c++ correct deletion of structs and pointers - c++

I have a question regarding how to correctly delete structs and it's respective pointers declared inside.
I have extracted an example from a project i have running and it doesn't seem to work correctly, the code doesn't crash but it seems i have some "memory leaks". I'm not sure that is the right wording. The issue is that the values is not really reset and are kept in the memory next time i initiate a class.
Sudocode below:
Header:
ProgramHeader.h
class ClassA : public publicClassA
{
public:
ClassA(void);
virtual ~ClassA();
private:
struct ApStruct{
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} fR;
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} f1kHz;
};
ApStruct* GetApStruct;
}
Program:
Program.cpp
#include "ProgramHeader.h"
ClassA::~ClassA()
{
//EDIT i did a typo my looks like this:
//delete ApStruct; //Wrong code
delete GetApStruct; //Corrected - however still not working
}
main()
{
GetApStruct = new ApStruct();
//Do Code
}
Hope it all makes a bit sense,
EDIT:
I have updated one wrong line in the code - however the question still remains the same. I will have a look at below to understand before i implement a solution.
EDIT 24/10/2015
I have been trying out a few of the suggestions below and im not able to find a solution to my issue, i must admit i also have difficulties to narrow it down what could cause it.
My code is part of a DLL. The code wraps some source code im not in control of, and therefore i have limited options how i init using constructors and new on pointers.
The reason i still think i have memory leak issues is if i add a "magic float" in my code the output of my functions change, even the float is not used anywhere - it is just declared.
I get different results when:
Calling InitCode - once!
then i will call CallCode multiple time - doing my calculations
Destruct the instance of the class
When i repeat the above again i get different result from the first time i run the code but afterwards it stays the same.
If i include the magic line all seems to work???
Updated SudoCode:
Program.cpp
#include "ProgramHeader.h"
ClassA::~ClassA()
{
//EDIT i did a typo my looks like this:
//delete ApStruct; //Wrong code
delete GetApStruct; //Corrected - however still not working
}
main()
{
void initCode()
{
GetApStruct = new ApStruct();
float InitValue = 0.F
//Magic line:
float magicLine = 123456.f; //If this line is commented out i get different results in my code
//End Magic Line
fr.refA[0] = &InitValue;
fr.refA[0] = &InitValue;
fr.refA[0] = &InitValue;
fr.pVarA = &InitValue;
...
}
void CallCode()
{
float CallValue = 123.F
//Magic line:
float magicLine = 123456.f; //If this line is commented out i get different results in my code
//End Magic Line
fr.refA[0] = &CallValue;
fr.refA[0] = &CallValue;
fr.refA[0] = &CallValue;
fr.pVarA = &CallValue;
...
}
}
Thanks guys for you support,
Thomas

I would recommend something like the following for allocation and cleanup...
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class ClassA
{
public:
ClassA(void);
virtual ~ClassA();
private:
struct ApStruct {
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} fR;
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} f1kHz;
};
ApStruct* GetApStruct;
};
ClassA::ClassA(void) {
GetApStruct = new ApStruct{};
GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] = new float{ 1.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] = new float{ 2.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refB[0] = new float{ 3.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refB[1] = new float{ 4.f };
GetApStruct->fR.pVarA = new float { 0.f };
// do same for struct f1kHz
// ...
cout << "Construction" << endl;
}
ClassA::~ClassA()
{
if (GetApStruct != nullptr) {
if (GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refA[0];
GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refA[1];
GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.refB[0] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refB[0];
GetApStruct->fR.refB[0] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.refB[1] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refB[1];
GetApStruct->fR.refB[1] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.pVarA != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.pVarA;
GetApStruct->fR.pVarA = nullptr;
}
// do same for struct f1kHz
// ...
// finally
delete GetApStruct;
GetApStruct = nullptr;
}
cout << "Destruction" << endl;
}
int main() {
{
ClassA a;
}
system("pause");
return 0;
}

Well when you create a structure/class object, it holds the variables and pointers in that object memory area( say an object occupies some space in memory. Let's call it a box). Those pointer variables when initialized with new() or malloc(), are given space outside of that box in which the object's data resides. Those pointers now point to some memory area that is outside of that object's memory area. Now when the object is destructed, that space occupied by object (as we called it the box) is destroyed accompanying the pointer variables. The memory area pointed by the pointers is still in there in program/process memory area. Now we have no clue what's it address or where it lies. That's called memory leak. To avoid this situation, we need to de-allocate the memory referenced by pointers using delete keyword. We're free to go now. I tried to illustrate it with a simple graphic below. ObjectA box illustrates the area occupied by it in the memory. Note that this container/box holds the local varialbes including pointer. The pointer points to some memory location, say 0xFFF... and is illustrated by green line. When we destroy ObjectA, It simply destroys everything in it including 0xFFF address. But the memory located on 0xFFF is still allocated in the memory. A memory leak.
In your destructor, de-allocate memory explicitly using delete keyword. Whoa! We saved the memory.

From Wikipedia Resource Acquisition Is Initialization
Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) is a programming idiom used prominently in C++. In RAII, resource acquisition is done during object creation, by the constructor, while resource release is done during object destruction, by the destructor. If objects are destroyed properly, resource leaks do not occur.
So you can new the memory used for pointers in constructor and release them in destructor:
ClassA::ClassA(void) {
GetApStruct = new ApStruct;
GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] = new float{ 1.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] = new float{ 2.f };
}
ClassA::~ClassA(void) {
delete []GetApStruct->fR.refA;
delete GetApStruct;
}

Alright, let me be direct:
If you are using new or delete, you are doing it wrong.
Unless you are an experienced user, or you wish to implement a low-level side project, do not ever use new and delete.
Instead, use the existing standard classes to handle memory ownership, and just avoid heap-allocation when it is unnecessary. As a bonus, not only will you avoid memory leaks, but you will also avoid dangling references (ie, using memory after deleting it).
class ClassA : public publicClassA {
public:
private:
struct ApStruct{
struct
{
float refA[2];
float refB[2];
float pVarA;
} fR;
struct
{
float refA[2];
float refB[2];
float pVarA;
} f1kHz;
};
ApStruct GetApStruct;
}
And yes, in your case it is as simple as removing the pointers. Otherwise, if you want dynamic arrays (ie, arrays whose length is unknown at compile-time) use std::vector.

Related

avoid memory leaks caused by new(new[])

I am working on an open-source library that has a memory leak in it. The library is a data streaming service built around boost::asio. The server side uses heap memory management system which provides memory to hold a finite number of samples while they wait to get pushed accross a tcp connection. When the server is first constructed, a heap of memory for all the old samples is allocated. From this heap, after a sample is passed accross the socket, the memory is returned to the heap.
This is fine, unless all that pre-allocated heap is already taken. Here is the function that creates a 'sample':
sample_p new_sample(double timestamp, bool pushthrough) {
sample *result = pop_freelist();
if (!result){
result = new(new char[sample_size_]) sample(fmt_, num_chans_, this);
}
return sample_p(result);
}
sample_p is just a typedef'd smart pointer templated to the sample class.
The offending line is in the middle. When there isn't a chunk of memory on the freelist, we need to make some. This leaks memory.
My question is why is this happening? Since I shove the new sample into a smart pointer, shouldn't the memory be freed when it goes out of scope (it gets popped off of a stack later on.)? Do I need to somehow handle the memory allocated on the inside---i.e. the memory allocated by new char[sample_size_]? If yes, how can I do that?
Edit:
#RichardHodges here is a compile-able MCVE. This is highly simplified but I think it captures exactly the problem I am facing in the original code.
#include <boost/intrusive_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/lockfree/spsc_queue.hpp>
#include <iostream>
typedef boost::intrusive_ptr<class sample> sample_p;
typedef boost::lockfree::spsc_queue<sample_p> buffer;
class sample {
public:
double data;
class factory{
public:
friend class sample;
sample_p new_sample(int size, double data) {
sample* result = new(new char[size]) sample(data);
return sample_p(result);
}
};
sample(double d) {
data = d;
}
void operator delete(void *x) {
delete[](char*)x;
}
/// Increment ref count.
friend void intrusive_ptr_add_ref(sample *s) {
}
/// Decrement ref count and reclaim if unreferenced.
friend void intrusive_ptr_release(sample *s) {
}
};
void push_sample(buffer &buff, const sample_p &samp) {
while (!buff.push(samp)) {
sample_p dummy;
buff.pop(dummy);
}
}
int main(void){
buffer buff(1);
sample::factory factory_;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
push_sample(buff, factory_.new_sample(100,0.0));
std::cout << "press any key to exit" << std::endl;
char foo;
std::cin >> foo;
return 0;
}
When I step through the code, I note that my delete operator never gets called on the sample pointers. I guess that the library I'm working on (which again, I didn't write, so I am still learning its ways) is mis-using the intrusive_ptr type.
You are allocating the memory with new[] so you need to deallocate it with delete[] (on a char*). The smart pointer probably calls delete by default, so you should provide a custom deleter that calls delete[] (after manually invoking the destructor of the sample). Here is an example using std::shared_ptr.
auto s = std::shared_ptr<sample>(
new (new char[sizeof(sample)]) sample,
[](sample* p) {
p->~sample();
delete[] reinterpret_cast<char*>(p);
}
);
However, why you are using placement new when your buffer only contains one object? Why not just use regular new instead?
auto s = std::shared_ptr<sample>(new sample);
Or even better (with std::shared_ptr), use a factory function.
auto s = std::make_shared<sample>();

Dynamically allocated object producer

Look at this class:
//HPP
class A {
public:
A();
~A();
B *fetchNew();
private:
B *currentValue;
}
//CPP
A::A() {}
A::~A {
delete currentValue;
}
B *A::fetchNew() {
delete currentValue;
currentValue = new B();
//apply magic to currentValue
return currentValue;
}
This class holds a pointer to instance of class B. Every time fetchNew() is called, the old one gets deleted, a new one is allocated and magic is applied to it, after what new and shiny currentValue is returned.
This method is called very frequently (in real life, it's a method that returns a view matrix in a game's main loop, so it's called once every frame, about 60 times a second).
Once the A object gets deleted, it deletes the current currentValue, which would otherwise leak.
Is there a prettier way to achieve this?
EDIT:
Here's the actual code, since it has a twist (just the fetchNow() method):
glm::mat4x4 *Camera::getViewMatrix() {
//transformation <<-apply shiny and fancy magic;
delete viewMatrix;
viewMatrix = new glm::mat4x4();
*viewMatrix *= glm::mat4_cast(transformation->getRotation());
*viewMatrix = glm::translate(*viewMatrix, transformation->getPosition());
return viewMatrix;
}
Is there a prettier way to achieve this?
I would recommend rather to use a std::unique_ptr<B> than a raw pointer B*:
//HPP
#include <memory>
class A {
public:
A();
~A();
std::unique_pty<B> fetchNew();
private:
// You don't need that: B *currentValue;
}
//CPP
A::A() {}
A::~A {
// You don't need that: delete currentValue;
}
std::unique_ptr<B> A::fetchNew() {
// You don't need that: delete currentValue;
std::unique_ptr<B> newValue = std::make_unique<B>();
// apply magic to newValue and dereference using * or -> as with any raw pointer
return newValue;
}
This approach has several advantages:
You don't have to care about deletion or memory leaks in A
The transfer of ownership for the result of fetchNew() is semantically clear
It's a more clear API, the client will know they get ownership of the pointer and do not have to riddle if they need to delete that instance or not
You give the client the flexibility to determine the lifetime scope of the B instance themselves.
As for your edited addition it should look like:
std::unique_ptr<glm::mat4x4> Camera::getViewMatrix() {
//transformation <<-apply shiny and fancy magic;
std::unique_ptr<glm::mat4x4> viewMatrix = std::make_unique<glm::mat4x4>();
*viewMatrix *= glm::mat4_cast(transformation->getRotation());
*viewMatrix = glm::translate(*viewMatrix, transformation->getPosition());
return viewMatrix;
}

How to delete an object without having access to it?

I know that whenever I create a new object for a class, that object is stored in memory. I also know that in creating that object, it can only be accessed within the set of braces it is created in (Scope visibility). I need to find a way to delete that object outside of the braces it is created in. I have looked at smart pointers briefly, and it might be what I want to use? I'm assuming it is, I just don't know for sure. If a smart pointer can satisfy my needs, would someone please provide me with an example of how to use a smart pointer to access an object outside of where it has been created? Thanks :)
EDIT:
Example of what I'm trying to do:
class ModernWarfare2
{
//my class
ModernWarfare2();
};
DWORD XamHook(DWORD r3, DWORD r4, DWORD r5)
{
switch(XamGetCurrentTitleId())//a function that tells what game is being played
{
case Xbox360Dashboard://if i were to exit the game mw2
{
if(CODAllocated)//a boolean
{
//free the memory of the previous cod game
if(MW2Allocated)//another boolean
{
delete[] MW2;//gives me an error because i dont have access to MW2
}
}
break;
}
case COD_MW2:
{
if(!CODAllocated)
{
if(!MW2Allocated)
{
ModernWarfare2 *MW2 = new ModernWarfare2();
}
}
break;
}
}
return XamInputGetState(r3,r4,r5);
}
How do I fix my issue?
I also know that in creating that object, the object can only be accessed within the set of braces it is created in.
Not necessarily; that's only true when you construct objects with automatic storage duration, like this:
void foo()
{
T obj;
}
Such objects, yes, go out of scope.
Objects you allocate dynamically do not:
void foo()
{
T* obj = new T();
}
This is a memory leak because you never destroy *obj; however, you can access it from pretty much wherever you like:
T* foo()
{
return new T();
}
void bar()
{
T* obj = foo();
// yay!
}
or:
T* obj = nullptr;
void foo()
{
obj = new T();
}
void bar()
{
// do stuff with *obj
}
void baz()
{
foo();
bar();
}
This all gets dangerous and messy because you end up with spaghetti code in which the lifetime of the dynamically-allocated object is unclear, and in the examples above I still haven't approached the topic of eventually destroying the object. You have to be really careful not to destroy it whilst you're still using it.
This is where smart pointers come in, but if you want a tutorial on using smart pointers I'm going to have to refer you back to your C++11 book.
"I also know that in creating that object, the object can only be accessed within the set of braces it is created in." - This depends on how you create the object.
Example 1 (can't be accessed outside braces):
void func(void)
{
Object obj("foo", "bar");
}
Example 2 (can be accessed outside braces):
Object* func(void)
{
Object* obj = new Object("foo", "bar");
return obj;
}
Example 2 can be deleted using the keyword delete.
Take a look here for more information on pointers.
I haven't personally found a use for smart pointers but MSDN has good information on the topic here
By creating MW2 with
{
ModernWarfare2 *MW2 = new ModernWarfare2();
}
I was not able to reference MW2 elsewhere. By doing this, I can create it and delete it in two different spots:
class ModernWarfare2
{
//my class
ModernWarfare2();
};
ModernWarfare2 *MW2 = NULL;
DWORD XamHook(DWORD r3, DWORD r4, DWORD r5)
{
switch(XamGetCurrentTitleId())//a function that tells what game is being played
{
case Xbox360Dashboard://if i were to exit the game mw2
{
if(CODAllocated)//a boolean
{
//free the memory of the previous cod game
if(MW2Allocated)//another boolean
{
delete MW2;//gives me an error because i dont have access to MW2
}
}
break;
}
case COD_MW2:
{
if(!CODAllocated)
{
if(!MW2Allocated)
{
if(MW2 == NULL)
{
MW2 = new ModernWarfare2();
}
}
}
break;
}
}
return XamInputGetState(r3,r4,r5);
}
I think what you need is basic design pattern
Make the data and the functions members of a class
class SomeHandler
{
public:
void Acquire( /* some source */ );
void DoSomething( /* eventual parameters */ );
bool TrySomething(); // returns true if successful
private:
void internalFunction();
bool inGoodState;
SomeType dataINeed;
SomeOtherType otherData;
};
void SomeHandler::Acquire( /**/ )
{
// implement like this
}
now the functions can access the all the data
the use it like
int main()
{
SomeHandler h;
h.Acquire();
if( h.TrySomething() )
{
h.DoSomething();
}
}
Based on your code snippet, You have to save your pointer MW2 for
future so that you can delete the pointer.
I would suggest you to change
if(!MW2Allocated)
to
if(!MW2)
so that you don't have to create another variable for saving the reference to your allocated memory
Offcourse you have to move
ModernWarfare2 *MW2
to a larger scope (move it to the scope same as MW2Allocated) and initialize it to NULL.
Use "nullptr" instead of "NULL" if you are using C++11 supported compiler.
Also makesure you use
delete
instead of
delete[]
since this is not an array allocation
I don't think you can use smart pointers to skip saving your reference to the allocated memory,
since they are meant to make the memory deletion automatic or to make sure two deletion doesn't occur
for the same memory.
Refer to
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/541067/Cplusplus-Smart-Pointers
for a good explanation about smart pointers

Memory of a variable or object automatically terminated of finish at the end of program than why we use destructor?

In the following program we are creating Circle object in local scope because we are not using new keyword. We know that memory of a variable or object automatically terminated of finish at the end of program than why we use destruct?
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class Circle //specify a class
{
private :
double radius; //class data members
public:
Circle() //default constructor
{
radius = 0;
}
void setRadius(double r) //function to set data
{
radius = r;
}
double getArea()
{
return 3.14 * radius * radius;
}
~Circle() //destructor
{}
};
int main()
{
Circle c; //defalut constructor invoked
cout << c.getArea()<<endl;
return 0;
}
Assuming memory as an infinite resource is VERY dangerous. Think about a real-time application which needs to run 24x7 and listen to a data feed at a high rate (let' say 1,000 messages per second). Each message is around 1KB and each time it allocates a new memory block (in heap obviously) for each message. Altogether, we need around 82 GB per day. If you don't manage your memory, now you can see what will happen. I'm not talking about sophisticated memory pool techniques or alike. With a simple arithmetic calculation, we can see we can't store all messages in memory. This is another example that you have think about memory management (from both allocation and deallocation perspectives).
Well, first of all, you don’t need to explicitly define a destructor. One will automatically be defined by the compiler. As a side note if you do, by the rule of the 3, or the 5 in c++11 if you declare any of the following: copy constructor, copy assignment, move constructor (c++11), move assignment (c++11) or destructor you should explicitly define all of them.
Moving on. Oversimplified, the RAII principle states that every resource allocated must be deallocated. Furthermore, over every resource allocated must exist one and only one owner, an object responsible for dealocating the resource. That’s resource management. Resource here can mean anything that has to initialized before use and released after use, e.g. dynamically allocated memory, system handler (file handlers, thread handlers), sockets etc. The way that is achieved is through constructors and destructors. If your object is responsible of destroying a resource, then the resource should be destroyed when your object dies. Here comes in play the destructor.
Your example is not that great since your variable lives in main, so it will live for the entirely of the program.
Consider a local variable inside a function:
int f()
{
Circle c;
// whatever
return 0;
}
Every time you call the function f, a new Circle object is created and it’s destroyed when the function returns.
Now as an exercise consider what is wrong with the following program:
std::vector foo() {
int *v = new int[100];
std::vector<int> result(100);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
v[i] = i * 100 + 5;
}
//
// .. some code
//
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
result.at(i) = v[i];
}
bar(result);
delete v;
return result;
}
Now this is a pretty useless program. However consider it from the perspective of correctness. You allocate an array of 100 ints at the beginning of the function and then you deallocate them at the end of the function. So you might think that that is ok and no memory leaks occur. You could’t be more wrong. Remember RAII? Who is responsible for that resource? the function foo? If so it does a very bad job at it. Look at it again:
std::vector foo() {
int *v = new int[100];
std::vector<int> result(100); <-- might throw
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
v[i] = i * 100 + 5;
}
//
// .. some code <-- might throw in many places
//
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
result.at(i) = v[i]; <-- might (theoretically at least) throw
}
bar(result); <-- might throw
delete v;
return result;
}
If at any point the function throws, the delete v will not be reached and the resource will never be deleted. So you must have a clear resource owner responsible with the destruction of that resource. What do you know the constructors and destructors will help us:
class Responsible() { // looks familiar? take a look at unique_ptr
private:
int * p_ = nullptr;
public:
Responsible(std::size_t size) {
p_ = new int[size];
}
~Responsible() {
delete p_;
}
// access methods (getters and setter)
};
So the program becomes:
std::vector foo() {
Responsible v(100);
//
// .. some code
//
return result;
}
Now even if the function will throw the resource will be properly managed because when an exception occurs the stack is unwinded, that is all the local variables are destroyed well... lucky us, the destructor of Responsible will be invoked.
Well, sometimes your object can have pointers or something that needs to be deallocated or such.
For example if you have a poiner in you Circle class, you need to deallocate that to avoid memory leak.
Atleast this is how i know.

Appropriate destruction of certain class members

I have a class with several pointer members that can be reallocated. When I use the LoadOBJ() function, I'm supposed to replace the already held data but I'm having trouble with garbage collection. Below is some code.
class Object3d{
public:
int nVertex;
int nFace;
int nVertexNormal;
Vector3d *vertex;
Vector3d *vertexNormal;
Face3d *face;
void LoadOBJ(char*);
Object3d():nVertex(0), nFace(0), vertex(NULL), face(NULL){}
Object3d(char*);
~Object3d(){}
};
Face3d:
struct Face3d{
int nFaceV;
int *iVertex;
int *iVertexNormal;
Face3d():nFaceV(0){}
};
Everytime I load a new object with the LoadOBJ() function, I want to delete the previously allocated memory, rather than just use new and leak previously allocated memory.
I'm not sure how to do this. This is what I thought of for now:
void *vGarbage, *vGarbage2,
*fGarbage,
*iGarbage, *iGarbage2;
//nFace is the previous number of faces; in the case of a new object, it's 0
for(int i=0; i<nFace; i++)
{
iGarbage=face[i].iVertex;
iGarbage2=face[i].iVertexNormal;
delete[] iGarbage;
delete[] iGarbage2;
}
vGarbage=vertex;
fGarbage=face;
vGarbage2=vertexNormal;
delete[] vGarbage;
delete[] vGarbage2;
delete[] fGarbage;
The above code runs everytime I use LoadOBJ(), but there still is memory leak. I'm also wondering if this is the right way to do it?
To clarify where the problem/question is: why do I still have memory leak? And, is there better/cleaner way to delete the previously allocated memory?
Check out C++11's smart_pointers, they provide the ability of allocating memory which, when the object goes out of scope, will be freed automatically.
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
struct Foo {
Foo() { std::cout << "Foo...\n"; }
~Foo() { std::cout << "~Foo...\n"; }
};
struct D {
void operator()(Foo* p) const {
std::cout << "Call delete for Foo object...\n";
delete p;
}
};
int main()
{
{
std::cout << "constructor with no managed object\n";
std::shared_ptr<Foo> sh1;
}
{
std::cout << "constructor with object\n";
std::shared_ptr<Foo> sh2(new Foo);
std::shared_ptr<Foo> sh3(sh2);
std::cout << sh2.use_count() << '\n';
std::cout << sh3.use_count() << '\n';
}
{
std::cout << "constructor with object and deleter\n";
std::shared_ptr<Foo> sh4(new Foo, D());
}
}
Output:
constructor with no managed object constructor with object Foo... 2 2
~Foo... constructor with object and deleter Foo... Call delete for Foo
object... ~Foo...
(http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/shared_ptr)
Remember that for each new a delete should be called when freeing memory. Local pointers can be dangerous if they get destroyed and you didn't free memory before that point.
The RAII paradigm in object-oriented C++ has been designed specifically to make resource management (and also memory management) easy.
If disaster has already been done, you can clean your code up with something like http://deleaker.com/ or equivalent memory leak-seeker software.
Also: if you can't use C++11 or you can't use a C++11-supporting compiler, take a chance of implementing smart pointers yourself, it shouldn't be too hard and will surely help your memory problems.
I understand you want to free the memory occupied by Object3d::vertex, Object3d::vertexNormal and Object3d::face before reasigning these members. First, you should provide a custom destructor for your Face3d so that you no longer need to care for it's members in the containing class. That is:
face3d::~face3d() {
if (iVertex) delete[] iVertex;
if (iVertexNormal) delete[] iVertexNormal;
}
In your Object3d class, you can use a dedicated clean-up function:
void Object3d::cleanup() {
if (face) delete[] face;
face = nullptr;
if (vertex) delete[] vertex;
vertex = nullptr;
if (vertexNormal) delete[] vertexNormal;
vertexNormal = nullptr;
nVertex = 0;
nFace = 0;
nVertexNormal = 0;
}
Btw, In the destructor Object3d::~Object3d() you must call that function as well.
This question might answer yours. I think that you have to cast the void pointer to a specific one, like int*, to make it work. But the behaviour is highly dependent of the compiler you use.
edit: the advice of using smart pointers is probably the easiest and safest way of solving your problem.
Use std::vector instead of manually managed arrays:
struct Face3d{
int nFaceV;
std::vector<int> iVertex;
std::vector<int> iVertexNormal;
Face3d():nFaceV(0){}
};
class Object3d{
public:
std::vector<Vector3d> vertex;
std::vector<Vector3d> vertexNormal;
std::vector<Face3d> face;
void LoadOBJ(char*);
Object3d():nVertex(0), nFace(0), vertex(NULL), face(NULL){}
Object3d(char*);
~Object3d(){}
};
This frees you from the burden to write destructors. As already said above, this is exemplifies the RAII pattern in C++ which should be used instead of manual resource management.
As a general comment, public data members are almost always a bad idea because it breaks encapsulation. Object3d should provide some services to clients and keep its internal private.