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 964497
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T01:50:14+00:00 2026-05-16T01:50:14+00:00

Is this illegal/dangerous? int* static_nonew() { static int n = 5; return &n; }

  • 0

Is this illegal/dangerous?

int* static_nonew()
{
    static int n = 5;
    return &n;
}

The compiler doesn’t seem to have a problem with it, but is the pointer location itself protected from being overwritten when someone else needs memory?

EDIT: A little bit more of an explanation of why I asked this question. Note: I’m programming in C++, I just tagged it as C because it seemed to be more of a C than C++ question.

I have a class that’s supposed to return a static map. I only want this map initialized once throughout the program as there doesn’t seem to be a need to do it multiple times. For this reason, I was going to have something like this:

static std::map<std::string, Transition*> transitions;
static Transition trans1(transitions, ...);
static Transition trans2(transitions, ...);
return &transitions;

The Transition classes constructor would add itself to the transitions. In that way, it would create the transitions once and then return a pointer to them. I just remember that if you create a reference to a variable allocated on the stack, it could get overwritten very easily and was “unsafe”. I was just a bit confused with exactly how static variables created within a function work.

  • 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
    2026-05-16T01:50:14+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 1:50 am

    This is valid code, and useful.

    A lot of singleton-factories are built like this.

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

Sidebar

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.