• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 262
  • Last Modified:

Stray Pointer??

This "appears" to work, I can run the code and get the desired result. After I add additional software modules, the system crashes.

class CStatus {
public:
  STATUS setButtonRequest(const int*);
...
};

STATUS CStatus::setButtonRequest(const int* ipInButton)
{
  SButtonRequest* pSInButtonRequest;
  pSInButtonRequest->iButtonID = *(ipInButton);
}

struct SButtonRequest {
    int iButtonID;
};

In order to fix the problem I do the following:
class CStatus {
public:
  STATUS setButtonRequest(const int*);
  SButtonRequest* pSInButtonRequest;
...
};

CStatus::CStatus()
{
  pSInButtonRequest = new SButtonRequest;
}

STATUS CStatus::setButtonRequest(const int* ipInButton)
{
  pSInButtonRequest->iButtonID = *(ipInButton);
}

I'm trying to figure out why I have to allocate space on the heap for the pointer to the object.

Why can't I localize the creation of the pointer in my method and have the storage be allocated and deallocated on the stack. Does anyone know why this fails?

Is there another way of doing this?

thanks for any help in understanding this problem.
0
GoldStrike
Asked:
GoldStrike
  • 3
  • 2
1 Solution
 
imladrisCommented:
In the first example no SButtonRequest is ever created.

SButtonRequest* pSInButtonRequest;

This line merely creates a pointer to an SButtonRequest, but no SButtonRequest is created, nor is the pointer initialized to anything. In the second example though:

CStatus::CStatus()
{
 pSInButtonRequest = new SButtonRequest;
}

An SButtonRequest structure is created, andpSInButtonRequest is initialized to point to it.
0
 
imladrisCommented:
Did you find this answer helpful at all?

If so it is time to grade it. Otherwise perhaps a clarifying question would help.
0
 
GoldStrikeAuthor Commented:
In the first example no SButtonRequest is ever created.

If this is the case why does the code work?

Is there another way of doing this without using the new statement?
0
 
imladrisCommented:
The code appears to work because C and C++ do not protect you against yourself. In the first sample in the following lines:

 SButtonRequest* pSInButtonRequest;
 pSInButtonRequest->iButtonID = *(ipInButton);

a pointer is created, but not initialized to point to an actual object. The value that pSInButtonRequest contains is undefined. Thus there is a reasonable probability that the assignment to the place in memory at offset iButtonID from that random value is in fact accessible to the program, and an assignment is made. This is why it is a "stray" pointer. It is not explicitly set to a valid memory location. At first, in your case, it apparently happens to be pointing to an accessible location. However, as you add code the underlying state of the machine changes and a different random value winds up in the pointer which winds up pointing to memory that the program is not allowed to access, and so it crashes.

The only alternative to new, is to create the object directly with the variable, in which case there would be no pointer. Changing the second example it would wind up looking something like:

class CStatus {
public:
 STATUS setButtonRequest(const int*);
 SButtonRequest SInButtonRequest;
...
};

STATUS CStatus::setButtonRequest(const int* ipInButton)
{
 SInButtonRequest.iButtonID = *(ipInButton);
}

This creates the object with the declaration. The SButtonRequest object will now implicitly be created when the CStatus object is created. Note that accessing members now occurs with '.' notation.
0
 
GoldStrikeAuthor Commented:
That's the explanation I was hoping to get.

thanks

0

Featured Post

Concerto's Cloud Advisory Services

Want to avoid the missteps to gaining all the benefits of the cloud? Learn more about the different assessment options from our Cloud Advisory team.

  • 3
  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now