If you are allocating data to the pointers later, you don't have to set the pointers to null (although you're right that it is better). If just making that change stopped the bug, then the real bug is probably somewhere else in your code (like something using a pointer it assumes has already been assigned a valid value to).
you are right! now I don't my pointers to null, but my program still works fine. I don't know where is the bug, but the program is still working
That will work as long as it doesn't lead to any problems, but it appears that it does in this instance, and then there's obviously a need to do SOMETHING. Setting pointers to NULL will not "fix" any problem other than identifying that the pointer is not a valid pointer. Unless you have explicitly allocated memory for the pointer, you should not be using it. One way to DETECT that you are getting that wrong is to set pointers to NULL before using them.Originally Posted by franziss
I'm a bit surprised, however, that you don't get a different problem - in debug mode, MS compiler will fill any unused memory with a given pattern, which is guaranteed to lead to a memory access violation.
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
