Hi All,
I have an integer pointer with value 10, but it returns a different
return value after the preincrement and post increment.
I will be very thankful if somebody can give an explanation for this
behavior.
Listed below is the program and output - executed in vc++6.
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int *i = (int*) calloc(sizeof(int),1);
*i = 10;
cout << " *i++ " << *i++ << endl;
cout << " *i " << *i << endl;
*i = 10;
cout << " ++*i " << ++*i << endl;
cout << " *i " << *i << endl;
return 0;
}
*i++ 10
*i -33686019
++*i 11
*i 11
Press any key to continue 14 1995
Review operator precedence. operator++ has higher precedence than
unary operator*, so
*i++
is equivalent to
*(i++)
and not equivalent to
(*i)++
which is what your presumably wanted. When you dereference a pointer
and find an unexpected, large-magnitude value, it generally means that
the pointer isn't pointing where you thought it was.
Luke
Robben wrote: Hi All,
I have an integer pointer with value 10, but it returns a different return value after the preincrement and post increment.
I will be very thankful if somebody can give an explanation for this behavior.
Listed below is the program and output - executed in vc++6.
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { int *i = (int*) calloc(sizeof(int),1);
Don't:
int* i = new int;
*i = 10;
cout << " *i++ " << *i++ << endl;
This is *(i++) : increment the pointer, return the old address and
dereference it.
cout << " *i " << *i << endl;
*i = 10;
illegal, i does not point to valid memory anymore.
cout << " ++*i " << ++*i << endl;
and this is ++(*i) : dereference the pointer and increment the value.
cout << " *i " << *i << endl;
Don't forget to delete the int:
delete i;
return 0; }
*i++ 10 *i -33686019 ++*i 11 *i 11
Jonathan
> Don't forget to delete the int: delete i;
Remembering, of course, not to mix "new" or "delete" in isolation with
C-style (de)allocation. But since I agree with your recommendation to
use new rather than calloc, no problem.
Luke
when you delete a pointer,
delete i;
i = null;
it is a good habit, especially in very complex environment.
Regulus wrote: when you delete a pointer,
delete i; i = null;
it is a good habit, especially in very complex environment.
Is it? Not having dangling pointers* at all is a better habit, IMHO. Are
you going to be checking that "i != NULL" each time you use it?
* Okay, it's "NULL" rather than dangling, which would be fine if C++
were a language where null has a special meaning rather than just being 0.
W Marsh wrote: Regulus wrote: when you delete a pointer,
delete i; i = null;
it is a good habit, especially in very complex environment. Is it? Not having dangling pointers* at all is a better habit, IMHO.
Not having pointers at all is still better, but some things are
inevitable.
Are you going to be checking that "i != NULL" each time you use it?
The point of setting a pointer to 0 is to prevent double deletion.
* Okay, it's "NULL" rather than dangling, which would be fine if C++ were a language where null has a special meaning rather than just being 0.
Well a valid address cannot be 0 so yes, 0 has a special meaning for
pointers in C++.
Jonathan
"W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@decipher> wrote in message
news:43***********************@news.zen.co.uk... Regulus wrote: when you delete a pointer,
delete i; i = null;
it is a good habit, especially in very complex environment.
Is it? Not having dangling pointers* at all is a better habit, IMHO. Are you going to be checking that "i != NULL" each time you use it?
* Okay, it's "NULL" rather than dangling, which would be fine if C++ were a language where null has a special meaning rather than just being 0.
Actually, for pointers it is the one case it does have a special meaning.
It is legal to delete a null pointer.
int* i = new int;
delete i;
delete i; // ERROR
int* i = new int;
delete i;
i = NULL;
delete i; // NO ERROR
Jim Langston wrote: "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@decipher> wrote in message news:43***********************@news.zen.co.uk...
Regulus wrote:
when you delete a pointer,
delete i; i = null;
it is a good habit, especially in very complex environment. Is it? Not having dangling pointers* at all is a better habit, IMHO. Are you going to be checking that "i != NULL" each time you use it?
* Okay, it's "NULL" rather than dangling, which would be fine if C++ were a language where null has a special meaning rather than just being 0.
Actually, for pointers it is the one case it does have a special meaning.
It is legal to delete a null pointer.
Sure, but you could just as well say "it is legal to delete a pointer
with the value 0". It's different to having a null pointer (or
reference) in a language such as C#, where deferencing it would throw an
exception rather than causing some nasty undefined behaviour. int* i = new int; delete i; delete i; // ERROR
int* i = new int; delete i; i = NULL; delete i; // NO ERROR
It's just my personal philosophy to design around potential errors like
this so that they don't have the chance to occur, rather than just
making them harmless if they do. I'm sure there are plenty of
programmers far more skilled than me who would disagree, though.
Luke Meyers wrote: Don't forget to delete the int:
delete i;
Remembering, of course, not to mix "new" or "delete" in isolation with C-style (de)allocation. But since I agree with your recommendation to use new rather than calloc, no problem.
Luke
Thank you Luke and Jonathan for your feedback.
Luke Meyers wrote: Don't forget to delete the int:
delete i;
Remembering, of course, not to mix "new" or "delete" in isolation with C-style (de)allocation. But since I agree with your recommendation to use new rather than calloc, no problem.
Luke
Thank you Luke and Jonathan and others who had given there valuable
suggestions and feedback.
Jonathan Mcdougall wrote: Robben wrote: Hi All,
I have an integer pointer with value 10, but it returns a different return value after the preincrement and post increment.
I will be very thankful if somebody can give an explanation for this behavior.
Listed below is the program and output - executed in vc++6.
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { int *i = (int*) calloc(sizeof(int),1); Don't:
int* i = new int;
new int() if he wants the same behavior as calloc (zero initialization). *i = 10;
cout << " *i++ " << *i++ << endl;
This is *(i++) : increment the pointer, return the old address and dereference it.
No, it is return the address of the pointer before the increment and
make sure it is incremented before the next sequence point. In fact,
the above has undefined behavior. The increments could both be applied
before the sequence point in an allowable ordering.
Further, even without violating that rule, you don't know which
of the *i++ subexpressions is evaluated first.
Ron Natalie wrote: Jonathan Mcdougall wrote: Robben wrote: Hi All,
I have an integer pointer with value 10, but it returns a different return value after the preincrement and post increment.
I will be very thankful if somebody can give an explanation for this behavior.
Listed below is the program and output - executed in vc++6.
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { int *i = (int*) calloc(sizeof(int),1); Don't:
int* i = new int; new int() if he wants the same behavior as calloc (zero initialization).
*i = 10;
cout << " *i++ " << *i++ << endl;
This is *(i++) : increment the pointer, return the old address and dereference it.
No, it is return the address of the pointer before the increment and make sure it is incremented before the next sequence point. In fact, the above has undefined behavior.
The increments could both be applied before the sequence point in an allowable ordering.
Further, even without violating that rule, you don't know which of the *i++ subexpressions is evaluated first.
I think you missed the double quotes around the first *i++.
However, this is still undefined behavior because i now points to an
invalid address, though, on most platforms, the first cout statement
should work correctly because what is dereferenced is the old address.
The second cout:
cout << " *i " << *i << endl;
is more dangerous, but may still go unnoticed unfortunately.
Jonathan
Jonathan Mcdougall wrote: I think you missed the double quotes around the first *i++.
Oops you'rre right.
However, this is still undefined behavior because i now points to an invalid address, though, on most platforms, the first cout statement should work correctly because what is dereferenced is the old address. The second cout:
cout << " *i " << *i << endl; is more dangerous, but may still go unnoticed unfortunately.
Incrementing is OK, the pointer is guaranteed to have a valid
value one past the end. However, dereferencing the pointer
is invalid as you note.
Jonathan Mcdougall wrote: Robben wrote: int *i = (int*) calloc(sizeof(int),1); Don't: int* i = new int;
Even better:
int j;
int *i = &j; This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Sean Dettrick |
last post by:
I am wondering if it is possible to increment an integer at compile
time using template<int N> (or by any other method, e.g. compiler
directives etc), across multiple source files.
This may...
|
by: Gus Tabares |
last post by:
Hello all,
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding a snippet of code in the
K&R book I'm reading. Basically it's something like this:
int ndigit;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
ndigit = 0;
...
|
by: trint |
last post by:
for (int i = 0; i < listBox2.Items.Count; i+=1)<<something like this?
{
thisString = (string)listBox10.Items;
}
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Trint
|
by: anonymous |
last post by:
I have couple of questions related to array addresses. As they belong
to the same block, I
am putting them here in one single post. I hope nobody minds:
char array;
int address;
Questions...
|
by: Stefan Wallentowitz |
last post by:
Hello together!
I'm searching for a statistic about the value ranges of integers in a set
of "standard" c-programs.
I'm specifically interested in the avarage ratio of assignments etc. of...
|
by: Anders Würtz |
last post by:
i have an assignment to iterate through a collection containing
different types of numeric values (float, double, int, byte, short etc.)
and to add 1 to all of them. I tried with array and...
|
by: Nonoize |
last post by:
Hi all,
Really dumb question but I don't know how to resolve it. Looked in help and
evry book I have.
I have a table where the primary key was set as an Integer and its reached
over 140K...
|
by: robert maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t |
last post by:
I'm working on examples of programming in several languages, all
(except PHP) running under CGI so that I can show both the source
files and the actually running of the examples online. The first...
|
by: haelly |
last post by:
write a program that prompts the user to enter three different positive integer values.If the values are not different, the program prints a message"equal value" and terminates(hint:use the return...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
| |