Alloc memory in constructor or init function? - c++

I'm new to C++, I have a class hold some memory, the class looks like:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass (int s)
{
if (s <= 0) _size = 1;
else _size = s;
data = new int[_size]; // may throw exception
}
private:
int *data;
int _size;
};
To my knowledge, throw exception in constructor is unsafe, so I put the malloc to a init function.
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass (int s)
{
if (s <= 0) _size = 1;
else _size = s;
}
void init()
{
data = new int[_size];
}
private:
int *data;
int _size;
};
my problem:
memory alloc in constructor or init function, which is better
if I chose init function, how to ensure init function has called before call other member function?

To my knowledge, throw exception in constructor is unsafe, so I put the malloc to a init function.
No, it is not "unsafe". It's the way to fail a constructor. You may be thinking about destructors aborting or other issues with exception safety guarantees.
"Init" functions introduce a two phase approach to constructors that increases complexity. Unless you need to work in an environment without exceptions, avoid them. Factory functions are another way to do things in that case.
memory alloc in constructor or init function, which is better
Constructor. See std::vector.
if I chose init function, how to ensure init function has called before call other member function?
Statically you cannot without a run time check or external tools.
You can set a flag on your init function and then check in every member function.

if I chose init function, how to ensure init function has called before call other member function?
You can't, and this is a big problem! What you have stumbled on here is a concept called Resource Acquisition is Initialisation (RAII). This is roughly what you have written in part 1. If you add a destructor:
~MyClass() {
delete[] data;
}
Then you have started working towards one of the most useful c++ containers, the std::vector. This does a similar thing to what you are trying to achieve here.
There is even a cpp core guideline about this: A constructor should create a fully initialised object.
To my knowledge, throw exception in constructor is unsafe
Actually this is untrue. In fact the very next core guideline is If a constructor cannot construct a valid object, throw an exception.
TLDR: Use option one, init is bad in this case.

The point in constructors are that you can be sure that the constructor is called before any other member function.
Init functions come from c and are not considered best practice

In addition the valid answers above, you might consider "encapsulating" the allocation and de-allocation of memory using an existing standard library class: std::unique_ptr<int>. Using it may save you the need to implement a bunch of methods (e.g. copy constructor, move constructor, assignment operator and destructor; see the rule of five).
Also, std::size_t is more idiomatic for storing amounts of allocated memory.
Finally, names starting with _ are generally reserved, and we avoid them.
So:
#include <memory>
// ...
class MyClass {
public:
using size_type = std::size_t;
using value_type = int;
MyClass (size_type size) :
size_(std::max<size_type>(size,1)),
data_(std::make_unique<value_type[]>(size_))
{ }
// etc. etc. - but no need for copy ctor, move ctor, assignments and dtor
private:
std::unique_ptr<value_type[]> data_;
size_type size_;
};

Related

C++ - Constructor in Stack class?

My assignment requires me to create a stack template class. My program is working fine, I was just wondering if its necessary in this case to define the constructor since its only member is a vector. This is the code:
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class Stack{
public:
Stack(){}
void push(const T &item){
data.push_back(item);
}
void pop(){
data.pop_back();
}
bool isEmpty(){
return data.empty();
}
T getTop(){
top = data.back();
return(top);
}
private:
vector<T> data;
T top;
};
If so, would I also need to include a copy constructor? How do I implement either if the only member is a vector?
correction: i also have another member, if you have noticed. Question still stands, though.
If you do not care about initializing top during the construction, then you do can do any of the following three:
Stack(){};
or
Stack(): default;
or not declaring a constructor
However, not declaring is a bad practice and it will create problems if you are using a copy constructor or any other constructor with parameters.
For instance, if you created the constructor:
Stack(T i) { top = i; data.push_back(i); };
without having declared a constructor,
Stack<int>();
would generate a compiler error.
Just make sure that you set the value of top when push function is called (i.e. compare the new element with the current top every time you push, but if data.size() == 1 you should set this as a top without comparing, as top is undefined).
You don't need to declare a default constructor, compiler will generate one for you - unless class T hasn't defined one, on which case you might get an error.
You don't need a copy constructor also, for the same reasons, given the same premises - on this case, class T must have one.
You'll find detailed info on references below.
That been said, I see no reason for the extra "top" member, except for some sort of speed optimization.
References:
Default constructors - cppreference.com
Copy constructors - cppreference.com
First of all, there is no need to define constructor and copy constructor.
If we do not define a constructor and copy constructor, the compiler will synthesizes one, and the synthesized constructor will help us to initialize class member variable. You does not need to initialize any member variable with a special value in your class.
How to define copy control? From C++ Primer: "There are three basic operations to control copies of class objects: the copy constructor, copy-assignment operator, and destructor."
Classes That Need Destructors Need Copy and Assignment: One rule of thumb to use when you decide whether a class needs to define its own versions of the copy-control members is to decide first whether the class needs a destructor. Often, the need for a destructor is more obvious than the need for the copy constructor or assignment operator. If the class needs a destructor, it almost
surely needs a copy constructor and copy-assignment operator as well.
Example:
class Int
{
public:
Int(int vValue = 0) : m_Pointer(new int(vValue)) {}
~Int()
{
delete m_Pointer;
m_Pointer = NULL;
}
private:
int* m_Pointer;
};
We defined an int Wrapper Class like JAVA. This class allocates dynamic memory in its constructor, The synthesized destructor will not delete a data member that is a pointer. Therefore, this class needs to define a destructor to free the memory allocated by its constructor.
Unfortunately, we have introduced a serious bug! This version of the class uses the synthesized versions of copy and assignment. Those functions copy the pointer member, just only copy the address where the pointer member points to:
Int(const Int& vInt)
{
m_Pointer = vInt.m_Pointer;
}
So, you must define your own copy constructor and assignment operator to control the memory assignment.

Uses of destructor = delete;

Consider the following class:
struct S { ~S() = delete; };
Shortly and for the purpose of the question: I cannot create instances of S like S s{}; for I could not destroy them.
As mentioned in the comments, I can still create an instance by doing S *s = new S;, but I cannot delete it as well.
Therefore, the only use I can see for a deleted destructor is something like this:
struct S {
~S() = delete;
static void f() { }
};
int main() {
S::f();
}
That is, define a class that exposes only a bunch of static functions and forbid any attempt to create an instance of that class.
What are the other uses (if any) of a deleted destructor?
If you have an object which should never, ever be deleted or stored on the stack (automatic storage), or stored as part of another object, =delete will prevent all of these.
struct Handle {
~Handle()=delete;
};
struct Data {
std::array<char,1024> buffer;
};
struct Bundle: Handle {
Data data;
};
using bundle_storage = std::aligned_storage_t<sizeof(Bundle), alignof(Bundle)>;
std::size_t bundle_count = 0;
std::array< bundle_storage, 1000 > global_bundles;
Handle* get_bundle() {
return new ((void*)global_bundles[bundle_count++]) Bundle();
}
void return_bundle( Handle* h ) {
Assert( h == (void*)global_bundles[bundle_count-1] );
--bundle_count;
}
char get_char( Handle const* h, std::size_t i ) {
return static_cast<Bundle*>(h).data[i];
}
void set_char( Handle const* h, std::size_t i, char c ) {
static_cast<Bundle*>(h).data[i] = c;
}
Here we have opaque Handles which may not be declared on the stack nor dynamically allocated. We have a system to get them from a known array.
I believe nothing above is undefined behavior; failing to destroy a Bundle is acceptable, as is creating a new one in its place.
And the interface doesn't have to expose how Bundle works. Just an opaque Handle.
Now this technique can be useful if other parts of the code need to know that all Handles are in that specific buffer, or their lifetime is tracked in specific ways. Possibly this could also be handled with private constructors and friend factory functions.
one scenario could be the prevention of wrong deallocation:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct S {
~S() = delete;
};
int main() {
S* obj= (S*) malloc(sizeof(S));
// correct
free(obj);
// error
delete obj;
return 0;
}
this is very rudimentary, but applies to any special allocation/deallocation-process (e.g. a factory)
a more 'c++'-style example
struct data {
//...
};
struct data_protected {
~data_protected() = delete;
data d;
};
struct data_factory {
~data_factory() {
for (data* d : data_container) {
// this is safe, because no one can call 'delete' on d
delete d;
}
}
data_protected* createData() {
data* d = new data();
data_container.push_back(d);
return (data_protected*)d;
}
std::vector<data*> data_container;
};
Why mark a destructor as delete?
To prevent the destructor from being invoked, of course ;)
What are the use cases?
I can see at least 3 different uses:
The class should never be instantiated; in this case I would also expect a deleted default constructor.
An instance of this class should be leaked; for example, a logging singleton instance
An instance of this class can only be created and disposed off by a specific mechanism; this could notably occur when using FFI
To illustrate the latter point, imagine a C interface:
struct Handle { /**/ };
Handle* xyz_create();
void xyz_dispose(Handle*);
In C++, you would want to wrap it in a unique_ptr to automate the release, but what if you accidentally write: unique_ptr<Handle>? It's a run-time disaster!
So instead, you can tweak the class definition:
struct Handle { /**/ ~Handle() = delete; };
and then the compiler will choke on unique_ptr<Handle> forcing you to correctly use unique_ptr<Handle, xyz_dispose> instead.
There are two plausible use cases. First (as some comments note) it could be acceptable to dynamically allocate objects, fail to delete them and allow the operating system to clean up at the end of the program.
Alternatively (and even more bizarre) you could allocate a buffer and create an object in it and then delete the buffer to recover the place but never prompt an attempt to call the destructor.
#include <iostream>
struct S {
const char* mx;
const char* getx(){return mx;}
S(const char* px) : mx(px) {}
~S() = delete;
};
int main() {
char *buffer=new char[sizeof(S)];
S *s=new(buffer) S("not deleting this...");//Constructs an object of type S in the buffer.
//Code that uses s...
std::cout<<s->getx()<<std::endl;
delete[] buffer;//release memory without requiring destructor call...
return 0;
}
None of these seems like a good idea except in specialist circumstances. If the automatically created destructor would do nothing (because the destructor of all members is trivial) then the compiler will create a no-effect destructor.
If the automatically created destructor would do something non-trivial you very likely compromise the validity of your program by failing to execute its semantics.
Letting a program leave main() and allowing the environment to 'clean-up' is a valid technique but best avoided unless constraints make it strictly necessary. At best it's a great way to mask genuine memory leaks!
I suspect the feature is present for completeness with the ability to delete other automatically generated members.
I would love to see a real practical use of this capability.
There is the notion of a static class (with no constructors) and so logically requiring no destructor. But such classes are more appropriately implemented as a namespace have no (good) place in modern C++ unless templated.
Creating an instance of an object with new and never deleting it is the safest way to implement a C++ Singleton, because it avoids any and all order-of-destruction issues. A typical example of this problem would be a "Logging" Singleton which is being accessed in the destructor of another Singleton class. Alexandrescu once devoted an entire section in his classical "Modern C++ Design" book on ways to cope with order-of-destruction issues in Singleton implementations.
A deleted destructor is nice to have so that even the Singleton class itself cannot accidentally delete the instance. It also prevents crazy usage like delete &SingletonClass::Instance() (if Instance() returns a reference, as it should; there is no reason for it to return a pointer).
At the end of the day, nothing of this is really noteworthy, though. And of course, you shouldn't use Singletons in the first place anyway.

unsafe template array constructor

This is probably a simple question but I have this template class:
template<typename Type>
class Array {
size_t n;
Type* buff;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n]) {}
};
The code is from a course pdf file where it says buff(new Type[n]) is unsafe. I don't understand why it's unsafe, isn't size_t generally unsigned? Can I have an example where it could have a compile and/or run-time error?
The code is "unsafe" in the fact that it relies on n being constructed before buff. This dependency adds brittleness to the code.
When you construct the members of the class they are constructed in the order the are declared in the class, not how they are called in the member initialization list, so if the code was changed to
template<typename Type>
class Array {
Type* buff;
size_t n;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n]) {}
};
Then when you do buff(new Type[n]), n is uninitialized and you have undefined behavior.
First of all the order, the initializations for the constructor are executed is not determined by the order they are written down, but by the order the initialized fields appear in the code:
class Array {
size_t n;
Type* buff;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n]) {}
};
Here first n will be initialized and then buff.
class Array {
Type* buff;
size_t n;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n]) {}
};
Now first buff will be initialized and then n, so n has no defined value in that case.
Using initialization lists for constructors is good practice, but be careful, that you don't create any assumptions on the order.
Generally it is a good idea to refrain from owning raw pointers. If you use smart pointers instead, you can not forget to release the data.
In the specific case, you might also want to use std::vector instead of a C-style array. That handles all the allocation, reallocation, releases, etc. in a thread safe manner for you. It seems like you are trying to write something like your own std::vector. Please only do that for educational purposes. Always prefer the standard implementation in production code. You probably won't get it better for quite a while. If you did, you would ask different questions here ;-)
First of all, you have a memory leak. But the question probably isn't about that. So let's assume you have a destructor that deallocates the array.
template<typename Type>
class Array {
size_t n;
Type* buff;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n]) {}
~Array() { delete[] buff; }
};
Now this particular code is perfectly safe. No exception can be thrown while assigning n_, the order of initialization is correct and buff is the only raw pointer in your class. However, as you start expanding your class and writing more classes, the risk of a memory leak increases.
Imagine that you need to add one more members to the class Array:
template<typename Type>
class Array {
size_t n;
Type* buff;
SomethingElse xyz;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n_]), xyz(n_) {}
~Array() { delete[] buff; }
};
If the constructor of SomethingElse throws, the memory allocated for buff will leak, because the destructor ~Array() will never be called.
Modern C++ calls pointers such as Type* buff raw pointers because you are responsible for deallocating storage yourself (taking exceptions into account), and introduces tools such as std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr that can take care of storage deallocation automatically.
In modern C++ you could write your class like this:
template<typename Type>
class Array {
size_t n;
std::unique_ptr<Type[]> buff;
public:
Array(size_t n_): n(n_), buff(new Type[n_]) {}
};
Notice the absence of a destructor. The unique_ptr will take care of calling delete for you.
Note also no dependency on class members inside the initializer list (simply writing new Type[n_] instead of new Type[n] makes your code more robust)
C++98 Standard 12.6.2.5.4 (I don't expect new versions to have relaxed this).
— Then, nonstatic data members shall be initialized in the order they
were declared in the class definition (again regardless of the order
of the mem-initializers).
So the order of initialization is defined according to this.
If you want an example of how to crash it simply make sizeof(Type)*n > total memory in your system.
It is not safe to call new operator inside initialization list.
if new fails the destructor of Array will not be called.
here is a similar question.
Are there any issues with allocating memory within constructor initialization lists?

Array class member initialization in C++

I have the following code snippet:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
int* data;
int size;
public:
A(int s):size(s)
{
data = new int[size];
}
A() {
data = nullptr;
}
~A() {
if (data) delete [] data;
}
};
class B {
A a[2];
public:
B() {
a[0] = A(10);
a[1] = A(11);
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
B b;
}
In the C++ code above, I have class A which has an array member int* data, and the (de)allocation of memory are handled by (de)constructor. The I created class B which has an array of class A of fixed length as a data member.
My question is: how to elegantly initialise the member A a[2]? In the code above, the A(10) and A(11) are created on the stack, when jumping out of the scope, their destructors will be called, hence the data comes invalid. When jumping of the main function's scope, the pointers held by a[2] will be deallocated twice, causing the error:
pointer being freed was not allocated.
One possible solution is to carefully design a copy constructor and a move constructor, by doing so the above coding paradigm could work.
Another solution I've tried is to initialise the array in the initialization list of class B:
B() : a { A(10), A(11) }
This solution works and I don't really tell the underlying mechanism of initialization list. I think it must be quite different from simply construct and copy. I really expected some experts could give an elaborate explanation of this mechanism. Of course, this solution is ugly hard-coded and not flexible.
So I wonder if there are some programming paradigms in C++ to tackle this design problem?
In the code above, the A(10) and A(11) are created on the stack
They are temporary objects. It is not specified where they are created or if they're created at all.
when jumping out of the scope, their destructors will be called
The destructor of each temporary will be called after the corresponding move assignment statement ends.
One possible solution is to carefully design a copy constructor and a move constructor, by doing so the above coding paradigm could work.
And {copy,move} assignment operator too. You should always do that when the implicitly declared ones don't do the right thing. And they never do the right thing if you delete something in the destructor.
Another solution I've tried is to initialise the array in the initialization list of class B
This solution works and I don't really tell the underlying mechanism of initialization list. I think it must be quite different from simply construct and copy.
The bug in the original code is badly behaving move assignment operator of A. Since the initialization list never move assigns from a temporary, it never triggers the bug.
This is actually the more elegant way to construct a that you asked for. Not because it avoids the bug, but because avoiding unnecessary moving is good thing, intrinsically.
So I wonder if there are some programming paradigms in C++ to tackle this design problem?
Yes. RAII and Single responsibility principle. Unless your class does nothing else, besides managing the memory pointed by data, it should not be managing the memory. Instead, it should delegate the memory management to a RAII object. In this case, you should use a std::vector member.
class A {
std::vector<int> data;
public:
A(int s):data(s) {}
A() = default;
};
Using an initializer list to construct B::a, like this:
class B {
A a[2];
public:
B() : a({10, 11}){
}
};
The ideal answer would be to force A to use movements instead of copies, or on a copy to allocate new space for the item. Of the two, the most efficient is the former and so I will expand on it below:
Forcing movement can be done in two fashions:
Delete the copy constructor and copy operator=, and implement your own move constructor and operator=
Consistently use std::move and std::swap.
Of these, the former is superior in that you will be unable to accidentally copy the class, but with the latter the fact that you are moving will be more evident.
To delete the default copy methods do:
class A {
A( const A& a ) = delete;
A& operator =( const A& a ) = delete;
}

RAII - Class Pointers and Scope

I want to gain a better understanding of how to implement the RAII idiom with my classes, through an example: What the recommended method is for ensuring pointers are free()'d properly in my class?
I have a class which should exist for the duration of the program. In the spirit of RAII and because I need to pass a reference to this class to other classes, I am holding it in a shared_ptr (not sure it actually needs to be held in a shared_ptr, but for fun, it is).
In the class ctor, I use 2 buffers (pointers) and then loop multiple times malloc()'ing, using the buffer and then free()'ing. The dtor should contain failsafe code to free the buffers, in the event of mishap.
The only way the dtor can see the buffers is if I declare them as class variables, however they are only used in the class ctor.
Example:
class Input
{
private:
PSOMETYPE buffer1;
public:
Input();
~Input();
}
Input::Input() : buffer1(NULL)
{
for(blahblah)
{
buffer1 = (PSOMETYPE)malloc(sizeof(SOMETYPE));
// Do work w/buffer1
if(buffer1 != NULL) { free(buffer1); buffer1 = NULL }
}
}
Input::~Input()
{
if(buffer1 != NULL) { free(buffer1); buffer1 = NULL }
}
Considering I only use the buffer in the ctor, does it make sense to declare it as a private class variable? If I declare it in the scope of the ctor, the dtor will have no knowledge as to what it is to free.
I know this is a trivial example, and honestly I could implement this as easily forgetting about using a smart pointer to reference my class and having a blank dtor, just free()'ing as I'm doing inside the loop. I have no mentor or schooling, and I'm uncertain of when the RAII idiom should be followed.
The spirit of RAII would be to use a local object to manage the locally allocated object, rather than artificially tying its lifetime to the object being constructed:
class Input
{
// no pointer at all, if it's only needed in the constructor
public:
Input();
// no explicit destructor, since there's nothing to explicitly destroy
};
Input::Input()
{
for(blahblah)
{
std::unique_ptr<SOMETYPE> buffer1(new SOMETYPE);
// or, unless SOMETYPE is huge, create a local object instead:
SOMETYPE buffer1;
// Do work w/buffer1
} // memory released automatically here
}
You should only ever have to use delete (or free, or whatever) yourself if you're writing a class whose purpose is to manage that resource - and usually there's already a standard class (such as a smart pointer or a container) that does what you want.
When you do need to write your own management class, always remember the Rule of Three: if your destructor deletes something, then the default copying behaviour of the class will almost certainly cause a double delete, so you need to declare a copy constructor and copy-assignment operator to prevent that. For example, with your class I could write the following incorrect code:
{
Input i1; // allocates a buffer, holds a pointer to it
Input i2(i1); // copies the pointer to the same buffer
} // BOOM! destroys both objects, freeing the buffer twice
The simplest way to prevent this is to delete the copy operations, so code like that will fail to compile:
class Input {
Input(Input const&) = delete; // no copy constructor
void operator=(Input) = delete; // no copy assignment
};
Older compilers may not support = delete; in which case you can get almost the same effect by declare them privately without = delete, and not implementing them.