I am looking at something that I discovered in an old code base, and I am pretty confused. Here is a function definition:
I know the ternary operator has some surprising restrictions, but I was a bit baffled that this fails to compile for me:
int&fun() { int * temp = NULL; return *temp; } In the above method, I am trying to do the dereferencing of a NULL pointer. When I call this function it does not give exception. I found when retu
I know that deleteing a null pointer is a no-op: In either alternative, if the value of the operand of delete is the null pointer the operation has no effect.
So, I have the following spirit karma rule body: base_rule = eps(_r1 != 0) [ // _r1 is a pointer_typed placeholder
I always think simply if(p != NULL){..} will do the job. But after reading this Stack Overflow question, it seems not.
I\'m trying to check if an entity exists in a given linkedlist.This is my code: bool LinkedList::existByID(int ID)
I\'m getting a really weird error where after I leave the for scope I can\'t access whatever my pointer was pointing during the loop even if the array holding the objects is declared in the class head
I am learning C++ and I came to know that pointers if le开发者_开发百科ft uninitialized could point to random locations in memory and create problems that memory might be used by some other program.
I am not so well-versed in the C standard, so please bear with me. I would like to know if it is guaranteed, by the standard, that memcpy(0,0,0) is safe.
加载中,请稍侯......