Another dynamic memory doubt

[pradeep]

Hello friends:

I have the following code,

char* MyClass::MyMeth od()
{
char* ptr = new char[6]; // space for NULL terminator
ptr = "hello";
return ptr;
delete[] ptr;
}

What I'm trying to do is return ptr, but delete[] it afterwards. In the
code above, I believe the delete[] line will not be executed following
the return statement.

How should I achieve this?

Thanks.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 26 Apr 2008 at 9:46, pradeep wrote:

I have the following code,

There are several problems and misunderstandin gs in your code...

char* MyClass::MyMeth od()

In C++, it's usually better to #include <stringand then use
std::string instead of C-style strings. You can always get a good old
char * back if necessary by using the c_str() method.

{
char* ptr = new char[6]; // space for NULL terminator
ptr = "hello";

This does not copy the string "hello" into the array you've just
allocated, but rather makes ptr point to the start of a string literal,
which will be stored in the data segment of your object file.

A consequence of this is that you have leaked the memory you allocated
on the line before, and trying to delete ptr will cause problems.

return ptr;
delete[] ptr;
}

What I'm trying to do is return ptr, but delete[] it afterwards. In the
code above, I believe the delete[] line will not be executed following
the return statement.

Of course not! A return statement moves you up a stack frame, and in
particular sets the program counter to where it was when you called the
function.

How should I achieve this?

In the documentation for your function, explain that it allocates some
memory and that the caller is responsible for deleting ptr.

Or don't allocate memory at all, but just have

char* MyClass::MyMeth od()
{
return "hello";
}

[santosh]

pradeep wrote:

Hello friends:

I have the following code,

char* MyClass::MyMeth od()

This is C++. There is a dedicated group for C++ called comp.lang.c++.
Try that.

<snip>

[Martin Ambuhl]

pradeep wrote:

Hello friends:

I have the following code,

char* MyClass::MyMeth od()

^^^^^^^^ This line is a syntax error in C.

{
char* ptr = new char[6]; // space for NULL terminator

^^^^^^^^ This line is a syntax error in C.

ptr = "hello";

^^^^^^^^ If the preceding non-C line allocated space for a char[6] and
assigned the address of the first element to ptr, then
this line creates a memory leak and loses the address of
the char[6] array.

return ptr;
delete[] ptr;

^^^^^^^^ This line is a syntax error in C, and even if it weren't,
the return in the line before makes this line unreachable.

}

What I'm trying to do is return ptr, but delete[] it afterwards.

In the foolish language you are grossly misusing, you will need to
delete the array separately. However, since you have assigned the
addess of the anonymous char literal "hello" to ptr, that is almost
guaranteed to blow up in your face. After you go back and read your
textbook and read the FAQ for the newsgroup for the language you are
using, ask in that newsgroup. It is very likely that the language you
are misusing in C++, and its newsgroup is <news:comp.lang .c++>.

In the

code above, I believe the delete[] line will not be executed following
the return statement.

How should I achieve this?

By not coding randomly and praying that whatever you type is legal. Put
some effort into actually learning the language.

[santosh]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 26 Apr 2008 at 9:46, pradeep wrote:

>I have the following code,

There are several problems and misunderstandin gs in your code...

<snip C++ code and response>

Nowhere in your post did you mention to the OP that there is in fact a
dedicated Usenet group for C++ where answers are likely to be more
correct than OT responses in other groups. Why is that? Do you
deliberately want the OP to remain ignorant of the best forum for help
with his problem and risk betting on possibly incorrect or outdated
advice in other groups?

Answering questions on non-conforming C code is one thing but answering
questions on totally separate languages and other wildly OT matters
(like the recent thread on Ethernet cables) seems a deliberate tactic
to lower the S:N ratio and wreck this group.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <fu**********@a ioe.org>, pradeep <no****@nospam. comwrote:

>I have the following code,

>char* MyClass::MyMeth od()

That line is a syntax error. The only place that a colon (':')
can occur in a type description in C is as a bit-field length
within a structure definition.

>{
char* ptr = new char[6]; // space for NULL terminator

That line is a syntax error. There is no storage class named 'new'
in C.

ptr = "hello";
return ptr;
delete[] ptr;

Another syntax error.

>}

>What I'm trying to do is return ptr, but delete[] it afterwards. In the
code above, I believe the delete[] line will not be executed following
the return statement.

>How should I achieve this?

How can you be assured that the pointer would not be deleted until
after the calling routine had finished accessing the data??
If you create storage and return a pointer to that storage, you cannot
also delete that storage, not unless the calling routine will never
attempt to access the storage nor to test the pointer against anything
other than a null pointer constant.

One would suspect that your code is not in fact C code, in
which case our most charitable assumption would be that you
have -accidently- posted your question to the wrong newsgroup.

But even if so, you need to figure out what it is supposed to
mean to delete a pointer to a storage area when you have returned
that pointer outwards. There are not many languages around
(-none- that I can think of right now) in which returning a pointer
to a memory block is understood to mean that the procedure
calling mechanism should take a -copy- of the storage pointed to
and put that copy somewhere for future use.
--
"History is a pile of debris" -- Laurie Anderson

[Malcolm McLean]

"pradeep" <no****@nospam. comwrote in message news:fu******** **@aioe.org...

Hello friends:

I have the following code,

char* MyClass::MyMeth od()
{
char* ptr = new char[6]; // space for NULL terminator
ptr = "hello";
return ptr;
delete[] ptr;
}

What I'm trying to do is return ptr, but delete[] it afterwards. In the
code above, I believe the delete[] line will not be executed following the
return statement.

How should I achieve this?

You want C++, next door.
However most programming languages have the feature that statements after a
return are not executed. The answer is to put those statements in the
calling code.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Ben Bacarisse]

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam. invalidwrites:

On 26 Apr 2008 at 9:46, pradeep wrote:

>I have the following code,
char* MyClass::MyMeth od()

In C++, ...

I won't point out the C++ errors you made (that would be to fall into
your trap) but the original poster should know:

(a) that comp.lang.c++ is the place to ask;
(b) answers here will not checked by people who really know C++;
(c) your answer was not correct (IMO, but see (b)).

--
Ben.

[Malcolm McLean]

"Richard" <de***@gmail.co mwrote in message
news:fu******** **@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

ro******@ibd.nr c-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

>In article <fu**********@a ioe.org>, pradeep <no****@nospam. comwrote:

>>>I have the following code,

>>>char* MyClass::MyMeth od()

That line is a syntax error. The only place that a colon (':')
can occur in a type description in C is as a bit-field length
within a structure definition.

It amazed me that there are already about 5 people who have told him
this is C++ code and yet you feel the need to go lengths to belittle the
OP.

You did know there had been OT replies. You did know that it was
C++. One can only guess at your motives for posting such a long and
relatively useless reply.

Unfortunately Walter's sort of reply - and we can all be clever Dicks to
people new to programming - encourages people like Antonius Twink to give
off-topic answers as a sort of compensation.
Why can't people just say "this is C++"?

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Antoninus Twink]

On 26 Apr 2008 at 11:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam. invalidwrites:

>In C++, ...

I won't point out the C++ errors you made (that would be to fall into
your trap)

If there were real errors (not just the usual not standard, not portable
bullshit) then point them out and cross-post to clc++ if you insist.