It's simply not how C++ works. An object's lifetime is distinct from it's constness, and a pointer-to-const doesn't imply anything about whether the pointed-to object is immutable.
