My program has been written using classes from the SDL library.
I have the following class:
class s_group
{
private:
SDL_Surface* image;
unsigned int* F_total;
float* F_length;
SDL_Rect** F;
float* F_current;
unsigned int S_total;
unsigned int S_current;
public:
s_group(void);
virtual ~s_group(void);
bool setup( const char* filename, unsigned int s );
//other member functions
};
Private member pointers each store the location of memory declared on the heap, as allocated by the member function setup.
bool s_group::setup( const char* filename, unsigned int s )
{
s_group::~s_group();//delete already allocated heap memory
if(!load_file(image, filename))
{
image = NULL;
return false;
}
S_total = s;
F = new SDL_Rect*[S_total];
F_total = new unsigned int[S_total];
F_length = new float[S_total];
F_current = new float[S_total];
for(unsigned int index = 0; index < S_total; ++index)
{
F[index] = NULL;
F_total[index] = 0;
F_length[index] = 0.f;
F_current[index] = 0.f;
}
//loop for each array slot and set values of data
return true;
}
Within a large function I create an object of this class on the heap, storing its address in an s_group pointer named sparkle.
s_group* sparkle = new s_group;
sparkle->setup("sparkle_final.png", 1 );
On completion of the function I call delete to reallocate the heap memory. Removing this line solves the problem, however there would then be a memory leak.
delete sparkle;
sparkle = NULL;
This will call the destructor of the class which is where I believe the error occurs due to an internal use of the delete operator.
s_group::~s_group(void)
{
SDL_FreeSurface(image);
image = NULL;
for(unsigned int s = 0; s < S_total; ++s)
{
for(unsigned int f = 0; f < F_total[s]; ++f)
{
F[s][f].x = 0;
F[s][f].y = 0;
F[s][f].w = 0;
F[s][f].h = 0;
}
delete[] F[s];
F[s] = NULL;
}
delete[] F;
F = NULL;
delete[] F_total;
F_total = NULL;
delete[] F_length;
F_length = NULL;
delete[] F_current;
F_current = NULL;
S_total = 0;
S_current = 0;
}
On reaching the delete operator, a dialog box appears stating:
Windows has triggered a breakpoint in Program.exe. This may be due to a corruption of the heap, which indicates a bug in Program.exe or any of the DLLs it has loaded.
How do I delete this object without causing the heap corruption?
From effective C++ Scott Meyers
Item 9: Never call virtual functions during construction or destruction.
You shouldn't call virtual functions during construction or destruction, because the calls won't do what you think, and if they did, you'd still be unhappy. If you're a recovering Java or C# programmer, pay close attention to this Item, because this is a place where those languages zig, while C++ zags.
Actually, even though you should define your destructor, calling it forcibly should be out of the question
I'm unable to compile your code but here goes..
The first thing I noticed was that you called your destructor.. You don't want to do that! Instead, create a release function and call that.
The next thing I noticed is that there is no FRAME variable within the class itself.. so this line:
FRAME = new SDL_Rect*[S_total];
is going to cause a compilation error and your destructor uses FRAME but no such variable exists. I think you meant to change it to F because if not, then this line:
F[index] = NULL;
is undefined behaviour since F is uninitialized..
Also, you never initialized each index of FRAME and so accessing it in the destructor like:
FRAME[s][f].x = 0;
is a no-no.
Again, you call
delete[] F;
F = NULL;
but F has no memory allocated and is uninitialized.
Thus with all the patches I think:
class s_group
{
private:
SDL_Surface* image;
unsigned int* F_total;
float* F_length;
SDL_Rect** FRAME;
float* F_current;
unsigned int S_total;
unsigned int S_current;
void Release();
public:
s_group(void);
virtual ~s_group(void);
bool setup(const char* filename, unsigned int s);
//other member functions
};
bool s_group::setup(const char* filename, unsigned int s)
{
Release();//delete already allocated heap memory
if(!load_file(image, filename))
{
image = NULL;
return false;
}
S_total = s;
FRAME = new SDL_Rect*[S_total];
F_total = new unsigned int[S_total];
F_length = new float[S_total];
F_current = new float[S_total];
for(unsigned int index = 0; index < S_total; ++index)
{
FRAME[index] = NULL;
F_total[index] = 0;
F_length[index] = 0.f;
F_current[index] = 0.f;
}
//loop for each array slot and set values of data
return true;
}
void s_group::Release()
{
SDL_FreeSurface(image);
image = NULL;
for(unsigned int s = 0; s < S_total; ++s)
{
for(unsigned int f = 0; f < F_total[s]; ++f)
{
if (FRAME[s])
{
FRAME[s][f].x = 0;
FRAME[s][f].y = 0;
FRAME[s][f].w = 0;
FRAME[s][f].h = 0;
}
}
delete[] FRAME[s];
FRAME[s] = NULL;
}
delete[] FRAME;
FRAME = NULL;
delete[] F_total;
F_total = NULL;
delete[] F_length;
F_length = NULL;
delete[] F_current;
F_current = NULL;
S_total = 0;
S_current = 0;
}
s_group::~s_group(void)
{
Release();
}
should do it.. Just don't forget to allocate memory for FRAME[index] I wasn't sure how much or what you wanted to allocate so I changed the Release function to check if FRAME[index] is valid with an if-statement
I would strongly advise that you use some SmartPointers and forget about handling every single memory allocation yourself..
Since posting this question I have located the source of the error and solved the issue.
In a separate section of code which set the data values for the dynamic 2D array the loop validation was incorrect.
for( unsigned int index = 0; index <= F_total[ S_current ]; ++index ) {
//set data values for each slot in the array
F[ S_current ][ index ].x = 0; etc...
}
As can be seen the loop will clearly attempt to modify a location equal to the size of the created array. Noting of course that arrays begin at index 0, so the final slot will be at size - 1. Something very silly that I missed when writing the code. Actual loop:
for( unsigned int index = 0; index < F_total[ S_current ]; ++index ) {
//set data values for each slot in the array
F[ S_current ][ index ].x = 0; etc...
}
A message for anyone attempting their own memory management:
Finding the source of heap corruption is difficult as the compiler will locate the error in sections of code which do not necessarily cause the problem.
The cause of the problem will only ever be in the section of your code which is affecting the memory. Ensure that you do not attempt to access or worse modify any memory that you have not been given.
I still believe that memory management is a great way to learn and would rather complete any projects in this way than using containers or smart pointers as recommended. This is my personal preference despite custom memory management often offering very few advantages, only complexities.
When asking for assistance provide all related code on the problem. Although the compiler may direct you to the problem in one section, as I said before, with heap corruption it's not necessarily there.
Related
I had hard time describing it in the title, but basically I have to turn some code from C based on structures into C++ one based on objects. At the beginnig it was more or less (I'll try to simplify since it's a part of a big library-like project):
typedef struct Thing{
int param;
char* name;
void* data; //Either some arrays or more structures, hence void*
};
Thing* Initialise(void){
Thing* thing;
thing = (Thing*)malloc(sizeof(*thing));
param = 0;
name = NULL;
data = NULL;
return thing;
}
Thing* thing1 = malloc(bytesofdata);
Thing** smallthings = (Thing**) thing1->data; //Basically if "data" is a structure of other things
for ( i = 0; i < numberofsmallthings; i++ ) {
size_t k;
for ( k = 0; k < fieldsperthing; k++ ) {
smallthings[i*fieldsperthing+k] = Initialise();
}
}
Then I turned the structure into a class and the function into its method which resulted in:
class Thing{
private:
int param;
char* name;
void* data; //Either some arrays or more structures, hence void*
public:
int Initialise(void);
};
int Thing::Initialise(void){
this->param = 0;
this->name = NULL;
this->data = NULL;
}
thing1->data = new Thing;
this->data = new char [bytesofdata];
Thing** smallthings = (Thing**)this->data;
for (i = 0; i < numberofsmallthings; i++) {
size_t k;
for (k = 0; k < fieldsperthing; k++) {
smallthings[i*fieldsperthing + k]->Initialise();
}
}
And in this version, no matter if I try initialising the memory of not I am greeted by "access violation".
Is there any way to make this work? Casting to structure seemed to work fine so my guess is that something about objects makes it not work but I have no idea how to potentially bypass this. I would like to avoid making more objects since due to this part being buried pretty deep in functions, deleting those would be quite hard (especially since it's supposed to be a data reading function so exact structure of "data" might be not known).
When you do this:
smallthings[i*fieldsperthing + k]->Initialise();
You're attempting to dereference an unintialized pointer. You first need to assign something to it, then you can initialize it:
smallthings[i*fieldsperthing + k] = new Thing;
smallthings[i*fieldsperthing + k]->Initialise();
Better yet, change Initialise to a constructor. Then you won't have to do creation and initialization in separate steps. So now you have:
int Thing::Thing(){
this->param = 0;
this->name = NULL;
this->data = NULL;
}
...
thing1 = new Thing();
this->data = (void *)new Thing *[numberofsmallthings];
Thing** smallthings = (Thing**)this->data;
for (i = 0; i < numberofsmallthings; i++) {
size_t k;
for (k = 0; k < fieldsperthing; k++) {
smallthings[i*fieldsperthing + k] = new Thing();
}
}
When I run this program sr1, sr2, sr3, sr4 objects are created and values are assigned to corresponding variables. But in sr5 object, the name remains blank while the roll_no percentage shows the correct value.
When change the value of
int MAX = 5;
to
int MAX = 6;
everything works fine.
Here is my code:
const int MAX = 5;
const int FREE = 0;
const int OCCUPIED = 1;
int flag = 0;
using namespace std;
void warning()
{
cout<<"\n------All memory occupied------"<<endl;
exit(1);
}
class student_rec
{
private:
char name[25];
int roll_no;
float percentage;
public:
student_rec(char *n, int r, float per)
{
strcpy(name, n);
roll_no = r;
percentage = per;
}
student_rec()
{
}
void set_rec(char *n, int r, float per)
{
strcpy(name, n);
roll_no = r;
percentage = per;
}
void show_rec()
{
cout<<"\n-------------------\n";
cout<<"Name= "<<name<<endl;
cout<<"Roll number= "<<roll_no<<endl;
cout<<"Percentage= "<<percentage<<endl;
}
void *operator new (size_t sz);
void operator delete (void *d);
};
struct memory_store
{
student_rec obj;
int status;
};
memory_store *m = NULL;
void *student_rec::operator new (size_t sz)
{
int i;
if(flag == 0)
{
m = (memory_store *) malloc(sz * MAX);
if(m == NULL)
warning();
for(i=0; i<MAX; i++)
m[i].status = FREE;
flag = 1;
m[0].status = OCCUPIED;
return &m[0].obj;
}
else
{
for(i=0; i<MAX; i++)
{
if(m[i].status == FREE)
{
m[i].status = OCCUPIED;
return &m[i].obj;
}
}
warning();
}
}
void student_rec::operator delete (void *d)
{
if(d == NULL)
return;
for(int i=0; i<MAX; i++)
{
if(d == &m[i].obj)
{
m[i].status = FREE;
strcpy(m[i].obj.name, "");
m[i].obj.roll_no = 0;
m[i].obj.percentage = 0.0;
}
}
}
int main()
{
student_rec *sr1, *sr2, *sr3, *sr4, *sr5, *sr6, *sr7;
sr1 = new student_rec("sandeep", 21, 78);
sr1->show_rec();
sr2 = new student_rec("sachin", 21, 78);
sr2->show_rec();
sr3 = new student_rec("sapna", 21, 78);
sr3->show_rec();
sr4 = new student_rec("vipin", 21, 78);
sr4->show_rec();
sr5 = new student_rec("niraj", 21, 78);
sr5->show_rec();
sr6 = new student_rec; // error all memory occupied.
return 0;
}
I run this code on linux machine.
This is terrible code. It is totally unaware of the C++ object model. Forget it and start with a good introductory book, that explains the object lifecycle, and how to properly create new objects.
More explanations about what goes wrong: flaw 1
The problem is in student_rec::operator new (). This line:
m = (memory_store *) malloc(sz * MAX);
let you think that m points to some valid array of memory_store objects. Unfortunately, the C malloc() is used to allocate raw memory. There are thus no valid objects in that memory. Otherwise said, the objects pointed to by m are in an unknown dirty state.
Later, the line
m[i].status = FREE;
handles the objects pointed by m as if they were already valid. This is undefined behavior. If you don't allocate objects the C++ way (e.g. new instead of malloc() ) you would first need to create them with a placement new.
Now for your simple object trivial object this will not cause too many damages. There's yet another flaw.
Even more explanations about what goes wrong: fatal flaw 2
There is a second serious problem: malloc only allocates sz * MAX bytes. As the operator is overloaded for student_rec, it will be called with sz being sizeof(student_rec). But your code assumes that it is sizeof(memory_store), so that the allocated memory is at least sizeof(int)*n bytes too short !!
This is why increasing MAX (and thus allocating more memory than needed for your 5 objects) seems to work.
Other remarks
Using global variables as you did, exposing m to the outside world, is very dangerous and error prone. Suppose that in some other functions you'd like to use a local variable m, but forget to declare it; you could corrupt your data structure much faster than you'd expect ! You'd better make it a private static member of student_rec.
Forget about fixed char arrays for storing C strings. If a name would be longer than expected, you'd get another serious problem that is difficult to spot (strcpy could result in memory corruption in such case). If you code in C++, take advantage of string in order not to worry about such details :-)
Stylistic remark: why not make flag a boolean and use true & false instead of 0 and 1 ?
Stylistic remark: The warning() function has a misleading name: warning() suggests that you issue a warning and continue. Why not giving it a self-documenting name like for example fatal_error() or warning_and_exit()
I am practicing memory allocation and disk management with C++. I just all of the work.. it just looks and seem's a little too easy. I am not sure if my pointer and my allocation and deallocations are correct. My Total FreeSpace looks like it will work, but it looks too basic. I just need someone's programming experience. When I try to run this code it gives me some kind of Error.
Bug Error
Please DO NOT ADD any new Global Variable.
const int MMSIZE = 60136;
char MM[MMIZE];
//** Initialize set up any data needed to manage the memory
void initializeMemory(void)
{
//**increments through the POOL_SIZE
for (int a = 0; a < MMSIZE; a++) {
MM[a] = 'NULL';
}
}
// return a pointer inside the memory
// If no chunk can accommodate aSize call onOutOfMemory()
void* allocate(int size)
{
//******NOT SURE*******
int *p = new int;
*p = 5;
return ((void*) 0);
}
// Free up a chunk previously allocated
void deallocate(void* mPointer)
{
//******NOT SURE*******
int *p = new int;
delete p;
p = 0;
p = new int(10);
}
//Scan the memory and return the total free space remaining
int remaining(void)
{
//******NOT SURE*******
int free = 0;
for (int a = 0; a < MMSIZE; a++)
{
if (MM[a] < MMSIZE)
{
free += a;
}
}
int free2 = free - MMSIZE;
return free2;
}
This code looks unfinished for even a sample but
//** Initialize set up any data needed to manage the memory
void initializeMemory(void)
{
//**increments through the POOL_SIZE
for (int a = 0; a < MMSIZE; a++) {
MM[a] = 'NULL';// <=== this should not even compile as the single quote should only take one character like '\x0' or 'N'
}
}
should not even compile as the single quote should only take one character like '\x0' or 'N'
but post the complete module and i can help you more and maybe explain a few things.
Without discussing other aspects of your code (such as memory leaking etc), the specific error you are getting most likely comes from *int_pointer = 0xDEADBEEF; line. int_pointer is equal to 0, because int_pointer = (long *)allocate(sizeof(long)); and your void* allocate(int size) with its return ((void*) 0); always returns 0. So you are getting exactly that exception: attempting to write 0xDEADBEEF at address 0x00000000, which is a forbidden operation (there is some OS specific stuff at low addresses).
Here's my code:
template<class T> class Test
{
public:
int Size = 0;
int Length = 0;
T* Items;
Test() {}
~Test()
{
delete [] Items;
}
void Append(const T& newItem)
{
if (Size + 1 >= Length)
{
Length += 250;
T* old = Items;
Items = new T[Length + 250];
for (int i = 0; i < Size; i++)
Items[i] = old[i];
delete [] old;
}
Items[Size] = newItem;
Size++;
}
};
Test<int> test;
for (int i = 0; i < 500000; i++)
test.Append(i);
I'm populating the dynamic array with 500000 integers which must take just 1-2Mb but it takes about 30Mb. There's no problem if i set the initial size to 500000(i.e. no resizing occurring). The grow value(250) seems to affect the memory somehow, if it's larger(for example 1000) then the memory usage is pretty low. What's wrong?
Typically, when you are reallocating an array, you do not want to modify the actual array until the very last second (to maintain exception safety):
T* temp = new T[new_size];
// assume count is the previous size and count < new_size
std::copy(Items, Items + count, temp);
std::swap(temp, Items);
delete [] temp;
Aside from that, there is nothing visible in your code that would cause a memory leak.
The extra size can possibly be due to other optimizations (being turned off) and/or debugging symbols being turned on. What compiler options are you using (and what compiler)? It should be noted that extra size is not necessarily an indication of a memory leak. Have you run this in a debugger or memory profiler which found a leak?
It should also be noted that std::vector does all of this for you.
Looking at your code, you're going to segfault more so than leak memory due to the fact that calling delete or delete[] on a non-NULL, but previously deallocated, pointer is a Bad Thing. Also, I don't believe this is your real code, because what you posted won't compile.
When you delete a pointer, always set it to NULL afterwards. It's good practice to initialize to NULL as well. Let's fix up your code to make sure we don't call delete on previously deallocated pointers. Also, let's initialize our pointer to NULL.
Your misuse of memory probably stems from the following lines of code:
Length += 250;
T* old = Items;
Items = new T[Length + 250];
Notice that you increment Length by 250, but then allocate Length+250 more elements? Let's fix that, too.
template<class T>
class Test
{
public:
int Size;
int Length;
T* Items;
Test() : Size(0), Length(0), Items(NULL){}
~Test() {
if (Items != NULL)
delete [] Items;
}
void Append(const T& newItem)
{
if (Size + 1 >= Length)
{
Length += 250;
T* old = Items;
Items = new T[Length];
for (int i = 0; i < Size; i++)
Items[i] = old[i];
delete [] old;
old = NULL;
}
Items[Size] = newItem;
Size++;
}
};
int main(){
Test<int> test;
for (int i = 0; i < 500000; i++)
test.Append(i);
}
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?