Is it safe to use c_str() on a temporary string?












6















#include <iostream>

std::string get_data()
{
return "Hello";
}

int main()
{
const char* data = get_data().c_str();
std::cout << data << "n";
return 0;
}


"Hello" is printing on my machine; however, I am led to believe that this behavior is unspecified i.e. implementation-specific. Am I correct or will it always print "Hello", judging that the returned string is immutable and as such qualified as something that is constant? Thanks in advance!










share|improve this question









New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Where does that string that gets returned go after c_str() is called and returns a pointer to some data?

    – tadman
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    stackoverflow.com/questions/23464504/…

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Probably not a duplicate but helpful: stackoverflow.com/questions/349025/…. Also your interview question is missing #include <string> so technically it would be a compiler error ;)

    – Tas
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm a bit surprised that the documentation for std::string::c_str doesn't mention destruction of the string as grounds for the returned pointer being invalidated (unless you consider the destructor to be a non-const member function). I think many people coming from a C background would benefit from having this written explicitly

    – alter igel
    2 hours ago








  • 1





    @Tas: io-streams implement the shift-operators including overloads on basic_string ,so it needs its definition which requires it to include <string>. So it can't be a compiler error.

    – engf-010
    2 hours ago
















6















#include <iostream>

std::string get_data()
{
return "Hello";
}

int main()
{
const char* data = get_data().c_str();
std::cout << data << "n";
return 0;
}


"Hello" is printing on my machine; however, I am led to believe that this behavior is unspecified i.e. implementation-specific. Am I correct or will it always print "Hello", judging that the returned string is immutable and as such qualified as something that is constant? Thanks in advance!










share|improve this question









New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Where does that string that gets returned go after c_str() is called and returns a pointer to some data?

    – tadman
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    stackoverflow.com/questions/23464504/…

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Probably not a duplicate but helpful: stackoverflow.com/questions/349025/…. Also your interview question is missing #include <string> so technically it would be a compiler error ;)

    – Tas
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm a bit surprised that the documentation for std::string::c_str doesn't mention destruction of the string as grounds for the returned pointer being invalidated (unless you consider the destructor to be a non-const member function). I think many people coming from a C background would benefit from having this written explicitly

    – alter igel
    2 hours ago








  • 1





    @Tas: io-streams implement the shift-operators including overloads on basic_string ,so it needs its definition which requires it to include <string>. So it can't be a compiler error.

    – engf-010
    2 hours ago














6












6








6








#include <iostream>

std::string get_data()
{
return "Hello";
}

int main()
{
const char* data = get_data().c_str();
std::cout << data << "n";
return 0;
}


"Hello" is printing on my machine; however, I am led to believe that this behavior is unspecified i.e. implementation-specific. Am I correct or will it always print "Hello", judging that the returned string is immutable and as such qualified as something that is constant? Thanks in advance!










share|improve this question









New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












#include <iostream>

std::string get_data()
{
return "Hello";
}

int main()
{
const char* data = get_data().c_str();
std::cout << data << "n";
return 0;
}


"Hello" is printing on my machine; however, I am led to believe that this behavior is unspecified i.e. implementation-specific. Am I correct or will it always print "Hello", judging that the returned string is immutable and as such qualified as something that is constant? Thanks in advance!







c++






share|improve this question









New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









alter igel

3,44711230




3,44711230






New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









Aknin AbdoAknin Abdo

341




341




New contributor




Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Aknin Abdo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    Where does that string that gets returned go after c_str() is called and returns a pointer to some data?

    – tadman
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    stackoverflow.com/questions/23464504/…

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Probably not a duplicate but helpful: stackoverflow.com/questions/349025/…. Also your interview question is missing #include <string> so technically it would be a compiler error ;)

    – Tas
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm a bit surprised that the documentation for std::string::c_str doesn't mention destruction of the string as grounds for the returned pointer being invalidated (unless you consider the destructor to be a non-const member function). I think many people coming from a C background would benefit from having this written explicitly

    – alter igel
    2 hours ago








  • 1





    @Tas: io-streams implement the shift-operators including overloads on basic_string ,so it needs its definition which requires it to include <string>. So it can't be a compiler error.

    – engf-010
    2 hours ago














  • 1





    Where does that string that gets returned go after c_str() is called and returns a pointer to some data?

    – tadman
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    stackoverflow.com/questions/23464504/…

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago






  • 2





    Probably not a duplicate but helpful: stackoverflow.com/questions/349025/…. Also your interview question is missing #include <string> so technically it would be a compiler error ;)

    – Tas
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm a bit surprised that the documentation for std::string::c_str doesn't mention destruction of the string as grounds for the returned pointer being invalidated (unless you consider the destructor to be a non-const member function). I think many people coming from a C background would benefit from having this written explicitly

    – alter igel
    2 hours ago








  • 1





    @Tas: io-streams implement the shift-operators including overloads on basic_string ,so it needs its definition which requires it to include <string>. So it can't be a compiler error.

    – engf-010
    2 hours ago








1




1





Where does that string that gets returned go after c_str() is called and returns a pointer to some data?

– tadman
2 hours ago





Where does that string that gets returned go after c_str() is called and returns a pointer to some data?

– tadman
2 hours ago




2




2





stackoverflow.com/questions/23464504/…

– Wyck
2 hours ago





stackoverflow.com/questions/23464504/…

– Wyck
2 hours ago




2




2





Probably not a duplicate but helpful: stackoverflow.com/questions/349025/…. Also your interview question is missing #include <string> so technically it would be a compiler error ;)

– Tas
2 hours ago





Probably not a duplicate but helpful: stackoverflow.com/questions/349025/…. Also your interview question is missing #include <string> so technically it would be a compiler error ;)

– Tas
2 hours ago




1




1





I'm a bit surprised that the documentation for std::string::c_str doesn't mention destruction of the string as grounds for the returned pointer being invalidated (unless you consider the destructor to be a non-const member function). I think many people coming from a C background would benefit from having this written explicitly

– alter igel
2 hours ago







I'm a bit surprised that the documentation for std::string::c_str doesn't mention destruction of the string as grounds for the returned pointer being invalidated (unless you consider the destructor to be a non-const member function). I think many people coming from a C background would benefit from having this written explicitly

– alter igel
2 hours ago






1




1





@Tas: io-streams implement the shift-operators including overloads on basic_string ,so it needs its definition which requires it to include <string>. So it can't be a compiler error.

– engf-010
2 hours ago





@Tas: io-streams implement the shift-operators including overloads on basic_string ,so it needs its definition which requires it to include <string>. So it can't be a compiler error.

– engf-010
2 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














The code exhibits undefined behavior.



get_data() returns a temporary which expires at the end of the full expression (*):



const char* data = get_data().c_str() ;
// ^~~~~~~~~~ ^
// this evaluates |
// to a prvalue |
// temporary expires here


data points to an internal of that object, so after the temporary ends you are left with a dangling pointer. Accessing it leads to Undefined Behavior. So the next line std::cout << data << "n"; makes the whole program exhibit Undefined Behavior.





*) There is an exception to this rule which doesn't apply here. If a prvalue is directly bound to a reference, the lifetime of the prvalue is extended to the lifetime of the reference.



For instance, this would have been fine:



int main()
{
const std::string& ref = get_data();
const char* data = ref.c_str();
std::cout << data << "n";
return 0;
}





share|improve this answer


























  • Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago








  • 1





    @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

    – bolov
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

    – bolov
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

    – kmdreko
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

    – user4581301
    1 hour ago



















1














Yes it is, but not the way you're doing it.



If you did this:



std::cout << get_data().c_str() << 'n';


you'd be just fine.



That's because a temporary is guaranteed to live for the lifetime of the full expression it was created in. It may live longer in certain, very specific circumstances.



If you bind a reference to a temporary, it's lifetime will be extended to be the lifetime of the name it was bound to. So, code like this:



std::string const &x = get_data();
std::cout << x.c_str() << 'n';


would also work because the temporary returned by get_data would be bound to the reference named x, and so as long as x remained a valid name to use, the temporary would still exist.






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Aknin Abdo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55408411%2fis-it-safe-to-use-c-str-on-a-temporary-string%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    The code exhibits undefined behavior.



    get_data() returns a temporary which expires at the end of the full expression (*):



    const char* data = get_data().c_str() ;
    // ^~~~~~~~~~ ^
    // this evaluates |
    // to a prvalue |
    // temporary expires here


    data points to an internal of that object, so after the temporary ends you are left with a dangling pointer. Accessing it leads to Undefined Behavior. So the next line std::cout << data << "n"; makes the whole program exhibit Undefined Behavior.





    *) There is an exception to this rule which doesn't apply here. If a prvalue is directly bound to a reference, the lifetime of the prvalue is extended to the lifetime of the reference.



    For instance, this would have been fine:



    int main()
    {
    const std::string& ref = get_data();
    const char* data = ref.c_str();
    std::cout << data << "n";
    return 0;
    }





    share|improve this answer


























    • Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

      – Wyck
      2 hours ago








    • 1





      @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

      – kmdreko
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

      – user4581301
      1 hour ago
















    6














    The code exhibits undefined behavior.



    get_data() returns a temporary which expires at the end of the full expression (*):



    const char* data = get_data().c_str() ;
    // ^~~~~~~~~~ ^
    // this evaluates |
    // to a prvalue |
    // temporary expires here


    data points to an internal of that object, so after the temporary ends you are left with a dangling pointer. Accessing it leads to Undefined Behavior. So the next line std::cout << data << "n"; makes the whole program exhibit Undefined Behavior.





    *) There is an exception to this rule which doesn't apply here. If a prvalue is directly bound to a reference, the lifetime of the prvalue is extended to the lifetime of the reference.



    For instance, this would have been fine:



    int main()
    {
    const std::string& ref = get_data();
    const char* data = ref.c_str();
    std::cout << data << "n";
    return 0;
    }





    share|improve this answer


























    • Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

      – Wyck
      2 hours ago








    • 1





      @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

      – kmdreko
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

      – user4581301
      1 hour ago














    6












    6








    6







    The code exhibits undefined behavior.



    get_data() returns a temporary which expires at the end of the full expression (*):



    const char* data = get_data().c_str() ;
    // ^~~~~~~~~~ ^
    // this evaluates |
    // to a prvalue |
    // temporary expires here


    data points to an internal of that object, so after the temporary ends you are left with a dangling pointer. Accessing it leads to Undefined Behavior. So the next line std::cout << data << "n"; makes the whole program exhibit Undefined Behavior.





    *) There is an exception to this rule which doesn't apply here. If a prvalue is directly bound to a reference, the lifetime of the prvalue is extended to the lifetime of the reference.



    For instance, this would have been fine:



    int main()
    {
    const std::string& ref = get_data();
    const char* data = ref.c_str();
    std::cout << data << "n";
    return 0;
    }





    share|improve this answer















    The code exhibits undefined behavior.



    get_data() returns a temporary which expires at the end of the full expression (*):



    const char* data = get_data().c_str() ;
    // ^~~~~~~~~~ ^
    // this evaluates |
    // to a prvalue |
    // temporary expires here


    data points to an internal of that object, so after the temporary ends you are left with a dangling pointer. Accessing it leads to Undefined Behavior. So the next line std::cout << data << "n"; makes the whole program exhibit Undefined Behavior.





    *) There is an exception to this rule which doesn't apply here. If a prvalue is directly bound to a reference, the lifetime of the prvalue is extended to the lifetime of the reference.



    For instance, this would have been fine:



    int main()
    {
    const std::string& ref = get_data();
    const char* data = ref.c_str();
    std::cout << data << "n";
    return 0;
    }






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 hours ago

























    answered 2 hours ago









    bolovbolov

    33.1k876140




    33.1k876140













    • Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

      – Wyck
      2 hours ago








    • 1





      @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

      – kmdreko
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

      – user4581301
      1 hour ago



















    • Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

      – Wyck
      2 hours ago








    • 1





      @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

      – bolov
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

      – kmdreko
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

      – user4581301
      1 hour ago

















    Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago







    Your answer should include something with the words sequence point to get my upvote, because people still search for that - even though it doesn't appear in the standard.

    – Wyck
    2 hours ago






    1




    1





    @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

    – bolov
    2 hours ago





    @Wyck I don't see how sequence points are relevant here. The only thing that matters is the lifetime of the temporary. And that lifetime is until the end of the full expression it appears on.

    – bolov
    2 hours ago




    1




    1





    @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

    – bolov
    2 hours ago





    @Wyck newer standards don't use "sequence points" indeed. They use "sequenced after" and "sequenced before". I still don't see the connection to the problem at hand... Maybe I am missing something, could you please tell how sequencing relates here?

    – bolov
    2 hours ago




    1




    1





    @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

    – kmdreko
    2 hours ago





    @Wyck a single statement can possibly have multiple sequencing considerations, but they would not affect when a temporary is destroyed

    – kmdreko
    2 hours ago




    1




    1





    The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

    – user4581301
    1 hour ago





    The only thing that this doesn't cover is the Asker's statement that judging that the returned string is immutable suggests that they might not know that the string literal and the returned std::string are separate objects.

    – user4581301
    1 hour ago













    1














    Yes it is, but not the way you're doing it.



    If you did this:



    std::cout << get_data().c_str() << 'n';


    you'd be just fine.



    That's because a temporary is guaranteed to live for the lifetime of the full expression it was created in. It may live longer in certain, very specific circumstances.



    If you bind a reference to a temporary, it's lifetime will be extended to be the lifetime of the name it was bound to. So, code like this:



    std::string const &x = get_data();
    std::cout << x.c_str() << 'n';


    would also work because the temporary returned by get_data would be bound to the reference named x, and so as long as x remained a valid name to use, the temporary would still exist.






    share|improve this answer




























      1














      Yes it is, but not the way you're doing it.



      If you did this:



      std::cout << get_data().c_str() << 'n';


      you'd be just fine.



      That's because a temporary is guaranteed to live for the lifetime of the full expression it was created in. It may live longer in certain, very specific circumstances.



      If you bind a reference to a temporary, it's lifetime will be extended to be the lifetime of the name it was bound to. So, code like this:



      std::string const &x = get_data();
      std::cout << x.c_str() << 'n';


      would also work because the temporary returned by get_data would be bound to the reference named x, and so as long as x remained a valid name to use, the temporary would still exist.






      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        Yes it is, but not the way you're doing it.



        If you did this:



        std::cout << get_data().c_str() << 'n';


        you'd be just fine.



        That's because a temporary is guaranteed to live for the lifetime of the full expression it was created in. It may live longer in certain, very specific circumstances.



        If you bind a reference to a temporary, it's lifetime will be extended to be the lifetime of the name it was bound to. So, code like this:



        std::string const &x = get_data();
        std::cout << x.c_str() << 'n';


        would also work because the temporary returned by get_data would be bound to the reference named x, and so as long as x remained a valid name to use, the temporary would still exist.






        share|improve this answer













        Yes it is, but not the way you're doing it.



        If you did this:



        std::cout << get_data().c_str() << 'n';


        you'd be just fine.



        That's because a temporary is guaranteed to live for the lifetime of the full expression it was created in. It may live longer in certain, very specific circumstances.



        If you bind a reference to a temporary, it's lifetime will be extended to be the lifetime of the name it was bound to. So, code like this:



        std::string const &x = get_data();
        std::cout << x.c_str() << 'n';


        would also work because the temporary returned by get_data would be bound to the reference named x, and so as long as x remained a valid name to use, the temporary would still exist.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        OmnifariousOmnifarious

        41k11101162




        41k11101162






















            Aknin Abdo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Aknin Abdo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Aknin Abdo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Aknin Abdo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55408411%2fis-it-safe-to-use-c-str-on-a-temporary-string%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ponta tanko

            Tantalo (mitologio)

            Erzsébet Schaár