Im working on matrix template class, and now i should write the "=" operator overload.
What Im trying to do is to delete the matrix that appears in the left side of the '=', and return new one that equals to the matrix that appears in the right side of the '='.
because i can't delete "this" with a distructor, I delete it "manually" in the function. but now i should make a new matrix, therefor i make a new one ("temp") and return it.
The prblem is that "temp" is really return, but it doesn't set in the matrix that appears in the left side of the '='.
The code:
Matrix<int> m (3, 4);
Matrix<int> m2(2, 5);
m2 = m;
This was the main part.
The function:
template<class T>
Matrix<T> & Matrix<T>::operator=(Matrix<T>& mat)
{
if (this==&mat)
{
return *this;
}
for (int i = 0; i < this->rows; i++)
{
delete[] this->mat[i];
}
delete[] this->mat;
Matrix<T> * temp = new Matrix<T>(mat.rows, mat.cols);
for (int i = 0; i < temp->rows; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < temp->cols; j++)
{
temp->mat[i][j] = mat.mat[i][j];
}
return *temp;
}
template<class T>
Matrix<T>::Matrix(int row, int col)
{
rows = row;
cols = col;
mat = new T*[rows];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
mat[i] = new T[cols];
}
rester(*this);
}
Thx!!
Use std::vector as storage (instead of manal new and delete), and just accept the copy assignment operator generated by the compiler. It's that easy.
If you absolutely want to implement the copy assignment yourself, for learning, then just express copy assignment in terms of copy construction.
To do that, first define a noexcept swap operation:
// In class definition:
friend
void swap( Matrix& a, Matrix& b )
noexcept
{
using std::swap;
// swap all data members here
}
Then the copy assignment operator can be expressed as simply
// In class definition
auto operator=( Matrix other )
-> Matrix&
{
swap( *this, other );
return *this;
}
It's popular, an idiom, because it's very simple yet exception safe.
Instead of returning a reference, which adds verbosity and some possible marginal inefficiency for no gain, you might want to just use void as return type. However, probably for historical reasons, the containers in the standard library require the copy assignment operator to return a reference to self.
You need to allocate memory for this instead of creating a temp.
template<class T>
Matrix<T> & Matrix<T>::operator=(Matrix<T>& rhs)
{
if (this==&rhs)
{
return *this;
}
// Delete current memory
for (int i = 0; i < this->rows; i++)
{
delete[] this->mat[i];
}
delete[] this->mat;
this->rows = rhs.rows;
this->cols = rhs.cols;
// Allocate new memory
// Assign values to newly allocated memory.
this->mat = new int*[rhs.rows];
for (int = 0; i < rhs.rows; ++i )
{
this->mat[i] = new int[rhs.cols];
for (int j = 0; j < rhs.cols; j++)
{
this->mat[i][j] = rhs.mat[i][j];
}
}
// Return *this.
return *this;
}
I would recommend using the suggestion given in the answer by #Cheersandhth.
Also use a different name of the argument. Don't confuse with the member variable mat and the argument mat.
Related
I need to write a class Matrix with override operators + - * = and I've got some code that is works, but there is error.
//Matrix.h
template <class T>
class Matrix
{
public:
Matrix(int rows, int columns);
Matrix(const Matrix<T> &m);
Matrix<T>& operator=(Matrix<T>& m);
Matrix<T> operator+(Matrix<T>& m) const;
Matrix<T>* operator*(Matrix<T>* m);
};
template <class T> Matrix<T>& Matrix<T>::operator*(Matrix<T>& m) {
Matrix<T>* newMatrix = new Matrix<T>(rowCount, m.colCount);
for (int i = 0; i < rowCount; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < m.colCount; ++j)
{
newMatrix->data[i][j] = 0;
for (int k = 0; k < colCount; ++k)
newMatrix->data[i][j] += data[i][k] * m.data[k][j];
}
}
return *newMatrix;
}
And override operators work fine in this code
Matrix<int> matrix(2, 2);
matrix = matrix + matrix;
//and other operators work fine here
But here it gives an error during compilation
Matrix<int>* matrix = new Matrix<int>(2, 2);
matrix = matrix + matrix;
matrix = matrix * matrix;
//etc
error
error C2804: binary "operator +" has too many parameters
Type information is crutal in C++.
This:
Matrix<int> matrix(2, 2);
matrix = matrix + matrix;
Here the type of matrix is Matrix. You have defined what the operator + for the type Matrix so this works fine.
This second one is different:
Matrix<int>* matrix = new Matrix<int>(2, 2);
matrix = matrix + matrix;
Here the type of matrix is Matrix*. Notice the star on the end of Matrix (this makes it a Matrix Pointer). This is a different type than above. You have not defined what operator + does for Matrix* so the compiler looks at its default operations and finds something close but not exact enough and generates an appropriate error message that tries to help.
To use the operator + you defined above you need to make sure the types of the values are Matrix and NOT Matrix*. You can covert a Matrix* into a Matrix by dereferencing the pointer via operator *.
Matrix<int>* matrix = new Matrix<int>(2, 2);
(*matrix) = (*matrix) + (*matrix);
Here: (*matrix) dereferences the Matrix* object and you get a Matrix. This can now correctly be applied to the operator + you defined above.
But saying all that.
That explains whay your problem is, but I don't think you actually want (or need) to use new in this context.
Dynamically allocating memory like this is probably not the correct way to implement this. It is usually better to use automatic variables (as this makes memory management easier).
template <class T>
Matrix<T> Matrix<T>::operator*(Matrix<T>& m)
// I also removed the & from the return value
// So that the value is copied out of the function.
// because with dynamic allocation the result will disappear
// after the function exits.
// Note: Though the matrix may be officially copied out
// the compiler is likely to optimize away this copy.
// and when you upgrade your class with move semantics
// then it will definitely be moved.
{
Matrix<T> newMatrix(rowCount, m.colCount);
// Remove the Pointer from the above line.
// And fix the -> into . in the code below.
for (int i = 0; i < rowCount; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < m.colCount; ++j)
{
newMatrix.data[i][j] = 0;
for (int k = 0; k < colCount; ++k)
newMatrix.data[i][j] += data[i][k] * m.data[k][j];
}
}
return newMatrix;
// Now you can remove the * from the return value.
// The code works exactly the same.
// But you have not leaked the memory you allocated with `new`
}
I have this constructor for matrix to allocate memory
class Matrix
{
public:
int** matrix;
int cols;
int rows;
};
Matrix::Matrix(int row, int col)
{
cols = col;
rows = row;
matrix = new int*[rows];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < rows; ++i)
{
matrix[i] = new int[cols];
}
}
now I want to overload the operator =, but I can't figure out how to write the function and allocate the new memory, without getting a memory leak, or not having enough memory.
The matrix the I'll do the = on it, already has memory allocated for it, so can i delete the memory and make new memory on the size of the other one?
for now I have this on the operator =
this->rows = other.rows;
this->cols = other.cols;
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < this->rows; ++i)
{
for (j = 0; j < this->cols; j++)
{
this->matrix[i][j] = other.matrix[i][j];
}
}
return *this;
The idiomatic way is to use the copy/swap idiom. See What is the copy-and-swap idiom?
The assignment is then reduced to
Matrix& operator=(Matrix copy){
swap(*this, copy);
return *this;
}
See the linked question for all the perks you gain by using this idiom.
I would recommend switching from manually allocating arrays to using std::vector
class Matrix
{
public:
Matrix(int row, int col);
int cols;
int rows;
std::vector<std::vector<int>> matrix;
};
Matrix::Matrix(int row, int col)
: cols(col),
rows(row),
matrix(rows, std::vector<int>(cols))
{ }
Now you can let the compiler generate your copy assignment operator, and the other constructors, destructor, etc. This class is now copyable, moveable, and doesn't leak memory because matrix now uses RAII semantics instead of you having to manage its memory.
First you can reallocate the each column using the delete operator.
for (i = 0; i < rows; ++i)
{
delete []matrix[i];
}
Then you can deallocate pointers to each row.
delete []matrix;
After that you can allocate the new matrix as required from the one passed as argument.
I have a class method that works with a copy of an object (*this, to be exact). The leaks occur within the overloaded assignment operator - that's what Visual Leak Detector says, anyway. What I'm doing is working with copy and if the work done is satisfactory I copy that newly created object back. I've also implemented a custom destructor, copy constructor and assignment operator because the problem occurs with dynamically allocated memory, obviously. My experience with C++ is quite limited so there could be some evil stuff in the code.
I will provide more info if needed.
Problematic method:
bool Grid::SurroundShipSquares(int top, int bottom, int left, int right)
{
// copying itself
Grid gridCopy(*this);
Square** squaresCopy = gridCopy.GetSquares();
for (int i = top; i <= bottom; ++i)
{
for (int j = left; j <= right; ++j)
{
if (squaresCopy[i][j].GetState() != SquareState::Vacant)
return false;
(squaresCopy[i][j]).SetState(SquareState::Unoccupiable);
}
}
// the problem occurs here
*this = gridCopy;
return true;
}
Copy constructor:
Grid::Grid(const Grid& source)
{
_position = source._position;
_size = source._size;
int dimensions = static_cast<int>(_size);
_squares = new Square*[dimensions];
for (int i = 0; i < dimensions; ++i)
{
_squares[i] = new Square[dimensions];
for (int j = 0; j < dimensions; ++j)
{
_squares[i][j] = source._squares[i][j];
}
}
}
Assignment operator:
Grid& Grid::operator=(const Grid& source)
{
if (this == &source)
return *this;
_position = source._position;
_size = source._size;
int dimensions = static_cast<int>(_size);
_squares = new Square*[dimensions];
for (int i = 0; i < dimensions; ++i)
{
_squares[i] = new Square[dimensions];
for (int j = 0; j < dimensions; ++j)
{
_squares[i][j] = source._squares[i][j];
}
}
return *this;
}
Destructor:
Grid::~Grid()
{
int dimensions = static_cast<int>(_size);
for (int i = 0; i < dimensions; ++i)
{
delete[] _squares[i];
}
delete[] _squares;
}
The problem with your code is that you manage all your resources manually. This is terribly unsafe and a massive headache to do correctly, as is aptly demonstrated by both the existing answers being wrong.
Use std::vector. This class will automatically manage all the memory for you, freeing you from having to do it yourself. This will greatly simplify your code, as well as making it correct.
Also, self-assignment checking is an ancient anti-pattern. Do not include a check for self-assignment. If your assignment operator (you shouldn't really need to write your own with std::vector-based memory management in most cases) cannot handle self-assignment without a special case, it is broken.
I am making a class to do matrix (and vector) math for a test I am running and to learn more C++. The class looks like this:
class utlMatrix
{
private:
int num_rows;
int num_cols; // number of columns
double **data; // array of pointers to the data
public:
// default constructor, with initialization
utlMatrix() : num_rows(0), num_cols(0), data(NULL) {};
// constructor with size
utlMatrix(int, int);
// destructor
~utlMatrix();
// copy constructor
utlMatrix(const utlMatrix&);
void copy(const utlMatrix &old); // copy 'old' to 'this'
void zero(); // sets all values to zero
void fill_rand(); //fills the data with random stuff
void print(std::ostream&); // prints the matrix to a file
// Operators
utlMatrix& operator=(const utlMatrix&); // copies matrices
friend utlMatrix operator+(const utlMatrix&, const utlMatrix&); // adds 2 matrices
utlMatrix operator*(const utlMatrix&) const;
//friend utlMatrix operator*(const utlMatrix&, const utlMatrix&); // multiplies 2 matrices
};
Copy Constructors, assignment operator and destructor
// copy constructor
utlMatrix::utlMatrix(const utlMatrix &old) {
copy(old);
}
utlMatrix& utlMatrix::operator=(const utlMatrix &old) {
copy(old);
return *this;
}
void utlMatrix::copy(const utlMatrix &old) {
num_rows = old.num_rows;
num_cols = old.num_cols;
data = new float*[num_rows];
for (int i = 0; i < num_cols; i++)
data[i] = new float[num_cols];
for (int i = 0; i < num_rows; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < num_cols; j++)
data[i][j] = old.data[i][j];
}
}
utlMatrix::~utlMatrix()
{
for (int i = 0; i < num_rows; i++)
delete [] data[i];
delete [] data;
}
Multiplication operators, I tried both, both failed if used twice in a row.
/*
utlMatrix operator*(const utlMatrix &left, const utlMatrix &right)
{
// first determine if the matrices can be multiplied
if (left.num_cols != right.num_rows)
{
std::cout << "Error using *, Inner dimensions must agree." << std::endl;
exit(-1);
}
// create the new matrix
utlMatrix newmat(left.num_rows, right.num_cols);
for (int i = 0; i < left.num_rows; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < right.num_cols; j++)
for (int k = 0; k < right.num_rows; k++)
newmat.data[i][j] += left.data[i][k] * right.data[k][j];
return newmat;
}
*/
utlMatrix utlMatrix::operator*(const utlMatrix &right) const
{
if ( this->num_cols != right.num_rows)
{
std::cout << "Error using *, Inner dimensions must agree." << std::endl;
return utlMatrix();
}
utlMatrix newmat(this->num_rows, right.num_cols);
for (int i = 0; i < this->num_rows; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < right.num_cols; j++)
for (int k = 0; k < right.num_rows; k++)
newmat.data[i][j] += this->data[i][k] * right.data[k][j];
return newmat;
}
The copy constructor, assignment and addition operators all work fine. When I try to multiply 1 matrix by another it works the first time but fails on the second. I altered the code to write out when it enter a constructor, operator and destructor in addition to printing the matrices after the multiplication. The math is good for the first matrix and the code fails with:
Unhandled exception at 0x776015de in sandbox.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation writing location 0xcdcdcdcd.
From the screen output I know this is happening after the copy constructor is called following the second multiplication. The addition operator mirrors the first multiplication operator and appears to work fine, no exceptions, the copy constructor and destructor happen as expected. I found 2 answers on SO, Matrix class operator overloading,destructor problem and Matrix Multiplication with operator overloading. I checked to make sure that my pointers were not copied. The copy constructor does create a new object with a new pointer to data. If I run:
int main()
{
utlMatrix A(3,3);
utlMatrix B(2,2);
A.fill_rand();
B.fill_rand();
B = A;
return 0;
}
The debugger shows:
A {num_rows=3 num_cols=3 data=0x000365c0 ...} utlMatrix
B {num_rows=3 num_cols=3 data=0x00037c50 ...} utlMatrix
What did I miss? Here is how I actually used the operator. Failure occurs after D = A * B;
#include "utlMatrix.h"
int main()
{
// create the first matrices
utlMatrix A(3,3);
utlMatrix B(3,3);
utlMatrix C(3,2);
// fill them with random numbers
A.fill_rand();
B.fill_rand();
C.fill_rand();
utlMatrix D = A * B;
utlMatrix E = A * C;
utlMatrix F = B * C;
}
The error appeared to only show itself after the second or third call because that was when the matrices produced non-square output. These lines:
for (int i = 0; i < num_cols; i++)
data[i] = new float[num_cols];
in the copy constructor meant the non-square matrix was actually being built as a square matrix of size columns of the old one. Since my case was a matrix with more rows than columns it tried to put data into a non-existing memory location. Following the suggestions of Igor Tandetnik and Dave S, fixing the indexes and using SWAP fixed the problem.
I have a little bit of a problem... I understand what a EXC_BAD_ACCESS error is and I generally know how to fix it but this one has got me completely stuffed. I have this all within a class, here is one method:
double Matrix::get_element(int r, int c) const {
//Retrieve the element at row r and column c
//Should not modify the value stored in Matrix but return a double copy of the value
double currentValue = matrix[r][c];
return currentValue;
}
Now, I have another piece of my code that calls this method:
std::string Matrix::to_string() const {
std::string result;
double current;
Matrix working = *this;
std::ostringstream oss;
oss << "[";
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
current = 0.0;
current = working.get_element(i, j);
oss << " " << current << " ";
}
oss << "; ";
}
oss << "]";
result = oss.str();
return result;
}
I know that the working object has 3 rows and 3 cols at the point where working.get_element(i, j); is called. The variable list shows me just before the get_element() method, that both rows and cols are set to 3. In the method, I'm able to get the value at get_element(0, 0) but not get_element(0, 1).
I can't see why this is the case... Anyone know why or require more of my code to understand why these methods are being called?
EDIT:
Here is the header file:
class Matrix {
private:
//Any variables required
int rows;
int cols;
double **matrix;
public:
Matrix(); //Working M
~Matrix(); //Working M
Matrix(int r, int c); //Working M
int getRows();
int getCols();
void set_element(int r, int c, double val); //Working M
double get_element(int r, int c) const; //Working M
void clear(); //Working M
bool is_empty(); //Working M
bool is_identity(); //Working M
const Matrix transpose(); //Working M
int minorMat(double **dest, const int row, const int col, int order); //Working M
double get_determinent(); //Working M
double higherDeterminents(int order); //Working M
const Matrix operator+(const Matrix &rhs); //Working M
const Matrix operator-(const Matrix &rhs); //Working M
const Matrix operator*(const Matrix &rhs);
bool operator==(const Matrix &rhs); //NOT assessed
const Matrix operator*(const double &rhs);
const Matrix operator/(const double &rhs);
Matrix & operator=(const Matrix &rhs);
std::string to_string() const;
};
Do ignore the comments sorry. And this is the constructors/destructors:
Matrix::Matrix() {
//Basic Constructor
rows = 1;
cols = 1;
matrix = new double*[rows];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i) {
matrix[i] = new double[cols];
}
}
Matrix::~Matrix() {
//Basic Deconstructor
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i) {
delete[] matrix[i];
}
delete[] matrix;
rows = NULL;
cols = NULL;
matrix = NULL;
}
Matrix::Matrix(int r, int c) {
//Empty matrix (all 0's) with r rows and c columns, if they are -ve, set to 1
rows = r;
cols = c;
if (cols < 0)
cols = 1;
if (rows < 0)
rows = 1;
matrix = NULL;
matrix = new double*[rows];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
matrix[i] = new double[cols];
}
}
EDIT2:
Matrix & Matrix::operator=(const Matrix &rhs) {
//rhs is matrix to be copied
//rhs compied into Matrix called on
double toCopy;
for (int i = 0; i < rhs.rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < rhs.cols; j++) {
toCopy = rhs.get_element(i, j);
this->set_element(i, j, toCopy);
}
}
return *this;
}
It is impossible for us to say when you do not state how you declare and initialize the matrix element. Using something like that in your CTOR should be fine:
class Matrix {
float matrix[3][3];
...
}
Don't forget to initialize it in your CTOR to something that makes sense.
Btw: why do you do this: Matrix working = *this; ?? You could simply this->get_element(i, j); instead, which would not invoke copying of your whole object. [1]
EDIT: Update since you updated your answer. You should be careful with your copy CTORs and operator=() statements. It is easily possible to make double deletes or something ugly like that.
EDIT2: I think the problem is this line:
Matrix working = *this;
You are creating a new copy working of your this object. But working gets initialized with only 1 column and 1 row (as defined in your standard CTOR). I'm not sure if you are checking the bounds when calling set_element or get_element so I guess you are writing over the bounds of your arrays.
I think the best idea is to just remove the line Matrix working = *this; and to adhere to my tip in above:
this->get_element(i, j); in std::string Matrix::to_string() const.
Your Matrix(int r, int c) allocates memory for matrix, but leaves the values it points to uninitialized. Add something like this to the constructor:
for (int i = 0; i < r; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < c; j++) {
this->set_element(i, j, 0);
}
}
Doing like this:
int main()
{
Matrix m(3,3);
std::cout << m.to_string();
}
Output:
[ 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; ].
Same thing in the default constructor:
Matrix::Matrix() {
//Basic Constructor
rows = 1;
cols = 1;
matrix = new double*[rows];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i) {
matrix[i] = new double[cols];
}
}
You allocated memory, but wherever matrix[0][0] points to, it's uninitialized garbage value. Do something like matrix[0][0] = 0; or whatever default value you want it to have.
Hope that helps.
Your class is violating the "big three" rule. If a class has one of a destructor, assignment operator or copy constructor then it most probably you need to have all three.
In your case you have a destructor, but no assignment operator or copy constructor, and this is going to create an UB condition when you do Matrix working = *this.
By the way there are two other problems with your code
From the comment seems that you think that new double[size] will initialize the elements to 0 and this is not true.
Most of your code is technically very bad. Your matrix class would be much easier (less code) to implement correctly using std::vector instead of pointers and dynamic memory. Of course if this is just an exercise then it make sense to avoid using std::vector.
By the way if you never heard about the "big three" rule chances are that you're trying to learn C++ with experimentation instead that by reading.
With C++ this is not a smart move... logic can be used as substitute for study if 1) the topic is highly logical, 2) if you can be told when you get it wrong.
Instead C++ is very very complex and in a few place is also quite illogical (for historical reasons) so there are parts in which logic will simply misguide you.
Moreover when you make a mistake in C++ you don't get in general an error message, but "Undefined Behavior". This basically makes very very hard to learn C++ with experimentation because even wrong code may apparently work. It is also very easy to write code that looks good and that is instead quite wrong for subtle reasons.
Instead of just experimenting you should grab a good book and read it cover to cover...