I have below code
PositionSummary** psArray_= new PositionSummary*[instSize]
for (int k = 0; k < instSize_; k++)
{
PositionSummary* ps = new PositionSummary();
psArray_[k] = ps;
}
when I try to do a copy as below, it doesn't work out
std::copy(begin(psArray_),end(psArray_),std::back_inserter(psContainer_));
Compiler reports "no matching function for call to ‘begin(PositionSummary*&)", how to get around this?
That doesn't work because psArray_ is not an array at all, it is a pointer. You may know that it points to an array of a specific size, but the compiler has no (general) way of knowing this. If you were to make it an array it would work fine. Try to declare psArray_ like this:
PositionSummary* psArray_ [instSize];
This will work, but presumably not for you because I'm guessing instSize is not a compile time constant. You can fix that by using a vector instead of doing your own memory allocation:
std::vector<PositionSummary*> psArray_;
for (int k = 0; k < instSize; k++)
psArray_.push_back (new PositionSummary());
std::copy(psArray_.begin()),psArray_.end(),std::back_inserter(psContainer_));
For further improvement, you could consider using a smartpointer in the vector (so you don't have to worry about freeing later). And while I have no idea of the greater context of your code, I'm still wondering why the copy is necessary at all - why not just construct your vector directly in the data structure that is ultimately supposed to hold it?
psArray is just a pointer. std::begin and std::end cannot possibly know the length of the array the pointer points to. They work for plain arrays, not for pointers to arrays.
You can do this instead:
std::copy(psArray_, psArray_ + instSize, std::back_inserter(psContainer_));
assuming psContainer_ is a container holding pointers to PositionSummary.
Depending on the details of your application, you may be better off using an std::vector, either of smart pointers or values:
std::vector<some_smart_pointer<PositionSummary>> psArray_;
or
std::vector<PositionSummary> psArray_;
where the second option may be the better one if you don't need referential semantics.
Related
I would like to create a vector of pointers to struct
vector<myStruct*> vec
For elements in the vector, not all of them contain data. Some of them may point to NULL.
So, should I create space by new in each of the element first
for(int i = 0; vec.size() ;i++){
if (thisSpaceIsValid(i))
vec.at(i) = new myStruct;
else
vect.at(i) = NULL;
}
The problem comes:
-If I use new for each element, it would be very slow. How can I speed it up a bit? Is there a way the create all the spaces that I need , that automatically access the pointer of such space to the vector(vec here)?
-If later I use delete to free the memory, would the problem of speed still bother me?
If I use "new" for each element, it would be very slow. How can I speed it up a bit? Is there a way the create all the spaces that I need , that automatically access the pointer of such space to the vector("vec" here)?
You can do that.
Let's say the size of your vector is M and you only need N of those elements to have pointers to objects and other elements are null pointers. You can use:
myStruct* objects = new myStruct[N];
and then, use:
for(int i = 0, j = 0; vec.size(); i++)
{
if (thisSpaceIsValid(i))
{
if ( j == N )
{
// Error. Do something.
}
else
{
vec[i] = objects+j;
++j;
}
}
else
{
vect[i] = NULL;
}
}
You have to now make sure that you are able to keep track of the value of objeccts so you can safely deallocate the memory by using
delete [] objects;
PS
There might be a better and more elegant solution to your problem. It will be worth your while to spend a bit more time thinking over that.
EDIT:
After reading the question again, it seems I misunderstood the question. So here is an edited answer.
If you only need to execute the code during some kind of initialization phase, you can create all the instances of myStruct in an array and then just point to those from the vector as already proposed by R Sahu. Note that the solution requires you to create and delete all instances at the same time.
However, if you execute this code several times and/or don't know exactly how many myStruct instances you will need, you could overwrite new and delete for the struct and handle memory allocation yourself.
See Callling object constructor/destructor with a custom allocator for an example of this. See the answer by Jerry Coffin.
BTW - you don't need vec.at(i) as you are iterating from 0 to size. vec[i] is okay and should perform a better.
OLD ANSWER:
You can do
vector<myStruct*> vec(10000, nullptr);
to generate a vector with for instance 10000 elements all initialized to nullptr
After that you can fill the relevant elements with pointer to the struct.
For delete just
for (auto e : vec) delete e;
cause it is safe to do deleteon a nullptr
If you need a vector of pointers, and would like to avoid calling new, then firstly create a container of structs themselves, then assign pointers to the elements into your vec. Be careful with choosing the container of structs. If you use vector of structs, make sure to reserve all elements in advance, otherwise its elements may move to a different memory location when vector grows. Deque on the other hand guarantees its elements don't move.
Multiple small new and delete calls should be avoided if possible in c++ when performance matters a lot.
The more I think about it, the less I like #RSahu's solution. In particular, I feel memory management in this scenario would be a nightmare. Instead I suggest using a vector of unique_ptr's owning memory allocated via custom alloctor. I believe, sequential allocator would do.
This question already has answers here:
How do I declare a 2d array in C++ using new?
(29 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
How do I define a dynamic multi-dimensional array in C++? For example, two-dimensional array? I tried using a pointer to pointer, but somehow it is failing.
The first thing one should realize that there is no multi-dimensional array support in C++, either as a language feature or standard library. So anything we can do within that is some emulation of it. How can we emulate, say, 2-dimensional array of integers? Here are different options, from the least suitable to the most suitable.
Improper attempt #1. Use pointer to pointer
If an array is emulated with pointer to the type, surely two-dimensional array should be emulated with a pointer to pointer to the type? Something like this?
int** dd_array = new int[x][y];
That's a compiler error right away. There is no new [][] operator, so compiler gladly refuses. Alright, how about that?
int** dd_array = new int*[x];
dd_array[0][0] = 42;
That compiles. When being executed, it crashes with unpleasant messages. Something went wrong, but what? Of course! We did allocate the memory for the first pointer - it now points to a memory block which holds x pointers to int. But we never initialized those pointers! Let's try it again.
int** dd_array = new int*[x];
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < x; ++i)
dd_array[i] = new int[y];
dd_array[0][0] = 42;
That doesn't give any compilation errors, and program doesn't crash when being executed. Mission accomplished? Not so fast. Remember, every time we did call a new, we must call a delete. So, here you go:
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < x; ++i)
delete dd_array[i];
delete dd_array;
Now, that's just terrible. Syntax is ugly, and manual management of all those pointers... Nah. Let's drop it all over and do something better.
Less improper attempt #2. Use std::vector of std::vector
Ok. We know that in C++ we should not really use manual memory management, and there is a handy std::vector lying around here. So, may be we can do this?
std::vector<std::vector<int> > dd_array;
That's not enough, obviously - we never specified the size of those arrays. So, we need something like that:
std::vector<std::vector<int> > dd_array(x);
for(auto&& inner : dd_array)
inner.resize(y);
dd_array[0][0] = 42;
So, is it good now? Not so much. Firstly, we still have this loop, and it is a sore to the eye. What is even more important, we are seriously hurting performance of our application. Since each individual inner vector is independently allocated, a loop like this:
int sum = 0;
for (auto&& inner : dd_array)
for (auto&& data : inner)
sum += data;
will cause iteration over many independently allocated inner vectors. And since CPU will only cache continuous memory, those small independent vectors cann't be cached altogether. It hurts performance when you can't cache!
So, how do we do it right?
Proper attempt #3 - single-dimensional!
We simply don't! When situation calls for 2-dimensional vector, we just programmatically use single-dimensional vector and access it's elements with offsets! This is how we do it:
vector<int> dd_array(x * y);
dd_array[k * x + j] = 42; // equilavent of 2d dd_array[k][j]
This gives us wonderful syntax, performance and all the glory. To make our life slightly better, we can even build an adaptor on top of a single-dimensional vector - but that's left for the homework.
But if you want to prevent the 5000 copy (or more) of some potentially ugly heavy objects. Just for performance and ignore readable code you can do this
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
std::vector<int> v;
int* a = (int*) malloc(10*sizeof(int));
//int a[10];
for( int i = 0; i<10;++i )
{
*(a + i) = i;
}
delete v._Myfirst; // ? not sure
v._Myfirst = a;
for( int i = 0; i<10;++i )
{
std::cout << v[i] << std::endl;
}
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
simply replace the _Myfirst underlying "array". but be very careful, this will be deleted by the vector.
Does my delete/free of my first fail in some cases?
Does this depend on the allocator?
Is there a swap for that? There is the brand new swap for vectors, but how about from an array?
I had to interface with a code I cannot modify (political reasons), which provides me with arrays of objects and have to make them vector of objects.
The pointer seems the right solution, but it's a lot of memory jumps and I have to perform the loop anyway. I was just wondering if there was some way to avoid the copy and tell the vector, "now this is your underlying array".
I agree that the above is highly ugly and this is why I actually reserve and push in my real code. I just wanted to know if there was a way to avoid the loop.
Please don't answer with a loop and a push back, as obviously that's what my "real" code is already doing. If there is no function to perform this swap can we implement a safe one?
Question 1: does my delete/free of my first fail in some cases ?
Yes. You do not know how the memory for _Myfirst is allocated (apart from it uses the allocator). The standard does not specify that that the default allocator should use malloc to allocate the memory so you do not know if delete will work.
Also you are mixing allocation schemes.
You are allocating with malloc(). But expecting the std::vector<> to allocate with new (because you are calling delete).
Also even if the allocator did use new it would be uisng the array version of new and thus you would need to use the array version of delete to reclaim the memory.
Question 2: does this depends on allocator ?
Yes.
Question 3: is there a swap for that ? there is the brand new swap for vectors, but from an array ?
No.
To prevent expensive copies. Use emplace_back().
std::vector<int> v;
v.reserve(10); // reserve space for 10 objects (min).
for( int i = 0; i<10;++i )
{
v.emplace_back(i); // construct in place in the array (no copy).
}
std::vector<SomeUglyHeavyObject*> vect(5000, NULL);
for (int i=0; i<5000; i++)
{
vect[i] = &arr[i];
}
There, avoids copying and doesn't muck with std::vector internals.
If you don't like the way the vector behaves, don't use a vector. Your code depends on implementation details that you MUST not rely upon.
Yes it's ugly as you said. Make it pretty by using the correct container.
Which container you use depends on what operations you need on the container. It may be something as simple as a C-style array will suit your needs. It may be a vector of pointers, or shared pointers if you want the vector to manage the lifetime of the HeavyObjects.
In response to the need to increase the size of collection (see comments below):
std::vector guarantees that the underlying storage is contiguous, so if you increase the size, it will allocate a new larger buffer and copy the old one into the new (using the copy constructor for the objects if one exists.) Then swap the new buffer into place -- freeing the old one using its own allocator.
This will trash your memory unless the buffer you brute forced into the vector was allocated in a manner consistent with the vector's allocator.
So if your original array is big enough, all you need is a "maxUsed" size_t to tell you how big the collection is and where to put new entries. If it's not big enough, then your technique will either fail horribly, or incur the copy costs you are trying to avoid.
I would like to be sure that this is not wrong: I initialize array with
double* lower = input->getLowerBox();
where function getLowerBox() returns some double*. is it correct? Or shold I initialize this way::
double* lower = new double[nbP];
for (int i=0;i<nbP;i++)
lower[i]=input->getLowerBox()[i];
or to avoid multiple calls to getLowerBox,
double* lower = new double[nbP];
double* tmp = input->getLowerBox();
for (int i=0;i<nbP;i++)
lower[i]=tmp[i];
delete[] tmp;
Two steps recipe:
Change Input::getLowerBox() to return std::vector<double> const&
Use a copy if you want to modify the returned value, and the const reference instead
Well, it depends on what you want to do. Do you need a new array or not.
Your first snippet doesn't create a new array, so memory management is more important.
For example:
double* lower = input->getLowerBox();
delete[] lower;
would possibly render input->getLowerBox() invalid. Or something like:
double* lower = NULL;
{
Class input;
lower = input->getLowerBox();
}
//...
would make lower a dangling pointer, if input clears the contents of the array in the destructor.
The last two snippets create new arrays. It is safer IMO, but also uses extra memory.
Both are correct, depending on what you want to do. Whichever you choose, make sure to document it fully.
The first way is fine. You're going to return a pointer to a double, which I'm assuming is related to an array (If not, then please correct me). By doing that, you're pointing to the first element of that array and then you can just index lower or use pointer arithmetic to access the other elements.
EDIT: Could you post the definition of getLowerBox() so it's more clear to what you're trying to do?
Do you have the ability to change getLowerBox() ? If so, I would change it so it returns a vector.
Depending on the implementation, it might return you a pointer which you can own or a pointer to an internal static (bad but possible) so you need to know what it's doing and act accordingly by retaining the pointer or taking a copy of the array respectively.
If you don't have control over getLowerBox() and you know the size of the array it returns, it would be a reasonable idea copy it to a vector
double* lower = input->getLowerBox();
vector<double> lowerV(lower, lower + N );
(where N is the size of the array - BTW this is just from memory, I haven't compiled it.)
I would definitely go with the first one for multiple reasons. It's cleaner, it avoids unnecessary calls / variable creation, etc. Just make sure that input's a pointer if you're using "->"; otherwise use ".".
I'm trying to think of a method demonstrating a kind of memory error using Arrays and C++, that is hard to detect. The purpose is to motivate the usage of STL vector<> in combination with iterators.
Edit: The accepted answer is the answer i used to explain the advantages / disadvantages. I also used: this
Improperly pairing new/delete and new[]/delete[].
For example, using:
int *array = new int[5];
delete array;
instead of:
int *array = new int[5];
delete [] array;
And while the c++ standard doesn't allow for it, some compilers support stack allocating an array:
int stack_allocated_buffer[size_at_runtime];
This could be the unintended side effect of scoping rules (e.g constant shadowed by a member variable)... and it works until someone passes 'size_at_runtime' too large and blows out the stack. Then lame errors ensue.
A memory leak? IMO, vector in combination with iterators doesn't particularly protect you from errors, such as going out of bounds or generally using an invalidated iterator (unless you have VC++ with iterator debugging); rather it is convenient because it implements a dynamically resizable array for you and takes care of memory management (NB! helps make your code more exception-safe).
void foo(const char* zzz)
{
int* arr = new int[size];
std::string s = zzz;
//...
delete[] arr;
}
Above can leak if an exception occurs (e.g when creating the string). Not with a vector.
Vector also makes it easier to reason about code because of its value semantics.
int* arr = new int[size];
int* second_ref = arr;
//...
delete [] arr;
arr = 0; //play it safe :)
//...
second_ref[x] = y;
//...
delete [] second_ref;
But perhaps a vector doesn't automatically satisfy 100% of dynamic array use cases. (For example, there's also boost::shared_array and the to-be std::unique_ptr<T[]>)
I think the utility of std::vector really shows when you need dynamic arrays.
Make one example using std::vector. Then one example using an array to realloc. I think it speaks for itself.
One obvious:
for (i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_ELEMENTS; ++i)
destination_array[i] = whatever(i);
versus
for (i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_ELEMENTS; ++i)
destination_vector.push_back(whatever(i));
pointing out that you know the second works, but whether the first works depends on how destination_array was defined.
void Fn()
{
int *p = new int[256];
if ( p != NULL )
{
if ( !InitIntArray( p, 256 ) )
{
// Log error
return;
}
delete[] p;
}
}
You wouldn't BELIEVE how often I see that. A classic example of where any form of RAII is useful ...
I would think the basic simplicity of using vectors instead of dynamic arrays is already convincing.
You don't have to remember to delete your memory...which is not so simple since attempts to delete it might be bypassed by exceptions and whatnot.
If you want to do dynamic arrays yourself, the safest way to do it in C++ is to wrap them in a class and use RAII. But vectors do that for you. That's kind of the point, actually.
Resizing is done for you.
If you need to support arbitrary types, you don't have to do any extra work.
A lot of algorithms are provided which are designed to handle containers, both included and by other users.
You can still use functions that need arrays by passing the vector's underlying array if necessary; The memory is guaranteed to be contiguous by the standard, except with vector<bool> (google says as of 2003, see 23.2.4./1 of the spec).
Using an array yourself is probably bad practice in general, since you will be re-inventing the wheel...and your implementation will almost definitely be much worse than the existing one...and harder for other people to use, since they know about vector but not your weird thing.
With a dynamic array, you need to keep track of the size yourself, grow it when you want to insert new elements, delete it when it is no longer needed...this is extra work.
Oh, and a warning: vector<bool> is a dirty rotten hack and a classic example of premature optimization.
Why don't you motivate it based on the algorithms that the STL provides?
In raw array, operator[] (if I may call so) is susceptible to index-out-of-bound problem. With vector it is not (There is at least a run time exception).
Sorry, I did not read the question carefully enough. index-out-of-bound is a problem, but not a memory error.