I have code similar to this
EDIT this code is supposed to be on interface so only POD is allowed. No vectors, no containers.
int (*neco)[2];
int ahoj = 2;
neco = new int[ahoj+2][2];
int iter = 1;
for (size_t i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2; j++)
{
neco[i][j] =iter;
iter++;
}
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < ahoj + 2; i++)
{
delete[] neco[i];
}
This does not work. The delete deletes memory not allocated.
Not even
delete[] neco;
Or any other delete. Everyone of them deletes memory BEFORE the allocated block.
Googling and consulting with peers in the office had no results. :)
How do I allocate dynamic array of "points" (two coordinates) and then free them?
I am able to solve the problem via using different structure.
But apperently I am able to allocate the memory. Write in the allocated memory…
How do I correctly free this memory? (Just accademic question.)
Plain pointers to dynamically allocated memory get you into troubles.
Use a std::unique_ptr:
#include <memory>
// ...
std::unique_ptr<int[][2]> neco(new int[ahoj+2][2]);
And remove that loop with delete[].
Alternatively, use std::vector<int[2]> neco(ahoj+2) - it does memory management for you and can be resized.
The general rule is that every new expression must be matched by a single corresponding delete expression.
Your new expression is the right hand side of the statement
neco = new int[ahoj+2][2];
so the corresponding delete expression is given in the statement
delete [] neco;
If that doesn't work (which is what you claim) it means the problem is in some other code exhibiting undefined behaviour.
Your loop
for (size_t i = 0; i < ahoj + 2; i++)
{
delete[] neco[i];
}
is incorrect because none of the neco[i] are the result of a new expression. So delete [] neco[i] has undefined behaviourin every loop iteration.
Given that your code sample(s) and description are incomplete, I doubt anyone else can give more useful advice.
Also, you are mistaken in your belief that you can't use a standard container. You can.
#include <vector>
int main()
{
std::vector<int[2]> avec(ahoj + 2);
int (*neco)[2] = &avec[0];
for (size_t i = 0; i < ahoj + 2; ++i)
{
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2; ++j)
{
neco[i][j] = iter;
++iter;
}
}
}
The only difference is that avec does the dynamic memory allocation and deallocation for you. neco is still a pointer to an array as required (according to your description) by your API. The two constraints on this approach are;
don't resize theavec after initialising neco (or reinitialise neco whenever avec is resized)
don't use neco after avec ceases to exist (since the behaviour will then be undefined).
Also, none of the arrays are actually static. So your question is mistitled.
If I can recall properly, an array of arrays (being dynamic or static), is basicly a matrix.
So, the academic answer:
The same way you allocate memory (first allocate the memory of the array of arrays, then with a foryou allocate the memory of the arrays inside the array), to free it, you need to delete in a forthe memory of the arrays, and then, in a simple delete, free the memory of the dynamic array.
So:
arrayOfArrays[[array1][array2][array3][array4]]
means: allocate memory of arrayOfArrays, then in a loop, allocate memory of array(number)
Same goes the other way around.
Free memory of arrayOfArraysin a single sentence.
Related
Using Valgrind, I see that I have a problem while deleting the memory in the following function:
Obj1 Obj1::operator*(const Obj1& param) const {
int n = param.GetSize(2);
Obj2** s = new Obj2*[n];
for( int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
s[i] = new Obj2(*this*param.GetColumn(i+1));
}
Obj1 res = foo(s,n);
for(int i=n-1;i>-1;i--) {
s[i]->~Obj2();
}
delete[] s;
return res;
Valgrind tells me that the leak comes from the line
s[i] = new Obj2(*this*param.GetColumn(i+1));
I'm not pretty sure if the problem is when I try to free the memory. Can anyone tell me how to fix this problem?
Here:
s[i] = new Obj2(*this*param.GetColumn(i+1));
you create a dynamic object and assign s[i]to point to it.
In order to delete it, you do this:
delete s[i];
Unless you do that, the allocation will leak.
You must repeat that in a loop for every i just like you repeated the allocations. You of course have to do this before you delete s itself.
s[i]->~Obj2();
Don't do that. Calling the destructor is not appropriate here. delete will call the destructor.
P.S. Don't use raw owning pointers. Use containers or smart pointers instead. std::vector is a standard containers for dynamic arrays.
P.P.S. You should avoid unnecessary dynamic allocation. Your example doesn't demonstrate any need to allocate the pointed objects dynamically. So, in this case you should probably use std::vector<Obj2>.
I create an array like as below
int size = 5;
double my_arr[m_size];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
my_arr[i] = (rand()%10+1) + ((double) rand() / (RAND_MAX));;
}
after doing some calculation on array I want to delete the array. So I do this
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
delete my_arr[i];
}
and I get this error
error: type ‘double’ argument given to ‘delete’, expected pointer
I searched internet and all solutions are related to pointer array. But I am not using any pointer. So how can I delete this array?
The array will be automatically deleted when leaving the scope in which the variable has been declared.
If you really need to free memory fast you can try put your code between embraces:
{ //create new scope
int size = 5;
double my_arr[m_size];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
my_arr[i] = (rand()%10+1) + ((double) rand() / (RAND_MAX));;
}
//some stuff
} //all non-pointer objects (or arrays) will be deleted
Or you can use pointers :
double *pMyarr = new double[m_size] ;
First of all, I think you should consider using a memory leak detector in your programms, so you can know by yourself if your code is leaking and if you have to do something about it. In your code you would have seen that there is no need to delete anything. :)
As far as I know, you should worry about memory in only two cases:
You have allocated a C-style array with malloc or calloc. In this case, you need to use the function free to deallocate the array. But generally in C++, you don't want this. You prefer using a container like std::array or std::vector instead.
You have created a new instance of an class with new and you have got a pointer to this instance. In this case, you have to use delete on the pointer when you don't need this instance anymore. But generally in C++11 (or further), you don't want this. If you really have to use a pointer, you prefer creating a smart pointer like std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr which will handle the memory for you.
When you define a variable without using new, malloc or calloc, (for example int a = 1 ;), it will be automatically deleted when it goes out of scope. So you don't need to worry.
Here is a simple example of a variable going out of scope:
int a = 1 ;
{
int b = 1 ;
// b is implictly deleted here, just before the bracket.
}
a++; // It works, because a exists in this scope
b++; // It doesn't work, because b is out of scope.
// a is implicitly deleted here, assuming we are at the end of a function
I have the following dynamically allocated array
int capacity = 0;
int *myarr = new int [capacity];
What happens if I do something like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
myarr[++capacity] = 1;
Can this cause an error if the for loop is executed many times more than 5? It worked fine for small numbers, but I'm wondering If this is maybe a wrong approach.
You are setting memory outside of the bounds of the array. This might overwrite memory being used in another part of the program, it is undefined behavior. To fix this you should declare your array like this:
int* myArray = new int[5];
which will make it so you don't allocate out of the bounds of the array.
However, it is better to use std::vector. It will prevent situations like this from occurring by managing memory itself. You can add items to a std::vector like this:
Vector.push_back(myItem);
and you can declare a vector of ints like this:
std::vector<int> Vector;
You can read more about std::vector here.
It will cause out of bounds access. This is just undefined behaviour. Your program may crash, your car may not start in the morning, you see the pattern here.
It happens to work fine in your case because usually the OS allocates more than you ask it for, usually in multiples of 2, so probably here it allocates like 8/16..256 bytes at least. But you should not rely on this kind of behaviour.
EDIT The car issue was (almost) a joke, however undefined behaviour really means undefined. C++ standard decided to not enforce compiler checking of many of such issues, because checking takes time. So it declares the behaviour as Undefined Behaviour (UB). In this case, absolutely nothing is guaranteed. If you work e.g. on some small embedded system that controls the rudder of a plane, well, you can guess what may happen.
This approach is wrong in c++. Allocating memory with new allocates memory for new "capacity" objects that you can access without running in run-time error.
Here is a better way to manage the raw array in c++:
int capacity = 10;
int *myarr = new int [capacity];
for (int i = 0; i < 20 ; ++i) {
if (capacity < i) {
// allocate more memory and copy the old data
int *old_data = myarr;
myarr = new int [capacity * 2]
for (int j = 0; j < capacity; ++j) {
myarr[j] = old_data[j];
capacity *= 2;
}
delete [] old_data;
}
myarr[i] = 1;
}
And its always better to call delete []at the end. Another way to use pre-made dynamic array in c++ is to use the std:array(supported in c++11) or std::vector(or legacy support and the preferred option as of me) library which automatically reallocates more memory.
More for the vector and array and examples here for vector here
and here
for std::array.
I have an array of pointers (that I created by calling new ptr*[size]). All of these pointers point to an object that was also put on the heap.
What is the proper way to delete the array and all new'd ptr's?
This is what I do now:
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) delete array[i];
delete[] array; // Not sure since this double deletes array[0]
Does this do what I think it should?
Thanks
Every pointer allocated with new gets a corresponding delete. Every pointer allocated with new [] gets a corresponding delete []. That's really all you need to know. Of course, when you have a dynamically allocated array which contains dynamically allocated pointers the deallocation must occur in reverse order.
So it follows that the correct idiom would be...
int main()
{
int **container = new int*[n];
for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
container[i] = new int[size];
// ... and to deallocate...
for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
delete [] container[i];
delete [] container;
}
And then of course I say "stop doing that" and recommend you use a std::array or std::vector (and the template type would be unique_ptr<int>).
Yes, that does what you think it should. Since you did new for each element, you have to delete each element. And since you did new[] for the entire array, you need to delete[] the entire array.
As #djechlin rightly says in the comments, there's not really enough information to go on, but I'm presuming your prior code is something like this:
int** array = new int*[5];
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
array[i] = new int;
}
Note that array is not actually an array type. It is a "pointer to pointer to int" and the array of pointers it points to was allocated with new[]. That's why you need to delete[] it.
Yes. First you have to free the object each pointer in the array points to, then you have to free the array itself. In that order. If you reverse the order you'll have no reference to the objects and will leak a lot of memory.
Yes, first you delete each object to which elements of array point, and then you delete array of pointers itself. If you want to check your memory management, you can use tools like valgrind, they will be able to spot most errors.
In my class I have a dynamically allocated array of pointers. My declaration:
array = new Elem* [size];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
array[i] = NULL;
}
So there is an array of pointers, where each pointer points to a simple Elem struct.
The main question is, how should I properly deallocate the array. If I use only:
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
delete array[i];
}
Valgrind reports 1 not-freed block, which is traced to the line where 'array = new Elem* [size];' states.
On the other hand if I add to the previous code:
delete array;
Which I thought is correct, valgrind reports 0 not-freed blocks, which is perfect, BUT it reports
Mismatched free() / delete / delete []
exactly on the line where 'delete array;' is. I tried 'delete []array' too, but that's just "1 not-freed blocks" too then! If somebody could explain me the proper way it would be much appreciated.
EDIT:
So using:
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
delete array[i];
}
delete[] array;
is working probably fine. It is working in one of my classes (I have two similar) the other still reports some small leak. I would think it's just a minor bug somewhere, but valgrind still points to the line where
array = new Elem* [size];
stands.
EDIT2:
I solved this as well, thank you for your exhausting contribution!!
You need:
delete [] array;
Because it's an array.
I just noticed your note that you tried this too - it's the proper thing to do so I don't know why you'd still be getting an error.
Edit: This deserves a more thorough explanation.
When you create a pointer using new, the pointer may be to a single element or an array of elements depending on the syntax you use. But the pointer type is the same in both cases! The compiler relies on you to know what the pointer points to and treat it accordingly.
Elem ** single = new Elem*; // pointer to one pointer
single[0] = new Elem; // OK
single[1] = new Elem; // runtime error, but not compile time
Elem ** array = new Elem* [2]; // pointer to array of pointers
array[0] = new Elem; // OK
array[1] = new Elem; // OK
When you delete a pointer, the destructor is called for the object it points to or for each element of the array. But since the pointer type is the same in each case, the compiler relies on you to give it the proper syntax so it knows what to do.
delete single;
delete [] array;
In your case the elements of the array are pointers also, and pointers don't have destructors. That means those pointers won't be deleted and will become memory leaks if you don't delete them first. You were correct to have a loop to delete them individually before the final delete.
You should free everything in the array (if dynamically allocated) and then free the array itself.
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) { // only free inside if dynamically allocated - not if just storing pointers
delete array[i];
}
delete[] array; // necesarry
The syntax for deleting an array is like this:
delete[] array;
Your for loop to delete the objects pointed to by the elements of the array is fine. The deletion of the array itself is the only problem. You need both the for loop and then the delete[] to dispose of the array itself.
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
delete array[i];
}
delete[] array;
I suspect that you have tried using the for loop, or the delete[], but not both together. And if when you do that you still have leaks or errors, then you would need to show us the code that allocates the pointers that are elements of the array.
Using std::vector<> instead of an array would mean that you could stop worrying about these nitty gritty details and move to higher level of abstraction.
In this case, you need both.
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
delete array[i];
}
delete[] array;
You call delete exactly once for each time you called new.
Note that although you need to call delete[] array here (because you allocated it with new[]), the delete[] operator does not call the destructors on the objects pointed to by elements of the array. This is because the delete[] operator calls destructors on objects in the array, and your array contains pointers but not objects. Pointers do not themselves have destructors.