Let's assume I got an abstract class ("Book" in the example below) and some derived classes ("ElectroniBook","CodingBook" in the example below). I also want to keep a vector of books in a third class ("Library") and some maps to find them. Let's also assume that I need to create the "Library" from somewhere else using the "addBook" method and then assign it in the main.
Since Book is abstract I eventually need to delete the "Book" pointers I created and I want to do it in some destructor. Neverthless, whenever I try to use delete i got this error message
Process finished with exit code 139 (interrupted by signal 11: SIGSEGV)
and if I try to replace raw pointers with shared_pointers or unique_pointers I immediately get errors at compile time telling me I'm trying to use pointers that have already been deleted. Note that I'm using C++ 11.
Here's some code just for example :
class Book{
public:
Book(string name, int Npages);
virtual ~Book();
virtual void displayBook() = 0;
private:
string _name;
int _Npages;
}
class ElectronicBook : public Book{
public:
ElectronicBook(string name, int Npages);
~ElectronicBook();
void displayBook() { //do something
};
}
class CodingBook : public Book{
public:
CodingBook(string name, int Npages);
~CodingBook();
void displayBook() { // do something else
};
}
class Library{
public :
Library();
~Library(){
// this doesn't work for me
// for(auto & a : _books)
// delete a;
// _books.clear();
//
//for(int i=0;i<_bookmap.size();++i)
// delete bookmap.at(i);
};
void addCodingBook(string name, int Npages){
CodingBook* cb = new CodingBook(name, Npages);
_books.push_back(cb);
_bookmap[name] = cb;
//should I delete anything here?
};
void addEletronicBook(string name, int Npages){
ElectronicBook* eb = new ElectronicBook(name, Npages);
_books.push_back(eb);
_bookmap[name] = eb;
//should I delete anything here?
};
private :
vector<Book*> _books;
map<string, Book*> bookmap;
}
// separeted function
Library createLibrary(){
Library L;
while(...){
//read books from somewhere(file, input or whatever) and
// addElectronicBook(...)
// addCodingBook(...)
}
return L;
}
int main(){
Library myLibrary = createLibrary();
// do something with Library
}
Since I did several times "new" to add Books, I need to delete them. I tried to do it in the Library destructor like I showed but I got the error mentioned before.
If I understand correctly your issue, you are freeing twice the same memory:
// for(auto & a : _books)
// delete a;
// _books.clear();
//
//for(int i=0;i<_bookmap.size();++i)
// delete bookmap.at(i);
Both _books and bookmap contain pointers that are pointing to the same ares of memory and you are freeing them twice.
When working with raw pointers you have to decide who is the owner of the memory, say, for example _books and who has simply access to the memory but is not responsible for the cleanup.
So, you should:
delete only once, so use only one of the two for loops, say for the sake of argument _books
make sure that the other non-owning structures, say bookmap in our example, never, ever access the memory (i.e. de-reference the pointer) after the deletion
Suggestion: put in the vector unique_ptr so the vector is the owner and put raw pointers in the map to signal that the map is not owning. unique_ptr will take care of cleaning up the memory for you. If you want to be sure, add some print statements or put break points in the destructors if you have a debugger.
Related
I've an abstract class called GameState which looks like this,
#ifndef GAMESTATE_H
#define GAMESTATE_H
#include <iostream>
class GameState
{
public:
virtual ~GameState(void) = 0 { std::cout << "~GameState" << std::endl; };
virtual void init (void) = 0;
virtual void update (void) = 0;
virtual void shutdown (void) = 0;
private:
};
#endif
In main.cpp,
// Lv1Stage and Lv2Stage is derived class from GameState class.
GameState* lv1Stage = new Lv1Stage
GameState* lv2Stage = new Lv2Stage
// This adds states to state vector which is in gameStateManager.
gameStateManager.addState(lv1Stage);
gameStateManager.addState(lv2Stage);
while(gameStateManager.getType() != ST_QUIT)
{
gameStateManager.update();
}
When I quit the game(when I get out of the loop), I gotta release memories that I allocated to GameState. So I made a function in GameStateManager, called clean, which looks like this.
void GameStateManager::clean(void)
{
while (!_states.empty())
{
//first, release all memories of each states.
_states.back()->shutdown();
//and then, clear memory of state..
_states.pop_back();
}
_states.clear();
}
The reason that I made this clean function is, I don't want to delete all of game states I add every single time, like,
delete lv1Stage;
delete lv2Stage;
delete lv3Stage;
...
So I put clean() function in destructor of gameStateManager, but it seems not working since I detected memory leak.
But the thing is, when I delete all the states myself like above code, memory leak is not detected. However, it causes unhandled exception (my guess is because _states is null cuz I deleted it manually).
So, in conclusion,
- I used clean function to de-allocate memories of vector components(which is game states) in destructor.
But it seems not working (memory leak)
However, deleting all memories myself is bothering me.
Can you guys give me some solutions or, what am I missing?
Your vector holds GameState* pointers to objects that are allocated with new. They must be freed with delete. So, you need to add that, eg:
_states.back()->shutdown();
delete _states.back(); // <-- add this!
_states.pop_back();
If you are using C++11 or later, you can change your vector to hold std::unique_ptr<GameState> objects instead of raw GameState* pointers, and then delete will be called automatically for you when you remove objects from the vector.
Consider the following contrived example:
class AllocatedClass {
public:
AllocatedClass() : dummy(0) {}
private:
int dummy;
};
class AllocatingClass {
public:
AllocatingClass() : list() {}
~AllocatingClass() {
// CANNOT delete the elements in list here because there may
// be more than on instance of AllocatingClass sharing the same
// static list
}
AddNewObject() {
list.push_back(new AllocatedClass());
}
private:
static std::vector<AllocatedClass*> list;
};
In implemetation file
std::vector<AllocatedClass*> AllocatingClass::list;
Putting aside whether multiple instances of a class should share a list of dynamically allocated objects is a good idea, is there a way clean up these new'ed AllocatedClass objects at the end of the program? Does it matter if these never get deleted considering I don't want to delete them until application end?
If the lifetime of the object is the lifetime of the execution of the program then there is no need to free the memory with code. The memory will be free automatically.
Many Linux command line tools do not free their memory in code for performance reasons. (Faster to automatically free pages of memory, than to free each object one by one.)
Another strategy is to keep a separate list of unique AllocatedClass instances, then free them from that list later on (switching ownership of the objects). Like std::list<AllocatedClass*> to_be_freed.
is there a way clean up these new'ed AllocatedClass objects at the end
of the program?
One solution is to use std::shared_ptr and have the deallocation done automatically.
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
class AllocatedClass
{
public:
AllocatedClass(int n = 0) : dummy(n) {}
~AllocatedClass() { std::cout << "I am being destroyed" << '\n'; }
private:
int dummy;
};
class AllocatingClass
{
public:
AllocatingClass() {}
void AddNewObject(int num = 0)
{ shared_list.push_back(std::make_shared<AllocatedClass>(num)); }
private:
static std::vector<std::shared_ptr<AllocatedClass>> shared_list;
};
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<AllocatedClass>> AllocatingClass::shared_list;
AllocatingClass ac;
int main()
{
ac.AddNewObject();
ac.AddNewObject(1);
}
Live Example
Note that the destructors are called automatically for the objects that were placed in the vector.
(BTW, it isn't a good idea to name your member variable list).
Most of the time(very close to all the time) an object that creates dynamically allocated objects should have a programmer defined destructor to free the memory when the object reaches the end of its life. AllocatingClass should have a destructor because you allocate dynamic memory with new.
~AllocatingClass() {
for (int i = 0 ; i < list.size();i++) {
if(list[i] != NULL) {
delete list[i];
list[i] = NULL;
}
}
This should both provide a method for de-allocating memory and safety so that you do not delete an already deleted pointer.
I have two classes, PersonnelLists and Employee. I create an instance of PersonnelLists in my main, like so:
int main() {
PersonnelLists example; //Make a personnel list
...
}
PersonnelLists uses a constructor with member initialisation of a list of employees, the number of employees, and the size of the array:
PersonnelLists::PersonnelLists(): List(new Employee[SIZE]), numEmployees(0), arraySize(SIZE){
}
This results in some null empty employees being created (I think?):
Employee::Employee(): employeeNumber(0), name(NULL), department(NULL) {
}
It is at this line that I get an invalid null pointer error.
I am new with C++, fresh off the boat from Java programming. I'm still a novice with pointers, so I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrong here.
UPDATE:
As requested, here is the class definition of Employee:
#include <iostream>
class Employee {
public:
Employee(); //constructor
Employee(std::string name, std::string deparment);
void Print() const; //Print this employee's details
void setEmployeeNo(int employeeNum);
private:
int employeeNumber;
std::string name;
std::string department;
};
In Java, new Employee[SIZE] creates an array of null references.
In C++, new Employee[SIZE] creates an array of default-constructed instances of Employee. Your default constructor tries to set name and department to NULL. Attempting to initialize a std::string to NULL would give the error you describe.
There's no "null" string in C++, but you could default-construct name and department, which would set them to empty strings:
Employee::Employee(): employeeNumber(0), name(), department() {
Finally, if List can contain a variable number of elements, I would recommend that you use std::vector<Employee> (which is similar to ArrayList<Employee> in Java).
If name and department are std::strings (or a similar string type), then initializing them with NULL (a null character pointer) is invalid.
If I guessed right, you should default-initialize them instead, as:
Employee::Employee(): employeeNumber(0), name(), department() {
}
But we really can't tell without seeing the class definition of Employee.
As others have pointed out, you should use a std::vector instead of an array. That allows you to only
have valid Employee objects in your "list".
I don't know what the actual definitions of your classes are, so it's kind of hard to identify your problem.
But an option in modern C++ of doing that is to use a std::vector<Employee> data member inside PersonnelList class. std::vector can grow dynamically at runtime, using its push_back() method, e.g.
#include <vector> // for std::vector
class Employee
{
....
};
class PersonnelList
{
public:
PersonnelList()
{
// Nothing to do - vector is initialized empty
}
// Get current employee count
size_t Count() const
{
return m_employees.size();
}
// Add a new employee to the personnel
void AddEmployee(const Employee& newEmployee)
{
m_employees.push_back(newEmployee);
}
private:
std::vector<Employee> m_employees;
};
No need to use raw pointers or something similar: robust RAII STL container classes make your code simpler.
Have a homework assignment in which I'm supposed to create a vector of pointers to objects
Later on down the load, I'll be using inheritance/polymorphism to extend the class to include fees for two-day delivery, next day air, etc. However, that is not my concern right now. The final goal of the current program is to just print out every object's content in the vector (name & address) and find it's shipping cost (weight*cost).
My Trouble is not with the logic, I'm just confused on few points related to objects/pointers/vectors in general. But first my code. I basically cut out everything that does not mater right now, int main, will have user input, but right now I hard-coded two examples.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Package {
public:
Package(); //default constructor
Package(string d_name, string d_add, string d_zip, string d_city, string d_state, double c, double w);
double calculateCost(double, double);
~Package();
private:
string dest_name;
string dest_address;
string dest_zip;
string dest_city;
string dest_state;
double weight;
double cost;
};
Package::Package()
{
cout<<"Constucting Package Object with default values: "<<endl;
string dest_name="";
string dest_address="";
string dest_zip="";
string dest_city="";
string dest_state="";
double weight=0;
double cost=0;
}
Package::Package(string d_name, string d_add, string d_zip, string d_city, string d_state, string r_name, string r_add, string r_zip, string r_city, string r_state, double w, double c){
cout<<"Constucting Package Object with user defined values: "<<endl;
string dest_name=d_name;
string dest_address=d_add;
string dest_zip=d_zip;
string dest_city=d_city;
string dest_state=d_state;
double weight=w;
double cost=c;
}
Package::~Package()
{
cout<<"Deconstructing Package Object!"<<endl;
delete Package;
}
double Package::calculateCost(double x, double y){
return x+y;
}
int main(){
double cost=0;
vector<Package*> shipment;
cout<<"Enter Shipping Cost: "<<endl;
cin>>cost;
shipment.push_back(new Package("tom r","123 thunder road", "90210", "Red Bank", "NJ", cost, 10.5));
shipment.push_back(new Package ("Harry Potter","10 Madison Avenue", "55555", "New York", "NY", cost, 32.3));
return 0;
}
So my questions are:
I'm told I have to use a vector
of Object Pointers, not Objects.
Why? My assignment calls for it
specifically, but I'm also told it
won't work otherwise.
Where should I be creating this
vector?
Should it be part of my Package
Class? How do I go about adding
objects into it then?
Do I need a copy constructor? Why?
What's the proper way to deconstruct
my vector of object pointers?
Any help would be appreciated. I've searched for a lot of related articles on here and I realize that my program will have memory leaks. Using one of the specialized ptrs from boost:: will not be available for me to use. Right now, I'm more concerned with getting the foundation of my program built. That way I can actually get down to the functionality I need to create.
Thanks.
A vector of pointers can be reused for storing objects of sub-classes:
class Person
{
public:
virtual const std::string& to_string () = 0;
virtual ~Person () { }
};
class Student : public Person
{
const std::string& to_string ()
{
// return name + grade
}
};
class Employee : public Person
{
const std::string& to_string ()
{
// return name + salary
}
};
std::vector<Person*> persons;
person.push_back (new Student (name, grade));
person.push_back (new Employee (name, salary));
person[0]->to_string (); // name + grade
person[1]->to_string (); // name + salary
Ideally the vector should be wrapped up in a class. This makes memory management easier. It also facilitates changing the support data structure (here an std::vector) without breaking existing client code:
class PersonList
{
public:
Person* AddStudent (const std::string& name, int grade)
{
Person* p = new Student (name, grade);
persons.push_back (p);
return p;
}
Person* AddEmployee (const std::string& name, double salary)
{
Person* p = new Employee (name, salary);
persons.push_back (p);
return p;
}
~PersonList ()
{
size_t sz = persons.size ();
for (size_t i = 0; i < sz; ++i)
delete persons[i];
}
private
std::vector<Person*> persons;
};
So we can re-write our code as:
{
PersonList persons;
Person* student = persons.AddStudent (name, grade);
Person* employee = persons.AddEmployee (name, salary);
student.to_string ();
employee.to_string ();
} // The memory allocated for the Person objects will be deleted when
// `persons` go out of scope here.
Getting familiar with the Rule of Three will help you decide when to add a copy constructor to a class. Also read about const correctness.
Question 1:
You mentioned inheritance. Since inherited objects often need more bytes of storage, they don't fit into the place of a base object. If you try to put them in, you get a base object instead. This is called object slicing.
Question 2:
Design first, before you write code. There are a bunch of possible solutions.
For a start you can keep it in main(), but later you will be forced to make a class like PackageContainer for holding your objects.
Question 3 + 4:
You need a copy constructor, an assignment operator= and a destructor, when a class object owns dynamically allocated objects (the Rule of the Big Three). So a PackageContainer will probably need them.
You create objects dynamically using new Object(..). You are responsible for destroying them and for giving their memory back to the system immediately before your vector of pointers is destroyed:
for (size_t i = 0; i < shipment.size(); ++i)
{
delete shipment[i];
}
Since working with naked pointers to dynamically allocated objects is not safe, consider using
std::vector<tr1::shared_ptr<Package> > shipment;
instead or
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Package> > shipment;
if your compiler understands C++0x. The shared_ptr handles freeing memory for you: It implements the Rule of the Big Three for one object pointer. It should be used in production quality code.
But try to get it right with naked pointers also. I think that's what your homework assignment is about.
I'm told I have to use a vector of Object Pointers, not Objects. Why? My assignment calls for it specifically, but I'm also told it won't work otherwise.
Usually, one would avoid using vector of objects to avoid the problem of Object Slicing. To make polymorphism work You have to use some kind of pointers. I am not sure of how the classes in your assignment are aligned but probably you might have Inheritance there somewhere and hence if vector is storing objects of Base class and you insert objects of Derived class in it then it would cause the derived class members to slice off.
The Best solution will be to use a smart pointer instead of a Raw pointer. The STL has an auto_ptr, but that cannot be used in a standard container.Boost smart pointers would be a best solution but as you already said you can't use Boost So in your case you can use your compiler's implementation of smart pointers, which comes in TR1 namespace,remember though that there is some disagreement on the namespace for TR1 functions (Visual C++ puts them in std::, while GCC puts them in std::tr1::).
Where should I be creating this vector? Should it be part of my Package Class? How do I go about adding objects into it then?
Your example code already has an example of adding a pointer to Package class in a vector. In a nutshell you will dynamically allocate pointers to Package and then add them to the vector.
Do I need a copy constructor? Why?
The copy constructor generated by the compiler does member-wise copying. Sometimes that is not sufficient. For example:
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass( const char* str );
~MyClass();
private:
char* str;
};
MyClass::MyClass( const char* str2 )
{
str = new char[srtlen( str2 ) + 1 ];
strcpy( str, str2 );
}
Class::~Class()
{
delete[] str;
}
In this case member-wise copying of str member will not duplicate the buffer (only the pointer will be copied(shallow copy)), so the first to be destroyed copy sharing the buffer will call delete[] successfully and the second will run into Undefined Behavior. You need deep copying copy constructor (and assignment operator as well) in such a scenario.
When to use a custom copy constructor is best defined by the Rule Of Three:
Whenever you are writing either one of Destructor, Copy Constructor or Copy Assignment Operator, you probably need to write the other two.
What's the proper way to deconstruct my vector of object pointers?
You will have to explicitly call delete on each contained pointer to delete the content it is pointing to.
vector::erase
Removes from the vector container and calls its destructor but If the contained object is a pointer it doesnt take ownership of destroying it.
Check out this answer here to know how to corrctly delete a vector of pointer to objects.
I am using an array in a simple logic simulator program and I want to switch to using a vector to learn it but the reference I am using "OOP in C++ by Lafore" doesn't have a lot about vectors and objects so I am kinda of lost .
Here is the previous code :
gate* G[1000];
G[0] = new ANDgate() ;
G[1] = new ORgate;
//gate is a class inherited by ANDgate and ORgate classes
class gate
{
.....
......
void Run()
{ //A virtual function
}
};
class ANDgate :public gate
{.....
.......
void Run()
{
//AND version of Run
}
};
class ORgate :public gate
{.....
.......
void Run()
{
//OR version of Run
}
};
//Running the simulator using overloading concept
for(...;...;..)
{
G[i]->Run() ; //will run perfectly the right Run for the right Gate type
}
Now what I want to do is
vector(gate*) G;
ANDgate a
G.push_back(a); //Error
ORgate o
G.push_back(o); //Error
for(...;...;...)
{
G[i]->Run(); //Will this work if I corrected the error ??
}
so can a vector array hold different types of objects(ANDgate , ORgate) but they inherit the type of the vector array (gate) ????
You're half-way there:
std::vector<gate*> G;
G.push_back(new ANDgate);
G.push_back(new ORgate);
for(unsigned i=0;i<G.size();++i)
{
G[i]->Run();
}
Of course, this way you need to take care to ensure that your objects are deleted. I'd use a vector of a smart pointer type such as boost::shared_ptr to manage that for you. You could just store the address of local objects (e.g. G.push_back(&a)), but then you need to ensure that the pointers are not referenced after the local objects have been destroyed.
Yes, that will work - as long as you make run() a virtual function in gate and use the address of operator(&) on a and o as you put them in the vector.
Be careful about object lifetime issues though. If a and/or o go out of scope then your vector will contain pointers to invalid objects.
Also, the base class "Gate" should have a virtual destructor else there would be issues while cleaning up the vector and it's contents.
You are using
vector(gate*) G;
change to
vector<gate*> G;
and you should do this
G.push_back(new ANDgate());
or if you use boost use shared_ptrs as vector does quite a lot of copying and naked pointers in a vector can be fatal.