delete char * - why does it work

[puzzlecracker]

interesting case:

class MyString{
char * strRep; // initialized to char array

public:
~MyString(){del ete strRep;} //why would this work
// just like 'delete [] strRep;'
};
isn't delete first calls the destructor for the object and then
deallocates the memory (by operator delete)?

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

puzzlecracker wrote:

interesting case:

class MyString{
char * strRep; // initialized to char array

public:
~MyString(){del ete strRep;} //why would this work
// just like 'delete [] strRep;'

It doesn't if strRep was allocated with new[]. It does if strRep was
allocated with new.

char *c = new char[10];
delete c; // error

char *c = new char;
delete c; // ok

That's undefined behavior. On my system, mismatched new and delete
crashes almost everytime.
Jonatha

[puzzlecracker]

let's say it is allocated as char *c ="dummy";

IT WILL WORK!

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

puzzlecracker wrote:

let's say it is allocated as char *c ="dummy";

IT WILL WORK!

Please quote what you are answering to next time.

Depends on what you mean by 'it will work'. If you intend to crash your
system, it may or may not work. If you intend to run into undefined
behavior, it will work. If you intend to have a well-behaving program,
it won't. Deleting something you haven't allocated yourself is illegal.
Jonathan

[Jakob Bieling]

"puzzlecrac ker" <ir*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g43g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

let's say it is allocated as char *c ="dummy";

IT WILL WORK!

It is undefined behaviour, looking as if it worked.
--
jb

(reply address in rot13, unscramble first)

[puzzlecracker]

the behavior is undefined - but why does it work on all compilers?????

[Markus Moll]

Hi

puzzlecracker wrote:

the behavior is undefined - but why does it work on all compilers?????

Come on... don't answer your own questions.
Markus

[John Carson]

"puzzlecrac ker" <ir*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com

the behavior is undefined - but why does it work on all compilers?????

I doubt that you have tested all compilers.

You really need to get over this nonsense. Undefined means that anything can
happen. Included in the "anything" is that it might work as you expect.
There is no explanation in standard C++ as to why something with undefined
behaviour might "work". That all depends on the details of compiler
implementations etc. If you want to know, then go ask the authors of the
compiler.

If you write correct code, you are entitled to expect it to work. If you
write code that invokes undefined behaviour, you have no right to expect
anything. The fact that code with undefined behaviour sometimes works in the
way expected by the programmers who write it is neither new nor interesting
information. Programmers who rely on such "good fortune" are fools.

--
John Carson

[Jakob Bieling]

"puzzlecrac ker" <ir*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

the behavior is undefined - but why does it work on all compilers?????

It does not. Proof? Try VS 7.1 on Win XP SP2 with:

class MyString
{
char* strRep;

public:
MyString (char* t) : strRep (t)
{
}

~MyString ()
{
delete strRep;
}
};

MyString s = "test";
--
jb

(reply address in rot13, unscramble first)