Receiving memory leaks when editing strings - c++

string Player::CalcAsteroid(int _mass)
{
vector<BaseObject*>* tempObjects = GameState::GetObjects();
asteroid = "";
SetRadius(_mass / 100);
if (_mass < 100)
SetRadius(1);
///////////////////////////////////////////////
// Nested for loops to draw a circle (asteroid)
///////////////////////////////////////////////
// x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1
Player* p = dynamic_cast<Player*> ((*tempObjects)[0]);
int asteroidRadius = p->GetRadius();
double consoleRatio = 4.0 / 3.0; // Console characters do not have uniform H and W, so lets store the console ratio (4:3)
double a = consoleRatio*asteroidRadius; // The width is shorter than the height, so we'll multiply the ratio to the X radius (a)
double b = asteroidRadius; // The height need not change from the init radius
// Loop though each row...
for (int y = (int)-asteroidRadius; y <= asteroidRadius; y++)
{
// and each column.
for (int x = (int)floor(-consoleRatio*asteroidRadius); x <= consoleRatio*asteroidRadius; x++)
{
double d = (x / a)*(x / a) + (y / b)*(y / b); // Equation of a circle (see above)
if (d > 0.90 && d < 1.1)
{
asteroid += (char)178; // The solid border (using gradient ASCII code)
}
//else if (d <= 1.1)
//{
//asteroid += 176; // The fill interior
//}
else
{
asteroid += " ";
}
}
asteroid += '\n';
}
asteroid.replace(asteroid.size() / 2 - (name.size() / 2), name.size(), name); // Putting the name of the player in the center of the asteroid.
return asteroid;
}
So I am attempting to re-size the player's object (an asteroid) in console. However I seem to be getting memory leaks, a ton actually. Each seems to be related to this function call.
SetPicture(CalcAsteroid(GetMass()).c_str());
The definition of which being here
void SetPicture(const char * const _picture){ picture = _strdup(_picture);CalcWH(); }
CalcWH(); simply calculates the width and height of the image in characters for collision data.
Dropbox link for full solution.
Thank you all in advance! Let me know if there is anything I can do to make my question more clear or whether or not I have enough information. I'm new to this site and I wish to follow good question habits.

The reason for a memory leak is the usage of _strdup. This allocates memory for the new string. It is your responsibility to free the memory using free somewhere in your code. According to the code you posted, you are not calling free anywhere.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y471khhc.aspx
As noted by the above link:
The _strdup function calls malloc to allocate storage space for a copy of strSource and then copies strSource to the allocated space.
My advice is to get out of the business of calling _strdup, and just use a std::string. There is little reason for a C++ application to use functions such as strdup.

Related

How to check whether an index in an array is empty

I'm making a small OpenGL program for my intro to C++ class in Uni. I have a program that is complete but I want to change it up a bit to make it more unique. I have a Cube class:
class Cube {
public:
Cube(Mesh* mesh, Texture2D* texture, float x, float y, float z);
~Cube();
void Draw();
void Update(float rSpeed);
Vector3 position;
private:
GLfloat rotationSpeed;
Vector3 rotationVector;
Mesh* _mesh;
Texture2D* _texture;
};
I then create an array of type Cube:
Cube* cubes[CUBE_AMOUNT];
I then fill each index of this array with data to draw the cube on screen later in the program:
for (int i = 0; i < CUBE_AMOUNT; i++) {
float x = ((rand() % 400) / 10.0f) - 20.0f;
float y = ((rand() % 200) / 10.0f) - 10.0f;
float z = -(rand() % 1000);
if (i % 2 == 1) {
cubes[i] = new Cube(cubeMesh, textureStars, x, y, z);
}
else {
cubes[i] = new Cube(cubeMesh, texturePenguins, x, y, z);
}
}
With this new thing I want to add to the program, I want to check whether an index of cubes[] has been filled with the data yet. However I keep getting exceptions when running. I have tried to check whether cubes[i] is equal to nullptr, and tried checking whether it is NULL too, but neither seem to match.
Sorry for any errors in terminology that I used. New to C++, and having come from only doing Python before this, it is confusing!
Solution:
When I create the array, I changed it to Cube* cubes[CUBE_AMOUNT] = { NULL }, and now when checking the array, cubes[i] == NULL!
If cubes is not a global variable, you can use:
Cube* cubes[CUBE_AMOUNT] = {};
to initialize all the elements to nullptr.
You can also use:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Cube>> cubes(CUBE_AMOUNT);
to remove the burden of having to deallocate dynamic memory in your code.
In either case, can use:
if ( cubes[index] )
{
// Got a valid pointer. Use it.
}
Your cubes variable is not automatically initialized with null_ptr's. Until you either fill it with null_ptr's or good pointers it initially points to random garbage.
I think this would work
//This bit should check if theres anything stored currently.
cout << "\nWhich Slot would you like to store the informaton in ?(1-10)";
cin >> i;
i--;
if (information[i] != NULL){
// Already written
cout << "THERES SOMETHING HERE";
}
else{
cout << "\nEMPTY!!!!!!!!!";
}

p5.js - get a rectangle to move left and right repeatedly (bounce)

I'm trying out some sample code for a bigger project, and I'm having trouble getting my rectangle to bounce between two lines.
function draw() {
print(frameCount)
background(255)
var x = 150 + frameCount;
rect(x,200,15,15);
line(150,0,150,400);
line(250,0,250,400);
if (x >= 250) {
background(255)
x = 350-frameCount;
rect(x,200,15,15);
line(250,0,250,400);
line(150,0,150,400);
} if (x <= 145) {
background(255)
x = 145 + (frameCount % 100);
rect(x,200,15,15);
line(250,0,250,400);
line(150,0,150,400);
}
}
I'm getting the feeling that after the first instance, it's disregarding the original if statement, which dictates a bounce to the left. I'm really not sure what's going wrong, and any help would be appreciated.
You probably just want to store the current position and speed in a set of variables, and then move the rectangle based on those. Here's an example:
var x = 0;
var speed = 1;
function draw(){
x += speed;
if(x < 0 || x > width){
speed *= -1;
}
background(64);
line(x, 0, x, height);
}
I've written a tutorial on this available here. That's for regular Processing, but the ideas are the same in P5.js.

C++ code for Microsoft Kinect - trying to dynamically allocate array of target positions

So I'm trying to modify the Kinect BodyBasicsD2D code so that a fixed number of "target positions" appear on the screen (as ellipses) for the user to move his hand toward. I'm having trouble creating the initial target positions.
This is my code in the header file for the allocation of the array of target positions (these are a public field of the CBodyBasics class, already built into the original BodyToBasics program):
D2D1_POINT_2F* targetPositions = NULL;
int numTargets = 3;
Then I have a function "GenerateTargetPositions" which is supposed to generate 3, in this case, target positions to be passed into the "DrawTargetPositions" function.
void CBodyBasics::GenerateTargetPositions(D2D1_POINT_2F * targetPositions, int numTargets)
{
targetPositions = new D2D1_POINT_2F[numTargets];
RECT rct;
GetClientRect(GetDlgItem(m_hWnd, IDC_VIDEOVIEW), &rct);
int width = rct.right;
int height = rct.bottom;
FLOAT x;
FLOAT y;
D2D1_POINT_2F tempPoint;
for (int i = 0; i < numTargets; i++) {
x = 1.0f*i*width / numTargets;
y = 1.0f*i*height / numTargets;
tempPoint = D2D1::Point2F(x, y);
targetPositions[i] = tempPoint;
}
}
My DrawTargetPositions function is:
void CBodyBasics::DrawTargetPositions(D2D1_POINT_2F * targetPositions, int numTargets)
{
D2D1_ELLIPSE ellipse;
for (int i = 0; i < numTargets; i++)
{
ellipse = D2D1::Ellipse(targetPositions[i], 50.f, 50.f);
m_pRenderTarget->FillEllipse(ellipse, m_pSilverBrush);
}
}
When I try to run my code, I get the error that both "targetPositions" and "targetPositions[i]" is NULL (and thus my GenerateTargetPositions function must not be working properly). I believe that targetPositions[i] is a struct (a point with x and y values) so I am wondering if this may be the reason for my errors.
I call GenerateTargetPositions and DrawTargetPositions before the main "while" loop in my code so that each function is not being called on each iteration (there are many iterations of through the while loop because this is an interactive Microsoft Kinect, recording one's movements).
Any suggestions and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!

Drawing circle, OpenGL style

I have a 13 x 13 array of pixels, and I am using a function to draw a circle onto them. (The screen is 13 * 13, which may seem strange, but its an array of LED's so that explains it.)
unsigned char matrix[13][13];
const unsigned char ON = 0x01;
const unsigned char OFF = 0x00;
Here is the first implementation I thought up. (It's inefficient, which is a particular problem as this is an embedded systems project, 80 MHz processor.)
// Draw a circle
// mode is 'ON' or 'OFF'
inline void drawCircle(float rad, unsigned char mode)
{
for(int ix = 0; ix < 13; ++ ix)
{
for(int jx = 0; jx < 13; ++ jx)
{
float r; // Radial
float s; // Angular ("theta")
matrix_to_polar(ix, jx, &r, &s); // Converts polar coordinates
// specified by r and s, where
// s is the angle, to index coordinates
// specified by ix and jx.
// This function just converts to
// cartesian and then translates by 6.0.
if(r < rad)
{
matrix[ix][jx] = mode; // Turn pixel in matrix 'ON' or 'OFF'
}
}
}
}
I hope that's clear. It's pretty simple, but then I programmed it so I know how it's supposed to work. If you'd like more info / explanation then I can add some more code / comments.
It can be considered that drawing several circles, eg 4 to 6, is very slow... Hence I'm asking for advice on a more efficient algorithm to draw the circles.
EDIT: Managed to double the performance by making the following modification:
The function calling the drawing used to look like this:
for(;;)
{
clearAll(); // Clear matrix
for(int ix = 0; ix < 6; ++ ix)
{
rad[ix] += rad_incr_step;
drawRing(rad[ix], rad[ix] - rad_width);
}
if(rad[5] >= 7.0)
{
for(int ix = 0; ix < 6; ++ ix)
{
rad[ix] = rad_space_step * (float)(-ix);
}
}
writeAll(); // Write
}
I added the following check:
if(rad[ix] - rad_width < 7.0)
drawRing(rad[ix], rad[ix] - rad_width);
This increased the performance by a factor of about 2, but ideally I'd like to make the circle drawing more efficient to increase it further. This checks to see if the ring is completely outside of the screen.
EDIT 2: Similarly adding the reverse check increased performance further.
if(rad[ix] >= 0.0)
drawRing(rad[ix], rad[ix] - rad_width);
Performance is now pretty good, but again I have made no modifications to the actual drawing code of the circles and this is what I was intending to focus on with this question.
Edit 3: Matrix to polar:
inline void matrix_to_polar(int i, int j, float* r, float* s)
{
float x, y;
matrix_to_cartesian(i, j, &x, &y);
calcPolar(x, y, r, s);
}
inline void matrix_to_cartesian(int i, int j, float* x, float* y)
{
*x = getX(i);
*y = getY(j);
}
inline void calcPolar(float x, float y, float* r, float* s)
{
*r = sqrt(x * x + y * y);
*s = atan2(y, x);
}
inline float getX(int xc)
{
return (float(xc) - 6.0);
}
inline float getY(int yc)
{
return (float(yc) - 6.0);
}
In response to Clifford that's actually a lot of function calls if they are not inlined.
Edit 4: drawRing just draws 2 circles, firstly an outer circle with mode ON and then an inner circle with mode OFF. I am fairly confident that there is a more efficient method of drawing such a shape too, but that distracts from the question.
You're doing a lot of calculations that aren't really needed. For example, you're calculating the angle of the polar coordinates, but never use it. The square root can also easily be avoided by comparing the square of the values.
Without doing anything fancy, something like this should be a good start:
int intRad = (int)rad;
int intRadSqr = (int)(rad * rad);
for (int ix = 0; ix <= intRad; ++ix)
{
for (int jx = 0; jx <= intRad; ++jx)
{
if (ix * ix + jx * jx <= radSqr)
{
matrix[6 - ix][6 - jx] = mode;
matrix[6 - ix][6 + jx] = mode;
matrix[6 + ix][6 - jx] = mode;
matrix[6 + ix][6 + jx] = mode;
}
}
}
This does all the math in integer format, and takes advantage of the circle symmetry.
Variation of the above, based on feedback in the comments:
int intRad = (int)rad;
int intRadSqr = (int)(rad * rad);
for (int ix = 0; ix <= intRad; ++ix)
{
for (int jx = 0; ix * ix + jx * jx <= radSqr; ++jx)
{
matrix[6 - ix][6 - jx] = mode;
matrix[6 - ix][6 + jx] = mode;
matrix[6 + ix][6 - jx] = mode;
matrix[6 + ix][6 + jx] = mode;
}
}
Don't underestimate the cost of even basic arithmetic using floating point on a processor with no FPU. It seems unlikely that floating point is necessary, but the details of its use are hidden in your matrix_to_polar() implementation.
Your current implementation considers every pixel as a candidate - that is also unnecessary.
Using the equation y = cy ± √[rad2 - (x-cx)2] where cx, cy is the centre (7, 7 in this case), and a suitable integer square root implementation, the circle can be drawn thus:
void drawCircle( int rad, unsigned char mode )
{
int r2 = rad * rad ;
for( int x = 7 - rad; x <= 7 + rad; x++ )
{
int dx = x - 7 ;
int dy = isqrt( r2 - dx * dx ) ;
matrix[x][7 - dy] = mode ;
matrix[x][7 + dy] = mode ;
}
}
In my test I used the isqrt() below based on code from here, but given that the maximum r2 necessary is 169 (132, you could implement a 16 or even 8 bit optimised version if necessary. If your processor is 32 bit, this is probably fine.
uint32_t isqrt(uint32_t n)
{
uint32_t root = 0, bit, trial;
bit = (n >= 0x10000) ? 1<<30 : 1<<14;
do
{
trial = root+bit;
if (n >= trial)
{
n -= trial;
root = trial+bit;
}
root >>= 1;
bit >>= 2;
} while (bit);
return root;
}
All that said, on such a low resolution device, you will probably get better quality circles and faster performance by hand generating bitmap lookup tables for each radius required. If memory is an issue, then a single circle needs only 7 bytes to describe a 7 x 7 quadrant that you can reflect to all three quadrants, or for greater performance you could use 7 x 16 bit words to describe a semi-circle (since reversing bit order is more expensive than reversing array access - unless you are using an ARM Cortex-M with bit-banding). Using semi-circle look-ups, 13 circles would need 13 x 7 x 2 bytes (182 bytes), quadrant look-ups would be 7 x 8 x 13 (91 bytes) - you may find that is fewer bytes that the code space required to calculate the circles.
For a slow embedded device with only a 13x13 element display, you should really just make a look-up table. For example:
struct ComputedCircle
{
float rMax;
char col[13][2];
};
Where the draw routine uses rMax to determine which LUT element to use. For example, if you have 2 elements with one rMax = 1.4f, the other = 1.7f, then any radius between 1.4f and 1.7f will use that entry.
The column elements would specify zero, one, or two line segments per row, which can be encoded in the lower and upper 4 bits of each char. -1 can be used as a sentinel value for nothing-at-this-row. It is up to you how many look-up table entries to use, but with a 13x13 grid you should be able to encode every possible outcome of pixels with well under 100 entries, and a reasonable approximation using only 10 or so. You can also trade off compression for draw speed as well, e.g. putting the col[13][2] matrix in a flat list and encoding the number of rows defined.
I would accept MooseBoy's answer if only he explained the method he proposes better. Here's my take on the lookup table approach.
Solve it with a lookup table
The 13x13 display is quite small, and if you only need circles which are fully visible within this pixel count, you will get around with a quite small table. Even if you need larger circles, it should be still better than any algorithmic way if you need it to be fast (and have the ROM to store it).
How to do it
You basically need to define how each possible circle looks like on the 13x13 display. It is not sufficient to just produce snapshots for the 13x13 display, as it is likely you would like to plot the circles at arbitrary positions. My take for a table entry would look like this:
struct circle_entry_s{
unsigned int diameter;
unsigned int offset;
};
The entry would map a given diameter in pixels to offsets in a large byte table containing the shape of the circles. For example for diameter 9, the byte sequence would look like this:
0x1CU, 0x00U, /* 000111000 */
0x63U, 0x00U, /* 011000110 */
0x41U, 0x00U, /* 010000010 */
0x80U, 0x80U, /* 100000001 */
0x80U, 0x80U, /* 100000001 */
0x80U, 0x80U, /* 100000001 */
0x41U, 0x00U, /* 010000010 */
0x63U, 0x00U, /* 011000110 */
0x1CU, 0x00U, /* 000111000 */
The diameter specifies how many bytes of the table belong to the circle: one row of pixels are generated from (diameter + 7) >> 3 bytes, and the number of rows correspond to the diameter. The output code of these can be made quite fast, while the lookup table is sufficiently compact to get even larger than the 13x13 display circles defined in it if needed.
Note that defining circles this way for odd and even diameters may or may not appeal you when output by a centre location. The odd diameter circles will appear to have a centre in the "middle" of a pixel, while the even diameter circles will appear to have their centre on the "corner" of a pixel.
You may also find it nice later to refine the overall method so having multiple circles of different apparent sizes, but having the same pixel radius. Depends on what is your goal: if you want some kind of smooth animation, you may get there eventually.
Algorithmic solutions I think mostly will perform poorly here, since with this limited display surface really every pixel's state counts for the appearance.

Sporadic Collision Detection

I've been working on detecting collision between to object in my game. Right now everything tavels vertically, but would like to keep the option for other movement open. It's classic 2d vertical space shooter.
Right now I loop through every object, checking for collisions:
for(std::list<Object*>::iterator iter = mObjectList.begin(); iter != mObjectList.end();) {
Object *m = (*iter);
for(std::list<Object*>::iterator innerIter = ++iter; innerIter != mObjectList.end(); innerIter++ ) {
Object *s = (*innerIter);
if(m->getType() == s->getType()) {
break;
}
if(m->checkCollision(s)) {
m->onCollision(s);
s->onCollision(m);
}
}
}
Here is how I check for a collision:
bool checkCollision(Object *other) {
float radius = mDiameter / 2.f;
float theirRadius = other->getDiameter() / 2.f;
Vector<float> ourMidPoint = getAbsoluteMidPoint();
Vector<float> theirMidPoint = other->getAbsoluteMidPoint();
// If the other object is in between our path on the y axis
if(std::min(getAbsoluteMidPoint().y - radius, getPreviousAbsoluteMidPoint().y - radius) <= theirMidPoint.y &&
theirMidPoint.y <= std::max(getAbsoluteMidPoint().y + radius, getPreviousAbsoluteMidPoint().y + radius)) {
// Get the distance between the midpoints on the x axis
float xd = abs(ourMidPoint.x - theirMidPoint.x);
// If the distance between the two midpoints
// is greater than both of their radii together
// then they are too far away to collide
if(xd > radius+theirRadius) {
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
The problem is it will randomly detect collisions correctly, but other times does not detect it at all. It's not the if statement breaking away from the object loop because the objects do have different types. The closer the object is to the top of the screen, the better chance it has of collision getting detected correctly. Closer to the bottom of the screen, the less chance it has of getting detected correctly or even at all. However, these situations don't always occur. The diameter for the objects are massive (10 and 20) to see if that was the problem, but it doesn't help much at all.
EDIT - Updated Code
bool checkCollision(Object *other) {
float radius = mDiameter / 2.f;
float theirRadius = other->getDiameter() / 2.f;
Vector<float> ourMidPoint = getAbsoluteMidPoint();
Vector<float> theirMidPoint = other->getAbsoluteMidPoint();
// Find the distance between the two points from the center of the object
float a = theirMidPoint.x - ourMidPoint.x;
float b = theirMidPoint.y - ourMidPoint.y;
// Find the hypotenues
double c = (a*a)+(b*b);
double radii = pow(radius+theirRadius, 2.f);
// If the distance between the points is less than or equal to the radius
// then the circles intersect
if(c <= radii*radii) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
Two circular objects collide when the distance between their centers is small enough. You can use the following code to check this:
double distanceSquared =
pow(ourMidPoint.x - theirMidPoint.x, 2.0) +
pow(ourMidPoint.x - theirMidPoint.x, 2.0);
bool haveCollided = (distanceSquared <= pow(radius + theirRadius, 2.0));
In order to check whether there was a collision between two points in time, you can check for collision at the start of the time interval and at the end of it; however, if the objects move very fast, the collision detection can fail (i guess you have encountered this problem for falling objects that have the fastest speed at the bottom of the screen).
The following might make the collision detection more reliable (though still not perfect). Suppose the objects move with constant speed; then, their position is a linear function of time:
our_x(t) = our_x0 + our_vx * t;
our_y(t) = our_y0 + our_vy * t;
their_x(t) = their_x0 + their_vx * t;
their_y(t) = their_y0 + their_vy * t;
Now you can define the (squared) distance between them as a quadratic function of time. Find at which time it assumes its minimum value (i.e. its derivative is 0); if this time belongs to current time interval, calculate the minimum value and check it for collision.
This must be enough to detect collisions almost perfectly; if your application works heavily with free-falling objects, you might want to refine the movement functions to be quadratic:
our_x(t) = our_x0 + our_v0x * t;
our_y(t) = our_y0 + our_v0y * t + g/2 * t^2;
This logic is wrong:
if(std::min(getAbsoluteMidPoint().y - radius, getPreviousAbsoluteMidPoint().y - radius) <= theirMidPoint.y &&
theirMidPoint.y <= std::max(getAbsoluteMidPoint().y + radius, getPreviousAbsoluteMidPoint().y + radius))
{
// then a collision is possible, check x
}
(The logic inside the braces is wrong too, but that should produce false positives, not false negatives.) Checking whether a collision has occurred during a time interval can be tricky; I'd suggest checking for a collision at the present time, and getting that to work first. When you check for a collision (now) you can't check x and y independently, you must look at the distance between the object centers.
EDIT:
The edited code is still not quite right.
// Find the hypotenues
double c = (a*a)+(b*b); // actual hypotenuse squared
double radii = pow(radius+theirRadius, 2.f); // critical hypotenuse squared
if(c <= radii*radii) { // now you compare a distance^2 to a distance^4
return true; // collision
}
It should be either this:
double c2 = (a*a)+(b*b); // actual hypotenuse squared
double r2 = pow(radius+theirRadius, 2.f); // critical hypotenuse squared
if(c2 <= r2) {
return true; // collision
}
or this:
double c2 = (a*a)+(b*b); // actual hypotenuse squared
double c = pow(c2, 0.5); // actual hypotenuse
double r = radius + theirRadius; // critical hypotenuse
if(c <= r) {
return true; // collision
}
Your inner loop needs to start at mObjectList.begin() instead of iter.
The inner loop needs to iterate over the entire list otherwise you miss collision candidates the further you progress in the outer loop.