I'm learning C++. Now, I'm trying to make one sample related with overloading operators of an object. My object (called Contador) has different methods and variables which help user to count iterations.
Header file of the object:
class Contador
{
private:
int* Valor;
int* Salto;
public:
Contador(int Valor_Inicio = 0, int Salto = 1);
~Contador();
inline int Get_Valor() const { return *Valor; }
inline int Get_Salto() const { return *Salto; }
inline void Incremento() { Set_Valor(Get_Valor() + Get_Salto()); }
inline void operator++ () { Set_Valor(Get_Valor() + Get_Salto()); }
void Set_Valor(int Valor);
void Set_Salto(int Salto);
};
Cpp file of the object:
// Librerias Propias
#include "Contador.h"
Contador::Contador(int Valor_Inicio, int Salto)
{
Set_Valor(Valor_Inicio);
Set_Salto(Salto);
}
Contador::~Contador()
{
delete Contador::Valor;
delete Contador::Salto;
}
void Contador::Set_Valor(int Valor)
{
delete Contador::Valor;
Contador::Valor = new int(Valor);
}
void Contador::Set_Salto(int Salto)
{
delete Contador::Salto;
Contador::Salto = new int(Salto);
}
The main() function of the sample has 2 different for loops. In the first one, I call Incremento() method and in the second one I call the overloaded operator.
Main function:
void main()
{
// Genero el elemento de analisis.
Contador* contador = new Contador();
// Realizo el bucle con la función de incremento.
std::cout << "Incremento()" << std::endl;
for (contador->Set_Valor(0); contador->Get_Valor() < 3; contador->Incremento())
{
// Escribo algo.
std::cout << "Iteracion actual: " << contador->Get_Valor() << std::endl;
}
// Realizo el bucle on el operador sobrecargado
std::cout << "operador sobrecargado" << std::endl;
for (contador->Set_Valor(0); contador->Get_Valor() < 3; contador++)
{
// Escribo algo.
std::cout << "Iteracion actual: " << contador->Get_Valor() << std::endl;
}
}
The problem appears when main function passes the first iteration of the second loop. It throws one exception in Get_Valor() method.
It seems to me that it change the memory addres of the pointer Valorin some place, but I can`t find where.
Can anybody help me?
Thanks.
contador++ does not do what you think it does - contador is a pointer, not a Contador, so it will make contador point to something that does not exist.
You need to dereference the pointer.
However, *contador++ also increments contador - it is *(contador++) - and (*contador)++ does not compile because you have only overloaded the prefix operator (the postfix operator has the prototype operator++(int).
So, ++*contador will do what you want.
You can avoid many similar problems, and the clunky syntax, by not using pointers unnecessarily.
The expression contador++ increments the address that contador (a pointer) points to! So, after the first iteration, the pointer will be completely invalid.
To call the increment operator, you need: ++(*contador) which first dereferences the pointer to the object pointed to, then effects that object's increment operator.
3 coding issues:
main shoudl return int.
Valor and Salto are not initialized in constructor.
Contador::Set_Valor and Contador::Set_Salto requires initialized pointers (as you delete them).
Easy fix is:
class Contador
{
private:
int* Valor = nullptr;
int* Salto = nullptr;
//...
};
Last issue is in your last loop:
for (contador->Set_Valor(0); contador->Get_Valor() < 3; contador++)
As condator is a pointer (not pointing on an array), accessing condator[1] would be UB.
You wanted ++(*condator) (operator++ () is pre-increment whereas operator++ (int) is post-increment).
Finally, avoiding usage of all those pointers would simplify code (and no bother with rule of 3 you break):
class Contador
{
private:
int Valor;
int Salto;
public:
Contador(int Valor = 0, int Salto = 1) : Valor(Valor), Salto(Salto) {}
~Contador() = default;
int Get_Valor() const { return Valor; }
int Get_Salto() const { return Salto; }
void Incremento() { Set_Valor(Get_Valor() + Get_Salto()); }
void operator++ () { Set_Valor(Get_Valor() + Get_Salto()); }
void Set_Valor(int Valor) { this->Valor = Valor;}
void Set_Salto(int Salto) { this->Salto = Salto;}
};
int main()
{
Contador contador;
std::cout << "Incremento()" << std::endl;
for (contador.Set_Valor(0); contador.Get_Valor() < 3; contador.Incremento())
{
std::cout << "Iteracion actual: " << contador.Get_Valor() << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "operador sobrecargado" << std::endl;
for (contador.Set_Valor(0); contador.Get_Valor() < 3; ++contador)
{
std::cout << "Iteracion actual: " << contador.Get_Valor() << std::endl;
}
}
In addition to previous answers.
As I could see Contador* contador = new Contador(); code also contains UB (undefined behaviour)
This call is equal to constructor with parameters Contador(0, 1)
which will do Set_Valor and Set_Salto which call delete first but at this moment content of this variables is not guaranteed to be nullptr so you might corrupt data. Also compiler if it sees UB might optimize out all other code since it's already UB and it can change behaviour anyway it wants for example throw it away completely. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140627-00/?p=633
Related
I wrote some code that involves moving and changing variables in C++. Below is what I have wrote.
#include <iostream>
void six(int*& ptr) {
int s = 6;
ptr = &s;
}
int main() {
int f = 5;
int* ptr = &f;
std::cout << *ptr << '\n';
six(ptr);
if (ptr) {
std::cout << *ptr;
}
else {
std::cout << "null\n";
}
return 0;
}
so this prints:
5
6
I tried another code, adding a single line:
#include <iostream>
void six(int*& ptr) {
int s = 6;
ptr = &s;
free(&s); // added line
}
int main() {
int f = 5;
int* ptr = &f;
std::cout << *ptr << '\n';
six(ptr);
if (ptr) {
std::cout << *ptr;
}
else {
std::cout << "null\n";
}
return 0;
}
Obviously, this gives an error after printing 5 because what the modified pointer is pointing is not available when called the second time.
However, I am confused at the first case. When calling six in the main function, variable s is not in the main scope, but the value itself still continues to remain in the memory to be referenced. Doesn't C++ automatically destroy variables and clean them when it goes out of the scope? Is this a memory leak?
The first case is not a memory leak, but an undefined behaviour because your variable go out of scope.
In this case you don't know when the memory will be cleaned(replaced) o reallocated.
So in some case the result can be correct but it's a pure question of luck.
Currently working on Object Oriented Programming in c++ and having problems with an instance showing nothing changed from a method I've created.
The whole code is based off of this object I've created from a header file.
#ifndef DEQUE_H_
#define DEQUE_H_
#include <iostream>
const int CAPACITY = 5;
const int DEFAULT = -1;
class Deque
{
public:
Deque();
int get_size() const;
bool is_empty() const;
bool is_full() const;
int operator[](int i) const;
static Deque insert_tail(int);
private:
int size_;
static int array_[CAPACITY];
};
std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream &, const Deque &);
#endif
One of the problems I'm having is the insert_tail method that doesn't show any changes to my static array.
In the cpp file itself.. these are the function declarations.
#
include <iostream>
#include "Deque.h"
Deque::Deque()
:size_(0)
{
}
int Deque::array_[5] = {};
int Deque::get_size() const
{
return size_;
}
bool Deque::is_full() const
{
if (size_ == 5) return 1;
else return 0;
}
bool Deque::is_empty() const
{
if (size_!= 5) return 1;
else return 0;
}
int Deque::operator[](int i) const
{
int something = array_[i];
return something;
}
Deque Deque::insert_tail(int x)
{
Deque d;
d.size_ += 1;
int size = d.size_;
d.array_[size - 1] = x;
return d;
}
std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream & cout, const Deque & dq)
{
cout << dq.get_size() << " [ ";
for (int i = 0; i < dq.get_size(); ++i)
{
cout << dq[i] << " ";
}
cout << "]";
return cout;
}
The operator works just fine. The bools work just fine and the remove_head and remove_tail thing I'll do once I figure out insert tail. Right now, it's not making any chances to the very object I've created inside the main.
#include <iostream>
#include "Deque.h"
void print(const Deque & deque)
{
static int i = 1;
std::cout << i << ". " << deque << ", empty: " << deque.is_empty()
<< ", full: " << deque.is_full();
i++;
}
void test_insert_tail(Deque & deque, int x)
{
deque.insert_tail(x);
print(deque); std::cout << "\n";
}
int main()
{
Deque deque;
print(deque);
std::cout << "\n";
test_insert_tail(deque, 2);
return 0;
}
The output should look like this,
1. 1 [ 2 ], empty: 0, full: 0
but looks like this
1. 0 [], empty: 1, full: 0
What's going on inside my static method for handling all the private attributes that I'm missing on? What did I do wrong exactly?
The problem with your code is the misuse of the static word. In fact, static means that is not associated with an instance of the object: this means that the content of the static member (the array_ variable in this case) is shared between every instance you will create.
That's the same for the insert_tail method, that can be used even if you don't create an instance. Now, let's try to understand what you've written in this method:
Deque d;
d.size_ += 1;
int size = d.size_;
d.array_[size - 1] = x;
return d;
In the first line, you created a new Deque object. That's the first mistake, cause you're not modifying the actual Deque. Then you add the operations, and in the end, you return the created Deque. However, this object is not saved anywhere, because when you call deque.insert_tail() you aren't assigning the returned value anywhere.
Let's try and get this a little bit more concrete.
Since what you're doing is creating a data structure, you won't need any static member. This because everything needs to be saved inside the data structure.
Then, inside the insert_tail you'll need to remove the object you created inside. It'll look something like this:
size_ += 1;
int size = size_;
array_[size - 1] = x;
With those two modifications the code will probably work as expected, however, I suggest you focus on improving the appearance of your code. Using the underscore character at the end of the variable name is a little bit confusing. In C the only scenario you can use it inside the name int foo_bar for normal variables, and at the beginning int _foo for reserved variables.
I try to create a class that accept and return an array but I got some problem. I'm not sure if it is legal to return an array from a class. Or it could be done by returning an pointer to the array. Thank for any solution to the problem.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class myclass {
private:
int Array[10];
public:
myclass (int temp[10]) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Array [i] = temp [i];
}
}
int returnArray () {
return Array; // error here, I'm not sure if it is legal to return an array.
}
int* returnArray2 () {
return this->Array; // hope it will return a pointer to the array
}
};
int main () {
int Array[10] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
myclass A(Array);
cout << A.returnArray() << endl; // try to return an array and print it.
myclass* ptr = &A;
cout << *ptr->returnArray2 << endl; // error here
return 0;
}
First of all it is better to write the constructor either like
myclass ( const int ( &temp )[10] ) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Array [i] = temp [i];
}
}
or like
myclass ( int temp[], size_t n ) : Array {} {
if ( n > 10 ) n = 10;
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Array [i] = temp [i];
}
}
Or even you may define the both constructors.
As for the returning value then you may not return an array. You may return either a reference to an array or a pointer to the entire array or a pointer to its first element
For example
int ( &returnArray () )[10] {
return Array;
}
In this case you can write in main
for ( int x : A.returnArray() ) std::cout << x << ' ';
std::cout << std::endl;
As for this statement
cout << *ptr->returnArray2 << endl; // error here
then you forgot to place parentheses after returnArray2. Write
cout << *ptr->returnArray2() << endl;
And the following member function is wrong because the expression in the return statement has type int * while the return type of the function is int
int returnArray () {
return Array; // error here, I'm not sure if it is legal to return an array.
}
So either the function will coincide with the the second member function if you specify its return type like int *. Or you could change the return expression to *Array
int returnArray () {
return Array; // error here, I'm not sure if it is legal to return an array.
}
This is illegal because Array is not of int type. Your returnArray2 is valid, however. As for this line:
cout << *ptr->returnArray2 << endl; // error here
This is illegal because returnArray2 is a function; you must call it to return the int*:
cout << *ptr->returnArray2() << endl; // prints the first value in the array
Other notes:
Your capitalization is backwards; you should call your class MyClass and your member array arr or arr_, or you will confuse a lot of people.
return this->Array; this is redundant, you can simply return Array;
If you haven't heard of std::vector and std::array you should research those, as they are generally superior to C-style arrays.
In general, I would suggest to read a c++ book to get your basics correct as there are lot of issues in the code you posted.
Regarding your main question about exposing C style arrays in class public API, this is not a very robust mechanism. Do it if it is absolutely essential because of existing code but if possible prefer to use std::vector. You will mostly always end up with better code.
Other answers have corrected your coding errors, so i won't repeat that.
One other thing, your code suggests that the array size is fixed. You can pass and return the array by reference as well. Refer to: General rules of passing/returning reference of array (not pointer) to/from a function?
I have something like this: A class with a member function which allocates some memory. Why on exit of the function, does the pointer become set to point at NULL?
class A
{
private:
int* memoryblock;
public:
void assignsome(int n);
};
void A::assignsome(int n)
{
memoryblock = new int[n]; // At this point, debugger suggests memoryblock is not pointing to null.
}
// On exit of this function, memoryblock points to null!
On request: Here is the full breakdown:
int FileHandler::PerValueMemoryBlockRead(char* delimarray, unsigned int sizeofarray)
{
// File Opened and mValues_n calculated.
mValues = new int[mValues_n + 1];
mValuesAllocated = true;
// Assignment of the contents of mValues is done.
mValues[next_value_pos] = 0x0; // Last int set to zero. /// next_value_pos is an int which is incremented. (Code Removed because there is no point showing it.)
return 0;
}
void FileHandler::SerialPrint()
{
if(mValuesAllocated){
std::cout << "Address:" << mValues << std::endl;
std::cout << "Size=" << mValues_n << "B" << std::endl;
for(ull pr = 0; pr < mValues_n; pr ++){
std::cout << (int)mValues[pr] << " ";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
else{
std::cout << "Nothing to print. 'PerValueMemoryBlockRead' has not yet been called." << std::endl;
}
}
Then inside main:
if((!datahandle.PerValueMemoryBlockRead(delimarray, 3))
&& (!converthandle.PerValueMemoryBlockRead(delimarray, 3))
&& dataoutput.is_open()){
dataoutput.seekp(0, std::ios::beg);
// Code
converthandle.SerialPrint(); // SEG FAULT
datahandle.SerialPrint(); // SEG FAULT
// End Code
If you put the breakpoint there, the debugger still hasn't run the line.
Continue to the next line to see it assigned.
The debugger can be a bit misleading in such cases. In fact the pointer is not NULL, debugger is simply confused and don'y know which A are you talking about. I suggest using debug printing when in doubt in similar cases.
You should see the instance of A has a value memoryblock not equal to NULL after calling assignsome:
class A
{
private:
int* memoryblock;
public:
void assignsome(int n);
};
void A::assignsome(int n)
{
memoryblock = new int[n];
}
int main () {
A a;
a.assignsome(5);
return 0; // breakpoint here - a.memoryblock isn't NULL
}
I am trying to write a logger class for my C++ calculator, but I'm experiencing a problem while trying to push a string into a list.
I have tried researching this issue and have found some information on this, but nothing that seems to help with my problem. I am using a rather basic C++ compiler, with little debugging utilities and I've not used C++ in quite some time (even then it was only a small amount).
My code:
#ifndef _LOGGER_H_
#define _LOGGER_H_
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
#include <string>
using std::cout;
using std::cin;
using std::endl;
using std::list;
using std::string;
class Logger
{
private:
list<string> mEntries;
public:
Logger() {}
~Logger() {}
// Public Methods
void WriteEntry(const string& entry)
{
mEntries.push_back(entry);
}
void DisplayEntries()
{
cout << endl << "**********************" << endl
<< "* Logger Entries *" << endl
<< "**********************" << endl
<< endl;
for(list<string>::iterator it = mEntries.begin();
it != mEntries.end(); it++)
{
// *** BELOW LINE IS MARKED WITH THE ERROR ***
cout << *it << endl;
}
}
};
#endif
I am calling the WriteEntry method by simply passing in a string, like so:
mLogger->WriteEntry("Testing");
Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.
* CODE ABOVE HAS BEEN ALTERED TO HOW IT IS NOW *
Now, the line:
cout << *it << endl;
causes the same error. I'm assuming this has something to do with how I am trying to get the string value from the iterator.
The code I am using to call it is in my main.cpp file:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include "CommandParser.h"
#include "CommandManager.h"
#include "Exceptions.h"
#include "Logger.h"
using std::string;
using std::stringstream;
using std::cout;
using std::cin;
using std::endl;
#define MSG_QUIT 2384321
#define SHOW_LOGGER true
void RegisterCommands(void);
void UnregisterCommands(void);
int ApplicationLoop(void);
void CheckForLoggingOutput(void);
void ShowDebugLog(void);
// Operations
double Operation_Add(double* params);
double Operation_Subtract(double* params);
double Operation_Multiply(double* params);
double Operation_Divide(double* params);
// Variable
CommandManager *mCommandManager;
CommandParser *mCommandParser;
Logger *mLogger;
int main(int argc, const char **argv)
{
mLogger->WriteEntry("Registering commands...\0");
// Make sure we register all commands first
RegisterCommands();
mLogger->WriteEntry("Command registration complete.\0");
// Check the input to see if we're using the program standalone,
// or not
if(argc == 0)
{
mLogger->WriteEntry("Starting application message pump...\0");
// Full version
int result;
do
{
result = ApplicationLoop();
} while(result != MSG_QUIT);
}
else
{
mLogger->WriteEntry("Starting standalone application...\0");
// Standalone - single use
// Join the args into a string
stringstream joinedStrings(argv[0]);
for(int i = 1; i < argc; i++)
{
joinedStrings << argv[i];
}
mLogger->WriteEntry("Parsing argument '" + joinedStrings.str() + "'...\0");
// Parse the string
mCommandParser->Parse(joinedStrings.str());
// Get the command names from the parser
list<string> commandNames = mCommandParser->GetCommandNames();
// Check that all of the commands have been registered
for(list<string>::iterator it = commandNames.begin();
it != commandNames.end(); it++)
{
mLogger->WriteEntry("Checking command '" + *it + "' is registered...\0");
if(!mCommandManager->IsCommandRegistered(*it))
{
// TODO: Throw exception
mLogger->WriteEntry("Command '" + *it + "' has not been registered.\0");
}
}
// Get each command from the parser and use it's values
// to invoke the relevant command from the manager
double results[commandNames.size()];
int currentResultIndex = 0;
for(list<string>::iterator name_iterator = commandNames.begin();
name_iterator != commandNames.end(); name_iterator++)
{
string paramString = mCommandParser->GetCommandValue(*name_iterator);
list<string> paramStringArray = StringHelper::Split(paramString, ' ');
double params[paramStringArray.size()];
int index = 0;
for(list<string>::iterator param_iterator = paramStringArray.begin();
param_iterator != paramStringArray.end(); param_iterator++)
{
// Parse the current string to a double value
params[index++] = atof(param_iterator->c_str());
}
mLogger->WriteEntry("Invoking command '" + *name_iterator + "'...\0");
results[currentResultIndex++] =
mCommandManager->InvokeCommand(*name_iterator, params);
}
// Output all results
for(int i = 0; i < commandNames.size(); i++)
{
cout << "Result[" << i << "]: " << results[i] << endl;
}
}
mLogger->WriteEntry("Unregistering commands...\0");
// Make sure we clear up our resources
UnregisterCommands();
mLogger->WriteEntry("Command unregistration complete.\0");
if(SHOW_LOGGER)
{
CheckForLoggingOutput();
}
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
void RegisterCommands()
{
mCommandManager = new CommandManager();
mCommandParser = new CommandParser();
mLogger = new Logger();
// Known commands
mCommandManager->RegisterCommand("add", &Operation_Add);
mCommandManager->RegisterCommand("sub", &Operation_Subtract);
mCommandManager->RegisterCommand("mul", &Operation_Multiply);
mCommandManager->RegisterCommand("div", &Operation_Divide);
}
void UnregisterCommands()
{
// Unregister each command
mCommandManager->UnregisterCommand("add");
mCommandManager->UnregisterCommand("sub");
mCommandManager->UnregisterCommand("mul");
mCommandManager->UnregisterCommand("div");
// Delete the logger pointer
delete mLogger;
// Delete the command manager pointer
delete mCommandManager;
// Delete the command parser pointer
delete mCommandParser;
}
int ApplicationLoop()
{
return MSG_QUIT;
}
void CheckForLoggingOutput()
{
char answer = 'n';
cout << endl << "Do you wish to view the debug log? [y/n]: ";
cin >> answer;
switch(answer)
{
case 'y':
ShowDebugLog();
break;
}
}
void ShowDebugLog()
{
mLogger->DisplayEntries();
}
// Operation Definitions
double Operation_Add(double* values)
{
double accumulator = 0.0;
// Iterate over all values and accumulate them
for(int i = 0; i < (sizeof values) - 1; i++)
{
accumulator += values[i];
}
// Return the result of the calculation
return accumulator;
}
double Operation_Subtract(double* values)
{
double accumulator = 0.0;
// Iterate over all values and negativel accumulate them
for(int i = 0; i < (sizeof values) - 1; i++)
{
accumulator -= values[i];
}
// Return the result of the calculation
return accumulator;
}
double Operation_Multiply(double* values)
{
double accumulator = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < (sizeof values) - 1; i++)
{
accumulator *= values[i];
}
// Return the value of the calculation
return accumulator;
}
double Operation_Divide(double* values)
{
double accumulator = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < (sizeof values) - 1; i++)
{
accumulator /= values[i];
}
// Return the result of the calculation
return accumulator;
}
Did you remember to call mLogger = new Logger at some point? Did you accidantally delete mLogger before writing to it?
Try running your program in valgrind to see whether it finds any memory errors.
After your edit, the solution seem clear:
Your first line in main() is :
mLogger->WriteEntry("Registering commands...\0");
Here mLogger is a pointer that has never been initialized. This is "undefined behaviour", meaning anything can appen, often bad things.
To fix this you can either make it a "normal" variable, not a pointer or create a Logger instance using new (either at the declaration or as the first line in main).
I suggest you to not use a pointer to be sure the logger is always there and is automatically destroyed.
By the way, it seems like you want to create every instance of objects on the heap using pointers. It's not recommanded if it's not necessary. You should use pointers ONLY if you want to explicitely state the creation (using new) and destruction (using delete) of the instance object. If you just need it in a specific scope, don't use a pointer. You might come from another language like Java or C# where all objects are referenced. If so, you should start learning C++ like a different language to avoid such kind of problem. You should learn about RAII and other C++ scpecific paradigm that you cannot learn in those languages. If you come from C you should too take it as a different language. That might help you avoid complex problems like the one you showed here. May I suggest you read some C++ pointer, references and RAII related questions on stackoverflow.
First, you don't need to create the std::list on the heap. You should just use it as a normal member of the class.
class Logger
{
private:
list<string> mEntries; // no need to use a pointer
public:
Logger() // initialization is automatic, no need to do anything
{
}
~Logger() // clearing and destruction is automatic too, no need to do anything
{
}
//...
};
Next, entryData don't exist in this code so I guess you wanted to use entry. If it's not a typo then you're not providing the definition of entryData that is certainly the source of your problem.
In fact I would have written your class that way instead:
class Logger
{
private:
list<string> mEntries;
public:
// no need for constructor and destructor, use the default ones
// Public Methods
void WriteEntry(const string& entry) // use a const reference to avoid unnecessary copy (even with optimization like NRVO)
{
mEntries.push_back( entry ); // here the list will create a node with a string inside, so this is exactly like calling the copy constructor
}
void DisplayEntries()
{
cout << endl << "**********************" << endl
<< "* Logger Entries *" << endl
<< "**********************" << endl
<< endl;
for(list<string>::iterator it = mEntries.begin();
it != mEntries.end(); ++it) // if you want to avoid unnecessary copies, use ++it instead of it++
{
cout << *it << endl;
}
}
};
What's certain is that your segfault is from usage outside of this class.
Is an instance of Logger being copied anywhere (either through a copy constructor or operator=)? Since you have mEntries as a pointer to a list, if you copy an instance of Logger, they will share the value of the pointer, and when one is destructed, it deletes the list. The original then has a dangling pointer. A quick check is to make the copy constructor and operator= private and not implemented:
private:
void operator=(const Logger &); // not implemented
Logger(const Logger &); // not implemented
When you recompile, the compiler will flag any copies of any Logger instances.
If you need to copy instances of Logger, the fix is to follow the Rule of 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_%28C%2B%2B_programming%29
You can do this by eliminating the need for the destructor (by not using a pointer: list<string> mEntries), or by adding the needed code to the copy constructor and operator= to make a deep copy of the list.
You only need to do
list<string> entries;
entries.push_back();
You do not need to create a pointer to entries.
Nothing too obvious, though you typed
mEntries->push_back(string(entryData));
and I htink you meant entry instead of entryData. You also don't need the string conversion on that line, and your function should take entry by const reference.
However, none of these things would cause your program to segfault. What compiler are you using?
You're missing the copy constructor. If the Logger object is copied and the original deleted, you'll be dereferencing memory that was previously deleted.
A simplified example of the problem
Logger a;
{
Logger b;
a=b;
}
a.WriteEntry("Testing");
Add a copy constructor.
Logger(const Logger& item)
{
mEntries = new list<string>();
std::copy(item.mEntries->begin(), item.mEntries->end(), std::back_inserter(*mEntries));
}