pointer out of scope = deleted?
Author
Hi all,
Compare the following to understand my confusion :
bool somefunction()
{
int x = 5;
blahblahblah....
return true;
}
Ok, int x has been removed from the stack and no longer takes up memory after the function returns, right?
bool somefunction()
{
int *pInt = new int;
blahblahblah
return true;
}
Is pInt removed from the stack after this function returns, like int x was? In other words, do I still need to delete it?
My confusion lies in the question of if you have to manage dynamic memory after it goes out of scope. Also, what if you never used the new keyword in the second function, but just gave it some address?
bool somefunction()
int *pInt = 0;
int a = 5;
pInt = a;
blahblahblah....
return true;
}
What happens when this goes out of scope, compared to my second example?
later,
Jason
PS I think the sensation of funny occurs when your brain misplaces a pointer...
When you use a pointer to allocate some memory, you always need to delete it to free up the memory or else you will have a memory leak.
A simple rule of thumb - everything you allocate, you must deallocate. Every 'new' should have a matching 'delete', every new[] should have a matching 'delete[]', and every 'malloc/calloc' should have a matching 'free'. Simply assigning an address to a pointer using the & operator does not allocate memory, so it's not something to worry over.
[edited by - aldacron on March 21, 2004 10:03:54 AM]
[edited by - aldacron on March 21, 2004 10:03:54 AM]
bool somefunction(){int *pInt = new int;// Do stuff with our new integerreturn true;}Classic memory leak. You need to call delete pInt before you return from the function.
bool somefunction(){int *pInt = 0;int a = 5;pInt = a;return true;}That code won''t actually do too much. When you want to assign an address to a pointer of a regular static variable (like int a) you need to call it as follows: pInt = &a Either that, or when you init pInt you do it as follows: int *pInt = new int; And then you can assign a value into it, like *pInt = a;
If a were a pointer to an integer as well then calling pInt = a; is fine.
Author
"Simply assigning an address to a pointer using the & operator does not allocate memory, so it''s not something to worry over"
I have always wondered this, thank you so much for setting the record straight.
I have always wondered this, thank you so much for setting the record straight.
quote:Original post by nosajghoul
Hi all,
Is pInt removed from the stack after this function returns, like int x was?
Yes, it is. What makes pInt different is that it's a variable that holds an address instead of an integer. The variable is cleaned up when the function returns, but any memory located at the address it stored is not.
quote:Original post by nosajghoul
do I still need to delete it?
Yes, like Aldacron said, if you call any of the memory allocation functions you'll need to call the corresponding deallocation function. However using the & operator IS something you need to be carefull with. Consider the following:
bool Example(){ int *pInt = NULL; // create an int pointer { int n = 5; pInt = &n // pInt now stores the address of the n variable } // n goes out of scope and is removed from the stack, // but pInt still points to the address where it use to be. cout << *pInt; // <- error, pInt points to unallocated memory return true;}edit: Oops, didn't see the other post where you seem to have caught on to all of this.
[edited by - Solo on March 21, 2004 3:08:53 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
