Re: Does this constitute a memory leak?

Hmm, I think I've found where my test example differs from the actual
program. Here's the fixed test program, now with examples:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

class tst {
public:
  char *a;

  tst() {
   printf("Default constructor.\n");
   a = new char[1];
   a[0] = 0;
  }

  tst(const char *b) {
   printf("Construct from char * %s.\n", b);
   a = new char[strlen(b) + 1];
   strcpy(a, b);
  }

  tst(const tst &copy) {
   printf("Copy constructor for %s.\n", copy.a);
   a = new char[strlen(copy.a) + 1];
   strcpy(a, copy.a);
  }

  ~tst() {
   printf("Destructor for %s.\n", this->a);
   delete [] a;
  }
};

tst &func3() {
  printf("FUNC3\n");
  tst *a = new tst("3456");
  return *a; // <---- THIS (Copy constructor is called)
}

int main(void) {
  tst a = func3(); // this is how I called - copy constructor is called
  tst &b = func3(); // Kai-Uwe called this - no copy constructor calls
  tst c = ""; // the way it's done in my program
  c = func3(); // no copy constructor is called

  delete (&b);
  // How do I free c?
  return 0;
}

This is the output:

FUNC3
Construct from char * 3456.
Copy constructor for 3456.
FUNC3
Construct from char * 3456.
Construct from char * .
FUNC3
Construct from char * 3456.
Destructor for 3456.
Destructor for 3456.
Destructor for 3456.

I suppose the way I do it is rather bad because first memory is taken
for tst c = ""; (it's member a, to be more precise) and it's never freed
and then it's modified to point to another string, thus forever losing
the pointer to what was previously allocated.

In any case, I think I'm in for some modifications.

Nikola Novak