This question is different from:
I wrote a class Test
like this.
class Test {
private:
int *p;
public:
//constructor
Test(int i) {
p = new int(i);
}
Test & operator = (const Test &rhs) {
delete p;
p = new int(*(rhs.p));
return *this;
}
};
When the parameter rhs
of the operator function is itself (i.e. Test t(3); t = t;
), delete p;
also changes the pointer p
of rhs
. Why is this allowed?
C++ standard (N3092, "3.7.4.2 Deallocation functions") says
If the argument given to a deallocation function in the standard library is a pointer that is not the null pointer value (4.10), the deallocation function shall deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer, rendering invalid all pointers referring to any part of the deallocated storage. The effect of using an invalid pointer value (including passing it to a deallocation function) is undefined.
(Note: delete-expression internally calls a deallocation function. So this excerpt is related with delete
operator.)
So I think delete p;
may change the member p
of rhs
though rhs
is a const reference.
Someone may insist that "to render a pointer invalid is not to change the value of a pointer" but I don't find such a statement in the standard. I doubt there is a possibility that the address pointed by rhs
's p
has been changed after delete p;
in operator =
(*).
(*): Whether or not this situation can be reproduced on popular compilers doesn't matter. I want a theoretical guarantee.
Supplement:
I've changed delete p;
to delete rhs.p;
, but it still works. Why?
Full code here:
#include <iostream>
class Test {
private:
int *p;
//print the address of a pointer
void print_address() const {
std::cout << "p: " << p << "\n";
}
public:
//constructor
Test(int i) {
p = new int(i);
}
Test & operator = (const Test &rhs) {
print_address(); //=> output1
delete rhs.p;
print_address(); //=> output2
p = new int(*(rhs.p));
return *this;
}
};
int main() {
Test t(3);
t = t;
}
In this case, it is guaranteed that p
is invalidated. But who guarantees invalidate != (change the value)
? i.e. Does the standard guarantee that output1
and output2
are the same?