When do temporary parameter values go out of scope? [duplicate]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Lifetime of temporaries

int LegacyFunction(const char *s) {
    // do something with s, like print it to standard output
    // this function does NOT retain any pointer to s after it returns.
    return strlen(s);
}

std::string ModernFunction() {
    // do something that returns a string
    return "Hello";
}

LegacyFunction(ModernFunction().c_str());

The above example could easily be rewritten to use smart pointers instead of strings; I've encountered both of these situations many times. Anyway, the above example will construct an STL string in ModernFunction, return it, then get a pointer to a C-style string inside of the string object, and then pass that pointer to the legacy function.

1. There is a temporary string object that exists after ModernFunction has returned. When does it go out of scope?
2. Is it possible for the compiler to call c_str(), destruct this temporary string object, and then pass a dangling pointer to LegacyFunction? (Remember that the string object is managing the memory that c_str() return value points to...)
3. If the above code is not safe, why is it not safe, and is there a better, equally concise way to write it than adding a temporary variable when making the function calls? If it's safe, why?

Answer 1

LegacyFunction(ModernFunction().c_str());

Destruction of copy will be after evaluation of full expression (i.e. after return from LegacyFunction).

n3337 12.2/3

Temporary objects are destroyed as the last step in evaluating the full-expression (1.9) that (lexically) contains the point where they were created.

n3337 1.9/10

A full-expression is an expression that is not a subexpression of another expression. If a language construct is defined to produce an implicit call of a function, a use of the language construct is considered to be an expression for the purposes of this definition. A call to a destructor generated at the end of the lifetime of an object other than a temporary object is an implicit full-expression. Conversions applied to the result of an expression in order to satisfy the requirements of the language construct in which the expression appears are also considered to be part of the full-expression. [ Example:

struct S {
S(int i): I(i) { }
int& v() { return I; }
private:
int I;
};
S s1(1); // full-expression is call of S::S(int)
S s2 = 2; // full-expression is call of S::S(int)
void f() {
if (S(3).v()) // full-expression includes lvalue-to-rvalue and
// int to bool conversions, performed before
// temporary is deleted at end of full-expression
{ }
}

Answer 2

There is a temporary string object that exists after ModernFunction has returned. When does it go out of scope?

Strictly speaking, it's never in scope. Scope is a property of a name, not an object. It just so happens that automatic variables have a very close association between scope and lifetime. Objects that aren't automatic variables are different.

Temporary objects are destroyed at the end of the full-expression in which they appear, with a couple of exceptions that aren't relevant here. Anyway the special cases extend the lifetime of the temporary, they don't reduce it.

Is it possible for the compiler to call c_str(), destruct this temporary string object, and then pass a dangling pointer to LegacyFunction

No, because the full-expression is LegacyFunction(ModernFunction().c_str()) (excluding the semi-colon: feel that pedantry), so the temporary that is the return value of ModernFunction is not destroyed until LegacyFunction has returned.

If it's safe, why?

Because the lifetime of the temporary is long enough.

In general with c_str, you have to worry about two things. First, the pointer it returns becomes invalid if the string is destroyed (which is what you're asking). Second, the pointer it returns becomes invalid if the string is modified. You haven't worried about that here, but it's OK, you don't need to, because nothing modifies the string either.