问题描述
在我的一个程序中,我必须与一些与 const char *
一起使用的旧代码对接.
In one of my programs, I have to interface with some legacy code that works with const char*
.
让我们说一个结构如下:
Lets say I have a structure which looks like:
struct Foo
{
const char* server;
const char* name;
};
我的上层应用程序仅处理 std :: string
,所以我想到了使用 std :: string :: c_str()
取回const char *
指针.
My higher-level application only deals with std::string
, so I thought of using std::string::c_str()
to get back const char*
pointers.
但是 c_str()
的生存期是多少?
But what is the lifetime of c_str()
?
我可以做这样的事情而不会遇到不确定的行为吗?
Can I do something like this without facing undefined behavior ?
{
std::string server = "my_server";
std::string name = "my_name";
Foo foo;
foo.server = server.c_str();
foo.name = name.c_str();
// We use foo
use_foo(foo);
// Foo is about to be destroyed, before name and server
}
还是我应该立即将 c_str()
的结果复制到另一个地方?
Or am I supposed to immediately copy the result of c_str()
to another place ?
谢谢.
推荐答案
如果 std :: string
被破坏或非字符串的-const成员函数被调用.因此,如果您需要保留它,通常会希望对其进行复制.
The c_str()
result becomes invalid if the std::string
is destroyed or if a non-const member function of the string is called. So, usually you will want to make a copy of it if you need to keep it around.
在您的示例中,看来似乎安全地使用了 c_str()
的结果,因为在该范围内不会修改字符串.(但是,我们不知道 use_foo()
或〜Foo()
可能对这些值做了什么;如果它们将字符串复制到其他位置,则应该执行真正的 copy ,而不仅仅是复制 char
指针.)
In the case of your example, it appears that the results of c_str()
are used safely, because the strings are not modified while in that scope. (However, we don't know what use_foo()
or ~Foo()
might be doing with those values; if they copy the strings elsewhere, then they should do a true copy, and not just copy the char
pointers.)
这篇关于std :: string :: c_str()的结果的生存期是多少?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持!