Dealing with accessing NULL pointer - c++

In my class, I've got - inter alia - a pointer:
Class GSM
{
//...
private:
char *Pin;
//...
}
My constructor initialize it as:
GSM::GSM()
{
//...
Pin = NULL;
//...
}
Now, I want to set default value ("1234") to my PIN. I tried very simple way:
bool GSM::setDefaultValue()
{
lock();
Pin = "0";
for (uint8 i =0; i < 4; ++i)
{
Pin[i] = i+1;
}
unlock();
return true;
}
But it didn't work. When I run my program (I use Visual Studio 2010) there is an error:
Access violation writing location 0x005011d8
I tried to remove line
Pin = "0";
But it didn't help. I have to initialize it as NULL in constructor. It's part of a larger project, but I think, the code above is what makes me trouble. I'm still pretty new in C++/OOP and sometimes I still get confused by pointers.
What should I do to improve my code and the way I think?
EDIT: As requested, I have to add that I can't use std::string. I'm trainee at company, project is pretty big (like thousands of files) and I did not see any std here and I'm not allowed to use it.

You need to give the Pin some memory. Something like this:
Pin = new char[5]; // To make space for terminating `\0`;
for(...)
{
Pin[i] = '0' + i + 1;
}
Pin[4] = '\0'; // End of the string so we can use it as a string.
...
You should then use delete [] Pin; somewhere too (Typically in the destructor of the class, but depending on how it's used, it may be needed elsewhere, such as assignment operator, and you need to also write a copy-constructor, see Rule Of Three).
In proper C++, you should use std::string instead, and you could then do:
Class GSM
{
//...
private:
std::string Pin;
....
Pin = "0000";
for (uint8 i =0; i < 4; ++i)
{
Pin[i] += i+1;
}
Using std::string avoids most of the problems of allocating/deallocating memory, and "just works" when you copy, assign or destroy the class - because the std::string implementation and the compiler does the work for you.

You need to allocate a block of memory to store "1234". This memory block will be pointed by your Pin pointer.
You can try:
bool GSM::setDefaultValue()
{
lock();
Pin = new char[4];
for (uint8 i =0; i < 4; ++i)
{
Pin[i] = '0' + (i + 1);
}
unlock();
return true;
}
As you have allocated dynamicaly a memory block, you should always release it when you don't need it anymore. To do so, you should add a destructor to your class:
GSM::~GSM()
{
delete [] Pin;
}

Simple answer:
Instead of using the heap (new delete) just allocate space in your class for the four character pin:
Class GSM
{
//...
private:
char Pin[5];
//...
}
The length is fixed at 5 (to allow space for 4 characters and terminating null ('\0'), but as long as you only need to store a maximum of 4 characters, you are fine.
Of course, if you want to make it easy to change in the future:
Class GSM
{
//...
private:
const int pin_length = 4;
char Pin[pin_length+1];
//...
}
Your function to set the value will then look like:
bool GSM::setDefaultValue()
{
lock();
for (char i = 0; i < pin_length; ++i)
{
Pin[i] = i+1;
}
Pin[pin_length]=0;
unlock();
return true;
}
or even:
bool GSM::setDefaultValue()
{
lock();
strcpy(Pin,"1234"); //though you would have to change this if the pin-length changes.
unlock();
return true;
}

Related

Remove the warning C6001

I am using VS2017 and do not understand why I am getting compiler "Warning C6001 Using uninitialized memory 'values'", on line if(values!= NULL) in catch block.
#include <windows.h>
typedef enum
{
VALUE_STATE_NOT_AVAILABLE = 1,
VALUE_STATE_ERROR = 2,
VALUE_STATE_VALID = 3,
VALUE_STATE_UNKNOWN = 4
} XyzValueState_t;
class XyzValue
{
private: XyzValueState_t _valueState;
protected: XyzValue( XyzValueState_t valueState ) {
_valueState = valueState;
}
}
typedef XyzValue* xyzValuePtr_t;
main(){
bool flag=true;
xyzValuePtr_t* values = NULL;
unsigned int _argument=2;
if(flag==true) {
values = new PCLValuePtr_t[2]{ NULL,NULL };
try {
values[0] = new PCLUnsignedInteger(_argument);
values[1] = new PCLUnsignedInteger(_argument);
xyz(values); // passing the value to third party function which returns void
}
catch(...) {
if(values!= NULL){
for(int k = 0; k < 1; k++) {
delete values[k];
values[k] = NULL;
}
delete [] values;
values = NULL;
}
}
}
}
Thank you in advance for your help and guidance
not quite sure why your compiler thinks this might be unitialized.
But, in C++, I'd argue that the way you're building your array with new is unnecessarily complicated and error prone. This look like someone from 1993 tried to write C++11. You have initializer lists, but you don't use RAII!
so, do the C++ thing and use C++'s deterministic object lifetime to manage memory. For an array of objects, this is elegantly handled by std::vector:
#include <vector>
class XyzValue;
main(){
bool flag=true;
unsigned int _argument=2;
if(flag==true) {
std::vector<XyzValue> values(2); // default initialization for two XyzValues.
try {
xyz(values.data()); // if you need the raw contiguous memory. **You probably don't.**
}
catch(...) {
// all the manual deletion not necessary anymore, because at end of scope, things are deconstructed automatically, so this catch clause now is empty.
}
}
}
See how this is much shorter, better readable, has the same functionality, but none of the need to manually delete anything? That's why we write C++ instead of C.

c++ program crash when executing the function that allocates memory

To be honest, this is an homework assignment, which is about pointers and dynamic memory allocation. This program simulates the manipulation of file directories. Since it contains several files, so I would just paste a few parts here.The program crashed when I executed the function for the third time. I have looked up some solutions for debugging this kind of program crash, but still can't fix it.
struct fs_node
{
char* name;
fs_node* parent_directory;
fs_node** content;
int no_of_content;
};
bool loop_for_md (fs_node* current_directory, const char* dir_name)
{
//current_directory is initialized in the main.cpp
//find out whether the content contains the same name as dir_name
if(current_directory->content==NULL)
{
return true;
}
else
{
for(int i = 0; i<= current_directory->no_of_content; i++)
{
if(strcmp(current_directory->content[i]->name, dir_name)==0)
return false;
else
continue;
}
}
return true;
}
bool make_dir (fs_node* current_directory, const char* dir_name)
{
if(current_directory->content==NULL)
{
fs_node** n = new fs_node*[20];
current_directory->content = n;
fs_node *x = new fs_node();
current_directory->content[current_directory->no_of_content]=x;
x->parent_directory = current_directory;
x->name = new char[100];
strcpy(x->name, dir_name);
current_directory->no_of_content++;
delete x;
x=0;
}
else if(loop_for_md(current_directory, dir_name))//I expect that this part crashes
{
fs_node* x = new fs_node();
current_directory->content[current_directory->no_of_content]=x;
x->parent_directory = current_directory;
x->name = new char[100];
strcpy(x->name, dir_name);
current_directory->no_of_content++;
delete x;
x=0;
}
else return false;
return true;
}
When you have created a new fs_node and inserted it into the directory tree, you shouldn't delete it - that ends the object's lifetime and you're not allowed to use it after that.
Formally, doing so has "undefined behaviour", which means that anything can happen, including a crash much later in a different piece of code or - much worse - appearing to work as intended.

C++ memory leak that I can't find

I have a small example program here for the particle photon that has a memory bug that I cannot figure out.
What it does: loads up a buffer with small string chunks, converts that large buffer back into a string. Then it creates a bunch of objects that are only wrappers for small chunks of buffer. It does this repetitively, and I don't allocate any new memory after the setup(), yet the memory goes down slowly until it crashes.
main.cpp
includes, variable declarations
#include "application.h" //needed when compiling spark locally
#include <string>
#include <unordered_map>
#include "dummyclass.h"
using namespace std;
SYSTEM_MODE(MANUAL);
char* buffer;
unordered_map<int, DummyClass*> store;
string alphabet;
unsigned char alphabet_range;
unsigned char state;
int num_chars;
static const unsigned char STATE_INIT = 0;
static const unsigned char STATE_LOAD_BUFFER = 1;
static const unsigned char STATE_PREP_FOR_DESERIALIZE = 2;
static const unsigned char STATE_FAKE_DESERIALIZE = 3;
static const unsigned char STATE_FINISH_RESTART = 4;
delete objects helper function
bool delete_objects()
{
Serial.println("deleting objects in 'store'");
for(auto iter = store.begin(); iter != store.end(); iter++)
{
delete iter->second;
iter->second = nullptr;
}
store.clear();
if(store.empty())
return true;
else
return false;
}
set up function, allocates memory, initial assignments
void setup()
{
Serial.begin(9600);
Serial1.begin(38400);
delay(2000);
buffer = new char[9000];
alphabet = string("abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789~!##$^&*()_-?/><[]{}|");
alphabet_range = alphabet.length() - 1;
state = STATE_INIT;
num_chars = 0;
}
loop function, gets run over and over
void loop()
{
switch(state){
case STATE_INIT: {
strcpy(buffer, "");
state = STATE_LOAD_BUFFER;
delay(1000);
break;
}
case STATE_LOAD_BUFFER: {
if(num_chars < 6000){
string chunk;
for(char i = 0; i < 200; i++){
int index = rand() % alphabet_range;
chunk.append(alphabet.substr(index, 1));
num_chars++;
}
strcat(buffer, chunk.c_str());
}
else{
num_chars = 0;
state = STATE_PREP_FOR_DESERIALIZE;
}
delay(500);
break;
}
case STATE_PREP_FOR_DESERIALIZE: {
Serial.println("\nAttempting to delete current object set...");
delay(500);
if(delete_objects())
Serial.println("_delete_objects succeeded");
else {
Serial.println("_delete_objects failed");
break;
}
state = STATE_FAKE_DESERIALIZE;
delay(1000);
break;
}
case STATE_FAKE_DESERIALIZE: {
string buff_string(buffer);
if(buff_string.length() == 0){
Serial.println("Main:: EMPTY STRING CONVERTED FROM BUFFER");
}
int index = 0;
int key = 1;
while(index < buff_string.length())
{
int amount = (rand() % 50) + 5;
DummyClass* dcp = new DummyClass(buff_string.substr(index, amount));
store[key] = dcp;
index += amount;
key++;
}
state = STATE_FINISH_RESTART;
delay(1000);
break;
}
case STATE_FINISH_RESTART: {
state = STATE_INIT;
break;
}
}
}
dummyclass.h
very minimal, constructor just stores a string in a character buffer. this object is just a wrapper.
using namespace std;
class DummyClass {
private:
char* _container;
public:
DummyClass(){
}
DummyClass(string input){
_container = new char[input.length()];
strcpy(_container, input.c_str());
}
~DummyClass(){
delete _container;
_container = nullptr;
}
char* ShowMeWhatYouGot(){
return _container;
}
};
EDIT:
This is a real problem that I am having, I'm not sure why it is getting downvoted. Help me out here, how can I be more clear? I'm reluctant to shrink the code since it imitates many aspects of a much bigger program that it is modeling simply. I want to keep the structure of the code in place in case this bug is an emergent property.
Always account for the string terminator:
DummyClass(string input){
_container = new char[input.length()];
strcpy(_container, input.c_str());
}
Allocates one too few bytes to hold the input string and terminator that is then copied into it. The \0that's appended at the end is overwriting something, which is most likely metadata required to re-integrate the alloced memory fragment back into the heap successfully. I'm actually surprised it didn't crash...
It probably doesn't happen every allocation (only when you overflow into a new 8 byte aligned chunk), but once is enough :)
So, after some testing, I'd like to give a shout out to Russ Schultz who commented the right answer. If you want to post a solution formally, I would be happy to mark it as correct.
The memory bug is caused by allocating the char buffer _container without considering the null terminating character, meaning I am loading in a string that is too big. (not entirely sure why this causes a bug and doesn't throw an error?)
On a different site however, I also received this piece of advice:
string chunk;
for(char i = 0; i < 200; i++){
int index = rand() % alphabet_range;
chunk.append(alphabet.substr(index, 1));
// strcat(buffer, alphabet.substring(index, index + 1));
num_chars++;
}
This loop looks suspect to me. You are depending on the string append method to grow chunk as needed, but you know you are going to run that loop 200 times. Why not use the string reserve method to just allocate that much space? I bet that this chews up a lot of memory with each new char you append calling realloc, potentially fragmenting memory.
This ended up not being the solution, but it might be good to know.

Return string read from buffer and function without dynamic allocation?

How would I go about returning a string built from a buffer within a function without dynamically allocating memory?
Currently I have this function to consider:
// Reads null-terminated string from buffer in instance of buffer class.
// uint16 :: unsigned short
// ubyte :: unsigned char
ubyte* Readstr( void ) {
ubyte* Result = new ubyte[]();
for( uint16 i = 0; i < ByteSize; i ++ ) {
Result[ i ] = Buffer[ ByteIndex ];
ByteIndex ++;
if ( Buffer[ ByteIndex - 1 ] == ubyte( 0 ) ) {
ByteIndex ++;
break;
};
};
return Result;
};
While I can return the built string, I can't do this without dynamic allocation. This becomes a problem if you consider the following usage:
// Instance of buffer class "Buffer" calling Readstr():
cout << Buffer.Readstr() << endl;
// or...
ubyte String[] = Buffer.String();
Usages similar to this call result in the same memory leak as the data is not being deleted via delete. I don't think there is a way around this, but I am not entirely sure if it's possible.
Personally, I'd recommend just return std::string or std::vector<T>: this neatly avoids memory leaks and the string won't allocate memory for small strings (well, most implementations are going that way but not all are quite there).
The alternative is to create a class which can hold a big enough array and return an object that type:
struct buffer {
enum { maxsize = 16 };
ubyte buffer[maxsize];
};
If you want get more fancy and support bigger strings which would then just allocate memory you'll need to deal a bit more with constructors, destructors, etc. (or just use std::vector<ubyte> and get over it).
There are at least three ways you could reimplement the method to avoid a direct allocation with new.
The Good:
Use a std::vector (This will allocate heap memory):
std::vector<ubyte> Readstr()
{
std::vector<ubyte> Result;
for (uint16 i = 0; i < ByteSize; i++)
{
Result.push_back(Buffer[ByteIndex]);
ByteIndex++;
if (Buffer[ByteIndex - 1] == ubyte(0))
{
ByteIndex++;
break;
}
}
return Result;
}
The Bad:
Force the caller to provide an output buffer and possibly a size do avoid overflows (Does not directly allocate memory):
ubyte* Readstr(ubyte* outputBuffer, size_t maxCount)
{
for (uint16 i = 0; i < ByteSize; i++)
{
if (i == maxCount)
break;
outputBuffer[i] = Buffer[ByteIndex];
ByteIndex++;
if (Buffer[ByteIndex - 1] == ubyte(0))
{
ByteIndex++;
break;
}
}
return outputBuffer;
}
The Ugly:
Use an internal static array and return a reference to it:
ubyte* Readstr()
{
enum { MAX_SIZE = 2048 }; // Up to you to decide the max size...
static ubyte outputBuffer[MAX_SIZE];
for (uint16 i = 0; i < ByteSize; i++)
{
if (i == MAX_SIZE)
break;
outputBuffer[i] = Buffer[ByteIndex];
ByteIndex++;
if (Buffer[ByteIndex - 1] == ubyte(0))
{
ByteIndex++;
break;
}
}
return outputBuffer;
}
Be aware that this last option has several limitations, including possibility of data races in multithreaded application and inability to call it inside a recursive function, among other subtle issues. But otherwise, is probably the closest to what you are looking for and can be used safely if you take some precautions and make some assumptions about the calling code.

Deallocation of an array of objects?

I'm having some issues deallocating arrays of a class I have. Below is the Class, a simplified implementation and my code I have tried to use to close it.
Characters class
#include <cstdlib>
class Character
{
private:
bool human;
int Xposition; // the character's postion on the board.
int Yposition; // the character's postion on the board.
bool alive;
public:
Character(); //This is my constructor
~Character(); //This is my destructor
bool isHuman(); //return whether type 1 aka Human
bool isZombie(); //return whether type 2 aka Zombie
void setHuman(); //set to type 1 or Human
void setZombie(); //set to type 2 or Zombie
void setPos(int xpos, int ypos); //set the board position
int X();
int Y();
bool isAlive(); //checks to see if a Human is still alive and to be displayed
bool Dead(); //kills the character and sets alive to false
int num_moves_allowed; //number of moves allowed.
};
Allocation code:
Character *characters[11];
int human_count = 0;
for(int i=0; i<12; i++)
{
characters[human_count] = new Character();
human_count++;
}
Termination code:
for(i=11;i<=0;i--)
{
if(characters)
{
characters[i]->~Character();
delete characters[i]; characters[i] = NULL;
}
}
if(characters)
{
//ERROR IS HERE
delete [] characters;
}
I have tried a number of different "delete" commands on the array and I keep getting an "Debug Assertion Failed!" window. It says that the dbgdel.cpp from visual studio vctools is the problem place on Line 52.
It also says "Expression: _BLOCK_TYPE_IS_VALID(pHead->nBlockUse)
Someone please help me I'm sure this is very simple.
I'd suggest you avoid using arrays all together. Use a vector of characters.
Declare your vector as
vector<Character> vCharacters;
then insert objects as
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
vCharacters.push_back(Character());
If you want to store pointers to Character objects then wrap them in a shared_ptr which will take care of deallocating them for you.
vector<shared_ptr<Character>> vCharacters;
for(int i =0; i < 100; i++)
{
shared_ptr<Character> spCharacter(new Character());
vCharacters.push_back(spCharacter);
}
Avoid managing memory yourself when C++ can do it fo ryou
The characters array was allocated on the stack, so you don't have to delete it. However, if you want the array to survive the local scope, create it with something like this:
Character **characters = new Character[11];
then your delete[] line should work fine.
Also note that you don't need to call the destructor of Character explicitly: it is called automatically by delete.
As obelix mentioned, you should use a vector from the Standard Template Library.
However, if you're determined to use a raw array:
const int MAX_CHARACTERS = 11;
Character *characters[MAX_CHARACTERS];
for(int characterCount = 0; characterCount < MAX_CHARACTERS; ++characterCount)
{
characters[characterCount] = new Character();
}
...
if (characters != NULL)
{
for(int i = 0; i < MAX_CHARACTERS; ++i)
{
delete characters[i];
}
}
Paolo Capriotti is correct that characters should be declared with new if you want it to last beyond its scope:
const int MAX_CHARACTERS = 11;
Character **characters = new Character*[MAX_CHARACTERS];
for(int characterCount = 0; characterCount < MAX_CHARACTERS; ++characterCount)
{
characters[characterCount] = new Character();
}
...
if (characters != NULL)
{
for(int i = 0; i < MAX_CHARACTERS; ++i)
{
delete characters[i];
}
delete [] characters;
}
A better solution is the standard vector class:
#include <vector>
...
const int MAX_CHARACTERS = 11;
std::vector<Character> characters;
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_CHARACTERS; ++i)
{
characters.push_back(Character());
}
...
characters.clear();
Notice how much easier the cleanup was? (And in this case, it's optional, since when characters is destroyed it will automatically call the destructor of each item it contains.)
Also:
Character *characters[11];
should be
Character *characters[12];
and
for(i=11;i<=0;i--)
should be
for(i=11;i>=0;i--)
i realize this is a simplified use and all, but why bother with heap access at all?
just using
Character characters[11];
could be just as valid, and safe.
std::vector<> is nice, but if the list is always fixed size, and there's no heap involved in member data, why not?