 C++ Move constructor and constant member pointer or constant member, how to nulify them to avoid memory leak?
By : Muhammed Jeylani
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
help you fix your problem You don't need to worry about nullifying non-pointer types. They cannot be "freed" more than once, because their data is located inside of the class, not on the heap. Your const int pointer does need to be nullified, and it looks like you are doing that right. Take a look at this MDSN article for more info: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd293665.aspx
|
const correctness with const objects and member pointers, constructor vulnerability
By : Lulsen
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
Hope this helps Clearly the constructor (or at least the initializer list if not the body of the ctor) needs to be able to write a value to i.
As it happens, the way C++ achieves this is to make this a pointer-to-non-const in the constructor (and destructor). Basically, the const-ness of obj doesn't commence until the constructor has finished executing. That's why the vulnerability exists, because of a straightforward but imperfect solution to the technical problem of how to construct const-qualified objects.
|
Initializing const char * in constructor - will there be a memory leak?
By : htetmyat naing
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
I hope this helps you . Yes that's fine if a little unsafe: the memory associated with prompt is not owned by the class instance.
(In your particular case ChoiceLine choiceLine("hello world"); all will be well since the string literal will last the life of the program).
|
C++ O2 Memory leak when using const reference to literal in class
By : user3623578
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
like below fixes the issue A::zero is a dangling reference and hence UB.
When you construct st, a temporary is created to pass the parameter. This temporary goes out of scope at the end of the statement but st.zero is still referring to it. Therefore, mysterious things happen when you try to use it.
|
How to avoid Memory Leak with returning const char *
By : Mike Robert
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
this one helps. You can, and you should, wrap your pointer inside a std::unique_ptr. This will solve your exact problem, in an idiomatic C++ way. This will change your function like this:
|
code :
Related Posts :