using a char* pointer returned by c_str after a string has beendeallocated

[C++Liliput]

I have a class of the type

class A
{
private:
std::string data;
.......
public:
const char* toString();
};

A::A(const char* s):data(s) {}
const char* A::toString() { return data.c_str();)

I have the following scenario in the code:

A* pObj = new A("New");
const char* str = A -toString();
............
............
delete pObj;
printf("The string representation of A is %s", str);

Now I know that the above code is probably wrong because I use the
char pointer returned by the c_str() function after the object
(containing a string member variable) has been deallocated. But I am
interested to know why. Is it because the c_str() returns the internal
char pointer of the string object? c_str() returns a null terminated
string which means that probably a copy of the internal char buffer
terminated with a null character is returned to the user. But if that
is the case, it should be the responsibility of the user to explicitly
deallocate the char pointer after it is not being used. But we don't
do it do we? So I am a bit confused about what exactly happens.

[Ian Collins]

C++Liliput wrote:

I have a class of the type

class A
{
private:
std::string data;
.......
public:
const char* toString();
};

A::A(const char* s):data(s) {}
const char* A::toString() { return data.c_str();)

I have the following scenario in the code:

A* pObj = new A("New");
const char* str = A -toString();
............
............
delete pObj;
printf("The string representation of A is %s", str);

Now I know that the above code is probably wrong because I use the
char pointer returned by the c_str() function after the object
(containing a string member variable) has been deallocated. But I am
interested to know why. Is it because the c_str() returns the internal
char pointer of the string object? c_str() returns a null terminated
string which means that probably a copy of the internal char buffer
terminated with a null character is returned to the user. But if that
is the case, it should be the responsibility of the user to explicitly
deallocate the char pointer after it is not being used. But we don't
do it do we? So I am a bit confused about what exactly happens.

The exact details are unimportant, what matters is data.c_str() returns
a pointer to a buffer owned by data. So when the object containing data
is deleted, data is destroyed and the buffer becomes invalid.

--
Ian Collins.

[Boris]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:47:29 +0200, C++Liliput <av********@gma il.com>
wrote:

[...]terminated with a null character is returned to the user. But if
that
is the case, it should be the responsibility of the user to explicitly
deallocate the char pointer after it is not being used. But we don't
do it do we? So I am a bit confused about what exactly happens.

If it was the responsibility of the user to deallocate the buffer the
return type of c_str() would have better been std::auto_ptr<c onst char*>.
That way it would have been obvious that ownership is passed to the
caller. If you don't get a smart pointer you can basically assume that
ownership is not passed to the caller (at least that's the rule I try to
follow; this might not be true for every function of course).

Boris

[James Kanze]

On Dec 12, 8:52 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

C++Liliput wrote:

I have a class of the type

class A
{
private:
std::string data;
.......
public:
const char* toString();
};

A::A(const char* s):data(s) {}
const char* A::toString() { return data.c_str();)

I have the following scenario in the code:

A* pObj = new A("New");
const char* str = A -toString();
............
............
delete pObj;
printf("The string representation of A is %s", str);

Now I know that the above code is probably wrong because I
use the char pointer returned by the c_str() function after
the object (containing a string member variable) has been
deallocated. But I am interested to know why. Is it because
the c_str() returns the internal char pointer of the string
object? c_str() returns a null terminated string which means
that probably a copy of the internal char buffer terminated
with a null character is returned to the user. But if that
is the case, it should be the responsibility of the user to
explicitly deallocate the char pointer after it is not being
used. But we don't do it do we? So I am a bit confused about
what exactly happens.

The exact details are unimportant, what matters is
data.c_str() returns a pointer to a buffer owned by data. So
when the object containing data is deleted, data is destroyed
and the buffer becomes invalid.

Right. It's a question of contract. In fact, in the case of
std::string, the contract is that the pointer returned by
c_str() is valid until the next non-const function is called,
and no longer. Just reading a character with [] can
(theoretically, at least, but also practically, with g++, for
example) invalid it.

If he needs the pointer for a longer period of time, he'll have
to arrange to allocate the memory himself somehow, and use
std::string::co py to put the string into it.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]