Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8709081
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 13, 20262026-06-13T04:16:52+00:00 2026-06-13T04:16:52+00:00

I thought that once a function returns, all the local variables declared within (barring

  • 0

I thought that once a function returns, all the local variables declared within (barring those with static keyword) are garbage collected. But when I am trying out the following code, it still prints the value after the function has returned. Can anybody explain why?

int *fun();
main() {
  int *p;
  p = fun();
  printf("%d",*p); //shouldn't print 5, for the variable no longer exists at this address
}
int *fun() {
  int q;
  q = 5;
  return(&q);
}
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-13T04:16:54+00:00Added an answer on June 13, 2026 at 4:16 am

    If you really want it to loose the value, perhaps call another function with at least a few lines of code in it, before doing the printf by accessing the location. Most probably your value would be over written by then.

    But again as mentioned already this is undefined behavior. You can never predict when (or if at all) it crashes or changes. But you cannot rely upon it ‘changing or remaining the same’ and code an application with any of these assumptions.

    What i am trying to illustrate is, when you make another function call after returning from previous one, another activation record is pushed on to the stack, most likely over writing the previous one including the variable whose value you were accessing via pointer.

    No body is actually garbage collecting or doing a say memset 0 once a function and it’s data goes out of scope.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I thought that calling BeginInvoke more than once on the same delegate instance would
I thought that a delegate instance was interchangeable with a function instance. Take the
I thought that by convention, only methods with an exclamation mark altered the object.
I thought that a 32-bit process could use at most 2GB RAM, since half
I thought that by default my Regex would exhibit the greedy behavior that I
I thought that this was easier… I have a asp:hyperlink control, with target=_blank ,
I thought that layout is just a widget that keeps more widgets inside. But
I thought that in principle Haskell's type system would forbid calls to impure functions
I thought that I improve performance when I replace this code: def f(a, b):
I thought that the purpose of Ruby's BigDecimal class is that it is infinitely

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.