I use bison parser generator that has union type for return type productions.
union {
std::vector<std::string*> *vecStrPtr;
// double num; ...
};
how delete pointer from vector pointer;
auto v = new std::vector<std::string*>();
//....
v->push_back(new std::string("text"));
//...
delete v[0];
error: type 'class std::vector<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>*>' argument given to 'delete', expected pointer delete v[0];
When you do just v[0] you get the vector because v is a pointer and then you need to get value from that vector. You can do it by adding another array access. So working code would look like delete v[0][0];. But two array accesses can be confusing when you are accessing value from one dimension array (vector).
Another way to get vector from pointer v is to dereference it. Code would look like (*v)[0]. It's more clear accessing the value. With (*v) you will get the vector and then the array access is to access the value from vector.
To remove value from vector use method erase. For more information about that method look at this link. Code example would look like:
auto v = new std::vector<std::string*>();
//....
v->push_back(new std::string("text"));
//...
delete (*v)[0];
v->erase(v->begin());
Better is to write code without keyword new. With that rule you will get less memory leaks. It makes your developing easier. But in some cases you can't use it. Your code example modified by that rule would look like:
std::vector<std::string> v;
v.push_back(std::string("text"));
//here is how to get pointers from it
std::string* ptrToElement = &(v[0]);
std::vector<std::string>* ptrToVector = &v;
The right way to free one item is:
delete (*v)[index];
v->erase(b->begin()+index);
However, You should make sure that you really want to allocate a vector in the free store. It seems usually so wrong.
P.S. As #Dahn mentioned, Those two instructions should be atomic.
Related
I'm trying to populate a vector of doubles in C++ and pass the associated array to Fortran. But I'm having trouble freeing the rest of the memory associated with the vector. I'd like to avoid copying. Here's what I have:
std::vector<double> *vec = new std::vector<double>();
(*vec).push_back(1.0);
(*vec).push_back(2.0);
*arr = (*vec).data(); //arr goes to Fortran
How do I delete vec while keeping arr intact? Is there a way to nullify the pointer to arr in vec so that I can then delete vec?
Update
I see that I didn't give enough information here. A couple things:
I'm actually calling a C++ function in Fortran using iso_c_binding
I don't know how large the vec needs to be. The vector class looks good for this situation
I might try Guillaume's suggestion eventually, but for now, I'm passing vec to the Fortran and calling another C++ function to delete it once I'm done with the data
You need to rethink your program design.
Somehow, somewhere, you need to keep an array alive while Fortran is using it. So whatever context you're using to access Fortran should probably be responsible for ownership of this array.
class fortran_context {
/*Blah blah blah whatever API you're using to access Fortran*/
void * arr;
std::vector<double> vec; //Don't allocate this as a pointer; makes no sense!
public:
fortran_context() {
arr = //Do whatever is necessary to setup Fortran stuff. I'm assuming your
//api has some kind of "get_array_pointer" function that you'll use.
}
~fortran_context() {
//Do the cleanup for the fortran stuff
}
//If you want to spend time figuring out a robust copy constructor, you may.
//Personally, I suspect it's better to just delete it, and make this object non-copyable.
fortran_context(fortran_context const&) = delete;
std::vector<double> & get_vector() {
return vec;
}
std::vector<double> const& get_vector() const {
return vec;
}
void assign_vector_to_array() {
*arr = vec.data();
}
void do_stuff_with_fortran() {
assign_vector_to_array();
//???
}
};
int main() {
fortran_context context;
auto & vec = context.get_vector();
vec.push_back(1.0);
vec.push_back(2.0);
context.do_stuff_with_fortran();
return 0;
} //Cleanup happens automatically due to correct implementation of ~fortran_context()
I've abstracted a lot of this because I don't know what API you're using to access Fortran, and I don't know what kind of work you're doing with this array. But this is, by far, the safest way to ensure that
The vector's allocated memory exists so long as you are doing stuff in Fortran
The memory associated with the vector will be cleaned up properly when you're done.
How do I delete vec while keeping arr intact? Is there a way to nullify the pointer to arr in vec so that I can then delete vec?
The library does not provide any built-in capability to do that. You have to do the bookkeeping work yourself.
Allocate memory for the data and copy data from the vector.
Send the data to FORTRAN.
Decide when it is safe to deallocate the data and then delete them.
// Fill up data in vec
std::vector<double> vec;
vec.push_back(1.0);
vec.push_back(2.0);
// Allocate memory for arr and copy the data from vec
double* arr = new double[vec.size()];
std::copy(vec.begin(), vec.end(), arr);
// use arr
// delete arr
delete [] arr;
What you are asking for is not possible. std::vector, being a well behaved template class will release the internals that it owns and manages when it is destroyed.
You will have to keep vector alive while you are using its contents, which makes perfect sense. Otherwise, you will have to make a copy.
Also, I don't see why you are allocating the vector on the heap, it doesn't seem needed at all.
How do I delete vec while keeping arr intact? Is there a way to nullify the pointer to arr in vec so that I can then delete vec?
You don't.
I think you misuse or misunderstood what vector is for. It is not meant to expose memory management of the underlying array, but to represent a dynamically sized array as a regular type.
If you need to explicitly manage memory, I'd suggest you to use std::unique_ptr<T[]>. Since unique pointers offers a way to manage memory and to release it's resource without deleting it, I think it's a good candidate to meet your needs.
auto arr = std::make_unique<double[]>(2);
arr[0] = 1.;
arr[1] = 2.;
auto data = arr.release();
// You have to manage `data` memory manually,
// since the unique pointer released it's resource.
// arr is null here
// data is a pointer to an array, must be deleted manually later.
delete[] data;
i don't quite understand why the following code does what it does.
void initializeTable()
{
NodeT* (*hashTable) ;
*hashTable=(NodeT*)malloc(30*sizeof(NodeT));
int i;
for(i=0;i<30;i++)
{
(*hashTable)[i].info=(char*)malloc(10*sizeof(char));
strcpy((*hashTable)[i].info,"a");
cout<<(*hashTable)[i].info<<" ";
}
}
I am trying to understand how hash Tables work. In the first version of my program I used something like NodeT* hashTable[arraySize] in order to create an array of pointers to NodeT, in order to do the chaining. After this I decided to try and allocate dinamycally memory for the array, so I tried to use the (I think) equivalent NodeT* (*mockTable).
My question is the following: why do I have to use (*hashTable)[i].info, and not (*hashTable)[i]->info ? As far as i concerned, hashTable is a pointer which points to an array of pointers to NodeT, so this shouldn't happen. What am i getting wrong here?
You got the basic idea but it seem you miscount the pointers
your hashTable is a pointer to pointer (**), and when you access it in the strcpy you actually get into the value of this double pointer the 1'st is with the array index [i] and the second is with the *hashTable which is when accessing a variable calling the Value inside it.
so if you define a duel pointer variable
StrutT **temp;
and you want to access a field inside it
you can
*temp[i].field
but in case you would only want to access at level of a single pointer (same **temp) you would need:
temp[i]->field
or
*temp->field
which both only "pop" the top most pointer
I'm storing a list of text files inside a vector, and, want to read the contents of the text file into a 2-dimensional array for each iteration:
for(unsigned i=0; (i < files.size()); i++)
{
std::string file = dir + "/" +files[i];
double** training_vars = new double*;
training_vars = readFromFile(file);
delete[] &training_vars;
}
I let the function readFromFile decide the size of the array and return this array.
The problem that I am having is that each time this runs, I get a bad_alloc error. I cannot size the 2D array inside the main either so I'm kind of stuck as to what to do here in order to properly delete the array. Any ideas please?
Your program has undefined behavior, this line is invalid:
delete[] &training_vars;
Because &training_vars was not allocated by a new [] (note that training_vars is simply a pointer to a double, nothing more).
You probably want readFromFile to do the allocation for you, possibly by returning a smart pointer, or, better, pass a vector<> by const reference to it.
Ideally, always use std::vector<> and get rid of C-style arrays, it was designed to avoid situations like this.
Note :
Your for loop has unnecessary parenthesis, and could be replaced by a for-range loop :
for(auto& file : files)
{
...
}
You really must at least wrap this library with proper "RAII" objects and use modern C++. Something like this will work better for you.
for ( auto file : files )
{
std::shared_ptr< double * > training_vars( readFromFile( file ) );
// ... the rest of your code that uses training_vars
}
And as mentioned elsewhere delete[] &training_vars; will probably seg fault. You're passing the address of the stack local "pointer-to pointer-to double" named training_vars to delete. What you want is the address contained in that local variable.
I am doing a project converting some Pascal (Delphi) code to C++ and would like to write a function that is roughly equivalent to the Pascal "SetLength" method. This takes a reference to a dynamic array, as well as a length and allocates the memory and returns the reference.
In C++ I was thinking of something along the lines of
void* setlength(void* pp, int array_size, int pointer_size, int target_size, ....) {
void * p;
// Code to allocate memory here via malloc/new
// something like: p = reinterpret_cast<typeid(pp)>(p);
// p=(target_size) malloc(array_size);
return p;
}
My question is this: is there a way to pass the pointer type to a function like this and to successfully allocate the memory (perhaps via a typeid parameter?)? Can I use
<reinterpret_cast>
somehow? The ultimate aim would be something like the following in terms of usage:
float*** p;
p=setlength(100,sizeof(float***),sizeof(float**),.....);
class B;
B** cp;
cp=setlength(100,sizeof(B**),sizeof(B*),.....);
Any help would be most welcome. I am aware my suggested code is all wrong, but wanted to convey the general idea. Thanks.
Use std::vector instead of raw arrays.
Then you can simply call its resize() member method.
And make the function a template to handle arbitrary types:
If you want to use your function, it could look something like this:
template <typename T>
std::vector<T>& setlength(std::vector<T>& v, int new_size) {
v.resize(new_size);
return v;
}
But now it's so simple you might want to eliminate the function entirely and just call resize to begin with.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do with the triple-pointers in your example, but it looks like you don't want to resize though, you want to initialize to a certain size, which can be done with the vector constructor:
std::vector<float>v(100);
If you wanted to do it literally, you would do it like this:
template <typename T>
T* SetLength(T* arr, size_t len) {
return static_cast<T*>(realloc(arr, sizeof(T) * len));
}
Note that the array must have been allocated with malloc or calloc. Also note that this does not actually resize the memory—it deallocates the memory and reallocates memory of the appropriate size. If there were any other pointers to the array being passed in, they will be invalid afterwards.
You're really better off using a more idiomatic C++ solution, like std::vector.
For a multidimensional array, probably the best option would be to use boost's multi_array library:
typedef boost::multi_array<float, 3> array_type;
array_type p(boost::extents[100][100][100]); // make an 100x100x100 array of floats
p[1][2][3] = 4.2;
This lets you completely abstract away the allocation and details of setting up the multidimensional array. Plus, because it uses linear storage, you get the efficiency benefits of linear storage with the ease of access of indirections.
Failing that, you have three other major options.
The most C++-y option without using external libraries would be to use a STL container:
std::vector<float **> p;
p.resize(100);
As with multi_array, p will then automatically be freed when it goes out of scope. You can get the vector bounds with p.size(). However the vector will only handle one dimension for you, so you'll end up doing nested vectors (ick!).
You can also use new directly:
float ***p = new float**[100];
To deallocate:
delete [] p;
This has all the disadvantages of std::vector, plus it won't free it for you, and you can't get the size later.
The above three methods will all throw an exception of type std::bad_alloc if they fail to allocate enough memory.
Finally, for completeness, there's the C route, with calloc():
float ***p = (float ***)calloc(100, sizeof(*p));
To free:
free((void*)p);
This comes from C and is a bit uglier with all the casts. For C++ classes it will not call the constructors for you, either. Also, there's no checking that the sizeof in the argument is consistent with the cast.
If calloc() fails to allocate memory it will return NULL; you'll need to check for this and handle it.
To do this the C++ way:
1) As jalf stated, prefer std::vector if you can
2) Don't do void* p. Prefer instead to make your function a template of type T.
The new operator itself is essentially what you are asking for, with the exception that to appropriately allocate for double/triple pointers you must do something along the following lines:
float** data = new float*[size_of_dimension_1];
for ( size_t i=0 ; i<size_of_dimension_1 ; ++i )
data[i] = new float[size_of_dimension_2];
...
// to delete:
for ( size_t i=0 ; i<size_of_dimension_1 ; ++i )
delete [] data[i];
delete [] data;
Edit: I would suggest using one of the many C++ math/matrix libraries out there. I would suggest uBlas.
I am observing strange behaviour of std::map::clear(). This method is supposed to call element's destructor when called, however memory is still accessible after call to clear().
For example:
struct A
{
~A() { x = 0; }
int x;
};
int main( void )
{
std::map< int, A * > my_map;
A *a = new A();
a->x = 5;
my_map.insert( std::make_pair< int, *A >( 0, a ) );
// addresses will be the same, will print 5
std::cout << a << " " << my_map[0] << " " << my_map[0]->x << std::endl;
my_map.clear();
// will be 0
std::cout << a->x << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The question is, why is variable a still accessible after its destructor was called by map::clear()? Do I need to write delete a; after calling my_map.clear() or is it safe to overwrite the contents of a?
Thanks in advance for your help,
sneg
If you store pointers on a map (or a list, or anything like that) YOU are the responsible for deleting the pointers, since the map doesn't know if they have been created with new, or not. The clear function only invokes destructors if you don't use pointers.
Oh, and one more thing: invoking a destructor (or even calling delete) doesn't mean the memory can't be accessed anymore. It only means that you will be accessing garbage if you do.
std::map does not manage the memory pointed to by the pointer values - it's up to you to do it yourself. If you don't want to use smart pointers, you can write a general purpose free & clear function like this:
template <typename M> void FreeClear( M & amap )
for ( typename M::iterator it = amap.begin(); it != amap.end(); ++it ) {
delete it->second;
}
amap.clear();
}
And use it:
std::map< int, A * > my_map;
// populate
FreeClear( my_map )
;
That's because map.clear() calls destructors of the data contained in the map, in your case, of the pointer to a. And this does nothing.
You might want to put some kind of smart pointer in the map for the memory occupied by a to be automatically reclaimed.
BTW, why do you put the template arguments in the call to make_pair? The template argument deduction should do pretty well here.
When you free a piece of heap memory, its contents don't get zeroed. They are merely available for allocation again. Of course you should consider the memory non accessible, because the effects of accessing unallocated memory are undefined.
Actually preventing access to a memory page happens on a lower level, and std libraries don't do that.
When you allocate memory with new, you need to delete it yourself, unless you use a smart pointer.
Any container stores your object Type and call corresponding constructors: internal code each node might look similar to:
__NodePtr
{
*next;
__Ty Val;
}
When you allocate it happens by constructing the val based on type and then linking. Something similar to:
_Ty _Val = _Ty();
_Myhead = _Buynode();
_Construct_n(_Count, _Val);
When you delete it calls corresponding destructors.
When you store references (pointers) it won't call any constructor nor it will destruct.
Having spent the last 2 months eating, sleeping, and breathing maps, I have a recommendation. Let the map allocate it's own data whenever possible. It's a lot cleaner, for exactly the kind of reasons you're highlighting here.
There are also some subtle advantages, like if you're copying data from a file or socket to the map's data, the data storage exists as soon as the node exists because when the map calls malloc() to allocate the node, it allocates memory for both the key and the data. (AKA map[key].first and map[key].second)
This allows you to use the assignment operator instead of memcpy(), and requires 1 less call to malloc() - the one you make.
IC_CDR CDR, *pThisCDRLeafData; // a large struct{}
while(1 == fread(CDR, sizeof(CDR), 1, fp)) {
if(feof(fp)) {
printf("\nfread() failure in %s at line %i", __FILE__, __LINE__);
}
cdrMap[CDR.iGUID] = CDR; // no need for a malloc() and memcpy() here
pThisCDRLeafData = &cdrMap[CDR.iGUID]; // pointer to tree node's data
A few caveats to be aware of are worth pointing out here.
do NOT call malloc() or new in the line of code that adds the tree node as your call to malloc() will return a pointer BEFORE the map's call to malloc() has allocated a place to hold the return from your malloc().
in Debug mode, expect to have similar problems when trying to free() your memory. Both of these seem like compiler problems to me, but at least in MSVC 2012, they exist and are a serious problem.
give some thought as to where to "anchor" your maps. IE: where they are declared. You don't want them going out of scope by mistake. main{} is always safe.
INT _tmain(INT argc, char* argv[]) {
IC_CDR CDR, *pThisCDRLeafData=NULL;
CDR_MAP cdrMap;
CUST_MAP custMap;
KCI_MAP kciMap;
I've had very good luck, and am very happy having a critical map allocate a structure as it's node data, and having that struct "anchor" a map. While anonymous structs have been abandoned by C++ (a horrible, horrible decision that MUST be reversed), maps that are the 1st struct member work just like anonymous structs. Very slick and clean with zero size-effects. Passing a pointer to the leaf-owned struct, or a copy of the struct by value in a function call, both work very nicely. Highly recommended.
you can trap the return values for .insert to determine if it found an existing node on that key, or created a new one. (see #12 for code) Using the subscript notation doesn't allow this. It might be better to settle on .insert and stick with it, especially because the [] notation doesn't work with multimaps. (it would make no sense to do so, as there isn't "a" key, but a series of keys with the same values in a multimap)
you can, and should, also trap returns for .erase and .empty() (YES, it's annoying that some of these things are functions, and need the () and some, like .erase, don't)
you can get both the key value and the data value for any map node using .first and .second, which all maps, by convention, use to return the key and data respectively
save yourself a HUGE amount of confusion and typing, and use typedefs for your maps, like so.
typedef map<ULLNG, IC_CDR> CDR_MAP;
typedef map<ULLNG, pIC_CDR> CALL_MAP;
typedef struct {
CALL_MAP callMap;
ULNG Knt;
DBL BurnRateSec;
DBL DeciCents;
ULLNG tThen;
DBL OldKCIKey;
} CUST_SUM, *pCUST_SUM;
typedef map<ULNG,CUST_SUM> CUST_MAP, CUST_MAP;
typedef map<DBL,pCUST_SUM> KCI_MAP;
pass references to maps using the typedef and & operator as in
ULNG DestroyCustomer_callMap(CUST_SUM Summary, CDR_MAP& cdrMap, KCI_MAP& kciMap)
use the "auto" variable type for iterators. The compiler will figure out from the type specified in the rest of the for() loop body what kind of map typedef to use. It's so clean it's almost magic!
for(auto itr = Summary.callMap.begin(); itr!= Summary.callMap.end(); ++itr) {
define some manifest constants to make the return from .erase and .empty() more meaningfull.
if(ERASE_SUCCESSFUL == cdrMap.erase (itr->second->iGUID)) {
given that "smart pointers" are really just keeping a reference count, remember you can always keep your own reference count, an probably in a cleaner, and more obvious way. Combining this with #5 and #10 above, you can write some nice clean code like this.
#define Pear(x,y) std::make_pair(x,y) // some macro magic
auto res = pSumStruct->callMap.insert(Pear(pCDR->iGUID,pCDR));
if ( ! res.second ) {
pCDR->RefKnt=2;
} else {
pCDR->RefKnt=1;
pSumStruct->Knt += 1;
}
using a pointer to hang onto a map node which allocates everything for itself, IE: no user pointers pointing to user malloc()ed objects, works well, is potentially more efficient, and and be used to mutate a node's data without side-effects in my experience.
on the same theme, such a pointer can be used very effectively to preserve the state of a node, as in pThisCDRLeafData above. Passing this to a function that mutates/changes that particular node's data is cleaner than passing a reference to the map and the key needed to get back to the node pThisCDRLeafData is pointing to.
iterators are not magic. They are expensive and slow, as you are navigating the map to get values. For a map holding a million values, you can read a node based on a key at about 20 million per second. With iterators it's probably ~ 1000 times as slow.
I think that about covers it for now. Will update if any of this changes or there's additional insights to share. I am especially enjoying using the STL with C code. IE: not a class in sight anywhere. They just don't make sense in the context I'm working in, and it's not an issue. Good luck.