[vox-tech] C++ problem

[Harold Lee]

Using delete[] for an array allocated with new[] is correct, so I
don't think you've given us enough information to find the bug.

Are you getting any compiler warnings or errors?
Have you tried compiling with -Wall and -Wextra?
Are any of these overwritten variables pointers into the array var?
Could the array size stored at address (var - 4) have been overwritten
by accident by some other code?
Have you tried using valgrind to automatically find an accidental
overwrite earlier in execution?

Harold

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Jeff Newmiller
<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> It did make it to me, but
>
> a) I am out of town away from computers, and
>
> b) without a working example I probably would not look at it very closely
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Newmiller                        The     .....       .....  Go Live...
> DCN:<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us>        Basics: ##.#.       ##.#.  Live Go...
>                                      Live:   OO#.. Dead: OO#..  Playing
> Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries            O.O#.       #.O#.  with
> /Software/Embedded Controllers)               .OO#.       .OO#.  rocks...1k
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> Richard Harke <paleopenguin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>My last post seems to have gotten lost so I'll try again.
>>
>>I'm working on a small C++ program. In one of the constructors I
>>create an array with
>>double * var = new double [size]   After use, before exiting the
>>constructor I return the memory with delete [] var  But after return
>>from the delete, several private class variables are written over.
>>I have checked that these variables are correct just before the delete
>>call and are modified right after. Does anyone have any idea what is
>>going on?
>>
>>I'm running debian squeeze for amd64  with gcc 4.4.5 This morning I
>>did an apt-get upgrade to be sure I had any recent fixes.
>>
>>Richard Harke
>>_______________________________________________
>>vox-tech mailing list
>>vox-tech at lists.lugod.org
>>http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
>
> _______________________________________________
> vox-tech mailing list
> vox-tech at lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech