Execution Problem w/memory object

[August1]

This is a short program that I have written from a text that
demonstrates a class object variable created on the stack memory and
another class object variable created on the heap memory. By way of
the text, the program is supposed to demonstrate the use of a copy
constructor function for the object created on the heap (because there
is a char* pointer variable in the instantiated class) and how you
would use the delete keyword with the object and to also use a
destructor for the char* pointer variable which is also placed on the
heap memory when instantiated - this being becuase the heap memory
will not be freed when the main function goes out of scope, as with
the class object variable declared on the stack memory does by default
constructor.

The program is exactly as demonstrated in the text - WHY the problem?
Thank you in advance.

//interface file Stocks.h
#if !defined(STOCKS _H)
#define STOCKS_H

class Stocks
{
public:
Stocks();//default constructor
Stocks(char* szName);//parameterized constructor
Stocks(const Stocks&);//copy constructor declaration
~Stocks();//destructor
//accessor function declarations
void setStockName(ch ar* szName);
void setNumShares(in t);
void setPricePerShar e(double);
char* getStockName() const;
int getNumShares() const;
double getPricePerShar e() const;
double calcTotalValue( );
private:
//declare private data members
char* szStockName;//declares character array pointer
int iNumShares;
double dCurrentValue;
double dPricePerShare;
};

#endif
//end class Stocks.h

///////////////////////////////////////////
//implementation file Stocks.cpp

#include "Stocks.h"
#include <string.h>
#include <ostream.h>

Stocks::Stocks( )//defines default constructor
{
char* szStockName = new char[25];
strcpy(szStockN ame,"");
iNumShares = 0;
dCurrentValue = 0;
dPricePerShare = 0;
};

Stocks::Stocks( char* szName)//defines parameterized constructor
{
char* szStockName = new char[25];
strcpy(szStockN ame,szName);
iNumShares = 0;
dCurrentValue = 0;
dPricePerShare = 0;
};

Stocks::Stocks( const Stocks& sourceStock)//copy constructor definition
{
szStockName = new char[25];
strcpy(szStockN ame, sourceStock.szS tockName);
};

Stocks::~Stocks ()//destructor definition
{
delete[] szStockName;
cout << "Destructor called." << endl;

};
void Stocks::setStoc kName(char* szName)
{
strcpy(szStockN ame,szName);
}

void Stocks::setNumS hares(int iShares)
{
iNumShares = iShares;
}

void Stocks::setPric ePerShare(doubl e dPrice)
{
dPricePerShare = dPrice;
}

char* Stocks::getStoc kName() const
{
return szStockName;
}

int Stocks::getNumS hares(void)cons t
{
return iNumShares;
}

double Stocks::getPric ePerShare()cons t
{
return dPricePerShare;
}

double Stocks::calcTot alValue()
{
dCurrentValue = iNumShares * dPricePerShare;
return dCurrentValue;
}
//end Stocks.cpp
//////////////////////////////////

//client source file used to instantiate custom class objects
//Shares.cpp
#include "Stocks.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <iomanip>//for use of setprecision() and setiosflags()
using namespace std;

void main()
{
cout << "\t\t\t\t\b\bSt ock Portfolio" << endl << endl
<< "This program displays the current values of stock you have
purchased for" << endl
<< "both Cisco and Lucent Technologies." << endl << endl;

//declares class object variable and passes value to parameterized
constructor
Stocks stockPick1("Cis co");

//heap memory object that passes literal string to parameterized
constructor
Stocks* stockPick2 = new Stocks("Lucent" );
/*use indirection operator associated with heap memory object to
access
class method and pass literal numeric value*/
stockPick2->setNumShares(2 00);
stockPick2->setPricePerSha re(59.5);

//format numeric output in fixed notation with two decimals
cout << setprecision(2) << setiosflags(ios ::fixed | ios::showpoint) ;
cout << "The current value of your stock in " <<
stockPick1.getS tockName()
<< " is $" << stockPick1.calc TotalValue() << "." << endl;

cout << "The current value of your stock in " <<
stockPick2->getStockName ()
<< " is $" << stockPick2->calcTotalValue () << "." << endl;

delete stockPick2;//manually delete the object from the heap memory

}//end main

[Jack Klein]

On 13 Sep 2004 21:17:08 -0700, an*********@hot mail.com (August1) wrote
in comp.lang.c++:

This is a short program that I have written from a text that
demonstrates a class object variable created on the stack memory and
another class object variable created on the heap memory. By way of
the text, the program is supposed to demonstrate the use of a copy
constructor function for the object created on the heap (because there
is a char* pointer variable in the instantiated class) and how you
would use the delete keyword with the object and to also use a
destructor for the char* pointer variable which is also placed on the
heap memory when instantiated - this being becuase the heap memory
will not be freed when the main function goes out of scope, as with
the class object variable declared on the stack memory does by default
constructor.

The program is exactly as demonstrated in the text - WHY the problem?
Thank you in advance.
Either the text is wrong, or you copied it incorrectly.
//interface file Stocks.h
#if !defined(STOCKS _H)
#define STOCKS_H

class Stocks
{
public:
Stocks();//default constructor
Stocks(char* szName);//parameterized constructor
Stocks(const Stocks&);//copy constructor declaration
~Stocks();//destructor
//accessor function declarations
void setStockName(ch ar* szName);
void setNumShares(in t);
void setPricePerShar e(double);
char* getStockName() const;
int getNumShares() const;
double getPricePerShar e() const;
double calcTotalValue( );
private:
//declare private data members
char* szStockName;//declares character array pointer
int iNumShares;
double dCurrentValue;
double dPricePerShare;
};

#endif
//end class Stocks.h

///////////////////////////////////////////
//implementation file Stocks.cpp

#include "Stocks.h"
#include <string.h>
The recommended name for this C header in standard C++ is <cstring>.
#include <ostream.h>
This header is not part of standard C++ at all. It should be
<ostream>.
Stocks::Stocks( )//defines default constructor
{
char* szStockName = new char[25];
The pointer to char _defined_ above is a local automatic variable of
the this function. It hides the class member of the same name, which
could only be accessed by using this->szStockName. So you end up
leaving the member uninitialized. The local variable goes out of
scope at the end of the constructor without the memory ever being
deleted, causing a memory leak.

Remove the 'char *' from in front of szStockName and you will be
allocating memory to the member variable with that name, instead of
hiding it.
strcpy(szStockN ame,"");
iNumShares = 0;
dCurrentValue = 0;
dPricePerShare = 0;
};

Stocks::Stocks( char* szName)//defines parameterized constructor
{
char* szStockName = new char[25];
The same thing applies here. Eliminate the 'char *' in front of the
pointer.
strcpy(szStockN ame,szName);
iNumShares = 0;
dCurrentValue = 0;
dPricePerShare = 0;
};

Stocks::Stocks( const Stocks& sourceStock)//copy constructor definition
{
szStockName = new char[25];
Note that in this constructor you got it right.
strcpy(szStockN ame, sourceStock.szS tockName);
};

Stocks::~Stocks ()//destructor definition
{
delete[] szStockName;
cout << "Destructor called." << endl;

};
void Stocks::setStoc kName(char* szName)
{
strcpy(szStockN ame,szName);
}

void Stocks::setNumS hares(int iShares)
{
iNumShares = iShares;
}

void Stocks::setPric ePerShare(doubl e dPrice)
{
dPricePerShare = dPrice;
}

char* Stocks::getStoc kName() const
{
return szStockName;
}

int Stocks::getNumS hares(void)cons t
{
return iNumShares;
}

double Stocks::getPric ePerShare()cons t
{
return dPricePerShare;
}

double Stocks::calcTot alValue()
{
dCurrentValue = iNumShares * dPricePerShare;
return dCurrentValue;
}
//end Stocks.cpp
//////////////////////////////////

//client source file used to instantiate custom class objects
//Shares.cpp
#include "Stocks.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <iomanip>//for use of setprecision() and setiosflags()
using namespace std;

void main()
You were doing pretty good up until now. The C++ standard requires
that main() be defined with a return type of int. "void main()" is
not, and never has been, legal C++. No matter what some illiterate
compilers chose to promote.
{
cout << "\t\t\t\t\b\bSt ock Portfolio" << endl << endl
<< "This program displays the current values of stock you have
purchased for" << endl
<< "both Cisco and Lucent Technologies." << endl << endl;

//declares class object variable and passes value to parameterized
constructor
Stocks stockPick1("Cis co");

//heap memory object that passes literal string to parameterized
constructor
Stocks* stockPick2 = new Stocks("Lucent" );
/*use indirection operator associated with heap memory object to
access
class method and pass literal numeric value*/
stockPick2->setNumShares(2 00);
stockPick2->setPricePerSha re(59.5);

//format numeric output in fixed notation with two decimals
cout << setprecision(2) << setiosflags(ios ::fixed | ios::showpoint) ;
cout << "The current value of your stock in " <<
stockPick1.getS tockName()
<< " is $" << stockPick1.calc TotalValue() << "." << endl;

cout << "The current value of your stock in " <<
stockPick2->getStockName ()
<< " is $" << stockPick2->calcTotalValue () << "." << endl;

delete stockPick2;//manually delete the object from the heap memory

}//end main

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[August1]

>

Either the text is wrong, or you copied it incorrectly.

Hi Jack,
Thanks for the expedient response. No, I did not copy anything
errantly and believe me I tried a few changes before re-reading the
text allocated to memory management. I was already well on my way to
the changes you have highlighted and discussed.
Yes, I am well informed that C++ uses the int main() function
rather than void main(). Here is what I don't really appreciate, I
suppose, Why are the majority of authors who are submitting texts that
are approved for tutorials or educational purposes adhering to and
promoting the void main() approach, without even mentioning the int
main() standard???
How should this normally be remedied, by adding a return statement
with int main()? If this is the approach, what is the ususal return
value?

Thanks again?

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

August1 wrote:

Either the text is wrong, or you copied it incorrectly.

Hi Jack,
Thanks for the expedient response. No, I did not copy anything
errantly and believe me I tried a few changes before re-reading the
text allocated to memory management. I was already well on my way to
the changes you have highlighted and discussed.
Yes, I am well informed that C++ uses the int main() function
rather than void main(). Here is what I don't really appreciate, I
suppose, Why are the majority of authors who are submitting texts that
are approved for tutorials or educational purposes adhering to and
promoting the void main() approach, without even mentioning the int
main() standard???

Because they don't know.
Because a major company used void main() throught their whole
documentation
Because those instuctors think that this major company is god and defines
the language
....
How should this normally be remedied, by adding a return statement
with int main()? If this is the approach, what is the ususal return
value?

for main() there is an exception:
You don't need to return anything. In this case the
compiler has to insert a
return 0;
for you. But beware: main() is the only place where you can do
this. In every other function with a return value it is prohibited
to not actually return something.

Other return values are

return EXIT_SUCCESS
return EXIT_FAILURE
BTW: Online tutorial aren't a good way to learn the language. As you have
seen, most of them are full of errors of the simplest type and work
just by accident. Also: How do you know that the guy who wrote the
tutorial knows what he is talking about?

Get a good book. See the FAQ for recommendations .
http://ma.rtij.nl/acllc-c++.FAQ.html

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad .at

[August1]

Karl Heinz Buchegger <kb******@gasca d.at> wrote in message news:<41******* ********@gascad .at>...

August1 wrote:

Either the text is wrong, or you copied it incorrectly.

Hi Jack,
Thanks for the expedient response. No, I did not copy anything
errantly and believe me I tried a few changes before re-reading the
text allocated to memory management. I was already well on my way to
the changes you have highlighted and discussed.
Yes, I am well informed that C++ uses the int main() function
rather than void main(). Here is what I don't really appreciate, I
suppose, Why are the majority of authors who are submitting texts that
are approved for tutorials or educational purposes adhering to and
promoting the void main() approach, without even mentioning the int
main() standard???

Because they don't know.
Because a major company used void main() throught their whole
documentation
Because those instuctors think that this major company is god and defines
the language
...

How should this normally be remedied, by adding a return statement
with int main()? If this is the approach, what is the ususal return
value?

for main() there is an exception:
You don't need to return anything. In this case the
compiler has to insert a
return 0;
for you. But beware: main() is the only place where you can do
this. In every other function with a return value it is prohibited
to not actually return something.

Other return values are

return EXIT_SUCCESS
return EXIT_FAILURE
BTW: Online tutorial aren't a good way to learn the language. As you have
seen, most of them are full of errors of the simplest type and work
just by accident. Also: How do you know that the guy who wrote the
tutorial knows what he is talking about?

Get a good book. See the FAQ for recommendations .
http://ma.rtij.nl/acllc-c++.FAQ.html

Hi Karl,

Thank you for the follow-up. I think that I understand who the
company is that you are referencing and other matters associated with
it. I'm certain there are a number of people who are not aware that
int main() is a viable and more preferable option to use, but when
associated with the company in some form or fashion, those who are
aware of int main() may choose to promote the gospel of void main()
instead.
I think you are also saying the compiler by default inserts the
return 0 value. I have manually inserted return 0 when declaring main
of the int type to see if this was executable on previous occasions
prior to posts, and wanted to see if a program would execute without
inserting the return statement with the int main() function. The
compiler raises a warning but does allow program execution.
I also used the constants EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE as return
values when using the int main() function and was pleased to see the
execution desired. I will probably go with either of the latter in
subsequent programs and use the int main() function from this point
on.
Also, where are EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE defined, and on what
level does the benefit arise when using int main() as opposed to void
main()? This seems to be a strong point many C - C++ programmers
continuously raise when discussing the language.
Lastly, I do not know that the individual who authored the text is
one of the better concerning this language. I have not found his code
to be errant until raising the matters stated within these posts
(perhaps typo error regarding the char* array pointers defined in the
constructor functions, exlcluding void main()), and he is also
associated with the course.com Web site, which I think tries to do a
legitimate service. This particular text, as many associated with this
Web site, is published by Course Technology of Thomson Learning. It
may be that there is a strong MS flavor associated with this site that
I really am not qualified to comment on.

Again, thanks for your input.
Anthony

[Greg Comeau]

In article <fc************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
August1 <an*********@ho tmail.com> wrote:

Also, where are EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE defined, and on what
level does the benefit arise when using int main() as opposed to void
main()? This seems to be a strong point many C - C++ programmers
continuously raise when discussing the language.

Check out http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techtalk/#voidmain
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techtalk/#mainexit
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techt...aintermination
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?