Reputation: 1
I have read that we should not return a pointer or a reference to a local variable. So in the below given example, i understand that when i wrote: return i;
inside function foo
, i am returning a reference to a local variable. And using that reference outside the function, will lead to undefined behavior.
#include <iostream>
const int& foo()
{
int i = 5;
return i;//returning reference to a local variable
}
const int& func()
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
const int& ref = func();
const int& f = foo();
std::cout<<f<<std::endl; //I know this is undefined behavior because we're using a reference that points to a local variable
std::cout<<ref; //But IS THIS UNDEFINED BEHAVIOR too?
}
My question is that does the same hold true for the return statement return 5;
inside function func
. I am aware that in C++17 there is mandatory copy elison. So my question is directed towards all modern C++ version(C++11, C++17, etc). Does the behavior depends/differs on C++ version.
In particular, i know that the statement std::cout<<f<<std::endl;
inside main
is always undefined behavior because we're using a reference(dangling) that points to a local variable. But does the statement std::cout<<ref;
also leads to undefined behavior. If not why and what will happen here.
PS: I might be wrong in describing what is actually happening in the first cout
statement too. So please correct me if i am wrong.
Upvotes: 5
Views: 566
Reputation: 238311
Is returning a reference to a local int variable always undefined behavior
Technically no. Returning a reference to a local variable (regardless of type) is never undefined behaviour itself. But such returned reference will always be invalid (if the variable is non-static) and indirecting through an invalid reference is always undefined behaviour.
const int& func() { return 5; } int main() { const int& ref = func(); std::cout<<ref; //But IS THIS UNDEFINED BEHAVIOR too? }
Yes. You indirect through an invalid reference, and behaviour is undefined.
Upvotes: 2