I understand that this error came from double deleting the allocated memory and in theory I know what should be done. But it seems to doesn't work the way it should. Or I do sth wrong. Please help.
Here's code of my class:
typedef int SIZE_TYPE;
template<typename T>
class CArrays{
private:
SIZE_TYPE size;
T * tab;
public:
// methods...
};
template<typename T>
CArrays<T>::CArrays(T value, SIZE_TYPE argsize){
size = argsize;
tab = new T[size];
for(SIZE_TYPE i = 0; i < size; i++)
*(tab+i) = value;
}
template<typename T>
CArrays<T>::~CArrays(){
delete [] tab;
}
template<typename T> template<typename J>
CArrays<T> & CArrays<T>::operator=(const CArrays<J> &rhs){
if(&rhs != this){
this->size = rhs.size;
delete [] this->tab;
this->tab = new T[this->size];
memcpy(this->tab, rhs.tab, sizeof(J) * rhs.size);
}
return *this;
}
And when i do in my main.cpp sth like that:
CArrays<int> a(3, 10), b(0, 10);
b = a;
*** glibc detected *** ./out: double free or corruption (fasttop): 0x000000000087b010 ***
There are several things wrong with your code:
Usage of memcpy to copy data.
If the template type T is a non-POD type, you cannot use memcpy to copy over the data. You have to copy the items one-by-one, or use std::copy
If you haven't coded one, you are missing the copy constructor.
Here is what it should look like:
template<typename T>
CArrays<T>::CArrays<T>(const CArrays<T> &rhs)
{
tab = new T[rhs.size];
for (size_t i = 0; i < rhs.size(); ++i )
tab[i] = rhs[i];
size = rhs.size;
}
The assignment operator is peculiar.
Maybe not wrong, but strange. An assignment operator would/should look like this (given that the copy constructor and destructor are working correctly):
#include <algorithm>
template<typename T>
CArrays<T>& CArrays<T>::operator=(const CArrays<T> &rhs)
{
CArrays<T> temp(rhs);
std::swap(temp.size, size);
std::swap(temp.tab, tab);
return *this;
}
The above works, due to copying and swapping out the internals of a temporary object with the existing objects, and letting the temporary die off.
In the last two items, I'm assuming that the only members are tab and size. If there are other members, please copy them also (and swap them out) in the code above.
Related
I know that std vectors can work with objects that are not default constructible. However, when I try to implement a slightly modified one myself, I cant seem to make such vector.
class A
{
public:
A() = delete;
A(const int &x)
:x(x)
{}
private:
int x;
};
template <typename T, int N> //default constructor of the vector
CircularBuffer<T,N>::CircularBuffer()
{
Size = 0;
Capacity =N;
Array = new T[Capacity];
Start = 0;
End = 0;
}
template <typename T, int N>
CircularBuffer<T,N>::CircularBuffer(const CircularBuffer& rhs) //copy constructor of the vector
{
Size = rhs.Size;
Capacity = rhs.Capacity;
Array = new T[Capacity];
Start = rhs.Start;
End = rhs.End;
for(int i=0;i<Capacity;i++)
{
this->Array[i] = rhs.Array[i];
}
}
template <typename T, int N> //move constructor of the vector
CircularBuffer<T,N>::CircularBuffer(CircularBuffer&& rhs)
{
rhs.Swap(*this);
}
template <typename T, int N>
void CircularBuffer<T,N>:: Swap(CircularBuffer &source)
{
swap(Size,source.Size);
swap(Capacity,source.Capacity);
swap(Start,source.Start);
swap(End,source.End);
swap(Array,source.Array);
}
When I try to make a vector with object A,
CircularBuffer<A,3> v;
error: use of deleted function ‘A::A()’
I get this error which is obviously self explanatory. Anyone can help me solve this??
The problem is here
Array = new T[Capacity];
which default constructs T objects.
std::vector uses placement new to construct objects when they are added to the vector.
Array = (T*)operator new(sizeof(T)*Capacity);
and (when you add the new item)
new(Array + i) T(...); // placement new
where ... are the arguments you wish to pass to the constructor.
See here for more details.
The issue is with the line Array = new T[Capacity];. This needs to default-initialize all members of the array, which it cannot do without a default-constructor.
std::vector gets around it by splitting allocation and construction with its allocator. I recommend you simply use std::allocator as well. Otherwise you can use placement-new to construct the elements after allocating the required memory separately.
Condition
In lectures, we have already started to implement our vector. In this task, you need to develop it: add the Size, Capacity, and PushBack methods. Send the simple_vector.h header file containing the SimpleVector class template declaration and definition for verification:
Requirements:
the Capacity method should return the current capacity of the vector — the number of elements that fit into the memory block currently allocated by the vector
the Size method must return the number of elements in the vector
the PushBack method adds a new element to the end of the vector; if there is no free space left in the current allocated memory block (i.e. Size() == Capacity()), the vector must allocate a block of size 2 * Capacity(), copy all the elements to it, and delete the old one.
the first call to the PushBack method for a newly created object must make the capacity equal to one
the Push Back method must have a amortized constant complexity
the begin and end methods must return iterators the current beginning and end of the vector
the current memory block allocated by the vector must be freed in the destructor
also see the attached solution template for additional requirements for working with SimpleVector in unit tests.
The preparation of the decision:
simple_vector.h: https://d3c33hcgiwev3.cloudfront.net/q-OL4qX_EeilzRLZf2WxfA_ac4e8270a5ff11e89fd0455a8819d387_simple_vector.h?Expires=1596067200&Signature=cLfBpytTripoqpOYaW9g4~2-JqTI~8HtxahNwNATwBeq28RdXCvkcqghN~UUPv~wx1XZTVOTs8JDsZQjEALk6Soy70QFADkK9lSfFpLNcQq-Dxd4oxk-C5QDEhadM1LrVGe8Rmz0jRYgIV5sDTvAATBhiY3k-KqbAaDe1AK6QiE_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLTNE6QMUY6HBC5A
simple_vector.cpp: https://d3c33hcgiwev3.cloudfront.net/uoPvEoauEeianAr0yIdmDg_bae6cec086ae11e88d9327752d64e780_simple_vector.cpp?Expires=1596067200&Signature=CE1Mox1yU6LjGDXL1xstxT9anv9NI~otNwhBw5AbPyLBquRIi9E6cotR~BQsrvU-djoksfjV9YgnsyF00eFnVjsk~oF0z18wkVkgdIirPB-NNLH0aFvD4WFG97qmSuD0WjeetWyi6UR5BKYCnwfO~ax6-HZLM-GWheO9LHc~BvE_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLTNE6QMUY6HBC5A
Comment:
The header file that you send for verification should not include the <vector>, <list>, <forward_list>, <deque>, <map> files. If you have one of these files enabled, you will get a compilation error.
Hint:
For sure, your implementation of the SimpleVector class template will have a field that is a pointer. In the default constructor, you will need to initialize it with something. In the lectures, we only discussed one way to initialize pointers — using the new operator. In C++, there is a special value that means a pointer that points to nothing — nullptr:
int* p = nullptr;
string* q = nullptr;
map<string, vector<int>>* r = nullptr;
You can use nullptr to initialize the pointer in the default constructor.
How to send:
When the work is ready, you can upload files for each part of the task on the 'My work'tab.
And here is my .hsolution to which the Coursera testing system responds a 10 != 8: Memory leak detected. However I can't figure out where the leak is going. Help me pls.
#pragma once
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
template <typename T>
class SimpleVector {
public:
SimpleVector()
: data(nullptr)
, end_(data)
, size_(0) {}
explicit SimpleVector(size_t size)
: data(new T[size])
, end_(data + size)
, size_(size) {}
~SimpleVector() {
delete[] data;
}
T& operator[](size_t index) { return data[index]; }
T* begin() const { return data; }
T* end() const { return end_; }
size_t Capacity() const { return end_ - data; }
size_t Size() const { return size_; }
void PushBack(const T& value) {
if (size_ == Capacity()) {
if (size_ == 0) {
delete[] data;
data = new T[1];
data[size_] = value;
++size_;
end_ = data + size_;
}
else {
T* local_data = new T[size_];
for (size_t i = 0; i < size_; ++i) {
local_data[i] = data[i];
}
delete[] data;
data = new T[2 * Capacity()];
for (size_t i =0; i < size_; ++i) {
data[i] = local_data[i];
}
delete[] local_data;
data[size_] = value;
++size_;
end_ = data + size_ * 2;
}
}
else {
data[size_] = value;
size_++;
}
}
private:
T *data;
T *end_;
size_t size_;
};
Thank you in advance.
There is a memory leak in PushBack due to lack of exception safety. Consider:
T* local_data = new T[size_];
// potentially throwing operations here...
delete[] local_data;
If those operations throw, then delete[] local_data; will never be executed.
Typical way to avoid such memory leak is to use smart pointers instead of bare pointers for ownership. The antiquated way is to use try-catch.
Your class also fails to enforce the class invariant of uniqueness of data pointer. Such constraint is essential for the destructor to be correct, because an allocation must be deleted exactly once, and no more.
Making a copy of an instance of the class will result in undefined behaviour because of same pointer being deleted in multiple destructors. Another consequence is that the assigment operators will leak the previously allocated memory (before the UB occurs in the destructor):
{
SimpleVector vec(42);
SimpleVector another(1337);
SimpleVector vec = another; // memory leak in assignment operator
} // undefined behaviour in the destructor
The problem is in the copy and move constructors and assignment operators, which you've left as implicitly generated. The implicitly generated special member functions will copy the pointer value, violating its uniqueness (and failing to delete the previous allocation in case of assignment). In other words, those functions perform a shallow copy.
Using a smart pointer as the member is an easy solution. Otherwise, you must implement copy and move constructors and assignment operators that don't leak, nor violate uniqueness.
Note that even if you did use a smart pointer, you'd still need user defined copy etc. because of the end pointer. If you instead used an integer that is relative to data, then you could avoid defining those functions.
P.S. There is no need to allocate twice, and copy twice. Instead, allocate one larger buffer, copy the old one, delete the old, point to the new.
P.P.S. As a sidenote: The vector you are implementing behaves quite differently from the standard vector, which is probably intentional by your teacher. When I add an object to a vector of 10 elements, I would expect only one element to be created and possibly 10 be copied due to relocation, rather than 20 objects being created with 9 being unaccessible.
A proper implementation of vector separates the allocation of memory, and creation of objects into that memory which allows the growth of the memory to be geometric without creating objects until they are added into the vector. I suspect that how to do this is outside the scope of your exercise.
I wouldn't call it a leak, but you treat end_ inconsistently. It seems like you are treating Size and Capacity as equivalent values, they are not.
Either end_ should point one past the allocated (but not necessarily populated) memory, and you return data + size in end(), or it should point one past the last element, and you should store size_t capacity_ not size_t size_;
Here is solution without memory leak. Thank you.
#pragma once
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
template <typename T>
class SimpleVector {
public:
SimpleVector() {
data_ = nullptr;
end_ = data_;
size_ = 0;
capacity_ = 0;
}
explicit SimpleVector(size_t size) {
data_ = new T[size];
end_ = data_ + size;
size_ = size;
capacity_ = size;
}
SimpleVector(const SimpleVector& that)
: data_(that.data_)
, end_(that.end_)
, size_(that.size_)
, capacity_(that.capacity_) {}
SimpleVector& operator = (const SimpleVector& that) {
data_ = that.data_;
end_ = that.end_;
size_ = that.size_;
capacity_ = that.capacity_;
}
~SimpleVector() { delete[] data_; }
T& operator[](size_t index) {
return data_[index];
}
T* begin() const { return data_; }
T* end() const { return data_ + size_; }
size_t Capacity() const { return capacity_; }
size_t Size() const { return size_; }
void PushBack(const T& value) {
if (size_ == capacity_) {
if (capacity_ == 0) { // т. е. создали конструктором по умолчанию, size_ = 0
data_ = new T[1];
capacity_ = 1;
data_[size_] = value;
++size_;
end_ = data_ + size_;
}
else if (capacity_ == size_) { // т. е. capacity_ == size_
T* local_data = new T[2 * size_];
for (size_t i = 0; i < size_; ++i) {
local_data[i] = data_[i];
}
delete[] data_;
data_ = new T[2 * size_];
for (size_t i = 0; i < size_; ++i) {
data_[i] = local_data[i];
}
delete[] local_data;
data_[size_] = value;
size_++;
capacity_ *= 2;
end_ = data_ + size_;
}
}
else {
data_[size_] = value;
size_++;
}
}
private:
T *data_;
T *end_;
size_t size_;
size_t capacity_;
};
I believe this is a simple question with probably a not simple answer.
Here is the code:
template<typename T>
T* copy(T* original, int size) {
T* result = new T[size];
// At this point the default constructor of all new T objects have been called.
for(int i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
// This will call the assignment operator= on all new T objects
result[i] = original[i];
}
return result;
}
Question:
Is there a way to initialize the newly allocated memory using the copy constructor of T instead of using default constructor followed by assignment operator?
The purpose is to copy each element to its analogous element in the new array using the copy constructor of T.
I imagine there could be a way to do that by allocating memory using malloc, then calling the copy constructor for each element but I don't know how.
Here is an example solution from my imagination. If this is correct or this is the best we can get, tell me. Or propose a better solution:
template<typename T>
T* copy(T* original, int size) {
T* result = malloc(sizeof(T)*size);
// At this point the default constructor of all new T objects have been called.
for(int i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
T t(original[i]);
memcpy(result+i*sizeof(T), &t, sizeof(T));
}
return result;
}
Note: Raw pointers are being used for simplicity.
Note 2: I don't need a vector. This pattern will be used to copy the underlying data structure of more complicated objects.
You will have to allocate memory by any other means, but keep in mind that size * sizeof(T) can overflow. std::allocator takes care of this.
Use std::uninitialized_copy/std::uninitialized_copy_n to perform the copy:
template<typename T>
T* copy(T* original, int size) {
std::allocator<T> alloc;
T* result = alloc.allocate(size);
try {
std::uninitialized_copy_n(original, size, result);
} catch (...) {
alloc.deallocate(result, size);
throw;
}
return result;
}
Later you can use std::destroy/std::destroy_n to destroy them and deallocate memory:
template<typename T>
void destroy(T* ptr, int size)
{
std::destroy_n(ptr, size);
std::allocator<T>().deallocate(ptr, size);
}
This should work unless you need to be able to delete them with operator delete[] - in which case there is no solution for this.
If you are implementing a custom container, you can use template allocator like standard containers do:
template<typename T, typename Allocator = std::allocator<T>>
struct container
{
[[no_unique_address]] Allocator allocator;
...
};
For the new operator I don't think so.
But yes there is. It's called std::vector:
template<typename T>
std::vector<T> copy(T* original, int size) {
return std::vector<T>{original, original + size};
}
Because you don't follow RAII and use owning raw pointers your code is not memory leak free, so don't do that! Use C++ properly.
I'm creating a stack class as an exercise trying to learn some c++ concepts (initializer lists, memory management and templates here). I've run into something that I can't get my head around.
In function void Stack::push(const T& item), if I uncomment the delete [] data; line, my code runs well when the template argument is for example int or char. But with std::string, I get weird memory errors.
My thinking here is that I need a bigger array -> arrays can't be resized -> I create a new one -> I deallocate the memory I needed for the one that's soon to be not needed -> I make the existing pointer point to a new memory address where I create the bigger array.
Now, when I comment the delete line, the code runs well even with std::string, but I can't see why I can't do the delete operation safely with all types.
Any insights will be appreciated.
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <memory.h>
template<class T>
class Stack
{
T* data;
int sz;
public:
//Stack(){sz=0;}
Stack(const std::initializer_list<T>&);
~Stack();
void push(const T&);
T& pop();
void show() const;
};
template<class T>
Stack<T>::Stack(const std::initializer_list<T> &list)
{
sz=0;
data = new T[list.size()];
for (auto i : list) {
data[sz] = i;
++sz;
}
std::cout<< "Created with sz: "<< sz<<std::endl;
}
template<class T>
Stack<T>::~Stack()
{
delete [] data;
}
template<class T>
void Stack<T>::push(const T& item) {
std::cout<<"push "<<item<<std::endl;
T* arr = new T[sz];
memcpy(arr, data, sz*sizeof(T));
//delete [] data;
data = new T[sz + 1];
memcpy(data, arr, sz*sizeof(T));
++sz;
data[sz - 1] = item;
std::cout<<"new size: "<<sz<<", bytes: "<<sz*sizeof(T)<<std::endl;
}
template<class T>
T& Stack<T>::pop()
{
if(sz > 0) {
std::cout<<"pop "<<data[sz-1]<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"new size: "<<sz-1<<std::endl;
return data[--sz];
}
else
return data[0];
}
template<class T>
void Stack<T>::show() const
{
for (int i=0; i<sz; i++) {
std::cout<<data[i]<<" ";
}
std::cout<<std::endl;
}
int main(){
Stack<int> s = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11};
s.show();
s.push(12);
s.push(13);
s.push(14);
s.pop();
s.pop();
s.push(15);
s.push(16);
s.show();
Stack<std::string> d = {"one","two","three"};
d.show();
d.pop();
d.push("four");
d.show();
return 0;
}
Don't use memcpy to copy objects, that will copy the bits alright, but for some object a bit-wise copy is not correct as the copy constructor (or copy assignment operator) Will not be used.
A good and simple example is if you have a stack of std::string objects. When you do a bit-wise copy (with memcpy) the contents of the std::string objects are copied, but that basically is just a pointer and a size. When you do a bit-wise copy then you will have two std::string objects referencing the same memory. Destroying one of those object will lead to the other having a stray pointer to some memory (that used to contain the string) that no longer is owned by your program.
To solve this use std::copy instead to copy the objects, it will do the right thing.
Unrelated to your problem, but your push function does a copy that it doesn't need:
T* arr = new T[sz];
memcpy(arr, data, sz*sizeof(T));
This is simply not needed, instead do something like
T* oldData = data;
data = new T[sz + 1];
// Copy from old array to new
std::copy(oldData, oldData + sz, data);
delete[] oldData;
I am trying to develop a generic List with templates. This list is compound by a Pointer array T* , an integer for getting the number of elements and some methods( find, contains...) It´s important to say that I cannot use std::library.
My problem comes when I am working with a List<List<int> > for instance.
One of the methods make a resizing of the T* pointer array, So when I have this List<List>>I create an auxpointer of a bigger size than T* and copying T content to auxpointer with a memcpy. The inner Pointers (list.T.T) are copied as pointers too, not memory duplicated, so when I delete the T* pointer and reasign T=auxpointer. I have already lost the data of that pointers in my new T.
template <typename T>
void CGenericList<T>::resize()
{
T* auxPointer = new T[this->maxElements*2];
memcpy (auxPointer,this->pointer,this->maxElements*sizeof(T));
delete[] this->pointer;
this->pointer=auxPointer;
this->maxElements=2*this->maxElements;
}
template<class T>
class CGenericList
{
public:
T* pointer;
int N;
int maxElements;
CGenericList();
CGenericList(int);
~CGenericList();
void resize();
}
Can anyone give me any tips for doing it?
The code you posted shows some problems.
T* auxPointer = new T[this->maxElements*2];
here you allocate a new array of maxElements*2 - and call the default constructor.
Which in your case probably initialises all Listelements.
memcpy (auxPointer,this->pointer,this->maxElements*sizeof(T));
After that you copy the content of your old array to the memory area of the newly allocated memory. This overwrites the pointers to the just created Listelements with the ones from the old array -> memory leak.
delete[] this->pointer;
Then you delete the array, this calls the destructors of all elements.
Which hopefully will delete their content and free their memory.
this->pointer=auxPointer;
Finally you reassign the newly created array. The pointers in the list point to the old listselements and point to not allocated memory anymore (because of the call to the destructor via delete[]).
A solution would be to implement an copy constructor for your list and call it for all
elements in your array. (DeepCopy) And of course an assignment operator, i almost forgot ;)
CGenericList(const CGenericList<T>& copy);
CGenericList<T>& operator= (const CGenericList<T>& rhs)
Probably somethig like this - be aware that this is "asis" and definitely not exceptionsafe ;)
template<class T>
class CGenericList
{
public:
T* pointer;
int N;
int maxElements;
CGenericList();
CGenericList( const CGenericList<T>& copy );
CGenericList<T>& operator=(const CGenericList<T>& rhs);
CGenericList(int);
~CGenericList();
void resize();
};
template <typename T>
void CGenericList<T>::resize()
{
T* auxPointer = new T[this->maxElements*2];
for(int i=0; i < this->maxElements; i++)
{
auxPointer[i] = this->pointer[i];
}
delete[] this->pointer;
this->pointer = auxPointer;
this->maxElements = this->maxElements*2;
}
template <typename T>
CGenericList<T>::CGenericList()
:N(0)
,maxElements(0)
{
this->pointer = new T[1];
}
template <typename T>
CGenericList<T>::CGenericList(const CGenericList<T>& copy)
:N(copy.N)
,maxElements(copy.maxElements)
{
T* temp = new T[copy.maxElements];
for(int i=0; i<N; i++ )
{
temp[i] = copy.pointer[i];
}
this->pointer = temp;
}
template <typename T>
CGenericList<T>& CGenericList<T>::operator=(const CGenericList<T>& rhs)
{
if( this != &rhs )
{
delete[] this->pointer;
this->pointer = new T[rhs.maxElements];
for(int i=0; i<rhs.maxElements; i++)
{
this->pointer[i] = rhs.pointer[i];
}
}
return *this;
}
template <typename T>
CGenericList<T>::CGenericList(int size)
:N(0)
,maxElements(size)
{
this->pointer = new T[size];
}
template <typename T>
CGenericList<T>::~CGenericList()
{
delete[] this->pointer;
}
int main(int /*argc*/, char */*argv*/[])
{
CGenericList<CGenericList<int> > list;
list.resize();
return 0;
}
If you don't like to use stl you can have a look at stlport
Your resize is not exception safe. You are first deleting the existing array and then allocating memory for a different size and then assigning auxPointer.
Coming to the problem you are having, check if the below approach helps.
T* auxPointer = new T[this->maxElements*2];
for ( int i =0; i < this->maxElements; ++i)
std::swap(auxPointer[i], pointer[i]);
delete[] this->pointer;
this->pointer = auxPointer;
this->maxElements=2*this->maxElements;