Will this do what I think it does?

[Raigne]

I have a function that takes a pointer as a parameter

int SetElement(unsigned int p_iIndex, Type* p_tType)
        {
            if ( p_iIndex < m_iMax )
            {
                if ( m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) == NULL )
                     m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) = p_tType;
                return 0;
            }
            return -1;
        }

if were to call the function like this...

SetElement(0, new Type);

would this dynamically allocate the memory in the m_vArray variable?
I am hoping it does, but I am unsure.

[iMalc]

Would you kindly post the declaration of m_vArray please?

Note that the SetElement call is already bad because p_tType is the only pointer to a newly allocated object, and if the if-statement in your code evaluates to false then you lose the last remaining pointer to the new item and the memory is leaked.

[Daved]

Yes, it will store a pointer to the dynamically allocated memory in the location 0 in the m_vArray.

If m_iMax is less than or equal to 0, the memory will be leaked. If there is already a non-null value at index 0, the memory will be leaked.

[Raigne]

The entire code is in my other thread... the Resource manager one
but m_vArray is a vector

std::vector<Type*> m_vArray;

EDIT:
If it will work then I am going to have it free the old memory if the program calls SetElement on it.

[Raigne]

So this will prevent this leak?

int SetElement(unsigned int p_iIndex, Type* p_tType)
		{
			if ( p_iIndex < m_iMax )
			{
				if ( m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) == NULL )
					m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) = p_tType;
				else
				{
					delete m_vArray.at(p_iIndex);
                                        m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) = NULL;
					m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) = p_tType;
				}
				return 0;
			}
			return -1;
		}

[Daved]

If m_iMax is less than or equal to p_iIndex the memory will be leaked.

You could write the inside of the if more concisely like this:

				delete m_vArray.at(p_iIndex);
				m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) = p_tType;
				return 0;

Also, why not return bool? That would seem to be clearer.

[iMalc]

What is m_iMax?
If you're storing the number of elements in the vector in it, which it looks like you might be, then you don't need to do that. vectors have a size() function that tells you how many items are in it. Furthurmore if you check against size() instead then you may as well use [] instead of .at() because then you've already checked for buffer overrun.

In regards to returning bools, I'm going to assume you had zero meaning success and -1 meaning failure. The below simply returns true if it succeeds.

So, what you have right now will simplify to this (also fixing the memory leak):

bool SetElement(unsigned int p_iIndex, Type* p_tType)
{
    if ( p_iIndex < m_iMax )
    {
        delete m_vArray.at(p_iIndex);
        m_vArray.at(p_iIndex) = p_tType;
        return true;
    }
    delete p_tType;
    return false;
}

Furthurmore it looks like all this does is attempt to implement a ptr_container, in which case you should simply be using the ones from boost instead.

[Raigne]

it is a pointer container. I just like making things like this for educational purposes. I also like to write all my own code in my projects. More satisfying I guess.