I am new to C++ and trying to convert string into integer. I was using atoi but there are some restrictions so I start using strtol which works perfectly. However, I would like to learn more on *temp and &temp (I have google and learn that it is a temporary space for storage) but would like to learn the difference and when to use which.
char *temp;
int m = strtol (argv[1],&temp,10);
if (*temp != '\0')
*temp is a pointer to a variable named temp and &temp takes the address of that variable
First of all jessycaaaa welcome to Stackoverflow.
I am new to C++ and trying to convert string into integer.
For me this looks like plain C-code. You can compile this with a C++ compiler though.
I was using atoi but there are some restrictions so I start using strtol which works perfectly.
Since you get an undefined behavior using atoi when argv[1] contains something different than a number, strtol is an approach to go for. If you share us a bit more code, we would help you better on your questions.
However, I would like to learn more on *temp and &temp (I have google and learn that it is a temporary space for storage) but would like to learn the difference and when to use which.
First of all you have to distinguish between use and declaration
char *temp;
Here you declare (*-symbol in declaration) a pointer named temp of type char. A pointer is a variable which stores the memory address (where it is pointing to). Here you did not define an address so it most likely will point a random space, but then
int m = strtol (argv[1],&temp,10);
you pass the address of the pointer (&-symbol, use-case, address-of operator) to strtol, so you get an address pointing to the part of the argv[1] where the number literals end, that is all fine. The function also returns the numerical value of the read string as long and is converted to an int.
if (*temp != '\0')
Here you access the value of what the address is pointing to (*-symbol, use-case, dereference operator). \0 is normally set as indication for a null-terminated string. So you are asking if the previously read end part has the null-termination character.
You know what: in C++ there are more elegant ways to accomplish that using stringstreams:
std::stringstream
Just an idea if you don't want to handle too much string manipulation in C and annoyances with pointers.
Also I would read a good book about C (not C++). C++ has also the references don't get confused by those. If you dominate the pointer-concept of C, I'm pretty sure everything else will be very clear for you.
Best regards
* and & are one of the first hurdles that programmers new to C and C++ have to take.
To really understand these concepts, it helps to know a bit more about how memory works in these languages.
First of all: C++ is just C but with classes and many other additional features. Almost all C programs are valid C++ programs. C++ even started out as a language that was compiled to C first.
Memory is, roughly speaking, divided in two parts, a 'stack' and a 'heap'. There are also other places for the code itself and compile-time constants (and maybe a few more) et cetera but that doesn't matter for now. Variables declared within a function always live on the stack. Let's see this in action with a simple example and analyse how memory is organized to build a mental model.
#include <iostream>
void MyFunction() {
int intOnStack = 5;
int* intPtrOnStack = new int(6); // This int pointer points to an int on the heap
std::cout << intOnStack << *intPtrOnStack;
delete intPtrOnStack;
}
int main() { MyFunction(); }
This program prints 56 when executed. So what happens when MyFunction() gets called? First, a part of the stack is reserved for this function to work with. When the variable intOnStack is declared within the function, it is placed in this part of the stack and it is initialized with (filled with) the int value 5.
Next, the variable intPtrOnStack is declared. intPtrOnStack is of type int*. int*'s point to int's by containing their memory-address. So an int* is placed on the stack and it is initialized with the value that results from the expression new int(6). This expression creates a new int on the heap and returns the memory-address of this int (an int*) to it. So that means that intPtrOnStack now points to the int on the heap. Though the pointer itself lives on the stack.
The heap is a part of memory that is 'shared' by all functions and objects within the program. The stack isn't. Every function has its own part of the stack and when the function ends, its part of the stack is deallocated.
So int*'s are just memory-addresses of int's. It doesn't matter where the int lives. int*'s can also point to int's on the stack:
#include <iostream>
void MyFunction() {
int intOnStack = 5;
int* intPtrOnStack = &intOnStack; // This int pointer points to intOnStack
std::cout << intOnStack << *intPtrOnStack;
}
int main() { MyFunction(); }
This prints 55. In this example we also see the &-operator in action (there are several uses of & like the bit-wise-and, I'm not going into them).
& simply returns the memory-address (a pointer!) of its operand. In this case its operand is intOnStack so it returns its memory-address and assigns it to intPtrOnStack.
So far, we've seen only int* as types of pointers but there exist pointer-types for each type of object that has a memory-address, including pointers. That means that a thing like int** exists and simply means 'pointer to a pointer to an int'. How would you get one? Like this: &intPtrOnStack.
Can pointers only live on the stack? No: new int*(&intPtrOnStack). Or new int*(new int(5)).
Related
I am relatively new to C++...
I am learning and coding but I am finding the idea of pointers to be somewhat fuzzy. As I understand it * points to a value and & points to an address...great but why? Which is byval and which is byref and again why?
And while I feel like I am learning and understanding the idea of stack vs heap, runtime vs design time etc, I don't feel like I'm fully understanding what is going on. I don't like using coding techniques that I don't fully understand.
Could anyone please elaborate on exactly what and why the pointers in this fairly "simple" function below are used, esp the pointer to the function itself.. [got it]
Just asking how to clean up (delete[]) the str... or if it just goes out of scope.. Thanks.
char *char_out(AnsiString ansi_in)
{
// allocate memory for char array
char *str = new char[ansi_in.Length() + 1];
// copy contents of string into char array
strcpy(str, ansi_in.c_str());
return str;
}
Revision 3
TL;DR:
AnsiString appears to be an object which is passed by value to that function.
char* str is on the stack.
A new array is created on the heap with (ansi_in.Length() + 1) elements. A pointer to the array is stored in str. +1 is used because strings in C/C++ typically use a null terminator, which is a special character used to identify the end of the string when scanning through it.
ansi_in.cstr() is called, copying a pointer to its string buffer into an unnamed local variable on the stack.
str and the temporary pointer are pushed onto the stack and strcpy is called. This has the effect of copying the string(including the null-terminator) pointed at from the temporary to str.
str is returned to the caller
Long answer:
You appear to be struggling to understand stack vs heap, and pointers vs non-pointers. I'll break them down for you and then answer your question.
The stack is a concept where a fixed region of memory is allocated for each thread before it starts and before any user code runs.
Ignoring lower level details such as calling conventions and compiler optimizations, you can reason that the following happens when you call a function:
Arguments are pushed onto the stack. This reserves part of the stack for use of the arguments.
The function performs some job, using and copying the arguments as needed.
The function pops the arguments off the stack and returns. This frees the space reserved for the arguments.
This isn't limited to function calls. When you declare objects and primitives in a function's body, space for them is reserved via pushing. When they're out of scope, they're automatically cleaned up by calling destructors and popping.
When your program runs out of stack space and starts using the space outside of it, you'll typically encounter an error. Regardless of what the actual error is, it's known as a stack overflow because you're going past it and therefore "overflowing".
The heap is a different concept where the remaining unused memory of the system is available for you to manually allocate and deallocate from. This is primarily used when you have a large data set that's too big for the stack, or when you need data to persist across arbitrary functions.
C++ is a difficult beast to master, but if you can wrap your head around the core concepts is becomes easier to understand.
Suppose we wanted to model a human:
struct Human
{
const char* Name;
int Age;
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
Human human;
human.Name = "Edward";
human.Age = 30;
return 0;
}
This allocates at least sizeof(Human) bytes on the stack for storing the 'human' object. Right before main() returns, the space for 'human' is freed.
Now, suppose we wanted an array of 10 humans:
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
Human humans[10];
humans[0].Name = "Edward";
humans[0].Age = 30;
// ...
return 0;
}
This allocates at least (sizeof(Human) * 10) bytes on the stack for storing the 'humans' array. This too is automatically cleaned up.
Note uses of ".". When using anything that's not a pointer, you access their contents using a period. This is direct memory access if you're not using a reference.
Here's the single object version using the heap:
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
Human* human = new Human();
human->Name = "Edward";
human->Age = 30;
delete human;
return 0;
}
This allocates sizeof(Human*) bytes on the stack for the pointer 'human', and at least sizeof(Human) bytes on the heap for storing the object it points to. 'human' is not automatically cleaned up, you must call delete to free it. Note uses of "a->b". When using pointers, you access their contents using the "->" operator. This is indirect memory access, because you're accessing memory through an variable address.
It's sort of like mail. When someone wants to mail you something they write an address on an envelope and submit it through the mail system. A mailman takes the mail and moves it to your mailbox. For comparison the pointer is the address written on the envelope, the memory management unit(mmu) is the mail system, the electrical signals being passed down the wire are the mailman, and the memory location the address refers to is the mailbox.
Here's the array version using the heap:
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
Human* humans = new Human[10];
humans[0].Name = "Edward";
humans[0].Age = 30;
// ...
delete[] humans;
return 0;
}
This allocates sizeof(Human*) bytes on the stack for pointer 'humans', and (sizeof(Human) * 10) bytes on the heap for storing the array it points to. 'humans' is also not automatically cleaned up; you must call delete[] to free it.
Note uses of "a[i].b" rather than "a[i]->b". The "[]" operator(indexer) is really just syntactic sugar for "*(a + i)", which really just means treat it as a normal variable in a sequence so I can type less.
In both of the above heap examples, if you didn't write delete/delete[], the memory that the pointers point to would leak(also known as dangle). This is bad because if left unchecked it could eat through all your available memory, eventually crashing when there isn't enough or the OS decides other apps are more important than yours.
Using the stack is usually the wiser choice as you get automatic lifetime management via scope(aka RAII) and better data locality. The only "drawback" to this approach is that because of scoped lifetime you can't directly access your stack variables once the scope has exited. In other words you can only use stack variables within the scope they're declared. Despite this, C++ allows you to copy pointers and references to stack variables, and indirectly use them outside the scope they're declared in. Do note however that this is almost always a very bad idea, don't do it unless you really know what you're doing, I can't stress this enough.
Passing an argument by-ref means pushing a copy of a pointer or reference to the data on the stack. As far as the computer is concerned pointers and references are the same thing. This is a very lightweight concept, but you typically need to check for null in functions receiving pointers.
Pointer variant of an integer adding function:
int add(const int* firstIntPtr, const int* secondIntPtr)
{
if (firstIntPtr == nullptr) {
throw std::invalid_argument("firstIntPtr cannot be null.");
}
if (secondIntPtr == nullptr) {
throw std::invalid_argument("secondIntPtr cannot be null.");
}
return *firstIntPtr + *secondIntPtr;
}
Note the null checks. If it didn't verify its arguments are valid, they very well may be null or point to memory the app doesn't have access to. Attempting to read such values via dereferencing(*firstIntPtr/*secondIntPtr) is undefined behavior and if you're lucky results in a segmentation fault(aka access violation on windows), crashing the program. When this happens and your program doesn't crash, there are deeper issues with your code that are out of the scope of this answer.
Reference variant of an integer adding function:
int add(const int& firstInt, const int& secondInt)
{
return firstInt + secondInt;
}
Note the lack of null checks. By design C++ limits how you can acquire references, so you're not suppose to be able to pass a null reference, and therefore no null checks are required. That said, it's still possible to get a null reference through converting a pointer to a reference, but if you're doing that and not checking for null before converting you have a bug in your code.
Passing an argument by-val means pushing a copy of it on the stack. You almost always want to pass small data structures by value. You don't have to check for null when passing values because you're passing the actual data itself and not a pointer to it.
i.e.
int add(int firstInt, int secondInt)
{
return firstInt + secondInt;
}
No null checks are required because values, not pointers are used. Values can't be null.
Assuming you're interested in learning about all this, I highly suggest you use std::string(also see this) for all your string needs and std::unique_ptr(also see this) for managing pointers.
i.e.
std::string char_out(AnsiString ansi_in)
{
return std::string(ansi_in.c_str());
}
std::unique_ptr<char[]> char_out(AnsiString ansi_in)
{
std::unique_ptr<char[]> str(new char[ansi_in.Length() + 1]);
strcpy(str.get(), ansi_in.c_str());
return str; // std::move(str) if you're using an older C++11 compiler.
}
consider this code:
double *pi;
double j;
pi = &j;
pi[3] = 5;
I don't understand how is that possible that I can perform the last line here.
I set pi to the reference of j, which is a double variable, and not a double [] variable. so how is this possible that I can perform an array commands on it?
consider this code:
char *c = "abcdefg";
std::cout << &(c[3]) << endl;
the output is "defg". I expected that I will get a reference output because I used &, but instead I got the value of the char * from the cell position to the end. why is that?
You have two separate questions here.
A pointer is sometimes used to point to an array or buffer in memory. Therefore it supports the [] syntax. In this case, using pi[x] where x is not 0 is invalid as you are not pointing to an array or buffer.
Streams have an overload for char pointers to treat them as a C-style string, and not output their address. That is what is happening in your second case. Try std::cout << static_cast<const void *>(&(c[3])) << endl;
Pointers and arrays go hand in hand in C (sort of...)
pi[3] is the same as *(pi + 3). In your code however this leads to Undefined Behavior as you create a pointer outside an object bounds.
Also be careful as * and & are different operators depending on in which kind of expression the appear.
That is undefined behavior. C++ allows you to do things you ought not to.
There are special rules for char*, because it is often used as the beginning of a string. If pass a char* to cout, it will print whatever that points to as characters, and stop when it reaches a '\0'.
Ok, so a few main things here:
A pointer is what it is, it points to a location in the memory. So therefore, a pointer can be an array if you whish.
If you are working with pointers (dangerous at times), this complicates things. You are writing on p, which is a pointer to a memory location. So, even though you have not allocated the memory, you can access the memory as an array and write it. But this gives us the question you are asking. How can this be? well, the simple answer is that you are accessing a zone of memory where the variable you have created has absolutely no control, so you could possibly be stepping on another variable (if you have others) or simply just writting on memory that has not been used yet.
I dont't understand what you are asking in the second question, maybe you could explain a little more? Thanks.
The last line of this code...
double *pi;
double j;
pi = &j;
pi[3] = 5;
... is the syntactic equivalent to (pi + 3) = 5. There is no difference in how a compiler views a double[] variable and a double variable.
Although the above code will compile, it will cause a memory error. Here is safe code that illustrates the same concepts...
double *pi = new double[5]; // allocate 5 places of int in heap
double j;
pi[3] = 5; // give 4th place a value of 5
delete pi; // erase allocated memory
pi = &j; // now get pi to point to a different memory location
I don't understand how is that possible that I can perform the last
line here. I set pi to the reference of j
Actually, you're setting your pointer pi, to point to the memory address of j.
When you do pi[3], you're using a non-array variable as an array. While valid c++, it is inherently dangerous. You run the risk of overwriting the memory of other variables, or even access memory outside your process, which will result in the operating system killing your program.
When that's said, pi[3] means you're saying "give me the slot third down from the memory location of pi". So you're not touching pi itself, but an offset.
If you want to use arrays, declare them as such:
double pi[5]; //This means 5 doubles arrayed aside each other, hence the term "array".
Appropos arrays, in c++ it's usually better to not use raw arrays, instead use vectors(there are other types of containers):
vector<double> container;
container.push(5.25); //"push" means you add a variable to the vector.
Unlike raw arrays, a container such as a vector, will keep it's size internally, so if you've put 5 doubles in it, you can call container.size(), which will return 5. Useful in for loops and the like.
About your second question, you're effectively returning a reference to a substring of your "abcdefg" string.
&([3]) means "give me a string, starting from the d". Since c-style strings(which is what char* is called) add an extra NULL at the end, any piece of code that takes these as arguments(such as cout) will keep reading memory until they stumble upon the NULL(aka a 0). The NULL terminates the string, meaning it marks the end of the data.
Appropos, c-style strings are the only datatype that behaves like an array, without actually being one. This also means they are dangerous. Personally I've never had any need to use one. I recommend using modern strings instead. These newer, c++ specific variables are both safe to use, as well as easier to use. Like vectors, they are containers, they keep track of their size, and they resize automatically. Observe:
string test = "abcdefg";
cout<<test.size()<<endl;//prints 7, the number of characters in the array.
test.append("hijklmno");//appends the string, AND updates the size, so subsequent calls will now return 15.
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Why this fragment of code does not work? I know that all entered strings have length less than 20 symbols.I do not use std::string because I want to learn how to use char*
#include <map>
#include <stdio.h>
using namespace std;
map <char*,int> cnt;
int main()
{
char ans[20];
int n,mx = 0;
scanf("%d\n",&n);
for ( int i = 1; i <= n; i++){
char str[20];
gets(str);
cnt[str]++;
}
for ( auto i = cnt.begin(); i != cnt.end(); i++ )
puts(i->first);
}
Let's be clear that your code has a lot of undefined behavior. I tried running your code and here is what I saw on my machine. You should tell us what your behavior was though because it's impossible to say what's going on for you otherwise.
First off, here was my program input.
3
hello
world
cat
And the output...
cat
char str[20] is a memory address, and that address is being reused by the compiler. Let's say that memory address is 0xABCD.
So on the first iteration, the map contains one element which is { 0xABCD, 1 }. On the second iteration it contains the same element with its value incremented, {0xABCD, 2}. On the third iteration it contains {0xABCD, 3}. Then when you go to print the map, it finds only one element in the map, and prints that memory address. This memory address happens to contain the word "cat", so it prints cat.
But this behavior is not reliable. The array char str[20] doesn't exist outside of the for loop, so sticking it into map <char *, int> cnt and even worse printing the array outside the loop are both undefined behavior.
If you want your code to work, I suppose you could do this....
for ( int i = 1; i <= n; i++){
char * str = new char[20];
gets(str);
cnt[str]++;
}
for ( auto i = cnt.begin(); i != cnt.end(); i++ )
puts(i->first);
for ( auto i = cnt.begin(); i != cnt.end(); i++ )
delete[](i->first);
But really, the correct strategy here is to either....
1) Use std::string
or
2) Don't use std::map
If you want to use C strings beyond converting them to std::string, then program without the use of the C++ std library. Stick to the C standard library.
Seems like cnt is std::map<char*, ...>. When you do cnt[str] you use pointer to local variable str as key, but str is only valid during single iteration. After that str is freed (semantically, optimizer may reuse it, but it is irrelevant here) and pointer to it is no longer valid.
It's very simple: when you allocate a C-style array as a local variable (char str[20];), it is allocated on the stack. It behaves just like any other object that you allocate as a local variable. And when it falls out of scope, it will be destroyed.
When you try to pass the array to the map in cnt[str], the array name decays to a pointer to the first element (it implicitely converts an expression of type char[20] into an expression of type char*). This is something radically different than an array. The map only ever sees this single pointer and stores it as the key. The map does not dereference the pointer to find out what's behind it, it just uses the memory location.
To fix your code, you need to do two things:
You need to allocate memory for your strings on the heap, so that the char* remains valid after the end of the scope. The easiest way to do this is to use the getline() or getdelim() functions available in the POSIX-2008 standard: These beautiful two functions will actually do the malloc() call for you. However, you still need to remember to free the string afterwards.
Making the map aware that you are talking about strings and not about memory addresses is much harder to achieve. If you must use a map, you likely need to define your own std::string-like wrapper class. But I guess, since you are playing around with the char* to learn their use, it would be more prudent to use some other kind of list and program the logic to check whether the given string is already in the list. Could be an array of char*, probably sorted to save lookup time, or a linked list, or whatever you like. For ease, you can just use an std::vector<char*>, but don't forget to free your strings before letting the vector fall out of scope.
i am stuck and unable to figure out why this is the following piece of code is not running .I am fairly new to c/c++.
#include <iostream>
int main(){
const char *arr="Hello";
const char * arr1="World";
char **arr2=NULL;
arr2[0]=arr;
arr2[1]=arr1;
for (int i=0;i<=1;i++){
std::cout<<arr2[i]<<std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
where as this is running perfectly fine
#include <iostream>
int main(){
const char *arr="Hello";
const char * arr1="World";
char *arr2[1];
arr2[0]=arr;
arr2[1]=arr1;
for (int i=0;i<=1;i++){
std::cout<<arr2[i]<<std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Why is this? and generally how to iterate over a char **?
Thank You
char *arr2[1]; is an array with one element (allocated on the stack) of type "pointer to char". arr2[0] is the first element in that array. arr2[1] is undefined.
char **arr2=NULL; is a pointer to "pointer to char". Note that no memory is allocated on the stack. arr2[0] is undefined.
Bottom line, neither of your versions is correct. That the second variant is "running perfectly fine" is just a reminder that buggy code can appear to run correctly, until negligent programming really bites you later on and makes you waste hours and days in debugging because you trashed the stack.
Edit: Further "offenses" in the code:
String literals are of type char const *, and don't you forget the const.
It is common (and recommended) practice to indent the code of a function.
It is (IMHO) good practice to add spaces in various places to increase readability (e.g. post (, pre ), pre and post binary operators, post ; in the for statement etc.). Tastes differ, and there is a vocal faction that actually encourages leaving out spaces wherever possible, but you didn't even do that consistently - and consistency is universially recommended. Try code reformatters like astyle and see what they can do for readability.
This is not correct because arr2 does not point to anything:
char **arr2=NULL;
arr2[0]=arr;
arr2[1]=arr1;
correct way:
char *arr2[2] = { NULL };
arr2[0]=arr;
arr2[1]=arr1;
This is also wrong, arr2 has size 1:
char *arr2[1];
arr2[0]=arr;
arr2[1]=arr1;
correct way is the same:
char *arr2[2] = { NULL };
arr2[0]=arr;
arr2[1]=arr1;
char **arr2=NULL;
Is a pointer to a pointer that points to NULL while
char *arr2[1];
is an array of pointers with already allocated space for two items.
In the second case of the pointer to a pointer you are are trying to write data in a memory location that does not exist while in the first place the compiler has already allocated two slots of memory for the array so you can assign values to the two elements.
If you think of it very simplistically, a C pointer is nothing but an integer variable, whose value is actually a memory address. So by defining char *x = NULL you are actually defining a integer variable with value NULL (i.e zero). Now suppose you write something like *x = 5; This means go to the memory address that is stored inside x (NULL) and write 5 in it. Since there is no memory slot with address 0, the the entire statement fails.
To be honest it;s been ages since I last had to deal with such stuff however this little tutorial here, might clear the motions of array and pointers in C++.
Put simply the declaration of a pointer does NOT reserve any memory, where as the declration of a array doesn't.
In your first example
Your line char **arr2=NULL declares a pointer to a pointer of characters but does not set it to any value - thus it is initiated pointing to the zero byte (NULL==0). When you say arr2[0]=something you are attempting to place a valuei nthis zero location which does not belong to you - thus the crash.
In your second example:
The declaration *arr2[2] does reserve space for two pointers and thus it works.
I have a quick question regarding the scope of dynamic arrays, which I assume is causing a bug in a program I'm writing. This snippet checks a function parameter and branches to either the first or the second, depending on what the user passes.
When I run the program, however, I get a scope related error:
error: ‘Array’ was not declared in this scope
Unless my knowledge of C++ fails me, I know that variables created within a conditional fall out of scope when when the branch is finished. However, I dynamically allocated these arrays, so I cannot understand why I can't manipulate the arrays later in the program, since the pointer should remain.
//Prepare to store integers
if (flag == 1) {
int *Array;
Array = new int[input.length()];
}
//Prepare to store chars
else if (flag == 2) {
char *Array;
Array = new char[input.length()];
}
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Declare Array before if. And you can't declare array of different types as one variable, so I think you should use to pointers.
int *char_array = nullptr;
int *int_array = nullptr;
//Prepare to store integers
if (flag == 1) {
int_array = new int[input.length()];
}
//Prepare to store chars
else if (flag == 2) {
char_array = new char[input.length()];
}
if (char_array)
{
//do something with char_array
}
else if (int_array)
{
//do something with int_array
}
Also as j_random_hacker points, you might want to change you program design to avoid lot's of if
While you are right that since you dynamically allocated them on the heap, the memory won't be released to the system until you explicitly delete it (or the program ends), the pointer to the memory falls out of scope when the block it was declared in exits. Therefore, your pointer(s) need to exist at a wider scope if they will be used after the block.
The memory remains allocated (i.e. taking up valuable space), there's just no way to access it after the closing }, because at that point the program loses the ability to address it. To avoid this, you need to assign the pointer returned by new[] to a pointer variable declared in an outer scope.
As a separate issue, it looks as though you're trying to allocate memory of one of 2 different types. If you want to do this portably, you're obliged to either use a void * to hold the pointer, or (less commonly done) a union type containing a pointer of each type. Either way, you will need to maintain state information that lets the program know which kind of allocation has been made. Usually, wanting to do this is an indication of poor design, because every single access will require switching on this state information.
If I understand your intend correctly what you are trying to do is: depending on some logic allocate memory to store n elements of either int or char and then later in your function access that array as either int or char without the need for a single if statement.
If the above understanding is correct than the simple answer is: "C++ is a strong-typed language and what you want is not possible".
However... C++ is also an extremely powerful and flexible language, so here's what can be done:
Casting. Something like the following:
void * Array;
if(flag1) Array = new int[len]
else Array = new char[len];
// ... later in the function
if(flag) // access as int array
int i = ((int*)Array)[0];
Yes, this is ugly and you'll have to have those ifs sprinkled around the function. So here's an alternative: template
template<class T> T foo(size_t _len)
{
T* Array = new T[_len];
T element = Array[0];
return element;
}
Yet another, even more obscure way of doing things, could be the use of unions:
union int_or_char {int i; char c;};
int_or_char *Array = new int_or_char[len];
if(flag) // access as int
int element = Array[0].i;
But one way or the other (or the third) there's no way around the fact that the compiler has to know how to deal with the data you are trying to work with.
Turix's answer is right. You need to keep in mind that two things are being allocated here, The memory for the array and the memory when the location of the array is stored.
So even though the memory from the array is allocated from the heap and will be available to the code where ever required, the memory where the location of the array is stored (the Array variable) is allocated in the stack and will be lost as soon as it goes out of scope. Which in this case is when the if block end. You can't even use it in the else part of the same if.
Another different code suggestion from Andrew I would give is :
void *Array = nullptr;
if (flag == 1) {
Array = new int[input.length()];
} else if (flag == 2) {
Array = new char[input.length()];
}
Then you can directly use if as you intended.
This part I am not sure : In case you want to know if its an int or char you can use the typeid literal. Doesn't work, at least I can't get it to work.
Alternatively you can use your flag variable to guess what type it is.