Printable View
An access violation or any other kind of undefined behaviour... since pointer2 is uninitialized in the beginning, and pointer1 will have a copy of that undefined value when delete [] is called during the second iteration.Quote:
Originally posted by AvDav
the seond iteration will cause an access violation on 'delete [] pointer1'.
I think I would have said something such as that instead of just saying there would be an access violation.Quote:
Originally posted by AvDav
the seond iteration will cause an access violation on 'delete [] pointer1'.
Okay, well then just initialize pointer2 to NULL (zero) also. There are other variations that are likely but we don't know the details of how the data will be processed; we don't know when the pointer1 and pointer2 data will be accessed for other puposes. Based on my experience, pointer2 would be initialized to the first data before the loop begins.
However if no one wants to admit that the solution is closer to something useful than the one I was commenting on, then I hope others see that at least.
It just seemed a little too ironic to me. You commented on my post which I included on this thread to point out a potential mistake that could be encountered when working with pointers. Then you subsequently made exactly the same mistake that I was trying to empahsize.Quote:
Originally quoted by SAM HOBBS
I think I would have said something such as that instead of just saying there would be an access violation.
TDM
The post was updated to remove any ambiguity.Quote:
I don't know who "You" is. If I am the only one that does not then I assume I don't need to know.
TDM
I am sorry to have offended you or whatever. Note that in my initial response to your sample, it was unclear to me whether it accomplished what was being asked. Was that comment of mine unreasonable? I did not say anything about pointers; I did not say there was a mistake. I said very little.Quote:
Originally posted by TDM
It just seemed a little too ironic to me. You commented on my post which I included on this thread to point out a potential mistake that could be encountered when working with pointers. Then you subsequently made exactly the same mistake that I was trying to empahsize.
TDM
Then someone else made comment that I still don't understand.
I admit that my code had a mistake. If you can admit that your code was very general then that is all I meant to say. Do you agree that my code shows maitenance of two copies of data better than yours?
The important point of my sample is the algorithm. People often post code that has not been tested. I certainly try to test the code I post. I did verify that my code compiles at least.
Note that VuQ_Le's comment indicated that I considered your sample to not be good. That seems to have been what caused the problem. I did not intend to say your sample was not good; I just thought it was not a clear example of what was being asked.
Note that I said "needs to have two strings or sets of data". I really think that is reasonable. I really think VuQ_Le could have said whatever needed to be said without making it sound as if I was being so critical of you.
Did I say it was not good? I only meant that the sample was very general. The original question asks how to keep two sets of data, and the samples don't really show that. Right? It does not show data being put into the memory pointed to by pointer1 and pointer2; it only shows a pointer getting set to allocated memory and a pointer being set to the value of another pointer. I did not say there is anything wrong except that it is quite minimal.Quote:
Originally posted by VuQ_Le
Sam, please do not get me wrong but I think TDM's suggestions are really great...
There are a lot of different solutions to only one problem though...
Regards,
-Vu
You assumed that I considered TDM's suggestions to not be useful. Do you really, really, really think that TDM's suggestion is a complete answer to the original question? I think it shows something that was important to be shown but it is not a complete answer. I was just saying that a complete answer to the original question would require a little bit more.