whats the result of this ...

[dharani]

So you mean to say in VS2003 or VC++ 6 the first memory block will be still occupied ?

redindian

[dharani]

So how to avoid such a scenario ? I am trying to find answer ...:(

redindian

[jhwurmbach]

dharani wrote:

So how to avoid such a scenario ?

delete[] the old memoryadress before reallocating. Hold the new address in another variable. Use a string class (e.g. std::string or CString), which handles the memory for you.

---

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
George Orwell, "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", Opening words

[Paresh Chitte]

Use realloc. Regards, Paresh.

[markkuk]

Use std::string instead of char arrays.

[sw thi]

You shoudln't mix new and realloc.

"What's on your mind, if you will allow the overstatement?"

[Paresh Chitte]

Yes, you are right. I was thinking in malloc context. Regards, Paresh.

[1slipperyfish]

i would have thought so as you haven't freed it explicitly, or your compiler has done it for you, why don't you put cout << "destructor\n"; in your destructor and see? paul

if ignorance is bliss then knock the smile off my face!!!

[ThatsAlok]

swathee wrote:

You shoudln't mix new and realloc.

offcouse..

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow

cheers, Alok Gupta VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV Support CRY- Child Relief

[ThatsAlok]

dharani wrote:

I am trying to find answer ...

CString is much better optimized in this case!

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow

cheers, Alok Gupta VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV Support CRY- Child Relief