Both sections of code below are drastically simplified, isolated versions of my actual code. The examples are just big enough to reproduce the problem. The first section of code below works fine. The section section is an attempt to begin to make it part of a class. I'm trying to take tiny steps since small modifications to something like the struct shown below require lots of changes throughout the code which is full of pointers, pointer to pointers and references which all involve this struct. Can you tell me why the second section of code throws a stack overflow within it's constructor and what small changes can be made to fix it?
Working code:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
const int maxSize = 3;
struct Item{
int count;
Item *items[maxSize + 1];
};
void foo()
{
Item *p;
p = new Item();
p->count = 2;
cout << p->count << endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
foo();
return 0;
}
Attempt to very gradually modify the code as a whole toward becoming a class:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
int maxSize = 3;
struct Item{
int count;
Item *items;
Item()
{
items = new Item[maxSize + 1]; // stack overflow
}
};
void Initialize(int size)
{
maxSize = size;
}
void foo()
{
Item *p;
p = new Item();
p->count = 2;
cout << p->count << endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Initialize(5);
foo();
return 0;
}
The first call to construct a Item calls new Item[maxSize+1], which calls the default constructor, which calls new Item[maxSize+1], which calls the default construct, and so on until you reach stack overflow.
All the answers are right. I want to suggest a solution for you:
Instead of initializing the array within the ctor, you could implement an initialization method like
init(int maxSize) {
items = new Item[maxSize + 1];
}
that you can call after having constructed the object. This should avoid the stack overflow. In general, you should avoid to place instances of an object inside the object itself. Its better to use Collections of the Item
List<Item>, std::vector<Item>, ...
It is because in working version you have reference to an array of object, but not actual object of Items. In second version, you are creating objects by using keyword new. So, in second version in constructor it will call itself! It will call it's own constructor infinite times. Hence, you see runtime exception stackoverflow :)
Above posters are right. Within the constructor of Item you create items (by creating an array). So the ctor is again called, which creates more items, which .... This is more or less an infinite loop which eats up your stack.
Either stick with the references or use a collection like List - so you can add the items later on dynamically.
Related
I am making an array of 4 std::list. But when I try to access the array's first list's first A object and call the callMe() method on it I get a weird output.
Now 2 things could have happened:
Either the list was empty.
An A object was created when I tried to access the first element of the first list((*(arrayOflistOfA[0].begin()))).
Details of the above cases:
If no A object was created then I should have got an exception. But I didn't get any exception so I am assuming that an A object was created.
So if an A object was indeed created, then the constructor should have been called.
What am I missing?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
public:
A() {
cout<<"Constructor called"<<endl;
x=20;
}
void callMe();
private:
int x;
};
void A::callMe() {
cout<<"Value of x = "<<x<<endl;
}
int main() {
const int size = 4;
list<A>* arrayOflistOfA = new list<A>[size];
(*(arrayOflistOfA[0].begin())).callMe();
}
The output is:
Value of x = 0
but the output should have been:
Constructor called
Value of x = 20
If no A object was created then I should have got an exception.
Not true.
But I didn't get any exception so I am assuming that an A object was created.
Don't assume. Find out. Go to some documentation for begin() and for iterators and discover that you do not get an exception, you get UB.
An A object was created when I tried to access the first element of the first list((*(arrayOflistOfA[0].begin()))). [And] if an A object was indeed created, then the constructor should have been called.
That's right. Clearly you have no elements in the list.
And we know that, because there is no code in your program that adds elements to the list.
Also you should not dynamically allocate containers unless you really, really need to (I've never found a need to).
You aren't actually populating the list with any values. I tested the below code and include a commented explanation.
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
class A {
public:
A();
void callMe();
private:
int x = 0;
};
A::A()
{
cout << "Constructor called" << endl;
x = 20;
}
void A::callMe() {
cout << "Value of x = " << x << endl;
}
int main() {
const int size = 4;
list<A>* arrayOflistOfA = new list<A>[size];
cout << arrayOflistOfA->size() << endl; // As you can see, size is 0 here - you created a list of nulls.
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
arrayOflistOfA->push_back(A());
}
// The below code demonstrates how to loop through the array once it's populated.
list<A>::iterator it;
for (auto& a : *arrayOflistOfA)
{
a.callMe();
}
return 0;
}
I got the answer to my question. Firstly I tried to run this code on my mac with GNU C++ compiler but when I ran the same code on an iPhone simulator it crashed. So as #PaulMcKenzie mentioned, I was indeed trying to dereference an invalid iterator.
I've searched endlessly on SE for a logical explanation for why this is happening. It is probably something very simple that I've overlooked, however I cannot spot it and would really appreciate some assistance with this.
Last week I implemented a class to read the output of a system call from a .ini file and then find and store the required information into custom objects that are then stored in a vector inside a Config class. It is a Singleton config class storing a unique_ptr for each instance of my custom class that is created.
The thing is, when I implemented this last week on my laptop, I had zero issues reading and writing to my member vector and was able to get it working exactly how I needed it. Since pulling to my desktop computer, this vector, and any STL container that I use as a member of my class, throws a segmentation fault when I try to do anything on it, even get it's size.
I've tried to shorten the code below to only include sections that actually use this vector. I have replaced my config with A, and custom class with T, and no matter where I try to use my member container, or any other test STL containers that I add to the class, I get a segfault.
For the record, I am using Qt with C++11.
Update: This example breaks on line 50 of c.cpp when debugging, and anywhere that tries to call the vector.
Debug points to this line in stl_vector.h
// [23.2.4.2] capacity
/** Returns the number of elements in the %vector. */
size_type
size() const _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
/*-> this line */ { return size_type(this->_M_impl._M_finish - this->_M_impl._M_start); }
main.cpp
#include "c.h"
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
C *c = C::getInstance();
delete c;
return 0;
}
t.h - Class stores information from file
#include <string>
class T
{
public:
T();
bool Active();
std::string getA();
void setA(std::string);
private:
std::string a;
};
t.cpp
#include "t.h"
T::T()
{
}
bool T::Active()
{
if(a == "")
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
std::string T::getA()
{
return this->a;
}
void T::setA(std::string newa)
{
this->a = newa;
}
c.h - Class stores T objects and parses file for information
#include "t.h"
#include <QDebug>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <sstream>
#include <fstream>
class C
{
public:
static C* getInstance();
private:
C();
static C* instance;
static bool init;
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<T>> t_list;
void readLines(const std::string&);
};
c.cpp
#include "c.h"
bool C::init = false;
C* C::instance = nullptr;
C::C()
{
system("echo this is a test command > a.ini");
instance->readLines("a.ini");
}
C* C::getInstance()
{
if(!init)
{
instance = new C;
init = true;
}
return instance;
}
void C::readLines(const std::string &path)
{
T* new_t;
std::ifstream file(path.c_str());
if(!file.is_open())
{
qDebug() << "Unable to open " << path.c_str();
}
std::ofstream o("test.txt");
std::string line;
while(std::getline(file, line))
{
// Split string before searching
std::stringstream ss(line);
std::string seg;
std::vector<std::string> split;
std::string left, right;
// Search patterns
size_t find_a = line.find("a");
size_t del = line.find(':');
if(find_a != std::string::npos)
{
o << "test_Size: " << t_list.size() << std::endl;
if(new_t->Active())
{
T* temp = new_t;
std::unique_ptr<T> move_t(temp);
t_list.push_back(std::move(move_t));
}
o << "test: " << t_list.size() << std::endl;
std::string n;
// Check if previous ahas any null elements
// Split string to find a
n = line.substr(line.find("a "));
n = n.substr(n.find(" ", +2));
new_t->setA(n);
}
else
{
continue;
}
}
// Add last a
T* t = new_t;
std::unique_ptr<T> move_t(t);
//t_list.push_back(std::move(move_t));
o << "a: " << t_list.back().get()->getA() << std::endl;
o << t_list.size() << std::endl;
o.close();
file.close();
}
UPDATE after code change:
I see two things now: One is that new_t in C::readlines is never initialized, so this could break when new_t->Active() is called a bit later in the function. However, I believe that the main problem you're running into is in C::C(), where it says
instance->readLines("a.ini");
At this point in the execution, C::instance is not yet initialized -- you're only just constructing the object that would later be assigned to it. Because of this, this in the readlines call is invalid, and any attempt to access object members will cause UB. This latter problem can be fixed by just calling
readLines("a.ini");
in which case the currently constructed object (that will later be instance) is used for this. I have no idea what you want to happen for the first, though, so all I can say is: If you want to have a vector<unique_ptr<T>>, you will have to create objects of type T with either new T() or (arguably preferrably) std::make_unique<T>() and put them in there.
I'll also say that this is a rather ugly way to implement a singleton in C++. I mean, singletons are never really pretty, but if you're going to do it in C++, the usual way is something like the accepted answer of C++ Singleton design pattern .
Old answer:
The problem (if it is the only one, which I cannot verify because you didn't provide an MCVE) is in the lines
T move_t = new_T;
std::unique_ptr<Adapter> ptr_t(&move_t); // <-- particularly this one
m_ts.push_back(std::move(ptr_t));
You're passing a pointer to a local object into a std::unique_ptr, but the whole purpose of std::unique_ptr is to handle objects allocated with new to avoid memory leaks. Not only will the pointer you pass into it be invalid once the scope surrounding this declaration is left, even if that weren't the case the unique_ptr would attempt to delete an object that's not on the heap at the end of its lifecycle. Both problems cause undefined behavior.
To me, it looks as though you really want to use a std::vector<T> instead of std::vector<std::unique_ptr<T>>, but that's a design issue you'll have to answer yourself.
Answering my own question here. I am trying to call a member variable from within the constructor of the object that holds it, so the vector I am trying to access is not yet instantiated and doesn't exist in memory. That is what causes the Segmentation fault to occur, I am trying to access memory that is not allocated yet, hence any call acting on any member of my C class was causing this issue.
I fixed this problem by adding a public function to the class that then calls the private readLines() function. I call that public function from the object that will take ownership of it, and since this occurs after it has been instantiated, the memory is accessible and the problem disappears.
I am having a problem with assigning new values to a dynamic int array that is a data member variable of the class IntersectionFlowRate(). I can initialize and print the values of the array inside the constructor. However, when I exit the constructor to the another class and then later call a function within the IntersectionFlowRate() class passing in variables to overwrite the initial values of the data member it will segmentation fault. I have debugged to find that overwriting the array is causing the seg fault. And that even attempting to access the dynamic array within one of its functions will seg fault.
My question is how can I edit the values of a dynamic int array member variable from within one of its functions i.e setArrayElement(int index, int x).
Here is some of my code. Sorry if I am unclear or missing something ridiculous. I have been stuck on this for hours.
#ifndef INTERSECTIONFLOWRATE_H
#define INTERSECTIONFLOWRATE_H
class IntersectionFlowRate
{
public:
IntersectionFlowRate();
~IntersectionFlowRate();
void setFlowCycle(int index, int flow);
private:
int* m_flowRateMotorCycle;
};
#endif
in the .h file ^
#include "IntersectionFlowRate.h"
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <new>
using namespace std;
IntersectionFlowRate::IntersectionFlowRate()
{
const int SIZE = 4; //Constant for m_flowRates[] size
//DYNAMIC MEMORY DELETE LATER
m_flowRateMotorCycle = new int[SIZE];
for(int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++){
m_flowRateMotorCycle[i] = 0;
cout << m_flowRateMotorCycle[i] << endl;
cout << "WE GOT HERE" << endl;
}
}
void IntersectionFlowRate::setFlowCycle(int index, int flow){
cout << "INDEX: " << index << endl;
cout << "FLOW: " << flow << endl;
m_flowRateMotorCycle[index] = flow; //seg fault is here
}
I have another class that creates a pointer to a IntersectionFlowRate() object and then calls its setFlowCycle function passing in two VALID ints. With the debugging I was able pass 0 and 3 to the function setFlowCycle(0, 3) just fine and output those variables within the function.
#ifndef TRAFFICSIM_H
#define TRAFFICSIM_H
#include "IntersectionFlowRate.h"
using namespace std;
class TrafficSim
{
public:
TrafficSim(); //Default Constructor
TrafficSim(const char* file); //Constructor
~TrafficSim(); //Destructor
private:
IntersectionFlowRate* m_flowRate;
};
#endif
#include "TrafficSim.h"
#include "IntersectionFlowRate.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <fstream>
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
TrafficSim::TrafficSim()
{
IntersectionFlowRate* m_flowRate = new IntersectionFlowRate();
m_flowRate->setFlowCycle(0, 3);
}
I replicated the error with this code. If no one else can I am completely unsure of what is possibly wrong anymore.
You are setting a local variable called m_flowRate, not the member variable m_flowRate of your TrafficSim class:
Instead of this:
TrafficSim::TrafficSim()
{
IntersectionFlowRate* m_flowRate = new IntersectionFlowRate();
m_flowRate->setFlowCycle(0, 3);
}
It should be this:
TrafficSim::TrafficSim()
{
m_flowRate = new IntersectionFlowRate();
m_flowRate->setFlowCycle(0, 3);
}
But overall, it not need be a pointer. It could be an object member within your class. That would cut down on the pointer usage a bit:
class TrafficSim
{
public:
TrafficSim(); //Default Constructor
TrafficSim(const char* file); //Constructor
private:
IntersectionFlowRate m_flowRate;
};
Then:
TrafficSim::TrafficSim()
{
m_flowRate.setFlowCycle(0, 3);
}
As to your question as to how to incorporate usage of std::vector in your class, here is a code sample of the IntersectionFlowRate class, rewritten using vector:
Vector sample
Also, another source of problems is that your classes fail to follow the Rule of 3 when you have pointers to dynamically allocated memory in your class.
Using std::vector takes care of this automatically, but if you insist on using pointers, you need to adhere to the directions at the link posted.
Yes, use a std::vector, it is much simpler, and it is a template so it also pretty fast and works any type (best for primitive types or pointers to objects) , and it also has boundary checking and other useful things.
If you need fast array-like access then you could use std::map which associates a key with a value, like so
std::map<UINT, YourClass*> m_mapIDs_to_YourClass;
When you first start using stl containers they might seem a little strange, but after a short while you cannot do without them, luckily they have been part of the C++ standard for some time now.
Boundary check for both these containers can be done by comparing your iterator to mapYourMap.end(), if they are equal you have passed the last element and trying to access data through the iterator will cause an exception.
Example for std::vector (if vecInt is a vector< int >):
vector<int>::iterator it = vecInt.begind();
if (it == vecInt.end()) return; // vector is empty
do { // runs through elememts until out of bound, useful for searching
i++
while (it != vecInt.end());
I am learning C++ and I am having quite a lot of trouble with my current assignment. I have completed a good amount of it so far. However I have been making very slow progress of late due to what I think is my poor understanding of what is going on behind the scenes.
What I am trying to do in the following code is:
Get two separate values (Bullet damage). Done.
Create a dynamic array. Done.
Fill a part (that is the size of a modulus of a random number between 1 and 10) of said dynamic array with one value and the rest with the other in a random order. Here I am having trouble.
Clean up the memory used by said dynamic array. Done.
The error I get is as follows:
Unhandled exception at 0x00a323e3 in Class 3.exe: 0xC0000005: Access
violation reading location 0xcdcdcdcd.
I'm pretty sure that the error occurs when I try to set ammoArray[i] to a value. But I don't know why it's giving it to me, my code compiles fine. I played around with it a bit and in one case I got it to store the memory addresses of bDamage and sDamage and then print out the memory addresses of each element of the array. What I want it to do is store the values held by bDamage and sDamage.
Now for my question:
Why won't ammoArray store the values of bDamage and sDamage instead of the memory addresses of the array's elements? And How do I get it to store them?
Here is my Main.cpp:
#include <cstdlib>
#include "Ammunition.h"
#include "AmmunitionManager.h"
#include "Bullet.h"
#include "Game.h"
#include "Pistol.h"
#include "Player.h"
#include "Point.h"
#include "Shell.h"
#include "Shotgun.h"
#include "WeaponManager.h"
#include "Weapons.h"
using namespace std;
void main()
{
Ammunition amVar;
AmmunitionManager *var = new AmmunitionManager();
amVar.setBDamage(6);
amVar.setSDamage(2);
var->FillAmmoArray(amVar.getSDamage(),amVar.getBDamage());
system("PAUSE");
}
Here is the .h file of the class in question:
#ifndef AMMUNITIONMANAGER_H
#define AMMUNITIONMANAGER_H
#include "Point.h"
#include "Ammunition.h"
class AmmunitionManager
{
public:
AmmunitionManager();
AmmunitionManager(int,int);
~AmmunitionManager();
void FillAmmoArray(int,int);
private:
Ammunition Ammo;
int **ammoArray;
};
#endif
Here is the .cpp file of the class in question:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <ctime>
#include "AmmunitionManager.h"
#include "Point.h"
#include "Ammunition.h"
using namespace std;
AmmunitionManager::AmmunitionManager()
{
}
AmmunitionManager::AmmunitionManager(int sDamage,int bDamage)
:Ammo(sDamage,bDamage)
{
cout << "Filling ammo reservoir." << endl;
ammoArray = new int* [10];
}
void AmmunitionManager::FillAmmoArray(int sDamage,int bDamage)
{
srand(time(NULL));
int *holdS = &sDamage;
int *holdB = &bDamage;
if(ammoArray)
{
for(int i = 0;i < 9;i++)
{
int randC = rand() % 2 + 1;
if(randC == 1)
{
cout << "Was: " << ammoArray[i] << endl;//I am getting the error here.
ammoArray[i] = holdS;
cout << "Is: " << ammoArray[i] << endl;
}
if(randC == 2)
{
cout << "Was: " << ammoArray[i] << endl;//I am getting the error here.
ammoArray[i] = holdB;
cout << "Is: " << ammoArray[i] << endl;
}
}
}
}
AmmunitionManager::~AmmunitionManager()
{
*ammoArray = 0;
if(ammoArray)
{
delete [] ammoArray;
}
}
Why won't ammoArray store the values of bDamage and sDamage instead of the memory addresses of the array's elements?
Because you said it should store addresses.
Here is a pointer to a pointer:
int **ammoArray;
and here is an array of pointers:
ammoArray = new int* [10];
And How do I get it to store them?
By doing this instead:
int *ammoArray;
and this:
ammoArray = new int [10];
and adjusting FillAmmoArray accordingly.
The default constructor should look like this:
AmmunitionManager::AmmunitionManager()
: ammoArray(nullptr)
{
}
The destructor should look like this:
AmmunitionManager::~AmmunitionManager()
{
delete [] ammoArray;
}
And you should only call srand once.
It's usually done at the beginning of main.
I'm not getting any errors (VS2013). But the values stored are the addresses of sDamage and bDamage.
Did you properly use AmmunitionManager(int sDamage,int bDamage) as a constructor for creating the AmmunitionManager object? From what I'm seeing, you're not.
Apart from that, may I ask why you're using exotic constructs such as **ammoArray instead of e.g. a simple vector<int>? I'm guessing it's part of your assignment, but I'm asking just to make sure I'm not missing anything.
I called the object like this:
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
AmmunitionManager* tc = new AmmunitionManager(5,10);
tc->FillAmmoArray(10,10);
return 0;
}
The problem is that you initialize AmmunitionManager with the default constructor:
AmmunitionManager *var = new AmmunitionManager();
In you default constructor you do nothing so ammoArray may contain any value.
It is better to initialize all the data to their default values:
AmmunitionManager::AmmunitionManager() : Ammo(), ammoArray(NULL/* or nullptr for C++11 */)
{
}
Now if you call for
var->FillAmmoArray(amVar.getSDamage(),amVar.getBDamage());
It will exit immediately since ammoArray is NULL.
Or probably you want to initialize ammoArray anyway, so the default constructor should have its initialization as well:
AmmunitionManager::AmmunitionManager() : Ammo()
{
ammoArray = new int* [10];
}
Also srand should be called only once, so better to place this code
srand(time(NULL));
in the main() or any other module which is guaranteed to be executed only once.
In the destructor, there is no need to zero *ammoArray=0, it actually puts 0 at the first element of that array (and that's it), you anyway delete it. And imagine that ammoArray is NULL, accessing *ammoArray would cause another segmentation fault.
Also there is no need to check for ammoArray beibg NULL before deleting it. The standard allows to 'delete' NULL pointers. delete will just return without doing nothing.
General note
It is better to use (safer and easier to maintain) std::vector instead of (dynamic) arrays and smart pointers instead of flat ones.
It's a bit tricky answering without building and debugging, but the first thing that strikes me are: Why are you using pointers (*) to int throughout?
Why don't you just have the array as a pointer:
int *ammoArray;
and make the other int-instances (remove the pointers - * and the address-of's (&))?
Regards
I was just messing around with passing pointers to functions to wrap my head around how it works and I came across some behavior that was unexpected. I have the following code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <fstream>
#include <sstream>
#include <cmath>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
struct t
{
string x;
string y;
};
void foo(t*);
int main()
{
t* ts = new t[2];
ts[0].x = "t1.x";
ts[0].y = "t1.y";
ts[1].x = "t2.x";
ts[1].y = "t2.y";
foo(ts);
cout << ts[0].x << endl;
}
void foo(t* s)
{
delete[] s;
s = new t[2];
s[0].x = "FOO.X";
s[1].y = "FOO.Y";
}
The output here, interestingly enough, is "FOO.X". I expected that since inside of foo, s is a copy of the pointer ts that when I delete[] s I effectively delete[] ts as they both point to the same address. Then s = new t[2]; should have no effect on ts. After foo returns, I should no longer have access to s or the array it points to and ts should point to who knows where. Am I missing somehthing?
Note: This is just a test project that I made where I constantly write and erase blocks of code to test different concepts. All the includes and using namespace std is for ease of use, and it is NOT code that I am writing for any sort of practical use, purely educational. Also, I am using MS VS 2013.
Try changing your foo() like this and see the result:
void foo(t* s)
{
delete[] s;
// Additional memory allocation
t* u = new t[2];
s = new t[2];
s[0].x = "FOO.X";
s[1].y = "FOO.Y";
}
By adding another memory allocation, I moved s to another location in the memory, which is not anymore overlapping with ts. Otherwise, s was simply allocated at the same location where ts previously resided.
As pointed out in the comments, you are observing an undefined behavior, which you should by no means rely on. The example above illustrates that pretty well.