C++ allocating dynamic memory in one function and clearing another function - c++

Question

I would like experts review on the following dynamic memory allocation process and suggest whether there are any memory leaks. Following code is not real code in use, but trying understand concept of memory allocations and de-allocation in different ways.
class ObjMapData
{
private:
int* itsMapData;
........
public:
ObjMapData();
~ObjMapData(){if(itsMapData!= NULL) delete[] itsMapData;}
ClearMemory() {if(itsMapData!= NULL) {delete[] itsMapData; itsMapData= NULL}}
.......
void SetMapData(int* ptrData) { itsMapData = ptrData;} // or should I use int*&ptrData??
int* GetMapData() const { return itsMapData;}
}
Now can I do the following without any memory leaks?
bool Function1(ObjMapData& objMyMap)
{
//populate the ptrData with some data values using many different ways
int* ptrData = new int[1000]; // usually a variable from binary file header
......................
objMyMap.SetMapData(ptrData);
//don't want to delete the memory yet
return true;
}
bool Function2(ObjMapData& objMyMap)
{
int* ptrData = objMyMap.GetMapData();
//do some work such as writing updated data into a binary file
}
bool Function3(ObjMapData& objMyMap)
{
//populate the data
bool bStatus = Function1(objMyMap);
int* ptrData = objMyMap.GetMapData();
//update the map data using ptrData variable
..........
bStatus = Function2(objMyMap); // write data to a binary file
objMyMap.ClearMemory(); // not real code in use, but for understanding the concept
bStatus = Function1(objMyMap); // re-allocate memory
ptrData = objMyMap.GetMapData();
//update the map data using ptrData variable
objMyMap.SetMapData(ptrData); // Do I need to set again or member pointer get updated automatically?
return true
}
int main()
{
ObjMapData objMyMap;
bool bStatus = Function3(objMyMap);
//default destructor of objMyMap can take care of the allocated memory cleanup
return 0;
}
Thank you for your time to confirm the dynamic memory allocation..

Answer 1

Although this may seem to be more to do with style than your question about memory leaks, I would handle the data privately within the class:
class ObjMapData
{
private:
int* itsMapData;
// consider adding 'datasize' member variable
........
public:
ObjMapData(){ itsMapData=NULL; }; // initialise member variable(s)!
~ObjMapData(){ delete[] itsMapData;}
ClearMemory() { delete[] itsMapData; itsMapData=NULL; }
.......
void CreateMapData(int size) { ClearMemory(); itsMapData= new int[size]; }
void FillDataFrom( ???? ) { ???? };
int* GetMapData() const { return itsMapData;}
}
You are then in a better position to improve the class by adding copy constructor and assignment methods which will prevent memory leaks when you use the class.
EDIT
You ask:
My concern here is which of the following is right: void
SetMapData(int* ptrData) Vs void SetMapData(int*&ptrData)
Both are 'right' in the sense that both allow the external (to the class) pointer to be copied and used within your class - with respect to 'memory leaks' it depends on which part of your code you want to manage the memory you allocated. You could:
Have a class handle allocation/deallocation internally
Allocate memory, use some class to manipulate it, deallocate memory outside class
Have a class allocate memory and later deallocate it outside the class
Allocate memory and have some class manipulate and deallocate it.
Usually I find 1 and 2 make more sense than 3 or 4. i.e. it is easier to follow what is going on, less likely to hide errors and so on.
However, as far as 'leaking memory' is concerned: it does not matter where the pointer to an allocated memory block is, how it has been copied, assigned or referenced - it is it's value as a memory address which is important. So, as long as you new and delete that memory address correctly you will not leak memory (whether those actions are inside a class or not).
If, in your application, you need to allocate/deallocate the int array external to your class, it does make some sense for the member functions reference the pointer as a hint to the reader that the class is not responsible for its deallocation - but some decent comments should make that clear anyway :)
Over the years I've come across umpteen bugs due to the mishandling of the "passing of ownership" of allocated memory (more so with good ol 'C') where some piece of code has been written assuming either that it has to free a block or someone else will do it.
Does that answer your question or have I missed the point?