Difference Between Static_Cast≪≫ and C Style Casting

What is the difference between static_cast and C style casting?

C++ style casts are checked by the compiler. C style casts aren't and can fail at runtime.

Also, c++ style casts can be searched for easily, whereas it's really hard to search for c style casts.

Another big benefit is that the 4 different C++ style casts express the intent of the programmer more clearly.

When writing C++ I'd pretty much always use the C++ ones over the the C style.

Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast

static_cast

static_cast is used for cases where you basically want to reverse an implicit conversion, with a few restrictions and additions. static_cast performs no runtime checks. This should be used if you know that you refer to an object of a specific type, and thus a check would be unnecessary. Example:

void func(void *data) {
  // Conversion from MyClass* -> void* is implicit
  MyClass *c = static_cast<MyClass*>(data);
  ...
}

int main() {
  MyClass c;
  start_thread(&func, &c)  // func(&c) will be called
      .join();
}

In this example, you know that you passed a MyClass object, and thus there isn't any need for a runtime check to ensure this.

dynamic_cast

dynamic_cast is useful when you don't know what the dynamic type of the object is. It returns a null pointer if the object referred to doesn't contain the type casted to as a base class (when you cast to a reference, a bad_cast exception is thrown in that case).

if (JumpStm *j = dynamic_cast<JumpStm*>(&stm)) {
  ...
} else if (ExprStm *e = dynamic_cast<ExprStm*>(&stm)) {
  ...
}

You can not use dynamic_cast for downcast (casting to a derived class) if the argument type is not polymorphic. For example, the following code is not valid, because Base doesn't contain any virtual function:

struct Base { };
struct Derived : Base { };
int main() {
  Derived d; Base *b = &d;
  dynamic_cast<Derived*>(b); // Invalid
}

An "up-cast" (cast to the base class) is always valid with both static_cast and dynamic_cast, and also without any cast, as an "up-cast" is an implicit conversion (assuming the base class is accessible, i.e. it's a public inheritance).

Regular Cast

These casts are also called C-style cast. A C-style cast is basically identical to trying out a range of sequences of C++ casts, and taking the first C++ cast that works, without ever considering dynamic_cast. Needless to say, this is much more powerful as it combines all of const_cast, static_cast and reinterpret_cast, but it's also unsafe, because it does not use dynamic_cast.

In addition, C-style casts not only allow you to do this, but they also allow you to safely cast to a private base-class, while the "equivalent" static_cast sequence would give you a compile-time error for that.

Some people prefer C-style casts because of their brevity. I use them for numeric casts only, and use the appropriate C++ casts when user defined types are involved, as they provide stricter checking.

Is there any advantage in using static_cast rather than C-style casting for non-pointer types?

One advantage which the other two answers didn't mention yet is that static_cast is much easier to spot. The meaning of parentheses is notoriously overloaded in C++ and it can be difficult to spot evil (or even incorrect) casts. When I see something ending in _cast though, it's like a mental speed bump: I slow down and carefully check why the type system is being subverted.

When should static_cast, dynamic_cast, const_cast, and reinterpret_cast be used?

static_cast is the first cast you should attempt to use. It does things like implicit conversions between types (such as int to float, or pointer to void*), and it can also call explicit conversion functions (or implicit ones). In many cases, explicitly stating static_cast isn't necessary, but it's important to note that the T(something) syntax is equivalent to (T)something and should be avoided (more on that later). A T(something, something_else) is safe, however, and guaranteed to call the constructor.

static_cast can also cast through inheritance hierarchies. It is unnecessary when casting upwards (towards a base class), but when casting downwards it can be used as long as it doesn't cast through virtual inheritance. It does not do checking, however, and it is undefined behavior to static_cast down a hierarchy to a type that isn't actually the type of the object.

---

const_cast can be used to remove or add const to a variable; no other C++ cast is capable of removing it (not even reinterpret_cast). It is important to note that modifying a formerly const value is only undefined if the original variable is const; if you use it to take the const off a reference to something that wasn't declared with const, it is safe. This can be useful when overloading member functions based on const, for instance. It can also be used to add const to an object, such as to call a member function overload.

const_cast also works similarly on volatile, though that's less common.

---

dynamic_cast is exclusively used for handling polymorphism. You can cast a pointer or reference to any polymorphic type to any other class type (a polymorphic type has at least one virtual function, declared or inherited). You can use it for more than just casting downwards – you can cast sideways or even up another chain. The dynamic_cast will seek out the desired object and return it if possible. If it can't, it will return nullptr in the case of a pointer, or throw std::bad_cast in the case of a reference.

dynamic_cast has some limitations, though. It doesn't work if there are multiple objects of the same type in the inheritance hierarchy (the so-called 'dreaded diamond') and you aren't using virtual inheritance. It also can only go through public inheritance - it will always fail to travel through protected or private inheritance. This is rarely an issue, however, as such forms of inheritance are rare.

---

reinterpret_cast is the most dangerous cast, and should be used very sparingly. It turns one type directly into another — such as casting the value from one pointer to another, or storing a pointer in an int, or all sorts of other nasty things. Largely, the only guarantee you get with reinterpret_cast is that normally if you cast the result back to the original type, you will get the exact same value (but not if the intermediate type is smaller than the original type). There are a number of conversions that reinterpret_cast cannot do, too. It's used primarily for particularly weird conversions and bit manipulations, like turning a raw data stream into actual data, or storing data in the low bits of a pointer to aligned data.

---

C-style cast and function-style cast are casts using (type)object or type(object), respectively, and are functionally equivalent. They are defined as the first of the following which succeeds:

• const_cast
• static_cast (though ignoring access restrictions)
• static_cast (see above), then const_cast
• reinterpret_cast
• reinterpret_cast, then const_cast

It can therefore be used as a replacement for other casts in some instances, but can be extremely dangerous because of the ability to devolve into a reinterpret_cast, and the latter should be preferred when explicit casting is needed, unless you are sure static_cast will succeed or reinterpret_cast will fail. Even then, consider the longer, more explicit option.

C-style casts also ignore access control when performing a static_cast, which means that they have the ability to perform an operation that no other cast can. This is mostly a kludge, though, and in my mind is just another reason to avoid C-style casts.

Why use static_castint(x) instead of (int)x?

The main reason is that classic C casts make no distinction between what we call static_cast<>(), reinterpret_cast<>(), const_cast<>(), and dynamic_cast<>(). These four things are completely different.

A static_cast<>() is usually safe. There is a valid conversion in the language, or an appropriate constructor that makes it possible. The only time it's a bit risky is when you cast down to an inherited class; you must make sure that the object is actually the descendant that you claim it is, by means external to the language (like a flag in the object). A dynamic_cast<>() is safe as long as the result is checked (pointer) or a possible exception is taken into account (reference).

A reinterpret_cast<>() (or a const_cast<>()) on the other hand is always dangerous. You tell the compiler: "trust me: I know this doesn't look like a foo (this looks as if it isn't mutable), but it is".

The first problem is that it's almost impossible to tell which one will occur in a C-style cast without looking at large and disperse pieces of code and knowing all the rules.

Let's assume these:

class CDerivedClass : public CMyBase {...};
class CMyOtherStuff {...} ;

CMyBase  *pSomething; // filled somewhere

Now, these two are compiled the same way:

CDerivedClass *pMyObject;
pMyObject = static_cast<CDerivedClass*>(pSomething); // Safe; as long as we checked

pMyObject = (CDerivedClass*)(pSomething); // Same as static_cast<>
                                     // Safe; as long as we checked
                                     // but harder to read

However, let's see this almost identical code:

CMyOtherStuff *pOther;
pOther = static_cast<CMyOtherStuff*>(pSomething); // Compiler error: Can't convert

pOther = (CMyOtherStuff*)(pSomething);            // No compiler error.
                                                  // Same as reinterpret_cast<>
                                                  // and it's wrong!!!

As you can see, there is no easy way to distinguish between the two situations without knowing a lot about all the classes involved.

The second problem is that the C-style casts are too hard to locate. In complex expressions it can be very hard to see C-style casts. It is virtually impossible to write an automated tool that needs to locate C-style casts (for example a search tool) without a full blown C++ compiler front-end. On the other hand, it's easy to search for "static_cast<" or "reinterpret_cast<".

pOther = reinterpret_cast<CMyOtherStuff*>(pSomething);
      // No compiler error.
      // but the presence of a reinterpret_cast<> is 
      // like a Siren with Red Flashing Lights in your code.
      // The mere typing of it should cause you to feel VERY uncomfortable.

That means that, not only are C-style casts more dangerous, but it's a lot harder to find them all to make sure that they are correct.

In C++, what are the differences between static_castdouble(a) and double(a)?

Someone may have thought they were constructing rather than casting. Consider:

some_fun(std::string("Hello"));

Many people think they're calling a constructor there when in fact they're doing a C-style cast. It just so happens that casting will look at constructors of the target type among the long list of other things it looks at and so here it eventually ends up invoking the constructor.

Functional notation casts have all the same weaknesses of the other kind of C cast:

• Can inadvertently cast away constness
• Can silently turn into a reinterpret cast
• Are hard to differentiate with grepping tools.

Besides all that though, you're performing exactly the same operation in both cases.

What is the difference between static_cast and reinterpret_cast?

A static_cast is a cast from one type to another that (intuitively) is a cast that could under some circumstance succeed and be meaningful in the absence of a dangerous cast. For example, you can static_cast a void* to an int*, since the void* might actually point at an int*, or an int to a char, since such a conversion is meaningful. However, you cannot static_cast an int* to a double*, since this conversion only makes sense if the int* has somehow been mangled to point at a double*.

A reinterpret_cast is a cast that represents an unsafe conversion that might reinterpret the bits of one value as the bits of another value. For example, casting an int* to a double* is legal with a reinterpret_cast, though the result is unspecified. Similarly, casting an int to a void* is perfectly legal with reinterpret_cast, though it's unsafe.

Neither static_cast nor reinterpret_cast can remove const from something. You cannot cast a const int* to an int* using either of these casts. For this, you would use a const_cast.

A C-style cast of the form (T) is defined as trying to do a static_cast if possible, falling back on a reinterpret_cast if that doesn't work. It also will apply a const_cast if it absolutely must.

In general, you should always prefer static_cast for casting that should be safe. If you accidentally try doing a cast that isn't well-defined, then the compiler will report an error. Only use reinterpret_cast if what you're doing really is changing the interpretation of some bits in the machine, and only use a C-style cast if you're willing to risk doing a reinterpret_cast. In your case, you should use the static_cast, since the downcast from the void* is well-defined in some circumstances.

Difference between functional cast notation T(x) and static_castT(x)

The functional-style cast notation T(x) for a single argument is defined by the standard to be identical to the C-style cast notation (T)x. The C-style cast notation can do any conversion that static_cast can do, and others (which may be undesired), such as casting away constness. So for example convert1 could be used to convert int const* to int* while convert2 could not.

c++ difference between reinterpret cast and c style cast

reinterpret_cast and const_cast are ways of getting around the C++ type system. As you noted for reinterpret_cast, this usually translates to little or no assembly code.

static_cast mostly respects the C++ type system. It could convert a number from one type to another, or call a constructor, or call a conversion function. Or for a derived-to-base conversion, it might involve adding byte offsets and/or lookups into a vtable. static_cast can also bend the type system's rules by "downcasting" a pointer or reference from a non-virtual base type to a derived type, possibly subtracting a byte offset.

And then there are pointers-to-member. They're probably beside the point here, but static_cast does things to them more or less analogous to class pointer conversions.

dynamic_cast respects the C++ type system even more strictly. In its useful form, it checks at runtime whether or not a pointer/reference actually points/refers to an object of the specified type. It typically calls a magic library function under the covers.

A function-style cast with one argument has exactly the same effect as a C-style cast. (With more than one argument, a function-style cast must be a temporary initialization using a class constructor.) A C-style cast does the first thing that makes sense out of the following list:

• a const_cast
• a static_cast
• a static_cast and then a const_cast
• a reinterpret_cast, or
• a reinterpret_cast and then a const_cast

One exception: C-style casts can ignore private and protected inheritance relations between classes, pretending they have a public inheritance relation instead.

C-style casts are usually not preferred in C++ because it's less specific about what you want to happen.

Is it always safe to change a C-style cast to a static_cast?

C-style cast is generally a combo of static_cast<> or reinterpret_cast<> with const_cast<>. There might be compile-time errors from replacing it with just static_cast<>.

I am not aware of any cases for runtime errors.

You could start with static_cast<>, then add (or replace it with) const_cast<> where compile-time errors arise. If after that you still have compile-time errors, reinterpret_cast<> are required. But do not make the replacement blindly - some of these cases may be bugs. E.g., reinterpret_cast<> may be required if a data type is forward declared but not defined, which leads to unspecified behavior (and will definitely cause problems if multiple inheritance is involved).

Finding these kinds of bugs is the reason why this exercise improves safety of the source code, and why a static code analyzer flags C-style casts.

---

Related Topics