Deallocating Memory allocated to a pointer to a pointer

[darklord1984]

Hello. Please help me out with the following code...

class MATRIX
{
	private:
		float **x;
		int m,n;
	public:
		MATRIX();
		MATRIX(int, int);
		void getdata();
		void showdata();
		~MATRIX();
};

MATRIX::MATRIX()
{
	m=1; n=1; x=new float*[1]; x[0]=new float[1]; x[0][0]=0;
}

MATRIX::MATRIX(int a, int b)
{
	int ctr,row,col;
	m=a; n=b;
	x=new float*[m];
	for(ctr=0; ctr<m; ++ctr)
		x[ctr]=new float[n];
	for(row=0; row<m; ++row)
	{
		for(col=0; col<n; ++col)
			x[row][col]=0;
	}
}

MATRIX::~MATRIX()
{
	//what do I type here?
}

I am unable to figure out what code I should use in the destructor to deallocate the memory allocated to the pointer to a pointer x.

Please help out.

[Salem]

Like so

	for(ctr=0; ctr<m; ++ctr)
		delete [] x[ctr];
	delete [] x;

[darklord1984]

Hey, thanks for the code. The code I submitted was actually part of a bigger problem.

Supposing I include a friend function which returns a value of type MATRIX in the class definition, I seem to get erroneous results if I include the destructor, and the program works correctly if I do not include the destructor. Can anyone tell me why that is the case?

For anyone who might be interested, my code is attached (it's not very long).

[tomcant]

Try calling showdata() directly from `mat'. Like this: mat.showdata(); It works fine for me, and besides, your assign function is completely pointless as far as I can see.

[Salem]

Your assign() only returns a shallow copy of the matrix, not a deep copy.

So you end up with is either
temp = assign(mat); // this is a shallow copy
// destructor for mat gets called, just after the last reference to the object
temp.showdata(); // uses the same pointer you just destroyed.
// destructor for temp gets called, but you already deleted it

or
temp = assign(mat); // this is a shallow copy
temp.showdata(); // uses the same pointer
// destructor for mat gets called
// destructor for temp gets called, but you already deleted it

[darklord1984]

Hello tomcant. The program I attached is for demonstration purposes only. The actual function is different. I just wanted to find out where I was going wrong.

[darklord1984]

Hey Salem, looks like you cleared my doubt. Thanks a lot. Now that I know what the problem is, is there any way to get around it?

[Salem]

> is there any way to get around it?
Yeah, implement proper copy and assignment functions which know how to replicate the internal structure of your class. Most decent books and tutorials should be able to provide you with the detail.

[darklord1984]

Thanks Salem, that helped. The use of a copy constructor solved my problem.