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

2,5652317




2,5652317










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

299k25253416




299k25253416













  • 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

Bressuire

Image
Subprefecture and commune in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France Bressuire Subprefecture and commune Chateau de Bressuire and the Eglise Notre-Dame Coat of arms Location of Bressuire Bressuire Show map of France Bressuire Show map of Nouvelle-Aquitaine Coordinates: 46°50′27″N 0°29′14″W  /  46.8408°N 0.4872°W  / 46.8408; -0.4872 Coordinates: 46°50′27″N 0°29′14″W  /  46.8408°N 0.4872°W  / 46.8408; -0.4872 Country France Region Nouvelle-Aquitaine Department Deux-Sèvres Arrondissement Bressuire Canton Bressuire Government  • Mayor .mw-parser-output .nobold{font-weight:normal} (2014–20) Jean Michel Bernier Area 1 180.59 km 2 (69.73 sq mi) Population (2014) 2 19,300  • Density 110/km 2 (280/sq mi) Time zone UTC+01:00 (CET)  • Summer (DST) UTC+02:00 (CEST) INSEE/Postal code 79049 /79300 Elevation 98–236 m (322–774 ft) (avg. 173 m or 568 ft) 1 French Land Register data, which exclude
Read more

Vorschmack

Image
Vorschmack Ukrainian Jewish-style vorschmack served on rye bread Course Hors d'oeuvre Region or state Eastern Europe Associated national cuisine Ashkenazi Jewish, Finnish, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian Main ingredients Ground meat and/or fish Cookbook: Vorschmack   Media: Vorschmack Vorschmack or forshmak (Yiddish: פֿאָרשמאַק ‎, from archaic German Vorschmack , "foretaste" [1] or "appetizer" [2] ) is an originally East European dish made of salty minced fish or meat. Different variants of this dish are especially common in Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish cuisine. Some varieties are also known in Russian and Polish cuisine. Contents 1 In Jewish cuisine 2 In Russian cuisine 3 In Polish cuisine 4 In Finnish cuisine 5 See also 6 References In Jewish cuisine According to Gil Marks, the German name points to the possible Germanic origin of this dish. [1] William Pokhlyobkin descr
Read more

Quarantine

Image
For other uses, see Quarantine (disambiguation). Signal flag "Lima" called the "Yellow Jack" which when flown in harbor means ship is under quarantine. A simple yellow flag (also called the "Yellow Jack") had historically been used to signal quarantine (it stands for Q among signal flags), but now indicates the opposite, as a signal of a ship free of disease that requests boarding and inspection. A quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of people; it is 'a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests', for a certain period of time. [1] This is often used in connection to disease and illness, such as those who may possibly have been exposed to a communicable disease. [2] The term is often erroneously used to mean medical isolation, which is "to separate ill persons who have a communicable disease from those who are healthy
Read more