Copy constructor + Shallow & deep copy - c++

I wanted to ask that when I don't write any copy constructor explicitly so the compiler automatically generates the copy constructor which performs shallow copy by default right?
So in the main() program when I changed the values of integers a, b and pointer p only the value of p changed and values of a and b remain unchanged in the copied object. Why the values of a & b didn't change too? My code is:
#include <iostream>
#include <string.h>
using namespace std;
class Dummy {
private:
int a, b;
int *p;
public:
Dummy() {
p = new int;
}
void setData(int x, int y, int z) {
a = x;
b = y;
*p = z;
}
void showData() {
cout << "a = " << a << " b = " << b;
cout << " p = " << *p << endl;
}
~Dummy() {
delete p;
}
};
int main() {
Dummy d1;
d1.setData(3, 4, 5);
Dummy d2 = d1;
d1.showData();
d2.showData();
d1.setData(6, 7, 8);
d1.showData();
d2.showData();
return 0;
}
The output of my program is:
a = 3 b = 4 p = 5
a = 3 b = 4 p = 5
a = 6 b = 7 p = 8
a = 3 b = 4 p = 8
What I'm saying is while the pointer of object d2 changed when I changed the values of object d1 then why didn't the values of a & b of object d2 changed too?
Also I'm using delete keyword in the destructor to delete the dynamically allocated pointer:
~Dummy() {
delete p;
}
But it's crashing my program instead. Why is that?

You've totally got it wrong - The idea of shallow copy. Actually, c++ does not have anything called deep copy built into itself. So, calling something shallow copy is a bit wrong. And just the use of these words shallow copy creates a lot of confusion too.
Now, let me explain, what happens when cpp performs initialization using assignment. cpp or c(while copying struct) has a concept called bitwise copy. In this concept, all the member variables of one object(struct object/class object - you can say either) is identically copied to another object. Now, it's totally wrong idea that, both objects point to same memory location. In actual, both object has their own memory location and of course, their variables occupy different memory spaces. For you, I have write some tests regarding memory. You would understand perfectly, if you just see the test and it's output:
#include <iostream>
#include <string.h>
using namespace std;
class Dummy {
int a, b;
int *p;
public:
Dummy() {
p = new int;
}
void setData(int x, int y, int z) {
a = x;
b = y;
*p = z;
}
void showData() {
cout << "a = " << a << " b = " << b;
cout << " p = " << *p << endl;
cout << endl; // an extra new line for readability of output
}
void showMemory() {
cout << "addr(a) = " << &a << " addr(b) = " << &b;
cout << " addr(p) = " << &p << endl;
}
~Dummy() {
*p = 100;
delete p;
}
};
// testing memory
void memoryTest() {
cout << "testing d1:" << endl;
Dummy d1;
d1.setData(3, 4, 5);
cout << "addr(d1) = " << &d1 << endl;
d1.showMemory();
cout << endl ;
cout << "testing d2:" << endl;
Dummy d2 = d1;
cout << "addr(d2) = " << &d2 << endl;
d2.showMemory();
}
int main() {
// memoryTest
memoryTest();
return 0;
}
And the output of the test was:
testing d1:
addr(d1) = 0x6dfed4
addr(a) = 0x6dfed4 addr(b) = 0x6dfed8 addr(p) = 0x6dfedc
testing d2:
addr(d2) = 0x6dfec8
addr(a) = 0x6dfec8 addr(b) = 0x6dfecc addr(p) = 0x6dfed0
This clearly shows that, the memory occupied by those two objects d1 and d2 are totally different.
Now, you may have another question remain: Then, why, when i write *p=8, it affects both d1 and d2?:
When you assign, Dummy d2 = d1;, we may say something happended like below(though, it's not actually happen when bitwise copy is applied, it's just for clarity):
d2.p = d1.p
So, we know that, d1.p and d2.p contains the same memory location(note: d1.p is a pointer. so, it does not contain any integer, rather it contains memory address of an int).
So, when you write *p = 8, you are telling the program to go to the memory location targeted by p and change the value of that memory location to 8.(note, here, you didn't change the content of d1.p, d1.p still contains the same memory location. rather, you just changed that memory location's content from 5 to 8). That's why when you call d2.p, you get the changed value. cause, d2.p contains the same memory location as d1.p.
Now, there may have one more question: Why your code crashes when you freed p in destructor?:
Now, let me first ask you, can you free a memory what is already freed. You can write the code, but the behavior is undefined. It may crashes your program or it may do nothing.
Well, in Dummy destructor you've written delete p;. Now, either d2 or d1 would be destroyed first. Let's assume, d2 is destroyed first. So, when d2's destroyer is called, p is freed. Then, d1's destroyer will be called and it'll also try to free p. But p is already freed. And in your case, the program meets a crash for this reason.
Hope, everything is clear to you now.
If anything is not clear about what I've described above, then ask questions, I will try my best to answer them too.

Related

C++ why raw pointer won't increase reference count of shared_ptr?

the shared_ptr use reference count to determine when to destroy the object.
And pls look at this code:
int main() {
std::shared_ptr<int> pt = std::make_shared<int>(3);
int *pt2 = pt.get();
cout << "reference count " << pt.use_count() << endl;
pt = 0;
cout << *pt2;
};
after I set pt to 0, the reference count should become 0, and the object should be destroyed. But I can still use pt2 to access it. In my case, the result is correct, but I guess it's just luck. So does it mean that the reference count mechanism still can not make it 100% safe if the programmer want to do some stupid thing?
after I set pt to 0, the reference count should become 0, and the object should be destroyed
The reference count did become zero and the object was destroyed.
Replace int with your own class MyInt to see the constructors and destructors being called...
class MyInt
{
private:
int val;
public:
MyInt() : val(0) { std::cout << "default c'tor called" << std::endl; }
MyInt(int rhs) : val(rhs) { std::cout << "c'tor (" << rhs << ") called" << std::endl; }
~MyInt() { std::cout << "d'tor called" << std::endl; }
int getval (void) { return val; }
};
… then update main() …
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<MyInt> pt = std::make_shared<MyInt>(3);
MyInt* pt2 = pt.get();
std::cout << "reference count " << pt.use_count() << std::endl;
pt = 0;
std::cout << pt2->getval() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The output will (perhaps) look like this...
c'tor (3) called
reference count 1
d'tor called
3
runnable sample
The fact that the last line of output is the value three (if it is three) is not evidence that the object was not deleted.
Dereferencing a pointer that points to a deleted object is undefined behaviour so anything can happen.
That is not how shared_ptr works.
The count increments when you generate a new shared pointer from the first one. get is just a method to deal with legacy code that can only take a raw pointer.
By using get you are subverting the safety of the smart pointer.
In other words, a pointer from get is only good as an observer, not as an owner and for when you really need a raw pointer.
If you just need an observer use weak_ptr.
It is true that in principle get could increment the count assuming ownership, but still it wouldn't be clear when to decrement it again.
Once the raw pointer is extracted there is no way to get back to the counter of the original.
Stay away from using get unless you know what you are doing.
This is how it works:
#include<iostream>
#include<memory>
using std::cout; using std::endl;
int main(){
std::shared_ptr<int> pt = std::make_shared<int>(3);
assert(pt.use_count() == 1);
std::shared_ptr<int> pt2 = pt;
assert(pt.use_count() == 2);
assert(pt2.use_count() == 2);
pt.reset(); // or pt = 0;
assert(pt.use_count() == 0);
assert(pt2.use_count() == 1);
assert(*pt2 == 3);
assert(!pt);
return 0;
}

New pointer in class method must be casted into a reference

I have two classes, let's call them A and B
class A:
{
public:
//Some functions
A *getNewA() const;
private:
//some attributes
}
class B:
{
public:
//Some functions
private:
A &reftoA;
}
In the main code, I must generate a new A thanks to the A::getNewA() method. And this must go to B::reftoA, as written in class B.
Here is the A::getNewA() method :
A *A::getNewA()
{
A *newA = new A;
return newA;
}
OK. So now I call getNewA and want to store the results in reftoA, which is a reference to A. In a B function (which take a reference to A as parameter)
B::foo(A &paramA)
{
reftoA = *(paramA.getNewA());
}
I thought this should have been working, but it won't.
Because when dereferencing, reftoA will always take the this object and not the new allocated object.
Let's be clearer and let's modify the functions to output the results
A * A::getNewA()
{
A *newA = new A;
std::cout << "New pointer " << newA << std::endl;
std::cout << "this pointer" << this << std::endl;
return A;
}
void B::foo(A &paramA)
{
reftoA = *(paramA.getNewA());
std::cout << "new generated pointer " << &reftoA << std::endl;
}
Here is one of the output :
New pointer : 004FFAEC
this pointer: 0069D888
New generated pointer : 0069D888 //Expected : 004FFAEC
I can't get this "new generated pointer" to be the same than the new pointer the A::getNewA() returns after having allocated the memory. Of course, I guess there is some point with dereferencing the pointer to store it in a reference.
I know reference are used with existing object. Maybe the new object A::getNewA() should allocate memory for won't work as I expected.
I could use pointer instead reference in B::foo(), I know, but I can't
I think I am misunderstanding something about refrence and pointer, but I don't know what.
Any help greatly appreciated
The problem is that you can not reassign a reference. You can change only the value of the referenced object.
So you have to initialize the reference in the initializer list of the constructor of the class B.
Take into account that there is a typo in your code snippet
A*A::getNewA()
{
A *newA = new A;
std::cout << "New pointer " << newA << std::endl;
std::cout << "this pointer" << this << std::endl;
return A;
^^^^^^^^^
}
I think you mean
A*A::getNewA() const
^^^^^
{
A *newA = new A;
std::cout << "New pointer " << newA << std::endl;
std::cout << "this pointer" << this << std::endl;
return newA;
^^^^^^^^^^^
}
Always try to provide a verifiable complete example.
Here is a demonstrative program
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public :
//Some functions
A* getNewA() const
{
A *newA = new A;
std::cout << "New pointer " << newA << std::endl;
std::cout << "this pointer" << this << std::endl;
return newA;
}
private :
//some attributes
};
class B
{
public :
B( const A& a ) : reftoA( *a.getNewA() )
{
std::cout << "&reftoA " << &reftoA << std::endl;
}
private :
A& reftoA;
};
int main()
{
A a;
B b( a );
return 0;
}
Its output is
New pointer 0x2b392afbec20
this pointer0x7ffd287ad0af
&reftoA 0x2b392afbec20
As you can see the values of the New pointer and &reftoA are equal each other.
To make it more clear consider a very simple example
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int x = 10;
int y = 20;
int &r = x;
r = y;
std::cout << "x = " << x << std::endl;
std::cout << "y = " << y << std::endl;
std::cout << "r = " << r << std::endl;
std::cout << std::endl;
std::cout << "&x = " << &x << std::endl;
std::cout << "&y = " << &y << std::endl;
std::cout << "&r = " << &r << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The program output is
x = 20
y = 20
r = 20
&x = 0x7ffd88ad47a8
&y = 0x7ffd88ad47ac
&r = 0x7ffd88ad47a8
This statement
r = y;
did not force the reference to refer the object y. It just reassigned the value of the referenced object x.
References have to be initialized when they are created.
Yes, you are misunderstanding something.
getNewA() is returning a pointer. it's not a smart pointer, you want to look into those and that's all I'll say on the matter.
on returning a pointer, you must keep a reference to this pointer else you will be unable to delete it and you'll get a memory leak. Thus you MUST have somewhere A* a = A::getNewA() and then later, when you no longer need it delete a;
Where you need to pass a reference to A, you can do foo(*a) which will dereference the pointer and pass a reference to the object it's pointing to.
But in summary, for all new code, smart pointers; there's no excuse to not use them.
Side note: Your code example had a few other issues; such as getNewA wasn't static; I'm going to take the code as a working example of your understanding, and not a working example.
Edit: On re-reading your example, the getNewA is intentionally non-static. I think this question is actually an XY problem (ie you're asking a question you've forced yourself into but isn't your actual problem); but I hope this addresses your misunderstanding of pointers and references.
You are not returning the pointer in the getNewA-Method
A* A::getNewA()
{
A *newA = new A;
return A; // you are returning A and not newA
}
And if you want to reassign the reference to a you can use a std::reference_wrapper
class B :
{
public :
void foo(A& paramA) {
reftoA = *(paramA.getNewA());
}
private :
std::reference_wrapper<A> reftoA;
}

Crash Issue - C++ Code Design using pointers and destructors

I have a question regarding the following code, which crashes. I am creating a local variable in testfunction() and then pushing it (variable "y") into a list. This variable has a member pointer "b" of object type Ball. As I understand, this local variable "y" is on the stack, so its' destructor will be called after testfunction() is completed. Also, as I understand, a vector "copies" an object into its' list. From what I've learned, it is best practice to delete a pointer in the destructor if one exists in its' class. So, there is "delete b" in the destructor of Example.
The issue that I am having is that the object y.b is being destroyed at the completion of testfunction(). In main(), I am able to see the value of "name" and the address of "b", but the object "b" has already been deleted. I would like to avoid this.
I think there is an issue with the design of the code/use of pointers vs references, etc. Please guide me in the right direction, I am an idiot!
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Ball
{
public:
int a;
Ball()
{
a = 0;
}
~Ball()
{
cout << "destroyed Ball()" << endl;
}
};
class Example
{
public:
string name;
Ball* b;
Example()
{
name = "";
b = NULL;
}
~Example()
{
cout << "destroying Example()" << endl;
delete b;
}
};
void testfunction(vector<Example>& list)
{
cout << "entered testfunction1()" << endl;
Example y;
y.name = "myName";
y.b = new Ball();
y.b->a = 5;
cout << "y.b->a = " << y.b->a << endl;
list.push_back(y);
cout << "exit testfunction1()" << endl;
}
void testfunction2()
{
cout << "entered testfunction2()" << endl;
Example* y = new Example();
cout << "exit testfunction2()" << endl;
}
int main() {
vector<Example> list;
testfunction(list);
//testfunction2();
if(list[0].b == NULL)
cout << "b is null" << endl;
else
cout << "b is not null" << endl;
cout << list[0].name << endl;
cout << list[0].b << endl;
cout << "list[0].b->a = " << list[0].b->a << endl;
return 0;
}
Since class Example has a pointer member and it tries to own a dynamically allocated resource, it needs non-default copy operations, in other words, it needs user-defined copy constructor and assignment operator.
Inside testfunction, when you copy y into vector, both local y and y copied to the vector point to very same Ball object. The local y is destroyed at the end of the function and Ball is deleted. However, that deleted Ball still pointed by the y in vector
void testfunction(vector<Example>& list)
{
// ...
Example y;
y.name = "myName";
y.b = new Ball();
y.b->a = 5;
list.push_back(y);
// ...
} // <-- destructor for Example y is called and y.b is deleted
Define a copy constructor and an assignement operator for your class Example.
These shall copy properly your object (creating a duplicated Ball object) when pushed back on the vector.
Example(const Example& a)
{
name = a.name; // attention no dynamic allocation
cout << "copy" <<endl;
if (a.b) {
b = new Ball(*a.b); // create a new duplicated Ball
}
else b = NULL;
}
The problem in your example is that the default copy constructor is called when you pushback the object. It copies memberwise and so the pointer to Ball is copied, not the object pointed to.
Yet another alternative could be to replace your Ball* with shared_ptr<Ball> (and accordingly, new Ball with make_shared<Ball>() and the delete b of the object with a b.reset()). The principle is that this smart pointer keeps track of the number of time the object pointed to is used, so that it will not delete it twice, but only when its no longer used anywhere.

C++ reference copying and assignment

I have few questions regarding below code
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
A & add(A & b);
};
A & A::add(A & z)
{
A * a = new A();
A & b = *a;
cout << "Inside add, address of a: " << &a << endl;
cout << "Inside add, address of b: " << &b << endl;
cout << "Inside add, address of z: " << &z << endl;
A aa;
cout << "Inside, add, address of aa: " << &aa << endl;
return aa;
}
int main()
{
A *a = new A();
cout << "Original a: " << a << endl;
A & b = a->add(*a);
cout << "b: " << &b << endl;
return 0;
}
Q1. Inside main, line 3, a->add(*a), the same object pointed by pointer *a is passed. But inside the function A::add(A &), when i try to achieve the same effect via A &b = *a, i get a different object. Why is this so?
Q2. Inside A::add(A &), i return a non const reference to a local object aa and main gets the same memory address as the local reference. So this has the effect of extending the lifetime of local reference, beyond its scope.
Q3. Inside A::add(A &), i dereference *a multiple times, first via A &b = *a and then by return *a. In both cases, the memory address is always the same. How is this happening? You can check the output of &b inside A::add(A &)and the result of A &b = a->add(*a)
UPDATE:
The issue related to Q1 was that i was doing cout << &a, when i should have been doing cout << a
To eliminate return value optimization, i compiled with -fno-elide-constructors. I am using g++.
A1: You created a new *a with A* a = new A() The a in main is different than the a in A::add. The a in main is referenced by the variable z
A2: No, you created a on the heap, so it is going to last until you call delete on that variable
A3: A dereference does not change the memory location that is stored in the pointer, it just gets the value stored in that location. A reference is more like an alias. So &b is like saying &(*a)

Deriving a pointer type to the non-pointer class member

In book named "Using C++" by Rob McGregor there is following example of using pointer-to-member operator
class mycls
{
public:
int member;
int *ptr;
};
void main()
{
mycls MyClass;
// Derive a pointer type to the non-pointer class member
int mycls::*member = &mycls::member;
MyClass.ptr = new int;
mycls* pMyClass = &MyClass;
pMyClass->*member = 5;
*MyClass.ptr = 10;
cout << "pMyClass->*member = " << pMyClass->*member << "\n"; // pMyClass->*member = 5
cout << "MyClass.*member = " << MyClass.*member << "\n"; // MyClass.*member = 5
cout << "*MyClass.ptr = " << *MyClass.ptr << "\n"; // *MyClass.ptr = 10
cout << "*pMyClass->ptr = " << *pMyClass->ptr << "\n"; // *pMyClass->ptr = 10
delete MyClass.ptr;
}
In this example I don't understand why member variable mycls::member becomes maybe a pointer after (guessing) this line of code:
int mycls::*member = &mycls::member;
What this does?
Suppose you had a local variable:
int member;
You could make a pointer to it with:
int *ptr = &member;
To get the pointer to member syntax, we just append mycls:: in the appropriate places:
int mycls::*member = &mycls::member;
It might be clearer with an example that shows how the pointer can switch between any members of the class that are of the correct type:
class C
{
public:
int a;
int b;
};
void main()
{
// make pointer to member, initially pointing to a
int C::*ptrToMember = &C::a;
C x;
C *ptrToObj = &x; // make pointer to object x
ptrToObj->*ptrToMember = 2; // store in a;
ptrToMember = &C::b; // change pointer to b
ptrToObj->*ptrToMember = 3; // store in b;
}
Note how we create the pointer to the member a before we've created an object of type C. It's only a pointer to a member, not a pointer to the member of a specific object. In the 'store' steps, we have to say which object as well as which member.
Update
In the comments the OP asked if this is the same:
int *ptr = &(ptrToObj->a);
No, it's not. That is a pointer to any int, anywhere in memory.
The easiest way to understand this is to think of what it means technically. A "pointer" is an absolute location in memory: where to find an object. A "pointer-to-member" is a relative location, sometimes called an offset: where to find an object within the storage of an outer object. Internally they are just numbers. A pointer-to-member has to be added to an ordinary pointer to make another pointer.
So if you have a pointer to an object (an int is an object!), you can use it to change what is stored at that absolute location in memory:
*ptr = 123;
But if you have a pointer-to-member, it is not a memory location. It is an offset, an amount to be added to a memory location. You cannot use it by itself. You must "add" it to an object pointer:
ptrToObj->*ptrToMember = 132;
This means: go to the location in memory ptrToObj, then move along by the distance ptrToMember.
He called the class member member and the pointer-to-member member, confusing the issue. Does renaming them like this help?
Class:
class SampleClass
{
public:
int m_data;
int* m_pointer;
};
Usage:
int main()
{
SampleClass sample;
// Derive a pointer type to the non-pointer class member
int SampleClass::*pointerToMember = &SampleClass::m_data;
sample.m_pointer = new int;
SampleClass* pSample = &sample;
pSample->*pointerToMember = 5;
*sample.m_pointer = 10;
// pSample->*pointerToMember = 5
cout << "pSample->*pointerToMember = "
<< pSample->*pointerToMember << "\n";
// sample.*pointerToMember = 5
cout << "sample.*pointerToMember = "
<< sample.*pointerToMember << "\n";
// *sample.m_pointer = 10
cout << "*sample.m_pointer = "
<< *sample.m_pointer << "\n";
// *pSample->m_pointer = 10
cout << "*pSample->m_pointer = "
<< *pSample->m_pointer << "\n";
delete sample.m_pointer;
}
[Code]
Edit: Re "I'm still currious whether int *ptr = &(ptrToObj->a); is the same as using pointer to a member like in the book":
It's not a pointer-to-member. It is just a normal pointer to memory that happens to be in an object.
You can see the syntax in use here:
Class:
class C
{
public:
int a;
int b;
};
Usage:
int main()
{
// make pointer to member, initially pointing to a
int C::*ptrToMember = &C::a;
C x = {10, 11};
C *ptrToObj = &x; // make pointer to object x
cout << "a initial value: " << ptrToObj->*ptrToMember << endl;
ptrToObj->*ptrToMember = 2; // store in a;
cout << "a after change: " << ptrToObj->*ptrToMember << endl;
ptrToMember = &C::b; // change pointer to b
cout << "b initial value: " << ptrToObj->*ptrToMember << endl;
ptrToObj->*ptrToMember = 3; // store in b;
cout << "b after change: " << ptrToObj->*ptrToMember << endl;
int* ptr = &(ptrToObj->a);
cout << "ptr to a: " << *ptr << endl;
ptr = &(ptrToObj->b);
cout << "ptr to b: " << *ptr << endl;
}
[Code]
The asterisk character in the declaration is part of the type.
Your declaration breaks down into
Type: int mycls::*
Variable name: member
Initialiser: = &mycls::member
This new variable member points is a member pointer to an int held in a mycls. It doesn't have to point to a mycls::member.