问题
I'm not sure if this question has been asked before ( searched through SOF and couldn't find an answer)
I wrote a LinkedList class and a function to reverse it.The function as follows,
struct LinkedList::element* LinkedList::recurrsiveReverseList(element* head){
element* tempList;
if(head->next == NULL){
return head;
}else{
tempList = recurrsiveReverseList(head->next);
head->next->next = head;
head->next = NULL;
return tempList;
}
}
here I am declaring a local pointer variable and making some changes to it and returning it back to the caller. In C++, when I declare a local variable inside a function the scope exists only inside the function. Now when I return the pointer from the function how does it work? I am able to understand the logic and get the result (luckily) but I am not able to completely understand the working here.
Can somebody clear my doubt?
回答1:
The scope of tempList terminates when you exit the function but tempList is a pointer to a block of memory whose scope does not terminate there because it's been undoubtedly allocated by new. Memory allocated in such a way is valid right up until the point you delete it, regardless of how many functions you go in to or out of.
By passing the pointer back to the caller, it preserves said pointer elsewhere, where you can use it.
A simple example:
static char *fn (void) {
char *rv = new char[42];
return rv;
}
int main (void) {
char *x = fn();
delete [] x;
return 0;
}
In the code above, the scope of rv is limited to the fn function after it's declared.
The scope of x is limited to the main function after it's declared.
However the memory allocated by new comes into existence within fn and continues to exist after returning to main. The address of said memory, initially stored in rv, is transferred to x by the assignment of the fn return value to x.
回答2:
Not sure if someone else explained it this way, but the pointer itself is nothing more than a number, like... 0x12345678. That number in turn addresses a position in the memory of a computer that contains the actual value you are looking for, which is the linked list node.
So when you return that address, it's okay that the original variable was destroyed. Like copying down a street address to a different piece of paper, then throwing away the original paper. The house that is at the address you have is still there.
回答3:
The pointer object tempList ceases to exist when you leave the function. But that's ok; you're returning (a copy of) the value that was stored in the object, not the object itself. It's just like
int n = 42;
return n;
(Returning the address of a local variable is what gets you into trouble.)
回答4:
I assume your linked list nodes are allocated on the free store (i.e. with new).
When you create an object with new, it is created on the free store and exists until you call delete on it. You can make as many pointers to that location as you want, and it exists independent of any function calls it may have been made in. So in this function, you are just returning a pointer by value to that location on the free store. The pointer is just a number which is the address of the object, like returning an int by value.
tl;dr: You obviously know you can return local objects by value because a copy is made. In this function, it returns a copy of the pointer which points to a location on the free store which is only destroyed when delete is called with a pointer to that memory location.
As another note, you probably should not return a pointer to the new head of the list but rather take a pointer to the head of the list by reference and change the list through that, so if someone forgets to assign their old head pointer to the one returned by recurrsiveReverseList, things aren't messed up.
回答5:
The scope of usage of tempList variable is limited within the method as its local, but it holds a memory address which is what is returned. The code that call its will receive this memory address, not the variable tempList.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7155991/pointer-returning-local-reference-in-c