Overloading subtraction operator cpp












-5















I'm a bit new to object oriented programming in c++ and I've been trying to overload subtraction(-) operator in c++ for a Complex class I created. It is working fine except my program is terminating abnormally.
Below is what I've been trying to do:



#include<iostream>

#include<cstdlib>

class Complex{

    //Data-members

private:

    int re, im;



    //methods

public:

    //Constructor

    Complex(){ /*default Constructor*/ }

    Complex(const int& re_, const int& im_):re(re_), im(im_){}

    //Subtraction(-) operator overloading

    Complex operator-(const Complex& op)

    {

        Complex res(this->re - op.re, this->im - op.im);

        return res;

    }

    //get-set methods for re

    int getReal(){ return re; }

    void setReal(const int& re){ this->re = re; }

    //get-set methods for im

    int getImaginary(){ return im; }

    void setImaginary(const int& im){ this->im = im; }

    //Destructor

    ~Complex(){ free(this); }

};



int main()

{

    Complex a(2, 3), b(3, 5);

    Complex d = a - b;

    std::cout<<"d.re = "<<d.getReal()<<" d.im = "<<d.getImaginary()<<"n";

    return 0;

}


Can anyone please explain the cause of error.






c++







share|improve this question

























  • What free(this); is supposed to do? It's unnecessary and causes the error.

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:55













  • Also, why pass const int& instead of a plain int?

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:56






  • 1





    Remove the free(this) from the destructor. Calling free() with an argument that was not returned by malloc() (or related functions, like calloc() or realloc()) gives undefined behaviour. There is nothing in your code returned by malloc(), and doesn't need to be.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:57











  • See also rule of three here

    – anatolyg
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:58






  • 1





    @anatolyg - rule of zero is more applicable here. The class doesn't explicitly manage any resource, compiler-supplied default implementations of copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor are fine.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:00
















-5















I'm a bit new to object oriented programming in c++ and I've been trying to overload subtraction(-) operator in c++ for a Complex class I created. It is working fine except my program is terminating abnormally.
Below is what I've been trying to do:



#include<iostream>

#include<cstdlib>

class Complex{

    //Data-members

private:

    int re, im;



    //methods

public:

    //Constructor

    Complex(){ /*default Constructor*/ }

    Complex(const int& re_, const int& im_):re(re_), im(im_){}

    //Subtraction(-) operator overloading

    Complex operator-(const Complex& op)

    {

        Complex res(this->re - op.re, this->im - op.im);

        return res;

    }

    //get-set methods for re

    int getReal(){ return re; }

    void setReal(const int& re){ this->re = re; }

    //get-set methods for im

    int getImaginary(){ return im; }

    void setImaginary(const int& im){ this->im = im; }

    //Destructor

    ~Complex(){ free(this); }

};



int main()

{

    Complex a(2, 3), b(3, 5);

    Complex d = a - b;

    std::cout<<"d.re = "<<d.getReal()<<" d.im = "<<d.getImaginary()<<"n";

    return 0;

}


Can anyone please explain the cause of error.






c++







share|improve this question

























  • What free(this); is supposed to do? It's unnecessary and causes the error.

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:55













  • Also, why pass const int& instead of a plain int?

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:56






  • 1





    Remove the free(this) from the destructor. Calling free() with an argument that was not returned by malloc() (or related functions, like calloc() or realloc()) gives undefined behaviour. There is nothing in your code returned by malloc(), and doesn't need to be.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:57











  • See also rule of three here

    – anatolyg
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:58






  • 1





    @anatolyg - rule of zero is more applicable here. The class doesn't explicitly manage any resource, compiler-supplied default implementations of copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor are fine.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:00














-5












-5








-5








I'm a bit new to object oriented programming in c++ and I've been trying to overload subtraction(-) operator in c++ for a Complex class I created. It is working fine except my program is terminating abnormally.
Below is what I've been trying to do:



#include<iostream>

#include<cstdlib>

class Complex{

    //Data-members

private:

    int re, im;



    //methods

public:

    //Constructor

    Complex(){ /*default Constructor*/ }

    Complex(const int& re_, const int& im_):re(re_), im(im_){}

    //Subtraction(-) operator overloading

    Complex operator-(const Complex& op)

    {

        Complex res(this->re - op.re, this->im - op.im);

        return res;

    }

    //get-set methods for re

    int getReal(){ return re; }

    void setReal(const int& re){ this->re = re; }

    //get-set methods for im

    int getImaginary(){ return im; }

    void setImaginary(const int& im){ this->im = im; }

    //Destructor

    ~Complex(){ free(this); }

};



int main()

{

    Complex a(2, 3), b(3, 5);

    Complex d = a - b;

    std::cout<<"d.re = "<<d.getReal()<<" d.im = "<<d.getImaginary()<<"n";

    return 0;

}


Can anyone please explain the cause of error.






c++







share|improve this question
















I'm a bit new to object oriented programming in c++ and I've been trying to overload subtraction(-) operator in c++ for a Complex class I created. It is working fine except my program is terminating abnormally.
Below is what I've been trying to do:



#include<iostream>

#include<cstdlib>

class Complex{

    //Data-members

private:

    int re, im;



    //methods

public:

    //Constructor

    Complex(){ /*default Constructor*/ }

    Complex(const int& re_, const int& im_):re(re_), im(im_){}

    //Subtraction(-) operator overloading

    Complex operator-(const Complex& op)

    {

        Complex res(this->re - op.re, this->im - op.im);

        return res;

    }

    //get-set methods for re

    int getReal(){ return re; }

    void setReal(const int& re){ this->re = re; }

    //get-set methods for im

    int getImaginary(){ return im; }

    void setImaginary(const int& im){ this->im = im; }

    //Destructor

    ~Complex(){ free(this); }

};



int main()

{

    Complex a(2, 3), b(3, 5);

    Complex d = a - b;

    std::cout<<"d.re = "<<d.getReal()<<" d.im = "<<d.getImaginary()<<"n";

    return 0;

}


Can anyone please explain the cause of error.






c++




c++






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 14 '18 at 13:09









Ted Lyngmo

2,8112317




2,8112317










asked Nov 14 '18 at 11:52









user9999486user9999486

15




15













  • What free(this); is supposed to do? It's unnecessary and causes the error.

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:55













  • Also, why pass const int& instead of a plain int?

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:56






  • 1





    Remove the free(this) from the destructor. Calling free() with an argument that was not returned by malloc() (or related functions, like calloc() or realloc()) gives undefined behaviour. There is nothing in your code returned by malloc(), and doesn't need to be.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:57











  • See also rule of three here

    – anatolyg
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:58






  • 1





    @anatolyg - rule of zero is more applicable here. The class doesn't explicitly manage any resource, compiler-supplied default implementations of copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor are fine.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:00



















  • What free(this); is supposed to do? It's unnecessary and causes the error.

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:55













  • Also, why pass const int& instead of a plain int?

    – HolyBlackCat
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:56






  • 1





    Remove the free(this) from the destructor. Calling free() with an argument that was not returned by malloc() (or related functions, like calloc() or realloc()) gives undefined behaviour. There is nothing in your code returned by malloc(), and doesn't need to be.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:57











  • See also rule of three here

    – anatolyg
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:58






  • 1





    @anatolyg - rule of zero is more applicable here. The class doesn't explicitly manage any resource, compiler-supplied default implementations of copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor are fine.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:00

















What free(this); is supposed to do? It's unnecessary and causes the error.

– HolyBlackCat
Nov 14 '18 at 11:55







What free(this); is supposed to do? It's unnecessary and causes the error.

– HolyBlackCat
Nov 14 '18 at 11:55















Also, why pass const int& instead of a plain int?

– HolyBlackCat
Nov 14 '18 at 11:56





Also, why pass const int& instead of a plain int?

– HolyBlackCat
Nov 14 '18 at 11:56




1




1





Remove the free(this) from the destructor. Calling free() with an argument that was not returned by malloc() (or related functions, like calloc() or realloc()) gives undefined behaviour. There is nothing in your code returned by malloc(), and doesn't need to be.

– Peter
Nov 14 '18 at 11:57





Remove the free(this) from the destructor. Calling free() with an argument that was not returned by malloc() (or related functions, like calloc() or realloc()) gives undefined behaviour. There is nothing in your code returned by malloc(), and doesn't need to be.

– Peter
Nov 14 '18 at 11:57













See also rule of three here

– anatolyg
Nov 14 '18 at 11:58





See also rule of three here

– anatolyg
Nov 14 '18 at 11:58




1




1





@anatolyg - rule of zero is more applicable here. The class doesn't explicitly manage any resource, compiler-supplied default implementations of copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor are fine.

– Peter
Nov 14 '18 at 12:00





@anatolyg - rule of zero is more applicable here. The class doesn't explicitly manage any resource, compiler-supplied default implementations of copy constructor, assignment operator, and destructor are fine.

– Peter
Nov 14 '18 at 12:00












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4














Never ever do free(this), least of all in the destructor. The memory for the objects will be free'd outside of the destructor, either by the compiler generated code or by the user doing delete or delete.



In fact this is the cause of your problem, as the objects created never were allocated with malloc.



The proper solution in this case is to not only remove the free call, but the whole destructor, since it's not needed for this class.






share|improve this answer


























  • using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:59











  • @user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:05











  • so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08











  • @user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08













  • how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:09













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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53299631%2foverloading-subtraction-operator-cpp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














Never ever do free(this), least of all in the destructor. The memory for the objects will be free'd outside of the destructor, either by the compiler generated code or by the user doing delete or delete.



In fact this is the cause of your problem, as the objects created never were allocated with malloc.



The proper solution in this case is to not only remove the free call, but the whole destructor, since it's not needed for this class.






share|improve this answer


























  • using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:59











  • @user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:05











  • so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08











  • @user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08













  • how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:09


















4














Never ever do free(this), least of all in the destructor. The memory for the objects will be free'd outside of the destructor, either by the compiler generated code or by the user doing delete or delete.



In fact this is the cause of your problem, as the objects created never were allocated with malloc.



The proper solution in this case is to not only remove the free call, but the whole destructor, since it's not needed for this class.






share|improve this answer


























  • using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:59











  • @user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:05











  • so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08











  • @user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08













  • how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:09
















4












4








4







Never ever do free(this), least of all in the destructor. The memory for the objects will be free'd outside of the destructor, either by the compiler generated code or by the user doing delete or delete.



In fact this is the cause of your problem, as the objects created never were allocated with malloc.



The proper solution in this case is to not only remove the free call, but the whole destructor, since it's not needed for this class.






share|improve this answer















Never ever do free(this), least of all in the destructor. The memory for the objects will be free'd outside of the destructor, either by the compiler generated code or by the user doing delete or delete.



In fact this is the cause of your problem, as the objects created never were allocated with malloc.



The proper solution in this case is to not only remove the free call, but the whole destructor, since it's not needed for this class.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 '18 at 12:18

























answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:55









Some programmer dudeSome programmer dude

300k25258422




300k25258422













  • using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:59











  • @user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:05











  • so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08











  • @user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08













  • how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:09





















  • using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 11:59











  • @user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:05











  • so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08











  • @user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:08













  • how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

    – user9999486
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:09



















using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

– user9999486
Nov 14 '18 at 11:59





using delete is also terminating the program abnormally.

– user9999486
Nov 14 '18 at 11:59













@user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

– Some programmer dude
Nov 14 '18 at 12:05





@user9999486 delete must match a new, a delete must match a new. Nowhere in your code do you use new, so there shouldn't be any delete. As I said, it will be done automatically by the compiler since it is the compiler that allocates the objects.

– Some programmer dude
Nov 14 '18 at 12:05













so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

– user9999486
Nov 14 '18 at 12:08





so there is no need for the destructor. Right ???

– user9999486
Nov 14 '18 at 12:08













@user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

– Some programmer dude
Nov 14 '18 at 12:08







@user9999486 No, not in this example anyway.

– Some programmer dude
Nov 14 '18 at 12:08















how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

– user9999486
Nov 14 '18 at 12:09







how do we know that we need to add an explicit destructor in a class

– user9999486
Nov 14 '18 at 12:09






















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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%2f53299631%2foverloading-subtraction-operator-cpp%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

Florida Star v. B. J. F.

Image
Florida Star v. B. J. F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search United States Supreme Court case Florida Star v. B. J. F. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 21, 1989 Decided June 21, 1989 Full case name The Florida Star v. B. J. F. Citations 491 U.S. 524 ( more ) 109 S. Ct. 2603; 105 L. Ed. 2d 443; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3120; 57 U.S.L.W. 4816; 16 Media L. Rep. 1801 Prior history The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286 (1988) Supreme Court of Florida; Florida Star v. B.J.F., 499 So.2d 883 (1986) Fla. Dist. Court of Appeals Holding Florida Stat. § 794.03 is unconstitutional to the extent it makes the truthful reporting of information that was a matter of public record unlawful, as it violates the First Amendment. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blac...
Read more

Danny Elfman

Image
Danny Elfman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Danny Elfman Elfman at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con Born Daniel Robert Elfman ( 1953-05-29 ) May 29, 1953 (age 65) Los Angeles, California, U.S. Spouse(s) Bridget Fonda ( m.  2003) Children 1 Musical career Genres Rock [1] ska [2] new wave film music video game music Occupation(s) Composer, singer, songwriter, record producer Instruments Trombone guitar percussion vocals keyboards [3] Years active 1972–present Associated acts Oingo Boingo James Newton Howard Daniel Robert Elfman (born May 29, 1953) is an American composer, singer, songwriter, and record producer. Elfman first became known for being the lead singer and songwriter for the band Oingo Boingo from 1974 to 1995. He is well known for scoring films and television shows, particularly his frequent collabora...
Read more

Lugert, Oklahoma

Image
Unincorporated community in Oklahoma, United States Lugert, Oklahoma Unincorporated community Foundations from the town of Lugert at the bottom of Lake Altus-Lugert Lugert, Oklahoma Location within the state of Oklahoma Coordinates: 34°53′45″N 99°16′31″W  /  34.89583°N 99.27528°W  / 34.89583; -99.27528 Coordinates: 34°53′45″N 99°16′31″W  /  34.89583°N 99.27528°W  / 34.89583; -99.27528 Country United States State Oklahoma County Kiowa Time zone UTC-6 (Central (CST))  • Summer (DST) UTC-5 (CDT) GNIS feature ID 1100597 Lugert is an unincorporated community in Kiowa County, Oklahoma. [1] The town of Lugert was founded in 1901 on 80 acres (320,000 m 2 ). In the town, there was a general store that housed the Post office and sold dry goods, school supplies, groceries, harnesses, axes and much more. It was named for Frank Lugert, who had moved to the area in 1898. Lugert owned land where the town was sited and also owned the general st...
Read more