free() Memory Question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogster001

isn't 100,000 out of bounds for an integer? thought it was 16,000, unless i'm the dinosaur;->

---

For either short or int, -32767 to +32767 is guaranteed.

For signed, yes. For unsigned, that would be 0 - 65535.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guillermoh

I'm trying to solve this:

---

to solve the 1st - just add () to function to indicate the call of the function

About the second - when you return something like

return "some const string";

you returning pointer to const string that will not be destructed, so its OK...

If you are creating the string inside your function - its another story

I understand. So this would be fine

Code:

---


const char *text[] = {"memory","information"};



int main()
{
      while(i<100)
      {
            ...
            printf("Example &#37;s\n",function());
            ...
            i++;
      }

      return 0;
}

char* function ()
{
      char* data;
      ...
      data = text[0];
      ....
      return data;
}

---

Thanks for you help!

Yes, it would work fine, but not the best solution. To return constant data, consider making it static to your function instead.
That way you avoid global variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guillermoh

I understand. So this would be fine

---

You should declare function as
const char* function(void);
in this case

Thanks.

What about

static const char* string[] = .... ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guillermoh

Thanks.

What about

static const char* string[] = .... ?

---

its ok

Code:

---

const char* sHelloWorld(void)
{
  static const char* hello = "Hello, World!";
  return hello;
}

---

> static const char* string[] = .... ?

Did you really want an array of read-only strings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citizen

> static const char* string[] = .... ?

Did you really want an array of read-only strings?

---

Probably, because that's what they would be even without const and static - string literals are non-writable in most modern OS's.

--
Mats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matsp

Probably, because that's what they would be even without const and static - string literals are non-writable in most modern OS's.

--
Mats

---

but with const you will get warning from compiler when trying to assign pointer to this string to the regular char* pointer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matsp

Probably, because that's what they would be even without const and static - string literals are non-writable in most modern OS's.

--
Mats

---

Well aware of that, except that most of the examples up to now have been simple variables and not arrays. The OP might have been confused by vart's example. He demonstrated an entirely different type and its behavior.