I have a class which has a vector of pointers to objects of another class.
class Foo {
public:
Foo(vector<Member*> m);
Foo();
~Foo(void);
void addMember(Member* m);
vector<Member*> getMember(void);
private:
vector<Member*> m;
};
This is the cpp file
Foo::Foo( vector<Member*> m) {
this->m;
}
void Foo::addMember(Member*m) {
this->m.push_back(m);
}
vector<Member*> Foo::getMember() {
return this->member;
}
When I try to add the objects :
foo[x].getMember().push_back(new Member);
I have an array of foo which I am passing to function where I am using the vector push_back. At the end of a function the Member obj destructor is called and when I try to reach the Member object I receive seg fault. What am I missing?
I fixed this using smart pointers as suggested. Thank you !
Member* m = new Member();
Related
I am trying to implement a class that can push a smart pointer to itself into a vector:
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
class A {
public:
void pushme(std::vector<std::shared_ptr<A>> & vec) {
vec.push_back(std::shared_ptr<A>(this));
}
};
int main() {
A test;
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<A>> vec;
test.pushme(vec);
return 0;
}
This compiles nicely, but on execution I get an free(): invalid pointer error. Please help me understand what is going on here.
A test;
This declares an object in function local scope. The object is automatically freed when it goes out of scope.
Only objects in dynamic scope (created with new) can be managed by std::shared_ptr. That's the whole purpose of std::shared_ptr -- to automatically call delete when the last shared pointer to an object goes away. And you can only delete something that has been allocated with new.
Try enable_shared_from_this:
class A : public std::enable_shared_from_this<A>{
public:
void pushme(std::vector<std::shared_ptr<A>> & vec) {
vec.push_back(shared_from_this());
}
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<A> test = std::make_shared<A>();
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<A>> vec;
test->pushme(vec);
return 0;
}
This question already has answers here:
Why is virtual function not being called?
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
AoA,
I am making a console game of chess, But I am stuck at polymorphism, below is the classes and functions definitions
/* old Part
//Base Class
class Piece /*Parent class */
{
protected:
Position* pCoord;
std::string color;
char symbol;
public:
Piece(Position* Coord,std::string Color,char symbol);
Position GetCurrentPos();
std::string GetColor();
void SetColor(std::string color);
void Draw();
virtual bool SetPos(Position* newPos){MessageBox(NULL,L"Virtual Running",L"Error",MB_OK); return true;};
virtual ~Piece();
};
/* Inherited classes */
//Child classes
class Pawn: public Piece
{
private:
std::vector<Position>* allowPos;
public:
Pawn(Position* Coord,std::string Color,char symbol);
~Pawn();
std::vector<Position>* GetThreatendFields();
bool isValidMove(Position* newPos);
bool SetPos(Position* newPos);
};
//Child classes
class Bishops: public Piece
{
private:
std::vector<Position>* allowPos;
public:
Bishops(Position* Coord,std::string Color,char symbol);
~Bishops();
std::vector<Position>* GetThreatendFields();
bool isValidMove(Position* newPos);
bool SetPos(Position* newPos);
};
//Here is the implementation of child class function SetPos
bool Pawn::SetPos(Position* newPos)
{
bool isSet = false;
this->pCoord = new Position();
this->pCoord = newPos;
isSet = true;
MessageBox(NULL,L"Child function running",L"Yuhuu!",MB_OK);
return isSet;
}
class ChessBoard
{
private:
Position ptr; //dummy
int SelectedPiece;
vector<Piece> pPieceSet;
bool isSelected;
public:
ChessBoard();
~ChessBoard();
void ShowPieces(Player *p1,Player *p2);
void Draw();
void MouseActivity();
void Place(Piece& p);
};
//it just shows the peices acquired from player objects..dummy vector pointer
void ChessBoard::ShowPieces(Player* p1,Player* p2)
{
std::vector<Piece>* vPiece = p1->GetPieces();
for( int i=0;i<vPiece->size();i++ )
{
Piece& piece = vPiece->at(i);
Place(piece);
piece.Draw();
}
vPiece = p2->GetPieces();
for( int i=0;i<vPiece->size();i++ )
{
Piece& piece = vPiece->at(i);
Place(piece);
piece.Draw();
}
}
*/
/*new part
I did what you say
Player::std::vector<Piece*> *vPieceSet;
Player::Player(int turn)
{
this->turn = turn%2;
this->vPieceSet = new std::vector<Piece*>;
}
void Player::Initialize() //Initial and final ranges for position
{
//Initialization of pieces to their respective position
Position pos;
Piece *pPiece;
if( this->turn == 0 )
{
this->SetName("Player 1");
for( int i=8;i<16;i++ )
{
pos.SetPosition(i);
Pawn pPawn(&pos,"blue",'P');
pPiece = &pPawn;
this->vPieceSet->push_back(pPiece);
}
//other classes same as above
}
It runs fine at initialzation function(stores all classes fine) but when use function to get the vector object
std::vector<Piece*>* Player::GetPieces()
{
std::vector<Piece*>* tPieces = this->vPieceSet;
return tPieces;
}
//In main.cpp
it doesnot return the vector object
Player p1(0),p2(1);
p1.Initialize();
p2.Initialize(); //initialization done perfectly while debugging
vector<Piece*> *obj = p1.GetPieces(); //returns garbage
Piece* pObj = obj->at(0); //garbage
cout<<pObj->GetColor(); // garbage
*/new part
Sounds like I have another problem!
When you use polymorphism, what you are really trying to do is instantiate an object of derived type and call the methods on that object through a pointer or reference to the base object.
class Foo
{
public:
virtual void DoIt () { cout << "Foo"; }
};
class Bar
:
public Foo
{
public:
void DoIt () { cout << "Bar"; }
};
int main()
{
Foo* foo = new Bar;
foo->DoIt(); // OUTPUT = "Bar"
Foo& fooRef = *foo;
fooRef.DoIt(); // OUTPUT = "Bar"
}
In order for this to work, you need to use either a pointer or a reference to the object. You can't make a copy of the object using a the base class. If you make a copy, you will slice the object.
int main()
{
Foo* foo = new Bar;
foo->DoIt(); // OK, output = "Bar"
Foo fooCopy = *foo; // OOPS! sliced Bar
fooCopy.DoIt(); // WRONG -- output = "Foo"
}
In your code, the Piece class is intended to be polymorphic, and in your ChessBoard class you have a vector of this class:
class ChessBoard
{
private:
vector<Piece> pPieceSet;
};
Since this is a vector of the Piece object itself, and not a pointer-to-Piece, anything you put in here will be sliced. You need to change pPieceSet to be a vector of pointers-to-Piece:
vector <Piece*> pPieceSet;
You have further problems in Initialize, which need to be refactored anyway. For one thing, you have another vector of Piece objects, and there are two problems here. First, it needs to be a vector of pointers, and second, why do you need another vector at all when there is already one associated with the ChessBoard? I didn't thouroughly examine your code so maybe you do need it, but this seems like an error. There should probably just be one collection of pieces, in the ChessBoard.
In your Initialize method:
Piece *pPiece;
// ...
Pawn pPawn(&pos,"blue",'P');
pPiece = &pPawn;
vPieceSet.push_back(*pPiece);
There are a couple of problems. One, you are pushing back a sliced copy of the Piece, which will be fixed when you change your vector to store pointers. Second, if you just change this like so:
Piece *pPiece;
// ...
Pawn pPawn(&pos,"blue",'P');
pPiece = &pPawn;
vPieceSet.push_back(pPiece); // <-- not dereferencing
You will have a new problem because you'll be storing the pointer to a local (automatic) variable. Best is to do this:
Piece* pPiece = new Pawn (...);
// ...
vPieceSet.push_back (pPiece);
Please don't forget to delete everything you new. This is best handled by using smart pointers rather than raw pointers. In C++03 we have auto_ptr, but those can't go in a vector. Instead you'll need to use Boost or something else, or just store raw pointers. In C++11, we now have unique_ptr (preferred) and shared_ptr, which can go in to a vector.
In C++11, the best solution here is to have a vector declared as:
vector <unique_ptr <Piece> > pPieceSet;
...unless you have some compelling need to use shared_ptr instead.
As others have mentioned, it is a slicing issue, and the issue is created here:
class Player
{
private:
std::string pName;
std::vector<Piece> vPieceSet; // <-- This is your problem
int turn;
public:
Player(int turn);
~Player();
void Initialize();
std::string GetName();
void SetName(std::string Name);
int GetTurn();
std::vector<Piece>* GetPieces();
};
You are storing them in the vector as instances of Piece, which is slicing off the details of the piece (e.g. the Bishop implementation). You should modify it to something like:
class Player
{
private:
std::string pName;
std::vector<Piece*> vPieceSet; // or better, use a smart pointer wrapper
int turn;
public:
Player(int turn);
~Player();
void Initialize();
std::string GetName();
void SetName(std::string Name);
int GetTurn();
std::vector<Piece*> GetPieces(); // note this change as well
};
With your additional question/edit, you are getting another unrelated problem:
void Player::Initialize() //Initial and final ranges for position
{
Position pos; // position is declared inside the scope of Initialize
Piece *pPiece;
if( this->turn == 0 )
{
this->SetName("Player 1");
for( int i=8;i<16;i++ )
{
pos.SetPosition(i);
Pawn pPawn(&pos,"blue",'P'); // you are passing the address of position to the Pawn, and Pawn is within the scope of this loop
pPiece = &pPawn; // you are storing the address of the Pawn
this->vPieceSet->push_back(pPiece);
}
// Pawn is now out of scope and pPiece points to the memory location Pawn *used* to be at (but will likely be overwritten soon).
// As soon as this function returns, you have the same problem with pos
}
You need to allocate those variables on the heap (hence the reason we suggested smart pointer wrappers).
Alright, in my main i have:
void somefunction();
int main()
{
//bla bla bla
SomeClass myclass = SomeClass();
void(*pointerfunc)() = somefunction;
myclass.addThingy(pointerfunc);
//then later i do
myclass.actionWithDiffrentOutcomes();
}
void somefunction()
{
//some code
}
and in the class:
class SomeClass()
{
public:
void addThingy(void (*function)());
void actionWithDiffrentOutcomes();
private:
std::vector<void (**)()> vectoroffunctions;
}
SomeClass::addThingy(void (*function)())
{
vectoroffunctions.push_back(&function);
}
SomeClass::actionWithDiffrentOutcomes()
{
(*vectoroffunctions[0])();;
}
I'm sort of new-ish to pointers, but I read over my c++ books, googled, ext. and this seems correct, compiles, runs but when I call "actionWithDiffrentOutcomes()" I get an access violation. I'm not sure what to do. it seems correct, but something is obviously wrong. So how can I call a function from within a class when the definition is in another?
I'm doing it this way because i cannot hard-code every option into a switch statement.
Your code is almost correct. Your vector is mistakenly holding pointers to pointers to functions rather than simply pointers to functions. addThingy is adding the address of the function pointer in to the vector, but that pointer goes out of scope in the next line.
Change your code as follows:
//Store pointers to functions, rather than
//pointers to pointers to functions
std::vector<void (*)()> vectoroffunctions;
SomeClass::addThingy(void (*function)())
{
//Don't take the address of the address:
vectoroffunctions.push_back(function);
}
Also, you have a lot of syntax errors in the rest of the code which should stop the code from even compiling.
The problem is here:
vectoroffunctions.push_back(&function);
You're adding address of the local variable. The local variable gets destroyed once you return from the function. The address which the vector stores points to a destroyed object which is why you get "access violation" error at runtime.
To fix this, do this:
First change this
std::vector<void (**)()> vectoroffunctions;
to this:
std::vector<void (*)()> _functions; //vector of function-pointer-type
//I changed the name also!
which is practically same as:
std::vector<void()> _functions; //vector of function-type
Now do this:
_functions.push_back(function); //add copy!
To make it more flexible, you could use template along with std::function as:
class A
{
public:
template<typename Function>
void add(Function && fn)
{
_functions.push_back(std::forward<Function>(fn));
}
void invoke_all()
{
for(auto && fn : _functions)
fn();
}
private:
std::vector<std::function<void()>> _functions;
};
Now you can use it to store functions as well as functors:
void myfunction() { std::cout << "myfunction" << std::endl ; }
struct myfunctor
{
void operator()() { std::cout << "myfunctor" << std::endl ; }
};
A a;
a.add(myfunction); //add function
a.add(myfunctor()); //add functor!
a.invoke_all();
Output (Online Demo):
myfunction
myfunctor
Hope that helps.
Function pointers are much more legible with typedefs:
typedef void (*RequiredFunction)();
Then you can declare addThingy() like this:
void addThingy(RequiredFunction function);
And vectoroffunctions like so:
std::vector<RequiredFunction> vectoroffunctions;
The definition of addThingy will be:
void SomeClass::addThingy(RequiredFunction function)
{
vectoroffunctions.push_back(function);
}
And your main() would look more like:
int main()
{
SomeClass sc;
RequiredFunction pointerfunc = somefunction;
sc.addThingy(pointerfunc);
sc.actionWithDiffrentOutcomes();
}
Far fewer *s and &s with which to make mistakes!
Here's my problem,
Class MClass {
public:
void Add(OtherClass* objects) {
_objects = objects;
}
private:
OtherClass* _objects;
}
//otherfile.cpp
void Setup() {
MClass myObj;
OtherClass obj[NUMBER_OF_OBJECTS];
//obj initialization here
//...
myObj.Add(obj);
}
It will cause a RT error because the *obj diminishes after the end of the function body.
But, how can make this one valid?
I like to initialized first an object before assigning it to other class.
EDIT
I don't want to use storage classes or something here, I just want a raw array since it is very expensive for me to use. Its functionality will not lessen my problem here.
So how do I do that in a raw-array style?
Class MClass {
public:
void Add(std::vector<OtherClass> objects) {
_objects = std::move(objects);
}
private:
std::vector<OtherClass> _objects;
}
//otherfile.cpp
void Setup() {
MClass myObj;
std::vector<OtherClass> obj(NUMBER_OF_OBJECTS);
myObj.Add(std::move(obj));
}
In your example, you store a pointer to a local array. If the method ends, the array goes out of scope and doesn't exist anymore.
This is the reason, your pointer is not valid anymore. If you want to solve this, learn about the scope of variables in C++.
It is not completely clear what you are trying to do, but you could store a collection of objects instead of a pointer:
class MClass
{
public:
void Add(const std::vector<OtherClass>& objects) {
objects_ = objects;
}
void Add(std::vector<OtherClass>&& objects) {
objects_ = std::move(objects);
}
private:
std::vector<OtherClass> objects_;
};
then
void Setup()
{
MClass myObj;
std::vector<OtherClass> obj(NUMBER_OF_OBJECTS);
//obj initialization here
//...
myObj.Add(std::move(obj)); // move obj's contents onto myObs's objects.
}
Stop using raw arrays, and use either std::vector or std::array. Then you don't have to worry about it anymore.
If you really want to do it manually, you have to copy is manually as well. Using e.g. std::vector and std::move is more effective, but here you go:
Class MClass {
public:
MClass()
: _objects(nullptr), _count(0)
{}
MClass(const MClass& other)
: _objects(nullptr), _count(0)
{
Add(other._objects, other._count);
}
~MClass()
{
if (_objects != nullptr)
delete [] _objects;
}
void Add(const OtherClass* objects, const size_t count)
{
if (_objects != nullptr)
delete [] _objects;
_objects = new [count];
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; i++)
_objects[i] = objects[i];
_count = count;
}
MClass& operator=(const MClass& other)
{
Add(other._objects, other._count);
}
private:
OtherClass* _objects;
size_t _count;
};
// ...
myObj.Add(obj, NUMBER_OF_OBJECTS);
As you can see, it's a lot of more code, which makes it harder to follow and debug, and also larger possibility of errors. And not as "effective" as I said above.
I need to pass a pointer to a class so some code I don't control. This code automatically free()s the pointer when it is done, but I need the class later. I hoped I could just make a 'wrapper' class that would keep the class from being deallocated without actually preventing the code from accessing it, but virtual calls don't work.
template <class T>
class PointerWrapper:public T
{
public:
T* p;
PointerWrapper(T *ptr)
{
p=ptr;
}
~PointerWrapper(void)
{
}
T* operator->() const
{
return p;
}
T& operator*() const
{
return *p;
}
};
void codeIDontControl(Example *ex)
{
ex->virtualfunction();
delete ex;
}
void myCode()
{
Example *ex=new Example();
codeIDontControl(ex);
do something with ex //doesn't work because ex has been freed
codeIDontControl(new PointerWrapper<Example>(ex));
do something with ex //ex hasn't been freed, but the changes made to it via
// Example::virtualfunction() in codeIDontControl() aren't there anymore
}
Basically, ex->virtualfunction() calls the virtual function in PointerWrapper itself instead of the virtual function in PointerWrapper->p. It seems that it's ignoring the -> operator?
Now, I don't need to use a PointerWrapper-esque class if there's a different way to do this, but it was all I could think of...
I can't modify Example either, but I can subclass it
You should provide Forwarder class - which redirects virtual calls to stored pointer. Freeing of forwarder class will not cause releasing of pointee. This approach does NOT need to do copy (which can be expensive/may be not implemented/or even not make sense):
struct Forwarder : Example
{
Example *impl;
Forwarder(Example *i) : impl(i) {}
void virtualfunction()
{
impl->virtualfunction();
}
};
Full code:
live demo:
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
using namespace std;
struct Example
{
virtual void virtualfunction()=0;
virtual ~Example() {}
};
struct Implmenetation : Example
{
bool alive;
Implmenetation() : alive(true) {}
void virtualfunction()
{
cout << "Implmenetation::virtualfunction alive=" << alive << endl;
}
~Implmenetation()
{
alive=false;
cout << "Implmenetation::~Implmenetation" << endl;
}
};
struct Forwarder : Example
{
Example *impl;
Forwarder(Example *i) : impl(i) {}
void virtualfunction()
{
impl->virtualfunction();
}
};
void codeIDontControl(Example *ex)
{
ex->virtualfunction();
delete ex;
}
void myCode()
{
Implmenetation impl;
codeIDontControl(new Forwarder(&impl));
//do something with ex //doesn't work because ex has been freed
impl.virtualfunction();
}
int main()
{
myCode();
}
Output is:
Implmenetation::virtualfunction alive=1
Implmenetation::virtualfunction alive=1
Implmenetation::~Implmenetation
It's bad design, really. Only the allocator should be allowed to free memory. Functions like this are dangerous, as they leave with with dangling pointers.
This is just off the top of my head, maybe you could try something like this? It's not a safe idea, but if someone implemented it I would be interested to know what happens.
class Foo
{
Foo(Foo* copy) : m_copy(copy) {}
~Foo() { if(m_copy) { *m_copy = *this; } } // Use copy constructor to create copy on destuction.
Foo* m_copy;
}
Foo copy(NULL);
Foo* original = new Foo(©);
MethodThatDeletes(original);
// Original should be destroyed, and made a copy in the process.
original = NULL;
// Copy should be a copy of the original at it's last know state.
copy;
You are providing a Example* to codeIDontControl. The overloaded operator-> on PointerWrapper is an for the PointerWrapper type not the Example* type or even the PointerWrapper* type (i.e. for a value or reference of that type not a pointer to that type).
Since the function you need to call isn't controlled by you, you will need to provide a complete wrapper of the type it expects as a wrapper over the instance you wish to control the lifetime of.