Selecting derived class based on function parameter - c++

I have these classes:
class Base
{
private:
string name;
public:
void setName(string n);
string getName();
void toString();
}
and two classes derived from this:
class DerivedA : public Base
{
private:
int width;
public:
void setWidth(int w);
int getWidth();
}
and
class DerivedB : public Base
{
private:
int height;
public:
void setHeight(int h);
int getHeight();
}
Now to my question. My main looks like this:
int main()
{
Base* b;
string line;
... file loading ...
while(...)
{
s = cin.getline(file,10);
if(s == "w")
{
b = new DerivedA();
}
else if(s == "h")
{
b = new DerivedB();
}
while(...)
{
b->toString();
}
}
return 0;
}
This always terminates my app. I found out that the b->toString(); part might be the source of the problem, because of different scopes. But anyway, is there a way how can I do this? (I left out boring and unrelated parts of code.)

Base should have a virtual destructor and every function you intend to override should be declared virtual. Additionally, your main function needs some modifications:
int main()
{
Base* b = nullptr; // initialize your pointer
string line;
// ... file loading ...
while(std::getline(file, line)) // this should be your while loop for your file parsing
{
//s = cin.getline(file,10); // why??? you appear to be trying to pass your ifstream object into cin's istream::getline method ... this won't even compile!
// I'm assuming s is a std::string, and you pull it out of the line variable at some point ...
if(s == "w")
{
if (b != nullptr) // properly free your memory
{
delete b;
b = nullptr;
}
b = new DerivedA();
}
else if(s == "h")
{
if (b != nullptr) // properly free your memory
{
delete b;
b = nullptr;
}
b = new DerivedB();
}
while(...)
{
if (b != nullptr) // make sure b is valid!
{
b->toString();
}
}
}
return 0;
}
This always terminates my app. I found out that the b->toString();
part might be the source of the problem, because of different scopes.
But anyway, is there a way how can I do this?
To start off with, what you have posted will (likely) not even compile. cin.getline will attempt to read from standard input. Your comment indicates you are loading a file, so (assuming that file is an std::ifstream instance, cin.getline(file, 10) is attempting to call a function std::istream::getline(std::istream&, int), which does not exist. std::getline does what it appears you want to do here. Additionally, even if you are attempting to read from standard input, it should be std::getline(std::cin, s), not cin.getline(file, 10).
Moving on, the next area is your memory leaks. Those are easy enough to fix by 1) initializing b when it is declared, and 2) properly deleteing it before you leak memory. The null checks are not totally necessary (with an initialized b), since delete will check for NULL anyway, but I wrote them in there to illustrate a point: you should be managing your memory properly!
Next up, your if-else if-condition has the potential to not do anything (that is, b would be uninitialized at worse, or NULL at best). If you don't want to do anything for non-"s"/"h" inputs, that is fine, but then you must do the following item (which you should do anyway).
Finally, the issue that is likely causing your crash is not checking if b is valid before attempting to use it: b->toString();. If b is invalid or null, you are invoking undefined behavior. Your program may crash, call your grandmother, or order a pizza for the President ... all would be valid options, and non of them are what you really intended to do.

Related

gcc8 is throwing compilation error due to non-trivially copyable type

class mapInfo
{
public:
mapInfo();
~mapInfo();
public:
int dataType_m;
private:
int *frequency;
};
//constructor is defined here.
mapInfo::mapInfo() :
dataType_m(0),
frequency(NULL)
{
}
//destructor is defined here
mapInfo::~mapInfo()
{
free(frequency);
frequency = NULL;
}
Result_t Maps::add(mapInfo &mapInfo_r)
{
if (maps_mp == NULL)
{
numMaps_m = 1;
maps_mp = (mapInfo *) calloc(1, sizeof(mapInfo));
}
else
{
numMaps_m++;
maps_mp = (mapInfo *) realloc(maps_mp, numMaps_m*sizeof(mapInfo));
}
maps_mp[numMaps_m-1] = mapInfo_r; // Default copy constructor
return 1;
}
While compiling with gcc8, getting the following compilation error. It looks like defining the destructor like above giving the compilation error for gcc8.
How to resolve this?
error: 'void* realloc(void*, size_t)' moving an object of non-trivially copyable type 'class xyyz::mapInfo'; use 'new' and 'delete' instead [-Werror=class-memaccess].
That’s simply not proper C++. Rewrite your code as follows (I’m guessing here with regards to the type of frequency, but definitely don’t use free on it):
#include <vector>
class map_info
{
public:
map_info();
private:
int data_type;
std::vector<int> frequency;
};
std::vector<map_info> maps_mp;
map_info::map_info() : data_type(0), frequency() {}
// …
void maps::add(map_info& map_info)
{
maps_mp.push_back(map_info);
}
maps_mp = (mapInfo *) realloc(maps_mp, numMaps_m*sizeof(mapInfo));
This is not sensible. You can't just move an object from one aree of memory to another if that object is non-trivial.
For example, consider a string object that keeps a pointer to the string. It could look like this:
class MyString
{
char* inner_ptr;
char buf[64];
...
};
And it might have a constructor like this:
MyString::MyString (const char* j)
{
if (strlen(j) < 64)
inner_ptr = buf;
else
inner_ptr = malloc (strlen(j) + 1);
strcpy(inner_ptr, j);
}
And a destructor like this:
MyString::~MyString()
{
if (buf != inner_ptr)
free (inner_ptr);
}
Now, think about what happens if you call relloc on an array of these. The short strings will still have their inner_ptrs pointing to the old object's buffer, which you just deallocated.
The error message explains this issue reasonable well. It is simply not legal to use realloc to move a non-trivial object. You have to construct a new object because the object needs a chance to handle the change in its address.

Dynamically Allocated Memory Constructor

I'm trying to create a constructor in which the strings are dynamically allocated. I've looked up dynamically allocated memory several times and watched a video about it, but I'm still not 100% sure if I'm understanding the concept. I'm hoping an example specific to what I'm coding will help me out a bit.
These are the private variables I have in my h file:
string* tableID;
int numSeats;
string* serverName;
With that in mind, could someone tell me how I could dynamically allocate memory for the strings in this constructor?
Table::Table(const string& tableID, int numSeats, const string& serverName) {
}
Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me the purpose of dynamically allocated memory. I've see explanations on what dynamically allocate memory is, but I'm not understanding the use of it. Why use dynamically allocated memory? What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? Thank you!
EDIT: I'm including the rest of the h file. Note that this wasn't created by me, so I can't make changes to it. I can only adhere to it in the cpp file.
#include <string>
#include "party.h"
using std::string;
class Table {
public:
Table();
Table(const string& tableID, int numSeats, const string& serverName);
~Table();
const string* getTableID() const { return tableID; }
int getNumSeats() const { return numSeats; }
const string* getServerName() const { return serverName; }
void decrementTimer() { timer--; }
int getTimer() const { return timer; }
void setTimer(int duration) { timer = duration; }
const Party* getParty() { return party; }
void seatParty(const Party* newParty);
void clearTable() { party = nullptr; timer = 0; }
private:
string* tableID;
int numSeats;
string* serverName;
int timer;
const Party* party;
};
The easiest way to get what you want is to take advantage of the Member Initializer List as this also solves the problem of having the parameters shadow the member variables of the same name.
Table::Table(const string& tableID,
int numSeats,
const string& serverName):
tableID(new string(tableID)),
numSeats(numSeats),
serverName(new string(serverName))
{
}
Allocation is performed with the new operator. Later you will have to release the dynamically allocated memory with the delete operator. Here is documentation on new and the same for delete.
But the use a pointer requirement is bizarre as storing pointers to string makes everything else you with the class do orders of magnitude more difficult. This may be the point of the assignment, but there are better and less-confusing ways to teach this lesson.
The allocated strings must be released. The C++ idiom of Resource Allocation Is Initialization (What is meant by Resource Acquisition is Initialization (RAII)?) suggests you have a destructor to automate clean-up to ensure that it is done. If you need a destructor, you almost always need the other two members of The Big Three (What is The Rule of Three?) and possibly need to take The Rule of Five into account as well.
Whereas because string observes the Rule of Five for you, you should be able to take advantage of the Rule of Zero and implement no special functions.
M.M raises an excellent point in the comments. The above example is too naive. It is probably all you need for the assignment, but it's not good enough for real code. Sooner or later it will fail. Example of how it fails.
First we replace string with something that can expose the error:
class throwsecond
{
static int count;
public:
throwsecond(const string &)
{
if (count ++)
{
count = 0; // reset count so only every second fails
throw runtime_error("Kaboom!");
}
cout << "Constructed\n";
}
~throwsecond()
{
cout << "Destructed\n";
}
};
int throwsecond::count = 0;
Then a simple class that does basically the above with less frills
class bad_example
{
throwsecond * a;
throwsecond * b;
public:
bad_example(): a(nullptr), b(nullptr)
{
}
bad_example (const string& a,
const string& b)
{
this->a = new throwsecond(a);
this->b = new throwsecond(b);
}
~bad_example()
{
delete a;
delete b;
}
};
and a main to exercise it
int main()
{
cout << "Bad example\n";
try
{
bad_example("", "");
}
catch (...)
{
cout << "Caught exception\n";
}
}
Output:
Bad example
Constructed
Caught exception
We have an object constructed and never destroyed.
Since a default constructor has been defined by Table we can, with a compiler that supports the C++11 or a more recent Standard, take advantage of delegated constructors to force destruction of the partially constructed object because it has been fully constructed by the default constructor.
class good_example
{
throwsecond * a;
throwsecond * b;
public:
good_example():
a(nullptr), b(nullptr) //must be nulled or destruction is dicey
{
}
good_example (const string& a,
const string& b) : good_example() // call default constructor
{
this->a = new throwsecond(a);
this->b = new throwsecond(b);
}
~good_example()
{
delete a;
delete b;
}
};
Output:
Good example
Constructed
Destructed
Caught exception
One construct and one destruct. The beauty of this approach is it scales well and adds nothing to the code that you don't already have. The cost is minimal, a and b get initialized and then assigned as opposed to just initialization. Faster code is useless if it doesn't work.
Full example: https://ideone.com/0ckSge
If you can't compile to a modern standard, you wind up doing something like
the next snippet to make sure everything is deleted. It's main sin is it's ugly, but as you add more classes that must be constructed and destroyed it starts getting unwieldy.
Table::Table(const string& tableID,
int numSeats,
const string& serverName):
tableID(NULL),
numSeats(numSeats),
serverName(NULL)
{
try
{
this->tableID(new string(tableID)),
// see all the this->es? don't shadow variables and you won't have this problem
// miss a this-> and you'll have a really bad day of debugging
this->serverName(new string(serverName))
// more here as required
}
catch (...)
{
delete this->tableID;
delete this->serverName;
// more here as required
throw;
}
}
There is probably a way to improve on this and make it more manageable, but I don't know it. I just use newer standards and value semantics (I'd love it if someone can provide a good link that describes this concept) where possible.

How can I access a class's member function via an array of pointers?

I have a pretty standard class with some public member functions and private variables.
My problem originally stems from not being able to dynamically name object instances of my class so I created an array of pointers of the class type:
static CShape* shapeDB[dbSize];
I have some prompts to get info for the fields to be passed to the constructor (this seems to work):
shapeDB[CShape::openSlot] = new CShape(iParam1,sParam1,sParam2);
openSlot increments properly so if I were to create another CShape object, it would have the next pointer pointing to it. This next bit of code doesn't work and crashes consistently:
cout << shapeDB[2]->getName() << " has a surface area of: " << shapeDB[2]->getSA() << shapeDB[2]->getUnits() << endl;
The array of pointers is declared globally outside of main and the get() functions are public within the class returning strings or integers. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but something relating to the pointer set up I'm sure. I'm writing this code to try and learn more about classes/pointers and have gotten seriously stumped as I can't find anyone else trying to do this.
I'm also curious as to what the CShape new instances get named..? if there is any other way to dynamically create object instances and track the names so as to be able to access them for member functions, I'm all ears.
I've tried all sorts of permutations of pointer referencing/de-referencing but most are unable to compile. I can post larger chunks or all of the code if anyone thinks that will help.
class CShape {
int dim[maxFaces];
int faces;
string units;
string type;
string name;
bool initialized;
int slot;
public:
static int openSlot;
CShape();
CShape(int, string, string); // faces, units, name
~CShape();
void initialize(void);
// external assist functions
int getA(void) {
return 0;
}
int getSA(void) {
int tempSA = 0;
// initialize if not
if(initialized == false) {
initialize();
}
// if initialized, calculate SA
if(initialized == true) {
for(int i = 0; i < faces; i++)
{
tempSA += dim[i];
}
return(tempSA);
}
return 0;
}
string getUnits(void) {
return(units);
}
string getName(void) {
return(name);
}
// friend functions
friend int printDetails(string);
};
// constructor with values
CShape::CShape(int f, string u, string n) {
initialized = false;
faces = f;
units = u;
name = n;
slot = openSlot;
openSlot++;
}
My guess is you use the CShape constructor to increment CShape::openSlot?
You're probably changing the value before it's read, thus the pointer is stored in a different location.
Try replacing openSlot with a fixed value to rule out this CShape::option.
-- code was added --
I'm pretty sure this is the problem, the constructor is executed before the asignment, which means the lhs. will be evaluated after CShape::openSlot is incremented.

C++ Class design - easily init / build objects

Using C++ I built a Class that has many setter functions, as well as various functions that may be called in a row during runtime.
So I end up with code that looks like:
A* a = new A();
a->setA();
a->setB();
a->setC();
...
a->doA();
a->doB();
Not, that this is bad, but I don't like typing "a->" over and over again.
So I rewrote my class definitions to look like:
class A{
public:
A();
virtual ~A();
A* setA();
A* setB();
A* setC();
A* doA();
A* doB();
// other functions
private:
// vars
};
So then I could init my class like: (method 1)
A* a = new A();
a->setA()->setB()->setC();
...
a->doA()->doB();
(which I prefer as it is easier to write)
To give a more precise implementation of this you can see my SDL Sprite C++ Class I wrote at http://ken-soft.com/?p=234
Everything seems to work just fine. However, I would be interested in any feedback to this approach.
I have noticed One problem. If i init My class like: (method 2)
A a = A();
a.setA()->setB()->setC();
...
a.doA()->doB();
Then I have various memory issues and sometimes things don't work as they should (You can see this by changing how i init all Sprite objects in main.cpp of my Sprite Demo).
Is that normal? Or should the behavior be the same?
Edit the setters are primarily to make my life easier in initialization. My main question is way method 1 and method 2 behave different for me?
Edit: Here's an example getter and setter:
Sprite* Sprite::setSpeed(int i) {
speed = i;
return this;
}
int Sprite::getSpeed() {
return speed;
}
One note unrelated to your question, the statement A a = A(); probably isn't doing what you expect. In C++, objects aren't reference types that default to null, so this statement is almost never correct. You probably want just A a;
A a creates a new instance of A, but the = A() part invokes A's copy constructor with a temporary default constructed A. If you had done just A a; it would have just created a new instance of A using the default constructor.
If you don't explicitly implement your own copy constructor for a class, the compiler will create one for you. The compiler created copy constructor will just make a carbon copy of the other object's data; this means that if you have any pointers, it won't copy the data pointed to.
So, essentially, that line is creating a new instance of A, then constructing another temporary instance of A with the default constructor, then copying the temporary A to the new A, then destructing the temporary A. If the temporary A is acquiring resources in it's constructor and de-allocating them in it's destructor, you could run into issues where your object is trying to use data that has already been deallocated, which is undefined behavior.
Take this code for example:
struct A {
A() {
myData = new int;
std::cout << "Allocated int at " << myData << std::endl;
}
~A() {
delete myData;
std::cout << "Deallocated int at " << myData << std::endl;
}
int* myData;
};
A a = A();
cout << "a.myData points to " << a.myData << std::endl;
The output will look something like:
Allocated int at 0x9FB7128
Deallocated int at 0x9FB7128
a.myData points to 0x9FB7128
As you can see, a.myData is pointing to an address that has already been deallocated. If you attempt to use the data it points to, you could be accessing completely invalid data, or even the data of some other object that took it's place in memory. And then once your a goes out of scope, it will attempt to delete the data a second time, which will cause more problems.
What you have implemented there is called fluent interface. I have mostly encountered them in scripting languages, but there is no reason you can't use in C++.
If you really, really hate calling lots of set functions, one after the other, then you may enjoy the following code, For most people, this is way overkill for the 'problem' solved.
This code demonstrates how to create a set function that can accept set classes of any number in any order.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <stdarg.h>
// Base class for all setter classes
class cSetterBase
{
public:
// the type of setter
int myType;
// a union capable of storing any kind of data that will be required
union data_t {
int i;
float f;
double d;
} myValue;
cSetterBase( int t ) : myType( t ) {}
};
// Base class for float valued setter functions
class cSetterFloatBase : public cSetterBase
{
public:
cSetterFloatBase( int t, float v ) :
cSetterBase( t )
{ myValue.f = v; }
};
// A couple of sample setter classes with float values
class cSetterA : public cSetterFloatBase
{
public:
cSetterA( float v ) :
cSetterFloatBase( 1, v )
{}
};
// A couple of sample setter classes with float values
class cSetterB : public cSetterFloatBase
{
public:
cSetterB( float v ) :
cSetterFloatBase( 2, v )
{}
};
// this is the class that actually does something useful
class cUseful
{
public:
// set attributes using any number of setter classes of any kind
void Set( int count, ... );
// the attributes to be set
float A, B;
};
// set attributes using any setter classes
void cUseful::Set( int count, ... )
{
va_list vl;
va_start( vl, count );
for( int kv=0; kv < count; kv++ ) {
cSetterBase s = va_arg( vl, cSetterBase );
cSetterBase * ps = &s;
switch( ps->myType ) {
case 1:
A = ((cSetterA*)ps)->myValue.f; break;
case 2:
B = ((cSetterB*)ps)->myValue.f; break;
}
}
va_end(vl);
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
cUseful U;
U.Set( 2, cSetterB( 47.5 ), cSetterA( 23 ) );
printf("A = %f B = %f\n",U.A, U.B );
return 0;
}
You may consider the ConstrOpt paradigm. I first heard about this when reading the XML-RPC C/C++ lib documentation here: http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/doc/libxmlrpc++.html#constropt
Basically the idea is similar to yours, but the "ConstrOpt" paradigm uses a subclass of the one you want to instantiate. This subclass is then instantiated on the stack with default options and then the relevant parameters are set with the "reference-chain" in the same way as you do.
The constructor of the real class then uses the constrOpt class as the only constructor parameter.
This is not the most efficient solution, but can help to get a clear and safe API design.

C++ new[] into base class pointer crash on array access

When I allocate a single object, this code works fine. When I try to add array syntax, it segfaults. Why is this? My goal here is to hide from the outside world the fact that class c is using b objects internally. I have posted the program to codepad for you to play with.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// file 1
class a
{
public:
virtual void m() { }
virtual ~a() { }
};
// file 2
class b : public a
{
int x;
public:
void m() { cout << "b!\n"; }
};
// file 3
class c : public a
{
a *s;
public:
// PROBLEMATIC SECTION
c() { s = new b[10]; } // s = new b;
void m() { for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) s[i].m(); } // s->m();
~c() { delete[] s; } // delete s;
// END PROBLEMATIC SECTION
};
// file 4
int main(void)
{
c o;
o.m();
return 0;
}
Creating an array of 10 b's with new and then assigning its address to an a* is just asking for trouble.
Do not treat arrays polymorphically.
For more information see ARR39-CPP. Do not treat arrays polymorphically, at section 06. Arrays and the STL (ARR) of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard.
One problem is that the expression s[i] uses pointer arithmetic to compute the address of the desired object. Since s is defined as pointer to a, the result is correct for an array of as and incorrect for an array of bs. The dynamic binding provided by inheritance only works for methods, nothing else (e.g., no virtual data members, no virtual sizeof). Thus when calling the method s[i].m() the this pointer gets set to what would be the ith a object in the array. But since in actuality the array is one of bs, it ends up (sometimes) pointing to somewhere in the middle of an object and you get a segfault (probably when the program tries to access the object's vtable). You might be able to rectify the problem by virtualizing and overloading operator[](). (I Didn't think it through to see if it will actually work, though.)
Another problem is the delete in the destructor, for similar reasons. You might be able to virtualize and overload it too. (Again, just a random idea that popped into my head. Might not work.)
Of course, casting (as suggested by others) will work too.
You have an array of type "b" not of type "a" and you are assigning it to a pointer of type a. Polymorphism doesn't transfer to dynamic arrays.
a* s
to a
b* s
and you will see this start working.
Only not-yet-bound pointers can be treated polymorphically. Think about it
a* s = new B(); // works
//a* is a holder for an address
a* s = new B[10]
//a* is a holder for an address
//at that address are a contiguos block of 10 B objects like so
// [B0][B2]...[B10] (memory layout)
when you iterate over the array using s, think about what is used
s[i]
//s[i] uses the ith B object from memory. Its of type B. It has no polymorphism.
// Thats why you use the . notation to call m() not the -> notation
before you converted to an array you just had
a* s = new B();
s->m();
s here is just an address, its not a static object like s[i]. Just the address s can still be dynamically bound. What is at s? Who knows? Something at an address s.
See Ari's great answer below for more information about why this also doesn't make sense in terms of how C style arrays are layed out.
Each instance of B contains Both X data member and the "vptr" (pointer to the virtual table).
Each instance of A contain only the "vptr"
Thus , sizeof(a) != sizeof(b).
Now when you do this thing : "S = new b[10]" you lay on the memory 10 instances of b in a raw , S (which has the type of a*) is getting the beginning that raw of data.
in C::m() method , you tell the compiler to iterate over an array of "a" (because s has the type of a*) , BUT , s is actualy pointing to an array of "b". So when you call s[i] what the compiler actualy do is "s + i * sizeof(a)" , the compiler jumps in units of "a" instead of units of "b" and since a and b doesn't have the same size , you get a lot of mambojumbo.
I have figured out a workaround based on your answers. It allows me to hide the implementation specifics using a layer of indirection. It also allows me to mix and match objects in my array. Thanks!
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// file 1
class a
{
public:
virtual void m() { }
virtual ~a() { }
};
// file 2
class b : public a
{
int x;
public:
void m() { cout << "b!\n"; }
};
// file 3
class c : public a
{
a **s;
public:
// PROBLEMATIC SECTION
c() { s = new a* [10]; for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) s[i] = new b(); }
void m() { for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) s[i]->m(); }
~c() { for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) delete s[i]; delete[] s; }
// END PROBLEMATIC SECTION
};
// file 4
int main(void)
{
c o;
o.m();
return 0;
}