I have an Image class and initially I do not know the image dimensions, so I just initialize a data_ pointer to be an array of size 0. Later when I find the image information I reinitialize data_ to a new size. Will this create any problem in memory? and is there a cleaner way to do this?
Below is the class I have written:
class Image
{
private:
int numRows_, numCols_;
unsigned char* data_;
public:
Image() : numRows_(0), numCols_(0), data_(new unsigned char[0])
{}
void setData(int r, int c, unsigned char* data)
{
this->numRows_ = r;
this->numCols_ = c;
this->data_ = new unsigned char[r*c];
for (int i = 0; i < r*c; i++)
{
this->data_[i] = data[i];
}
}
int rows();
int cols();
unsigned char* data();
~Image();
};
Thanks in advance
This will in fact leak memory. The call to new allocates memory for the array, even if it is empty. As soon as you reassign data_, the previous array is leaked and can no longer be freed.
You can either make sure you delete[] any new[] you allocate, or just don't allocate an empty array and instead set data_ to nullptr until you have meaningful data to use.
An even better idea is don't allow the creation of an object in an invalid state, require the data in the constructor - see RAII:
In RAII, holding a resource is a class invariant, and is tied to
object lifetime: resource allocation (or acquisition) is done during
object creation (specifically initialization), by the constructor,
while resource deallocation (release) is done during object
destruction (specifically finalization), by the destructor.
If you do decide to keep setData, then as mentioned in comments, you also must make sure to delete[] existing data in setData before reassigning data_, in case the method is called more than once.
I think a cleaner way to do so will be using a vector:
std::vector<unsigned char> v; // vector with size 0
v.resize(r*c); // after size is known, just resize
Related
Following my understanding of C++ convention, I have:
class BlockRepresentation : public FPRepresentation
{
private:
class Block
{
public:
int id;
int fpDimensions;
int* position; // pointers in question
int* blockDimensions; // pointers in question
~Block();
};
std::vector<Block> all_blocks;
public:
BlockRepresentation( int count, int dimensions, int volumn[] );
void AddBlock( int id, int position[], int dimensions[] );
std::string ToGPL();
};
where new blocks are created in AddBlock:
void BlockRepresentation::AddBlock( int id, int position[],
int dimensions[] )
{
Block newBlock;
newBlock.id = id;
newBlock.fpDimensions = fpDimensions;
newBlock.position = new int[fpDimensions]; // pointers in question
newBlock.blockDimensions = new int[fpDimensions]; // pointers in question
for (int i = 0; i < fpDimensions; ++i)
{
newBlock.position[i] = position[i];
newBlock.blockDimensions[i] = dimensions[i];
}
all_blocks.push_back( newBlock );
}
so I have the following destructor:
BlockRepresentation::Block::~Block()
{
delete[] position;
delete[] blockDimensions;
}
but then I get:
rep_tests(11039,0x7fff71390000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fe4fad00240: pointer being freed was not allocated
Why should I not delete[] the 2 pointers here?
As was pointed out in the comments, you violated the rule of three, and the violation is very obvious:
{
Block newBlock;
// snip
all_blocks.push_back( newBlock );
}
When this function returns, the newBlock object goes out of scope, and its destructor will delete all the newed arrays.
But you push_back()ed this object. This constructs a copy of the object into the vector. Because your Block does not define a copy constructor, the default copy-constructor simply makes a copy of all the pointers to the newed arrays.
If you somehow manage to avoid dereferencing the no-longer valid pointers, or you survived that experience, you're not of the woods yet. That's because, when the vector gets destroyed, and its Blocks get destroyed, their destructors will, once again, attempt to delete the same newed arrays that were already deleted once before.
Instant crash.
There is nothing wrong with your Block destructor. It is doing its job, which is releasing the memory that is pointed to by your two int * member variables. The problem is that the destructor is being called on the same pointer value multiple times, which results in a double-free error.
The entity that causes this is the std::vector<Block>, since a std::vector will make copies of your Block object, and your Block object is not safely copyable.
Since the member variables of Block that are pointers are position and blockDimensions, the most painless way to alleviate this issue is to use std::vector<int> instead of int *, as demonstrated by this sample program.
However, if you really wanted to use int *, you would need to implement a user-defined copy constructor. In addition, a user-defined assignment operator would complement the copy constructor. This is what is called the Rule of Three.
#include <algorithm>
//...
class Block
{
public:
int id;
int fpDimensions;
int *position;
int *blockDimensions;
Block() : position(nullptr), blockDimensions(nullptr),
id(0), fpDimensions(0) {}
~Block()
{
delete [] position;
delete [] blockDimensions;
}
Block(const Block& rhs) : id(rhs.id), fpDimensions(rhs.fpDimensions),
position(new int[rhs.fpDimensions]),
blockDimensions(new int[rhs.fpDimensions])
{
std::copy(rhs.position, rhs.position + fpDimensions, position);
std::copy(rhs.blockDimensions, rhs.blockDimensions + fpDimensions,
blockDimensions);
}
Block& operator=(const Block& rhs)
{
Block temp(rhs);
std::swap(temp.position, position);
std::swap(temp.blockDimensions, blockDimensions);
std::swap(temp.id, id);
std::swap(temp.fpDimensions, fpDimensions);
return *this;
}
};
See the live sample here.
See all of the hoops we had to jump through to get the Block class to behave correctly when used within a std::vector, as opposed to simply using std::vector<int>?
I have a class that contains several arrays whose sizes can be determined by parameters to its constructor. My problem is that instances of this class have sizes that can't be determined at compile time, and I don't know how to tell a new method at run time how big I need my object to be. Each object will be of a fixed size, but different instances may be different sizes.
There are several ways around the problem:- use a factory- use a placement constructor- allocate arrays in the constructor and store pointers to them in my object.
I am adapting some legacy code from an old application written in C. In the original code, the program figures out how much memory will be needed for the entire object, calls malloc() for that amount, and proceeds to initialize the various fields.
For the C++ version, I'd like to be able to make a (fairly) normal constructor for my object. It will be a descendant of a parent class, and some of the code will be depending on polymorphism to call the right method. Other classes descended from the same parent have sizes known at compile time, and thus present no problem.
I'd like to avoid some of the special considerations necessary when using placement new, and I'd like to be able to delete the objects in a normal way.
I'd like to avoid carrying pointers within the body of my object, partially to avoid ownership problems associated with copying the object, and partially because I would like to re-use as much of the existing C code as possible. If ownership were the only issue, I could probably just use shared pointers and not worry.
Here's a very trimmed-down version of the C code that creates the objects:
typedef struct
{
int controls;
int coords;
} myobject;
myobject* create_obj(int controls, int coords)
{
size_t size = sizeof(myobject) + (controls + coords*2) * sizeof(double);
char* mem = malloc(size);
myobject* p = (myobject *) mem;
p->controls = controls;
p->coords = coords;
return p;
}
The arrays within the object maintain a fixed size of the life of the object. In the code above, memory following the structure of myobject will be used to hold the array elements.
I feel like I may be missing something obvious. Is there some way that I don't know about to write a (fairly) normal constructor in C++ but be able to tell it how much memory the object will require at run time, without resorting to a "placement new" scenario?
How about a pragmatic approach: keep the structure as is (if compatibility with C is important) and wrap it into a c++ class?
typedef struct
{
int controls;
int coords;
} myobject;
myobject* create_obj(int controls, int coords);
void dispose_obj(myobject* obj);
class MyObject
{
public:
MyObject(int controls, int coords) {_data = create_obj(controls, coords);}
~MyObject() {dispose_obj(_data);}
const myobject* data() const
{
return _data;
}
myobject* data()
{
return _data;
}
int controls() const {return _data->controls;}
int coords() const {return _data->coords;}
double* array() { return (double*)(_data+1); }
private:
myobject* _data;
}
While I understand the desire to limit the changes to the existing C code, it would be better to do it correctly now rather than fight with bugs in the future. I suggest the following structure and changes to your code to deal with it (which I suspect would mostly be pulling out code that calculates offsets).
struct spots
{
double x;
double y;
};
struct myobject
{
std::vector<double> m_controls;
std::vector<spots> m_coordinates;
myobject( int controls, int coordinates ) :
m_controls( controls ),
m_coordinates( coordinates )
{ }
};
To maintain the semantics of the original code, where the struct and array are in a single contigious block of memory, you can simply replace malloc(size) with new char[size] instead:
myobject* create_obj(int controls, int coords)
{
size_t size = sizeof(myobject) + (controls + coords*2) * sizeof(double);
char* mem = new char[size];
myobject* p = new(mem) myobject;
p->controls = controls;
p->coords = coords;
return p;
}
You will have to use a type-cast when freeing the memory with delete[], though:
myobject *p = create_obj(...);
...
p->~myobject();
delete[] (char*) p;
In this case, I would suggest wrapping that logic in another function:
void free_obj(myobject *p)
{
p->~myobject();
delete[] (char*) p;
}
myobject *p = create_obj(...);
...
free_obj(p);
That being said, if you are allowed to, it would be better to re-write the code to follow C++ semantics instead, eg:
struct myobject
{
int controls;
int coords;
std::vector<double> values;
myobject(int acontrols, int acoords) :
controls(acontrols),
coords(acoords),
values(acontrols + acoords*2)
{
}
};
And then you can do this:
std::unique_ptr<myobject> p = std::make_unique<myobject>(...); // C++14
...
std::unique_ptr<myobject> p(new myobject(...)); // C++11
...
std::auto_ptr<myobject> p(new myobject(...)); // pre C++11
...
New Answer (given comment from OP):
Allocate a std::vector<byte> of the correct size. The array allocated to back the vector will be contiguous memory. This vector size can be calculated and the vector will manage your memory correctly. You will still need to be very careful about how you manage your access to that byte array obviously, but you can use iterators and the like at least (if you want).
By the way here is a little template thing I use to move along byte blobs with a little more grace (note this has aliasing issues as pointed out by Sergey in the comments below, I'm leaving it here because it seems to be a good example of what not to do... :-) ) :
template<typename T>
T readFromBuf(byte*& ptr) {
T * const p = reinterpret_cast<T*>(ptr);
ptr += sizeof(T);
return *p;
}
Old Answer:
As the comments suggest, you can easily use a std::vector to do what you want. Also I would like to make another suggestion.
size_t size = sizeof(myobject) + (controls + coords*2) * sizeof(double);
The above line of code suggests to me that you have some "hidden structure" in your code. Your myobject struct has two int values from which you are calculating the size of what you actually need. What you actually need is this:
struct ControlCoord {
double control;
std::pair<double, double> coordinate;
};
std::vector<ControlCoord>> controlCoords;
When the comments finally scheded some light on the actual requirements, the solution would be following:
allocate a buffer large enough to hold your object and the array
use placement new in the beginning of the buffer
Here is how:
class myobject {
myobject(int controls, int coords) : controls(controls), coords(coords) {}
~myobject() {};
public:
const int controls;
const int coords;
static myobject* create(int controls, int coords) {
std::unique_ptr<char> buffer = new char[sizeof(myobject) + (controls + coords*2) * sizeof(double)];
myobject obj* = new (buffer.get()) myobject(controls, coords);
buffer.release();
return obj;
}
void dispose() {
~myobject();
char* p = (char*)this;
delete[] p;
}
};
myobject *p = myobject::create(...);
...
p->dispose();
(or suitably wrapped inside deleter for smart pointer)
I am trying to implement a stack using an array. This is what I have in my
header file.I plan to assign the value to maxsize in the constructor. However, i keep getting errors. How can i fix this?
class stack {
private:
const int maxsize;
int arrays[maxsize];
int top;
public:
stack();
void additem(int);
void print();
};
A good fix would be:
class stack
{
std::vector<int> arrays;
int top;
public:
stack(int maxsize) : arrays(maxsize), top(0) {}
};
This way, you do not have any possibility of memory management bugs; your class behaves properly when copied, moved, swapped, etc. and your code is very simple.
An alternative, with a minimal memory footprint would be:
class stack
{
std::unique_ptr<int[]> arrays;
int maxsize;
int top;
public:
stack(int maxsize) : arrays(new int[maxsize]), maxsize(maxsize), top(0) {}
};
This version is movable, but will give compile errors when copied (as opposed to some of the other suggestions to use raw pointer, which will compile successfully and then give memory corruption at runtime). To make this class copyable you'd need to write your own copy-constructor and copy-assignment operator.
C++ doesn't allow variable-length arrays. Instead of an array, you can use a pointer and dynamic allocation.
And to initialize a const member, you have to do it in the initializer list of the constructor.
class stack {
private:
const int maxsize;
int *arrays;
int top;
public:
stack(int max = 10) : maxsize(max) {
arrays = new int[max];
top = 0;
}
void additem(int);
void print();
};
See How to initialize a const field in constructor?
You'll also then need a destructor that does delete[] arrays;.
But rather than using a C-style array, you'd probably find it easier to use std::vector<int>. This doesn't require specifying a maximum length in the first place, it will expand as needed.
Of course, you could skip this whole exersize and use std::stack<int>.
If you want maxsize to always be 10, you could do something like this:
class stack {
private:
static const int maxsize = 10;
int arrays[maxsize];
...
Note that I've made maxsize static. It will be the same for all instances of stack and is defined at compile time. Thus you can use it as an array size.
If you want maxsize to be variable, then you'll need to use dynamic allocation:
class stack {
private:
const int maxsize;
int* arrays;
...
public:
stack(int maxsize) : maxsize(maxsize), arrays(0) {
arrays = new int[maxsize];
}
~stack() { delete[] arrays; }
...
Note here that you must delete the memory you dynamically allocate. The usual place to do that is the destructor. If you want to go this route, you could also just use a std::vector<int> and get rid of maxsize entirely. That frees you from having to do any manual memory management.
This isn't the code I'm working on but it's the gist of what I want to do.
object *objects; int totalObjects;
void addObject(object o)
{
objects[totalObjects] = o;
totalObjects++;
}
It's giving me an access error when I try this:
Unhandled exception at 0x00e8a214 in crow.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation writing location 0xcccccccc
Am I going to have to use 'new' and if so do I have to create a new array to copy to every time? Can I just add or take elements from the array I'm using?
Why don't you just use std::vector?
std::vector<object> objects;
void addObject(object o)
{
objects.push_back(o);
}
..or
void addObject(const object &o)
{
objects.push_back(o);
}
to remove additional copying.
When it comes to implementing your own dynamic array without std::vector, Yes. you need to allocate new memory, and copy your array to new memory block. Here's my example code with malloc and placement new.
#include <stdlib.h> // for malloc/free
#include <new> // for placement new, std::bad_alloc
object *objects = nullptr;
size_t totalObjects = 0;
void addObject(const object &o)
{
object *old_objects = objects;
size_t old_size = totalObjects;
size_t new_size = totalObjects + 1;
object *new_objects = (object *)malloc(sizeof(object) * new_size);
if (new_objects == nullptr)
throw std::bad_alloc();
size_t i;
try
{
for (i = 0; i < old_size; ++i)
{
new (&new_objects[i]) object(old_objects[i]); // placement new
}
}
catch (...)
{
// destroy new_objects if an exception occurs during creating new_objects
for (size_t j = 0; j < i; ++j)
{
new_objects[i].~object();
}
free(new_objects);
throw;
}
objects = new_objects;
free(old_objects);
}
(I haven't tested the code yet >o<)
Note that I used malloc and placement new, not new operator. It's impossible to call copy constructor of each element of the dynamic array with array-new.
However, if your object is TriviallyCopyable, you can use realloc. It can be more efficient, because realloc can just expand memory block, without copying - if the memory is enough.
..And you can select multiple lines and just press TAB in Visual Studio (..or many other editors).
You declared an object pointer, but not yet allocated the actual memory to store object objects. Your assignment statement merely tries to copy the input object o into an unallocated array member.
This is why you should use new before the assignment. The new operator asks the system to allocate some memory in the required size, then return the address of that memory and assign it to the pointer. Then, the pointer points to that newly allocated memory and the assignment (or copying) can be made.
When you finished using the array space, you should free the allocated memory using delete.
Okay, I'm going to add an answer to my own question. Let me know if this is bad etiquette. I just wanted to post some of my own code to duel with yours.
#include <vector>
std::vector<object> objects;
okay so I want to have two arrays (vectors) for the objects and double for distances so I may end up with
std::vector<double> distances;
void swap(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
objects.swap_ranges(a,b);
distances.swap_ranges(a,b)
}
I'm going by the cplusplus.com reference for this function so let me know if I have it wrong. I'm going to go through it and completely redo my code.
Is there a type like the matrix that will let me hold data of different types so I don't have to invent a new object to handle each one individually?
If what you wrote is the most efficient and fast way to do this then I'll make a new class to hold both items.
thanks :)
In C++, I'm having trouble with pointers etc. How can I fix the following problem?
error: no match for 'operator=' in '(stage->Stage::tiles + ((unsigned int)(((unsigned int)t) * 12u))) = (operator new(12u), (, ((Tile*))))'|
note: candidates are: Tile& Tile::operator=(const Tile&)|*
stage.h
#include "Tile.h"
class Stage {
public:
Tile *tiles;
int size;
void init(int size);
};
stage.cpp
void Stage::init(int size) {
this->size = size;
this->tiles = new Tile[size];
}
application.cpp
#include "Stage.h"
#include "Tile.h"
bool setTiles( Stage * stage ) {
for( int t = 0; t < stage->size; t++ ) {
stage->tiles[t] = new Tile();
}
return true;
}
stage.init(1234);
setTiles( &stage );
Also, I don't really know when to use object.attribute and when to use object->attribute?
stage->tiles[t] = new Tile();
You're calling new on something that's not a pointer. True, tiles is a pointer to an array, however, each element of that array is NOT a pointer. In order for that work, you would need an array of pointers, or a pointer to a pointer ,such as:
Tile **tiles;
What you could also do is create a separate pointer object, allocate it, and then copy the data to your array element by using
stage->tiles[i] = *somePointer;
and then deleting the pointer afterwards to free that allocated memory. This will preserve the copy because you invoked the copy constructor.
You are trying to allocate a pointer with a pointer to an array. Try this one:
class Stage {
public:
Tile **tiles;
void init(int size);
};
stage->tiles[t] = new Tile();
The above is not a valid C++ code, which you are perhaps confusing with the way new is used in other language such as C#. Though new can be used to allocate dynamic memories, but assigning an object to a particular element in the dynamically created array doesn't need the new construct. In fact, the object is already created as soon as you called new Tile[size]. What you may want to do is, create an object of type Tile and assign it to a particular element in tiles.
Tile myTile;
// do something with myTile
this->tiles[0] = myTile;
new Tiles() returns a pointer to a Tiles instance.
Tile *tiles defines an array out Tiles, not pointers.
Start with Tile **tiles instead.