On 2007-06-28 14:59, Angus wrote:
On 28 Jun, 12:45, Stefan Naewe <nos...@please.net> wrote:
On 6/28/2007 1:30 PM, Bobbin wrote:
Yes, push_back, in your case, pushes a copy of the *pointer*. And then
you destroy the object it points to.
As Sumit Rajan said, you just make a copy of the pointer, when you
write
push_back(*pTemp), it will works the way you expect.
Not!
The OP had this:
std::vector<CTestClientSocket*>
You can't put CTestClientSocket _object_ into that!.
S.
--
Stefan Naewe stefan dot naewe at atlas-elektronik dot com
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
This is someone elses code. I have just noticed this:
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
// operator= NOT IMPLEMENTED
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
const CTestClientSocket & operator=(
const CTestClientSocket & krobToAssign)
throw();
As there is no copy implemented then when I push_back() then the
object is not properly copied? Is this my problem? I implement the
copy consstructor and then I can uncomment the delete pTemp?
Probably not, there's a good reason why a socket should not be copyable
(meaning that it should have no copy-constructor or assignment
operator). The reason is that a socket is considered a resource, and
there can only be one instance of each socket (where socket ==
connection). I'm just guessing, but I think the socket class looks
something like this:
class Socket {
// stuff to keep track of a conenction
public:
Socket(string host, int port) {
// Connect to host
}
void send();
void receive();
~Socket() {
// Disconnect
}
};
So if you add an assignment operator and do something like
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Socket s(host, ip);
m_collClients.push_back(s);
}
What will happen? First you create a socket, then you add a copy of the
socket to the collection. Then the socket you created goes out of scop,
which means that the destructor is called, which in turn means that the
connection is broken. So the socket you then have in the collection
would no longer have a working connection.
The correct solution is to do like you did, use new to create the
sockets, add the pointers to the collection, and *don't* call delete.
Then, later when you are done with the sockets you go through the
collection and calls delete on each element in it.
--
Erik Wikstr?m- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -