In my code I use a library that has a function store_pointer accepting a void* and saving it in memory. There is then another function retrieve_pointer() that returns this void * to me, I don't have control over this library so I can't change how the function behaves.
Now I need to pass a variable to this function and get the pointer back, I have the code set up as follows:
struct Task
{
int mId;
Task(int id ) :mId(id)
{
std::cout<<"Task::Constructor"<<std::endl;
}
~Task()
{
std::cout<<"Task::Destructor"<<std::endl;
}
};
std::unique_ptr<Task> taskPtr(new Task(23));
store_pointer(&taskPtr);
// do stuff that doesn't involve taskPtr
Task *new_taskPtr = reinterpret_cast<Task *>(retrieve_pointer());
// do stuff with new_taskPtr pointer
Right now this all works but I wonder if the *new_taskPtr pointer needs to be deleted or if the reinterpret_cast "restores" the pointer to a unique_ptr and so the memory will be deleted automatically when it goes out of scope/the program ends.
std::unique_ptr<Task> taskPtr(new Task(23));
When this variable goes out of scope, the dynamic allocation will be deleted. There is no need to, and you mustn't delete it yourself unless you call release on the unique pointer, which is the only way to transfer the ownership out of a unique pointer (besides transferring ownership to another unique pointer).
Any casts that you may do have no effect on this.
You are storing a reference to unique_ptr:
store_pointer(&taskPtr);
As long as you don’t move the taskPtr or don’t mess with its internal pointer you are safe and don’t need delete.
Note that if taskPtr goes out of scope earlier than the user you will have dangling reference.
Related
Consider my code below. My understanding of unique pointers was that only one unique pointer can be used to reference one variable or object. In my code I have more than one unique_ptr accessing the same variable.
It's obviously not the correct way to use smart pointers i know, in that the pointer should have complete ownership from creation. But still, why is this valid and not having a compilation error? Thanks.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int val = 0;
int* valPtr = &val;
unique_ptr <int> uniquePtr1(valPtr);
unique_ptr <int> uniquePtr2(valPtr);
*uniquePtr1 = 10;
*uniquePtr2 = 20;
return 0;
}
But still, why is this valid
It is not valid! It's undefined behaviour, because the destructor of std::unique_ptr will free an object with automatic storage duration.
Practically, your program tries to destroy the int object three times. First through uniquePtr2, then through uniquePtr1, and then through val itself.
and not having a compilation error?
Because such errors are not generally detectable at compile time:
unique_ptr <int> uniquePtr1(valPtr);
unique_ptr <int> uniquePtr2(function_with_runtime_input());
In this example, function_with_runtime_input() may perform a lot of complicated runtime operations which eventually return a pointer to the same object valPtr points to.
If you use std::unique_ptr correctly, then you will almost always use std::make_unique, which prevents such errors.
Just an addition to Christian Hackl's excellent answer:
std::unique_ptr was introduced to ensure RAII for pointers; this means, in opposite to raw pointers you don't have to take care about destruction yourself anymore. The whole management of the raw pointer is done by the smart pointer. Leaks caused by a forgotten delete can not happen anymore.
If a std::unique_ptr would only allow to be created by std::make_unique, it would be absolutely safe regarding allocation and deallocation, and of course that would be also detectable during compile time.
But that's not the case: std::unique_ptr is also constructible with a raw pointer. The reason is, that being able to be constructed with a hard pointer makes a std::unique_ptr much more useful. If this would not be possible, e.g. the pointer returned by Christian Hackl's function_with_runtime_input() would not be possible to integrate into a modern RAII environment, you would have to take care of destruction yourself.
Of course the downside with this is that errors like yours can happen: To forget destruction is not possible with std::unique_ptr, but erroneous multiple destructions are always possible (and impossible to track by the compiler, as C.H. already said), if you created it with a raw pointer constructor argument. Always be aware that std::unique_ptr logically takes "ownership" of the raw pointer - what means, that no one else may delete the pointer except the one std::unique_ptr itself.
As rules of thumb it can be said:
Always create a std::unique_ptr with std::make_unique if possible.
If it needs to be constructed with a raw pointer, never touch the raw pointer after creating the std::unique_ptr with it.
Always be aware, that the std::unique_ptr takes ownership of the supplied raw pointer
Only supply raw pointers to the heap. NEVER use raw pointers which point to local
stack variables (because they will be unavoidably destroyed automatically,
like valin your example).
Create a std::unique_ptr only with raw pointers, which were created by new, if possible.
If the std::unique_ptr needs to be constructed with a raw pointer, which was created by something else than new, add a custom deleter to the std::unique_ptr, which matches the hard pointer creator. An example are image pointers in the (C based) FreeImage library, which always have to be destroyed by FreeImage_Unload()
Some examples to these rules:
// Safe
std::unique_ptr<int> p = std::make_unique<int>();
// Safe, but not advisable. No accessible raw pointer exists, but should use make_unique.
std::unique_ptr<int> p(new int());
// Handle with care. No accessible raw pointer exists, but it has to be sure
// that function_with_runtime_input() allocates the raw pointer with 'new'
std::unique_ptr<int> p( function_with_runtime_input() );
// Safe. No accessible raw pointer exists,
// the raw pointer is created by a library, and has a custom
// deleter to match the library's requirements
struct FreeImageDeleter {
void operator() (FIBITMAP* _moribund) { FreeImage_Unload(_moribund); }
};
std::unique_ptr<FIBITMAP,FreeImageDeleter> p( FreeImage_Load(...) );
// Dangerous. Your class method gets a raw pointer
// as a parameter. It can not control what happens
// with this raw pointer after the call to MyClass::setMySomething()
// - if the caller deletes it, your'e lost.
void MyClass::setMySomething( MySomething* something ) {
// m_mySomethingP is a member std::unique_ptr<Something>
m_mySomethingP = std::move( std::unique_ptr<Something>( something ));
}
// Dangerous. A raw pointer variable exists, which might be erroneously
// deleted multiple times or assigned to a std::unique_ptr multiple times.
// Don't touch iPtr after these lines!
int* iPtr = new int();
std::unique_ptr<int> p(iPtr);
// Wrong (Undefined behaviour) and a direct consequence of the dangerous declaration above.
// A raw pointer is assigned to a std::unique_ptr<int> twice, which means
// that it will be attempted to delete it twice.
// This couldn't have happened if iPtr wouldn't have existed in the first
// place, like shown in the 'safe' examples.
int* iPtr = new int();
std::unique_ptr<int> p(iPtr);
std::unique_ptr<int> p2(iPtr);
// Wrong. (Undefined behaviour)
// An unique pointer gets assigned a raw pointer to a stack variable.
// Erroneous double destruction is the consequence
int val;
int* valPtr = &val;
std::unique_ptr<int> p(valPtr);
This example of code is a bit artificial. unique_ptr is not usually initialized this way in real world code. Use std::make_unique or initialize unique_ptr without storing raw pointer in a variable:
unique_ptr <int> uniquePtr2(new int);
We have a function that returns a new allocated object as a output argument (ref to pointer).
MyFunc(MyObject*& obj)
{
obj = new MyObject();
}
Which is called like so:
Object* obj;
MyFunc(obj);
Internally the function does quite a bit and uses shared_ptr for memory management. When it is done, the object we would like to return is referenced by a shared_ptr. I am struggling on how to return our new allocated object as a regular pointer.
We would like to continue to use shared_ptr internally to reduce risks, but it does not seem to make sense to return a shared_ptr as the caller takes complete ownership over the returned value (the called function or object no longer needs or keeps a reference to the returned data) and we want them to have flexibility.
Does anyone have any suggestions for allowing us to use shared_ptr internally but have a regular pointer interface? Thanks
If for some reason you cannot/want not use std::unique_ptr or std::auto_ptr (for example if you need to have multiple owners internally during creation for some reason or your underlying methods require std::shared_ptr to be passed around), you can still make it work with std::shared_ptr by using custom deleter, as described here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5995770/1274747
In the principle, after you're done before the return, you switch the deleter to not actually delete the instance (make the deleter "null") and then return by shared_ptr get(). Even after all shared_ptr objects are destroyed, the memory will not be deleted (as the nulled deleter will skip the deletion).
There is also a link in the comments not so well visible, which might be of your interest:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/23866812/
(not sure though if it would really work without the shared ownership of the switch in all cases, would need to test)
EDIT
As expected, with the linked simple disarmable deleter from the pastebin you need to be careful, because the deleter is actually copied for storing in std::shared_ptr.
But you can still make it work by using std::ref:
MyFunc(MyObject*& obj)
{
DisarmableDelete<MyObject> deleter;
std::shared_ptr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject(), std::ref(deleter));
// do what is necessary to setup the object - protected by deleter
// ...
// disarm before return
deleter._armed = false;
obj = ptr.get();
// deleter disarmed - object not freed
}
And just for completeness (and to avoid a potential future broken link), here is the implementation of DisarmableDelete from http://paste.ubuntu.com/23866812/.
template <typename T, typename Deleter = typename std::default_delete<T> >
struct DisarmableDelete : private Deleter {
void operator()(T* ptr) { if(_armed) Deleter::operator()(ptr); }
bool _armed = true;
};
It depends on who "owns" the pointer, once it has been exposed to the 'outside world.' Ownership essentially boils down to: "who is responsible for freeing this memory, later?"
It can be answered with a simple question: when MyFunc is called, is the caller responsible for deleting the pointer when it's done?
If so, then MyFunc needs to 'release' the ownership, otherwise the shared_ptr will automatically delete the pointer, when it goes out of scope. This actually can't be done, using shared_ptr. You need to use a unique_ptr instead, and call unique_ptr::release().
If not - if MyFunc will simply use the resulting pointer and forget about it without delete-ing it - then you can simply return the 'raw' pointer using shared_ptr::get(). You must be careful, because this implies that the shared_ptr still exists elsewhere in your code.
I can see four alternatives, as highlighted below. They are all horrible, and short of switching your ownership to std::unique_ptr<T> and returning via obj = ptr.release(); I can only offer a hack where the argument is assigned to the pointer upon destruction, but you still need to catch the exception and test whether the pointer was assigned.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <exception>
struct foo {
void bar() const { std::cout << this << " foo::bar()\n"; }
~foo() { std::cout << this << " deleted\n"; }
};
void f1(foo*& obj) {
obj = new foo;
// do stuff... if an exception is thrown before we return we are
// left with a memory leak
}
void f2(foo*& obj) {
auto holder = std::make_shared<foo>();
// do stuff.. if an exception is thrown the pointer will be
// correclty deleted.
obj = holder.get(); // awesome, I have a raw pointer!
} // oops, the destructor gets called because holder went out of
// scope... my pointer points to a deleted object.
void f3(foo*& obj) {
auto holder = std::make_unique<foo>();
// do stuff.. if an exception is thrown the pointer will be
// correclty deleted.
obj = holder.release(); // awesome, I have a raw pointer!
} // no problem whem holder goes out of scope because it does not own the pointer
void f4(foo*& obj) {
// a super-weird hack that assigns obj upon deletion
std::shared_ptr<foo> holder(new foo, [&obj](foo*& p){ obj = p; });
throw std::exception();
} // no problem whem holder goes out of scope because it does not own
// the pointer... but if an execption is throw we need to delete obj
int main() {
foo* p1;
f1(p1);
p1->bar();
foo* p2;
f2(p2);
// p2->bar(); // error
foo* p3;
f3(p3);
p3->bar();
foo* p4;
try {
f4(p4);
} catch(...) {
std::cout << "caught an exception... test whether p4 was assigned it\n";
}
p4->bar(); // I still need to delete this thing
}
The point of shared_ptr is to express shared ownership.
Anything that does not share in the ownership of an object -- that doesn't have the right to make an object lifetime last longer, and the object lifetime is the union of the shared owners request for object lifetime -- should not use a shared_ptr.
Here, you have a shared_ptr and you are going to return it. At that point, you are violating the assumptions of shared_ptr; anyone who kept a shared_ptr copy expects that its content can last as long as it requests.
Meanwhile, the calling code thinks it owns the MyObject* raw pointer you passed it.
This is an example of misuse of shared_ptr.
Saying "we have memory management issues, use shared_ptr" doesn't fix memory management issues. Proper use of shared_ptr requires care and design, and the design must be that when the end of the lifetime of the object in question is shared by 2 or more pieces of data and/or code.
The internal code, if it does not own the pointer, should use either something like an observer_ptr<T> or a raw T* (the first to make it clear it doesn't own the object).
Ownership should be explicit, and in a unique_ptr. It can then call .release() to pass ownership to a raw pointer if required; in practice, I would change your signature to take a unique_ptr&, or have it return a unique_ptr.
The caller would then call .release() when they want to use some other object lifetime management system, or that object lifetime management system should consume unique_ptrs (thus being extremely clear about taking ownership of things).
Use a non-hack solution.
Such as a std::shared_ptr<std::unique_ptr<T>>. In this case, you have shared ownership of a unique ownership.
The unique_ptr can have its ownership taken from it (via .release()). When it does so, all of the shared_ptrs that still exist will have their unique_ptr also be cleared.
This places the shared unique ownership front and center, instead of hacking a non-deleter into a shared_ptr and having dangling shared_ptrs that think they have ownership over data but do not.
The best approach is to use internally unique_ptr and call its .release() method before returning the raw pointer.
If you are stuck to use shared_ptr internally, an option is to create it specifying a custom, "noop" deleter, that just does nothing when shared_ptr is destroyed (instead of calling delete on the owned pointer). The get the raw pointer from shared_ptr as usual (.get() method).
An example of such a deleter can be found in the Boost library (null_deleter).
But please note that doing this effectively "disable" the usefulness of having a shared_ptr at all...
If your managing the lifespan of the allocated object internally with std::shared_ptr, and are returning a raw pointer for access and don't want this pointer to affect the ref count, you can return the raw pointer by calling shared_ptr.get().
It can be problematic to return smart pointers if your using a tool like Swig to generate wrappers for other languages.
always delete pointer even if it is just in function call stack?
Isn't it disappeared when function stack released?
// just Simple class
class CSimple{
int a;
}
// just simple function having pointer.
void simpleFunc(){
CSimple* cSimple = new CSimple();
cSimple->a = 10;
//.. do sth
delete cSimple; // <<< Always, do I have to delete 'cSimple' to prevent the leak of memory?
}
void main(){
for( int =0 ; i< 10 ; i++){
simpleFunc();
}
}
when function stack released?
It is true that "CSimple *csimple" goes away when the function returns.
However, there's a big difference between the pointer, and what it's pointed to.
When a pointer object gets destroyed, nothing happens to whatever the pointer is pointing to. There isn't just one, but two objects here:
The pointer.
What it's pointing to.
In this case, the pointer is pointing to an object in dynamic scope that was created with new.
Nothing is going to happen to this object, otherwise, so you will leak memory.
Therefore, this object needs to be deleted.
After you understand, and fully wrap your brain around this concept, your next step will be to open your C++ book to the chapter that talks about the std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr classes, which will take care of these pesky details, for you. You should learn how to use them. Modern C++ code rarely needs to delete something; rather these smart pointers do all the work.
Yes.
On scope exit (ex. when function exists or block { ... } finishes), all objects created on stack will be destroyed and memory will be freed.
This applies to your case, ie. the pointer will be destroyed and memory occupied by the pointer will be freed. The object pointed by the pointer will not be cleared.
This is a common problem and a nightmare when you deal with multiple flow paths (if-else ladders, many return statements) and exceptions.
To solve this problem, we employ 2 main strategies:
RAII
Smart pointers (std::unique_ptr, boost::scoped_ptr, legacy std::auto_ptr, etc).
RAII - without academic consideration - is just creating object on stack, like this:
{
std::string s;
fancy_object obj;
}
When we exit he scope, obj and s destructors will be called duing stack unwinding. Compiler ensures this for all flow paths and will keep proper order of deallocations for us.
If you need to allocate memory on heap, using new, use a smart pointer.
int foo()
{
std::unique_ptr<Object> o(new Object);
... some more code ...
if( something ) { return -1 }
... some more code ...
if( something_else ) { return -2 }
else { not yet }
return 0;
}
As you can see, we can leave the scope using 3 "exists". Normally, you'd need to clear your memory in all cases, which is prone to human errors.
Instead of clearing the object manually in all 3 palces, we rely on automatic destructor call for objects created on stack. Compiler will figure it out. When we leave the scope, std::unique_ptr destructor will be called, calling delete on Object.
Don't be affraid of smart poiners. They are not "slow", "bloat" or other nonsense. Smart poiners are designed to have no overhead on access, adding extra security.
Very similar technique is used for locks. Check out std::lock_guard class.
Yes, you must delete the data that is being pointed to.
The pointer itself is on the stack and does not need to be deleten.
You can, however, store cSimple on the stack, then you don't have to delete it:
void simpleFunc(){
CSimple cSimple; // no new
cSimple.a = 10; // "." instead of "->"
//.. do sth
// no deletion
}
So as to explain about pointers and references in this question I wrote this code.
MyClass& MyClass::MyInstance()
{
static MyClass & myLocalVariable = * new MyClass(/*parameters*/);
return myLocalVariable ;
}
one of the comments, by a really impressive high reputation SO user, simply states:
*new is always wrong. ALWAYS.
It is the first time I'm told about this: Is it a famous coding standard we all should know about ? What are the reasons behind ?
I'm normally pragmatic, however this is too much even for me!
static MyClass & myLocalVariable = * new MyClass(/*parameters*/);
Seriously? Why not simply:
static MyClass myLocalVariable{/*parameters*/};
The most obvious reason is that if you don't keep a copy of the pointer which new returned, you're not likely to ever call delete on it.
On a more human level, it will make people reading your code think less of you, and that's never a good thing either.
I believe the stated user meant that allocating a static object using new is dangerous as the memory will most probably be leaked. Even more importantly your variable is not a pointer but a reference so the chance that you never free the memory returned by new is even greater(how often do you delete the address of a reference?).
THE problem is more than just useless allocations.
If nobody calls delete on it, it won't be deleted. Sure, the memory will be released when the program ends but its destructor doesn't get called.
Compare the output of using Get() and Get2() in the code below:
#include <iostream>
struct A
{
~A(){std::cout << "Deleted\n";}
};
A& Get()
{
static A & a = *new A;
return a;
}
A& Get2()
{
static A a;
return a;
}
int main()
{
//Case 1
Get();
//Case 2
Get2();
}
The output of this program is nothing when calling Get and Deleted when calling Get2.
In other words, resources with nontrivial destructors (commit-on-close file handle for example) will not be destroyed properly at program termination in case 1, but will in case 2.
The problem is that a raw new does not specify ownership. If I new up an object and return it, who owns it? Does the creating function/object own it, or does the calling function? If you return smart pointers (std::shared_ptr and std::unique_ptr) you are specifying ownership.
Not specifying ownership is one of the easiest ways to leak memory. I have the hardest time, even with professional programmers, getting people to understand ownership and work with it. This is mostly prevented by using good types (smart pointers) that specify ownership, just by existing.
type* function(); // Unspecified ownership.
// Must be well documented and all users must read
// and follow the documentation.
std::unique_ptr<type> function(); // Calling function owns returned pointer.
// Single ownership.
std::shared_ptr<type> function(); // Calling function owns returned pointer.
// Shared ownership. Can have multiple owners.
std::weak_ptr<type> function(); // Calling function references returned pointer.
// Must lock pointer to get owned object, if not deleted.
// Shared ownership. Can have multiple owners.
These different types of pointers express ownership just by existing unlike raw pointers.
As for new always being wrong. That is an overbroad generalization. std::shared_ptr is created using the global function std::make_shared. As of C++11 there is no std::make_unique, but that will be fixed in C++14. The only way to create a std::unique_ptr is to use new and immediately assign the pointer to a std::unique_ptr.
There are also places where you would want a raw pointer and to manually use new and delete, but they tend to be very low level and most programmers will rarely encounter them.
What really has me cringing about your code is not that you are using new but that you are dereferencing the pointer and assigning it to a reference. It would be almost impossible to guarantee that the destructor will ever be called. It also tends to leak memory, though in the case of assigning to a static variable it will be deallocated at program termination so you aren't really looking at memory leaking.
MyClass& MyClass::MyInstance()
{
static MyClass & myLocalVariable = * new MyClass(/*parameters*/);
return myLocalVariable ;
}
I would prefer to create to have the static variable be by value than by reference. This prevents putting the object on the heap. Depending on MyClass is could also allow the object to be mapped to memory from the executable without having to run any code to initialize it.
MyClass& MyClass::MyInstance()
{
static MyClass myLocalVariable(/*parameters*/);
return myLocalVariable ;
}
I would like to have a class contain a std::unique_ptr initialized by the constructor then used elsewhere in the class.
So I've got a class that contains a std::unique_ptr like this:
class ObjectA
{
public:
ObjectA();
~ObjectA();
void SomeFunction();
private:
std::unique_ptr<ObjectB> myPointer;
}
Then in the class's source file myPointer is setup in the constructor and used in SomeFunction().
ObjectA::ObjectA()
{
ObjectC objectC;
myPointer = std::move(std::unique_ptr<ObjectB>(objectC.getPointer())); //setup pointer
}
ObjectA::~ObjectA() {}
void ObjectA::SomeFunction()
{
//use myPointer here
}
The problem though, is that I can't use myPointer in SomeFunction(), and here's why.
Obviously myPointer must be allocated on the heap to assure it doesn't get destroyed when the constructor is done executing. Assume that ObjectC and consequentially it's functions are from an external library. When I call ObjectC::getPointer() the pointer that's return is probably allocated on the stack apposed to the heap. Now I assume this is the case because right after the constructor has finished executing I get an error.
Basically I'm relying on a function to give me a pointer with wich I can then use elsewhere. However, the function allocates the object on the stack instead of the heap.
Is there some special way to solve this problem, maybe with a double pointer? Or will I just have to call ObjectC::getPointer() every time I want to use the pointer inside each execution block? If I had lots of functions inside ObjectA which rely on myPointer then calling ObjectC::getPointer() per function would be redundant, but I don't know if there is a better way to fix this, and I feel like a function (ObjectC::getPointer()) shouldn't force me into that redundancy.
When you call ObjectC::getPointer(), you don't just get "a" pointer. The function must specify what operations are valid on the pointer, and in particular how it should be disposed.
Usually, that would be delete, but it could also be e.g. fclose. You'll have to read the documentation. If the lifetime of the returned pointer matches that lifetime of objectC, then the lifetime of objectC should match myPointer. So it probably should be a member, and that in turn means that myPointer might be redundant. You could just substitute private: ObjectB& getB() { return *myObjectC.GetPointer(); }