Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. C / C++ / MFC
  4. scope in functions

scope in functions

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C / C++ / MFC
question
21 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C CPallini

    Well, there is only a big mistake: you're are returning a pointer to a temporary value, this you must never do, because calling code cannot consider reliable the pointer. :)

    If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

    M Offline
    M Offline
    minkowski
    wrote on last edited by
    #10

    Hi CPallini, Yes I agree with that and I was wondering why it still works. How is the pointer returned? Is it copied with a copy constructor? Thanks.

    T C 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • M minkowski

      Hi CPallini, Yes I agree with that and I was wondering why it still works. How is the pointer returned? Is it copied with a copy constructor? Thanks.

      T Offline
      T Offline
      toxcct
      wrote on last edited by
      #11

      the address is returned by value... but why would you wind about this ?


      [VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B BadKarma

        Let me explain what happens. int x = 6; creates a int variable on the stack and sets it to the value 6 int * ptr = &x; creates a pointer to integer variable on the stack and sets the value to the stack address where x is located. return ptr; retuns to the calling function lowering the stack pointer to where it was before calling the function. and returns the value of the pointer. The pointer is now addressing somewhere in the unused stack space. The values of the stack remain there until the are overwritten/needed for other variables, or other function calls. In other words this is not a good practice and should never be used. I don't know what you mean about the copy constructor, since int isn't a class so it doesn't have a copy constructor in the way you think.

        codito ergo sum

        M Offline
        M Offline
        minkowski
        wrote on last edited by
        #12

        Hi BadKarma Thanks for that. Yes I thought it was bad practice to return an object on the stack in a function call. With regards to the copy constructor, if I have a class alpha in the function alpha * func() { alpha anything; alpha *ptr = &anything; return ptr; } how would it return ptr. Would it copy the pointer ptr using the copy constructor and then destroy it as the function goes out of scope? Thanks.

        T J 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • M minkowski

          Hi BadKarma Thanks for that. Yes I thought it was bad practice to return an object on the stack in a function call. With regards to the copy constructor, if I have a class alpha in the function alpha * func() { alpha anything; alpha *ptr = &anything; return ptr; } how would it return ptr. Would it copy the pointer ptr using the copy constructor and then destroy it as the function goes out of scope? Thanks.

          T Offline
          T Offline
          toxcct
          wrote on last edited by
          #13

          you're doing the exactly same mistake... your object "anything", whether it's an int or an alpha, is local to the function, so destroyed when getting out of space...


          [VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • T toxcct

            you're doing the exactly same mistake... your object "anything", whether it's an int or an alpha, is local to the function, so destroyed when getting out of space...


            [VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

            M Offline
            M Offline
            minkowski
            wrote on last edited by
            #14

            Hi ya I know about the mistake of the object on the stack going out of scope. I was questioning how it returns the pointer. It just copies the address and does not involve using copy constructors? Is that right ? Thanks.

            T C 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • M minkowski

              Hi ya I know about the mistake of the object on the stack going out of scope. I was questioning how it returns the pointer. It just copies the address and does not involve using copy constructors? Is that right ? Thanks.

              T Offline
              T Offline
              toxcct
              wrote on last edited by
              #15

              you're confusing about the object life, and the returning stuff. there's no copy constructors (actually, not even basic constructors at all) for pointers...


              [VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M minkowski

                Hi ya I know about the mistake of the object on the stack going out of scope. I was questioning how it returns the pointer. It just copies the address and does not involve using copy constructors? Is that right ? Thanks.

                C Offline
                C Offline
                Cedric Moonen
                wrote on last edited by
                #16

                minkowski wrote:

                It just copies the address and does not involve using copy constructors?

                Yes, no copy constructor are involved. In fact, no constructor at all will be called, because you don't construct a new object. You only delete an object (when the function goes out of scope) and then return its address. Which is of course very very bad :).


                Cédric Moonen Software developer
                Charting control [v1.2 - Updated]

                M 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • C Cedric Moonen

                  minkowski wrote:

                  It just copies the address and does not involve using copy constructors?

                  Yes, no copy constructor are involved. In fact, no constructor at all will be called, because you don't construct a new object. You only delete an object (when the function goes out of scope) and then return its address. Which is of course very very bad :).


                  Cédric Moonen Software developer
                  Charting control [v1.2 - Updated]

                  M Offline
                  M Offline
                  minkowski
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #17

                  Ok thanks! :-D

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M minkowski

                    Hi CPallini, Yes I agree with that and I was wondering why it still works. How is the pointer returned? Is it copied with a copy constructor? Thanks.

                    C Offline
                    C Offline
                    CPallini
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #18

                    As toxcct pointed out, it's returned by value. :)

                    If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

                    T 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M minkowski

                      Hi BadKarma Thanks for that. Yes I thought it was bad practice to return an object on the stack in a function call. With regards to the copy constructor, if I have a class alpha in the function alpha * func() { alpha anything; alpha *ptr = &anything; return ptr; } how would it return ptr. Would it copy the pointer ptr using the copy constructor and then destroy it as the function goes out of scope? Thanks.

                      J Offline
                      J Offline
                      jhwurmbach
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #19

                      minkowski wrote:

                      alpha * func()
                      {
                      alpha anything;
                      alpha *ptr = &anything;
                      return ptr;

                      }

                      how would it return ptr. Would it copy the pointer ptr using the copy constructor and then destroy it as the function goes out of scope?

                      The type you return is pointer. In this case, pointer to alpha. And pointers do not have such things as copy constructors. So, no copy c'tor is called.


                      Failure is not an option - it's built right in.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • C CPallini

                        As toxcct pointed out, it's returned by value. :)

                        If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

                        T Offline
                        T Offline
                        toxcct
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #20

                        and as an idiot is roaming over here, all my posts today got voted 1 or 2 :suss:


                        [VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

                        C 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T toxcct

                          and as an idiot is roaming over here, all my posts today got voted 1 or 2 :suss:


                          [VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

                          C Offline
                          C Offline
                          CPallini
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #21

                          Simply don't worry about. Helping people it's more rewarding than getting high scores; unfortunately, idiots can be found everywhere, even here. :)

                          If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups