Related
I learned C# first, and now I'm starting with C++. As I understand, operator new in C++ is not similar to the one in C#.
Can you explain the reason of the memory leak in this sample code?
class A { ... };
struct B { ... };
A *object1 = new A();
B object2 = *(new B());
What is happening
When you write T t; you're creating an object of type T with automatic storage duration. It will get cleaned up automatically when it goes out of scope.
When you write new T() you're creating an object of type T with dynamic storage duration. It won't get cleaned up automatically.
You need to pass a pointer to it to delete in order to clean it up:
However, your second example is worse: you're dereferencing the pointer, and making a copy of the object. This way you lose the pointer to the object created with new, so you can never delete it even if you wanted!
What you should do
You should prefer automatic storage duration. Need a new object, just write:
A a; // a new object of type A
B b; // a new object of type B
If you do need dynamic storage duration, store the pointer to the allocated object in an automatic storage duration object that deletes it automatically.
template <typename T>
class automatic_pointer {
public:
automatic_pointer(T* pointer) : pointer(pointer) {}
// destructor: gets called upon cleanup
// in this case, we want to use delete
~automatic_pointer() { delete pointer; }
// emulate pointers!
// with this we can write *p
T& operator*() const { return *pointer; }
// and with this we can write p->f()
T* operator->() const { return pointer; }
private:
T* pointer;
// for this example, I'll just forbid copies
// a smarter class could deal with this some other way
automatic_pointer(automatic_pointer const&);
automatic_pointer& operator=(automatic_pointer const&);
};
automatic_pointer<A> a(new A()); // acts like a pointer, but deletes automatically
automatic_pointer<B> b(new B()); // acts like a pointer, but deletes automatically
This is a common idiom that goes by the not-very-descriptive name RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization). When you acquire a resource that needs cleanup, you stick it in an object of automatic storage duration so you don't need to worry about cleaning it up. This applies to any resource, be it memory, open files, network connections, or whatever you fancy.
This automatic_pointer thing already exists in various forms, I've just provided it to give an example. A very similar class exists in the standard library called std::unique_ptr.
There's also an old one (pre-C++11) named auto_ptr but it's now deprecated because it has a strange copying behaviour.
And then there are some even smarter examples, like std::shared_ptr, that allows multiple pointers to the same object and only cleans it up when the last pointer is destroyed.
A step by step explanation:
// creates a new object on the heap:
new B()
// dereferences the object
*(new B())
// calls the copy constructor of B on the object
B object2 = *(new B());
So by the end of this, you have an object on the heap with no pointer to it, so it's impossible to delete.
The other sample:
A *object1 = new A();
is a memory leak only if you forget to delete the allocated memory:
delete object1;
In C++ there are objects with automatic storage, those created on the stack, which are automatically disposed of, and objects with dynamic storage, on the heap, which you allocate with new and are required to free yourself with delete. (this is all roughly put)
Think that you should have a delete for every object allocated with new.
EDIT
Come to think of it, object2 doesn't have to be a memory leak.
The following code is just to make a point, it's a bad idea, don't ever like code like this:
class B
{
public:
B() {}; //default constructor
B(const B& other) //copy constructor, this will be called
//on the line B object2 = *(new B())
{
delete &other;
}
}
In this case, since other is passed by reference, it will be the exact object pointed to by new B(). Therefore, getting its address by &other and deleting the pointer would free the memory.
But I can't stress this enough, don't do this. It's just here to make a point.
Given two "objects":
obj a;
obj b;
They won't occupy the same location in memory. In other words, &a != &b
Assigning the value of one to the other won't change their location, but it will change their contents:
obj a;
obj b = a;
//a == b, but &a != &b
Intuitively, pointer "objects" work the same way:
obj *a;
obj *b = a;
//a == b, but &a != &b
Now, let's look at your example:
A *object1 = new A();
This is assigning the value of new A() to object1. The value is a pointer, meaning object1 == new A(), but &object1 != &(new A()). (Note that this example is not valid code, it is only for explanation)
Because the value of the pointer is preserved, we can free the memory it points to: delete object1; Due to our rule, this behaves the same as delete (new A()); which has no leak.
For you second example, you are copying the pointed-to object. The value is the contents of that object, not the actual pointer. As in every other case, &object2 != &*(new A()).
B object2 = *(new B());
We have lost the pointer to the allocated memory, and thus we cannot free it. delete &object2; may seem like it would work, but because &object2 != &*(new A()), it is not equivalent to delete (new A()) and so invalid.
In C# and Java, you use new to create an instance of any class and then you do not need to worry about destroying it later.
C++ also has a keyword "new" which creates an object but unlike in Java or C#, it is not the only way to create an object.
C++ has two mechanisms to create an object:
automatic
dynamic
With automatic creation you create the object in a scoped environment:
- in a function or
- as a member of a class (or struct).
In a function you would create it this way:
int func()
{
A a;
B b( 1, 2 );
}
Within a class you would normally create it this way:
class A
{
B b;
public:
A();
};
A::A() :
b( 1, 2 )
{
}
In the first case, the objects are destroyed automatically when the scope block is exited. This could be a function or a scope-block within a function.
In the latter case the object b is destroyed together with the instance of A in which it is a member.
Objects are allocated with new when you need to control the lifetime of the object and then it requires delete to destroy it. With the technique known as RAII, you take care of the deletion of the object at the point you create it by putting it within an automatic object, and wait for that automatic object's destructor to take effect.
One such object is a shared_ptr which will invoke a "deleter" logic but only when all the instances of the shared_ptr that are sharing the object are destroyed.
In general, whilst your code may have many calls to new, you should have limited calls to delete and should always make sure these are called from destructors or "deleter" objects that are put into smart-pointers.
Your destructors should also never throw exceptions.
If you do this, you will have few memory leaks.
B object2 = *(new B());
This line is the cause of the leak. Let's pick this apart a bit..
object2 is a variable of type B, stored at say address 1 (Yes, I'm picking arbitrary numbers here). On the right side, you've asked for a new B, or a pointer to an object of type B. The program gladly gives this to you and assigns your new B to address 2 and also creates a pointer in address 3. Now, the only way to access the data in address 2 is via the pointer in address 3. Next, you dereferenced the pointer using * to get the data that the pointer is pointing to (the data in address 2). This effectively creates a copy of that data and assigns it to object2, assigned in address 1. Remember, it's a COPY, not the original.
Now, here's the problem:
You never actually stored that pointer anywhere you can use it! Once this assignment is finished, the pointer (memory in address3, which you used to access address2) is out of scope and beyond your reach! You can no longer call delete on it and therefore cannot clean up the memory in address2. What you are left with is a copy of the data from address2 in address1. Two of the same things sitting in memory. One you can access, the other you can't (because you lost the path to it). That's why this is a memory leak.
I would suggest coming from your C# background that you read up a lot on how pointers in C++ work. They are an advanced topic and can take some time to grasp, but their use will be invaluable to you.
Well, you create a memory leak if you don't at some point free the memory you've allocated using the new operator by passing a pointer to that memory to the delete operator.
In your two cases above:
A *object1 = new A();
Here you aren't using delete to free the memory, so if and when your object1 pointer goes out of scope, you'll have a memory leak, because you'll have lost the pointer and so can't use the delete operator on it.
And here
B object2 = *(new B());
you are discarding the pointer returned by new B(), and so can never pass that pointer to delete for the memory to be freed. Hence another memory leak.
If it makes it easier, think of computer memory as being like a hotel and programs are customers who hire rooms when they need them.
The way this hotel works is that you book a room and tell the porter when you are leaving.
If you program books a room and leaves without telling the porter the porter will think that the room is still is use and will not let anyone else use it. In this case there is a room leak.
If your program allocates memory and does not delete it (it merely stops using it) then the computer thinks that the memory is still in use and will not allow anyone else to use it. This is a memory leak.
This is not an exact analogy but it might help.
When creating object2 you're creating a copy of the object you created with new, but you're also losing the (never assigned) pointer (so there's no way to delete it later on). To avoid this, you'd have to make object2 a reference.
It's this line that is immediately leaking:
B object2 = *(new B());
Here you are creating a new B object on the heap, then creating a copy on the stack. The one that has been allocated on the heap can no longer be accessed and hence the leak.
This line is not immediately leaky:
A *object1 = new A();
There would be a leak if you never deleted object1 though.
Coverity reports leaks for the following code. I would like some help understanding the errors and to re-write this code to be error free.
( The errors are annotated as comments in the code below )
int main()
{
...
B* b = ...
// (1) Coverity: Storage is returned from
// allocation function operator new
// (2) Coverity: Assigning ...
A* a = new A();
// (3) Coverity: noescape: Resource a is not freed
// or pointed-to in add_a_to_b
b->add_a_to_b( *a );
...
// (4) Coverity: Resource leak: Variable a going out
// of scope leaks the storage it points to.
}
class B {
public:
std::vector<A> a_vector;
void add_a_to_b( const A& a )
{
a_vector.push_back( a );
}
-- EDIT ---
I had a particular question about the B::add_a_to_b function, and this reflects my incomplete understanding of references perhaps: Does a_vector store a reference to A or does it create a copy of the object passed to add_a_to_b?
You have a memory leak because you called new and you don't call delete. Furthermore, there is no reason for you to call new or allocate dynamically. You can simply allocate a automatically. The same applies to b.
B b;
A a;
...
b.add_a_to_b(a); // b stores a copy of `a`.
Well. You allocate memory for a, but you never use delete.
For every new there must be one delete.
delete a; // Do this when you don't need a anymore.
You can also do this - a = nullptr; to avoid a dangling pointer.
Edit:
You should learn how to use smart pointers. They're fairly easy to learn and you wouldnt have to worry about using new and delete, it'll take care of the delete.
Read this - Wiki & What is a smart pointer and when should I use one?
I am trying to understand the below program . While executing am getting errors as shown below.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base
{
public:
int *a;
int a1;
int b;
Base(){
cout<<"Inside Constructor"<<endl;
a1 = 10;
a = &a1;
cout<<" "<<a<<endl;
b = 20;
}
Base(const Base &rhs)
{
cout<<"Inside Copy Constructor"<<endl;
a = new int;
*a = *(rhs.a);
b = rhs.b;
}
~Base(void)
{
cout<<"Inside destructor"<<endl;
delete a;
}
};
int main()
{
Base obj;
Base obj2(obj);
cout<<"obj a "<<*(obj.a)<<" b "<<obj.b<<endl;
cout<<"obj2 a "<<*(obj2.a)<<" b "<<obj2.b<<endl;
obj.a1 = 30;
obj.b = 40;
cout<<"obj a "<<*(obj.a)<<" b "<<obj.b<<endl;
cout<<"obj2 a "<<*(obj2.a)<<" b "<<obj2.b<<endl;
return 0;
}
While executing this code i am getting the following output
Inside Constructor
Inside Copy Constructor
obj a 10 b 20
obj2 a 10 b 20
obj a 30 b 40
obj2 a 10 b 20
Inside destructor
Inside destructor
Segmentation fault
[EDIT]
I was looking for a way to destruct the heap memory that i have created in copy constructor . So what can be done here ? please suggest
[EDIT]
delete should be used on memory allocated from heap using new only.
a1 = 10;
a = &a1;
In your case "a" is holding the address of memory in stack. So, you shouldn't call delete on that memory.
You have to delete memory acquired with new (dynamically allocated), not to an automatic-storage variable.
In copy constructor you are using new operator to assign the memory for pointer a ,so u can delete it.But since u are not using new operator in default constructor, you can delete the pointer a .
You must use delete opearator to free the memory of variable which is in heap not in stack.
when you use new operator ,the variable is created in heap where as local variable are created in stack memory which can't be delete using delete operator
The problem is not the copy constructor, the problem is that you don't consistently use new (if you used move then maybe you would have a point). You have some options. I am trying to be useful, not exhaustive, maybe I'm missing other good design ideas.
Use new always (and consistently)
You can put a new in all the constructors, and thus, the destructor would always be able to call to delete. Even when you don't need it. It may be a ugly hack, but is consistent.
Never use new
If you never use new, you don't use delete either and the compiler ensures consistency and ensures that you don't mess up. Normally, you can rely on the compiler default behaviour on constructors.
Use smart pointers
If instead of calling to delete manually you save the variable inside a unique_ptr, then it will be deallocated at the destructor automatically by the compiler. The smart pointer is smart enough to know if it is initialized.
Beware that using a smart pointer means that you should never call delete, because if you do so without warning the smart pointer, you will stumble onto the same problem. If you are not familiarized with them and you are using C++11, it is a nice thing to learn :)
Track the status of your pointers
I would not vouch for this. It seems very C and not C++. However, you can always track a bool value and at destroy time check it. This is just like using smart pointers, but with an in-house implementation. I think that it is a bad design idea, although educational in some cases.
I learned C# first, and now I'm starting with C++. As I understand, operator new in C++ is not similar to the one in C#.
Can you explain the reason of the memory leak in this sample code?
class A { ... };
struct B { ... };
A *object1 = new A();
B object2 = *(new B());
What is happening
When you write T t; you're creating an object of type T with automatic storage duration. It will get cleaned up automatically when it goes out of scope.
When you write new T() you're creating an object of type T with dynamic storage duration. It won't get cleaned up automatically.
You need to pass a pointer to it to delete in order to clean it up:
However, your second example is worse: you're dereferencing the pointer, and making a copy of the object. This way you lose the pointer to the object created with new, so you can never delete it even if you wanted!
What you should do
You should prefer automatic storage duration. Need a new object, just write:
A a; // a new object of type A
B b; // a new object of type B
If you do need dynamic storage duration, store the pointer to the allocated object in an automatic storage duration object that deletes it automatically.
template <typename T>
class automatic_pointer {
public:
automatic_pointer(T* pointer) : pointer(pointer) {}
// destructor: gets called upon cleanup
// in this case, we want to use delete
~automatic_pointer() { delete pointer; }
// emulate pointers!
// with this we can write *p
T& operator*() const { return *pointer; }
// and with this we can write p->f()
T* operator->() const { return pointer; }
private:
T* pointer;
// for this example, I'll just forbid copies
// a smarter class could deal with this some other way
automatic_pointer(automatic_pointer const&);
automatic_pointer& operator=(automatic_pointer const&);
};
automatic_pointer<A> a(new A()); // acts like a pointer, but deletes automatically
automatic_pointer<B> b(new B()); // acts like a pointer, but deletes automatically
This is a common idiom that goes by the not-very-descriptive name RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization). When you acquire a resource that needs cleanup, you stick it in an object of automatic storage duration so you don't need to worry about cleaning it up. This applies to any resource, be it memory, open files, network connections, or whatever you fancy.
This automatic_pointer thing already exists in various forms, I've just provided it to give an example. A very similar class exists in the standard library called std::unique_ptr.
There's also an old one (pre-C++11) named auto_ptr but it's now deprecated because it has a strange copying behaviour.
And then there are some even smarter examples, like std::shared_ptr, that allows multiple pointers to the same object and only cleans it up when the last pointer is destroyed.
A step by step explanation:
// creates a new object on the heap:
new B()
// dereferences the object
*(new B())
// calls the copy constructor of B on the object
B object2 = *(new B());
So by the end of this, you have an object on the heap with no pointer to it, so it's impossible to delete.
The other sample:
A *object1 = new A();
is a memory leak only if you forget to delete the allocated memory:
delete object1;
In C++ there are objects with automatic storage, those created on the stack, which are automatically disposed of, and objects with dynamic storage, on the heap, which you allocate with new and are required to free yourself with delete. (this is all roughly put)
Think that you should have a delete for every object allocated with new.
EDIT
Come to think of it, object2 doesn't have to be a memory leak.
The following code is just to make a point, it's a bad idea, don't ever like code like this:
class B
{
public:
B() {}; //default constructor
B(const B& other) //copy constructor, this will be called
//on the line B object2 = *(new B())
{
delete &other;
}
}
In this case, since other is passed by reference, it will be the exact object pointed to by new B(). Therefore, getting its address by &other and deleting the pointer would free the memory.
But I can't stress this enough, don't do this. It's just here to make a point.
Given two "objects":
obj a;
obj b;
They won't occupy the same location in memory. In other words, &a != &b
Assigning the value of one to the other won't change their location, but it will change their contents:
obj a;
obj b = a;
//a == b, but &a != &b
Intuitively, pointer "objects" work the same way:
obj *a;
obj *b = a;
//a == b, but &a != &b
Now, let's look at your example:
A *object1 = new A();
This is assigning the value of new A() to object1. The value is a pointer, meaning object1 == new A(), but &object1 != &(new A()). (Note that this example is not valid code, it is only for explanation)
Because the value of the pointer is preserved, we can free the memory it points to: delete object1; Due to our rule, this behaves the same as delete (new A()); which has no leak.
For you second example, you are copying the pointed-to object. The value is the contents of that object, not the actual pointer. As in every other case, &object2 != &*(new A()).
B object2 = *(new B());
We have lost the pointer to the allocated memory, and thus we cannot free it. delete &object2; may seem like it would work, but because &object2 != &*(new A()), it is not equivalent to delete (new A()) and so invalid.
In C# and Java, you use new to create an instance of any class and then you do not need to worry about destroying it later.
C++ also has a keyword "new" which creates an object but unlike in Java or C#, it is not the only way to create an object.
C++ has two mechanisms to create an object:
automatic
dynamic
With automatic creation you create the object in a scoped environment:
- in a function or
- as a member of a class (or struct).
In a function you would create it this way:
int func()
{
A a;
B b( 1, 2 );
}
Within a class you would normally create it this way:
class A
{
B b;
public:
A();
};
A::A() :
b( 1, 2 )
{
}
In the first case, the objects are destroyed automatically when the scope block is exited. This could be a function or a scope-block within a function.
In the latter case the object b is destroyed together with the instance of A in which it is a member.
Objects are allocated with new when you need to control the lifetime of the object and then it requires delete to destroy it. With the technique known as RAII, you take care of the deletion of the object at the point you create it by putting it within an automatic object, and wait for that automatic object's destructor to take effect.
One such object is a shared_ptr which will invoke a "deleter" logic but only when all the instances of the shared_ptr that are sharing the object are destroyed.
In general, whilst your code may have many calls to new, you should have limited calls to delete and should always make sure these are called from destructors or "deleter" objects that are put into smart-pointers.
Your destructors should also never throw exceptions.
If you do this, you will have few memory leaks.
B object2 = *(new B());
This line is the cause of the leak. Let's pick this apart a bit..
object2 is a variable of type B, stored at say address 1 (Yes, I'm picking arbitrary numbers here). On the right side, you've asked for a new B, or a pointer to an object of type B. The program gladly gives this to you and assigns your new B to address 2 and also creates a pointer in address 3. Now, the only way to access the data in address 2 is via the pointer in address 3. Next, you dereferenced the pointer using * to get the data that the pointer is pointing to (the data in address 2). This effectively creates a copy of that data and assigns it to object2, assigned in address 1. Remember, it's a COPY, not the original.
Now, here's the problem:
You never actually stored that pointer anywhere you can use it! Once this assignment is finished, the pointer (memory in address3, which you used to access address2) is out of scope and beyond your reach! You can no longer call delete on it and therefore cannot clean up the memory in address2. What you are left with is a copy of the data from address2 in address1. Two of the same things sitting in memory. One you can access, the other you can't (because you lost the path to it). That's why this is a memory leak.
I would suggest coming from your C# background that you read up a lot on how pointers in C++ work. They are an advanced topic and can take some time to grasp, but their use will be invaluable to you.
Well, you create a memory leak if you don't at some point free the memory you've allocated using the new operator by passing a pointer to that memory to the delete operator.
In your two cases above:
A *object1 = new A();
Here you aren't using delete to free the memory, so if and when your object1 pointer goes out of scope, you'll have a memory leak, because you'll have lost the pointer and so can't use the delete operator on it.
And here
B object2 = *(new B());
you are discarding the pointer returned by new B(), and so can never pass that pointer to delete for the memory to be freed. Hence another memory leak.
If it makes it easier, think of computer memory as being like a hotel and programs are customers who hire rooms when they need them.
The way this hotel works is that you book a room and tell the porter when you are leaving.
If you program books a room and leaves without telling the porter the porter will think that the room is still is use and will not let anyone else use it. In this case there is a room leak.
If your program allocates memory and does not delete it (it merely stops using it) then the computer thinks that the memory is still in use and will not allow anyone else to use it. This is a memory leak.
This is not an exact analogy but it might help.
When creating object2 you're creating a copy of the object you created with new, but you're also losing the (never assigned) pointer (so there's no way to delete it later on). To avoid this, you'd have to make object2 a reference.
It's this line that is immediately leaking:
B object2 = *(new B());
Here you are creating a new B object on the heap, then creating a copy on the stack. The one that has been allocated on the heap can no longer be accessed and hence the leak.
This line is not immediately leaky:
A *object1 = new A();
There would be a leak if you never deleted object1 though.
I have a class MyClassA. In its constructur, I am passing the pointer to instance of class B. I have some very basic questions related to this.
(1) First thing , is the following code correct? ( the code that makes a shallow copy and the code in methodA())
MyClassA::MyClassA(B *b){
this.b = b;
}
void MyClassA::methodA(){
int i;
i = b.getFooValue();
// Should I rather be using the arrow operator here??
// i = b->getFooValue()
}
(2) I am guessing I don't need to worry about deleting memory for MyClassA.b in the destructor ~MyClassA() as it is not allocated. Am I right?
thanks
Update: Thank you all for your answers! MyclassA is only interested in accessing the methods of class B. It is not taking ownership of B.
You need the arrow operator since b is a pointer.
Yes, unless the user of MyClassA expects to take the ownership of b. (You can't even be sure if b is a stack variable where delete-ing it will may the code crash.)
Why don't you use a smart pointer, or even simpler, a reference?
First thing , is the following code
correct? ( the code that makes a
shallow copy and the code in
methodA())
The answer depends upon who owns the responsibility of the B object's memory. If MyClassA is supposed just to store the pointer of A without holding the responsibility to delete it then it is fine. Otherwise, you need to do the deep copy.
I am guessing I don't need to worry
about deleting memory for MyClassA.b
in the destructor ~MyClassA() as it is
not allocated. Am I right?
Again depends on how memory for B is allocated. Is it allocated on stack or heap? If from stack then you need not explicitly free it in destructor of MyClassA, otherwise you need to to delete it.
1) . It depends on the life time of the pointer to B.
Make sure the when you call b->getFooValue(); b should be a valid pointer.
I will suggest use of initilization list and if you are only reading the value of the B object though it pointer then make it pointer to constant data.
MyClassA::MyClassA(const B *bObj) : b(bObj)
{}
2). As long as B is on the stack on need to delete it and if it is allocated to heap then it must be deleted by it the owner else you will have memory leak.
You can use smart pointer to get rid of the problem.
MyClassA::MyClassA(B *b){
this.b = b;
}
should be:
MyClassA::MyClassA(B *b){
this->b = b;
}
because this is treated as a pointer.
1)
this.b = b;
Here you pass a pointer to an instance of B. As Mac notes, this should be:
this->b = b;
b.getFooValue();
This should be b->getFooValue(), because MyClassA::b is a pointer to B.
2) This depends of how you define what MyClassA::b is. If you specify (in code comments) that MyClassA takes over ownership over the B instance passed in MyClassA's constructor, then you'll need to delete b in MyClassA's destructor. If you specify that it only keeps a reference to b, without taking over the ownership, then you don't have to.
PS. Regrettably, in your example there is no way to make ownership explicit other than in code documentation.