Another Dynamic Memory Question

According to the book I read on C++, variables in dynamic memory are availiable to functions other than the one it was defined in... take this code:

Code:

---

#include <iostream>

class Hello
{
  public:
    int ello;
    Hello() { Hello = 10; }
    ~Hello() {}
};

void Func()
{
  std::cout << h->ello;
}

int main( void )
{
  Hello* h = new Hello;
  Func();
  delete h;
  return 0;
}

---

Dev-C++ gives me the error that in Func() h is undeclared... so I'm thinking my understanding of dynamic memory (my book) is wrong, and I would like to know what is wrong about it.

- SirCrono6

P.S. Googled and board searched :)

Quote:

---

According to the book I read on C++, variables in dynamic memory are availiable to functions other than the one it was defined in

---

Yes, that's true, however your application of that principle is faulty. Normally, an object that is declared inside a function is destroyed when that function ends. The implication is: if you return a pointer to an object that was declared inside a function, the object will have been destroyed, and the pointer won't be able to access that object.

If instead, you use the new operator to create the object inside the function, the object won't be destroyed when the function finishes executing, so if you return a pointer to that object, you will still be able to access the object. However, that does not mean some other function knows anything about the object. The only way another function can refer to the object is if you pass it the pointer. Then, it can use the pointer to access the object.

You also have have another error in your code: a constructor initializes the members of an object, and "Hello" is not a member variable.

To demonstrate the difference when using 'new', call a function from main(), and inside the function create an object using new and return a pointer to that object. Then, call another function and send it the pointer, and use the pointer to display a member variable.

After that, try the same thing without using the new operator. Instead, just declare an object, declare a pointer, assign the address of the object to the pointer, and return the pointer.

Ah... thank you.

>"Hello" is not a member variable.
I did not notice that... um that isn't the code I was using.

- SirCrono6

What they guy above said is correct. here is an example

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
int func(int *ptr)
{
    delete ptr;
    ptr = new int;
    *int = 1;
    return 1; // so we can check what its been set to in main
}

int main()
{
    int *blah;
    int test = func(blah);
    if(test = *blah)
    {
      std::cout << "You should see this\n";
    }
    else
    {
      std::cerr << "Not this\n";
    }
    return 0;
}

---

>> here is an example
...of code that doesn't compile and wouldn't work even if it did.

• blah is uninitialized so delete is being passed an uninitialized value.
• ptr is not a reference paramereter and thus the new'd memory is leaked and blah's value never changes.
• "*int = 1;"
• "if(test = *blah)" If you get away with the dereferencing of uninitialized memory, then you will "see this".

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int func(int *&ptr)
{
    delete ptr;
    ptr = new int(1);
    return *ptr;
}//func

int main()
{
    int *blah = 0;
    int test = func(blah);

    if (test == *blah)
    {
        cout << "You should see this" << endl;
    }
    else
    {
        cerr << "Not this" << endl;
    }

    delete blah;

    return 0;
}//main

---

gg

The dynamically allocated memory is accessible from outside, however your actual pointer that points at that memory is not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Codeplug

>> here is an example
...of code that doesn't compile and wouldn't work even if it did.

• blah is uninitialized so delete is being passed an uninitialized value.
• ptr is not a reference paramereter and thus the new'd memory is leaked and blah's value never changes.
• "*int = 1;"
• "if(test = *blah)" If you get away with the dereferencing of uninitialized memory, then you will "see this".

gg

---

Thanks for the fix. My head was a little light at the time (needed sleep, but couldn't get to sleep), and I didn't try to compile it at all, just typed it out.