Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to make a linked list with a set of data and I'm wondering if there's a way to make a variable's address change. Something like:
for(int i=array.size()-1;i>=0;i--)
{
Node *previous_ptr;
Node *current_ptr = new Node(array[i], previous_ptr);
previous_ptr=current_ptr;
delete current_ptr;
}
So I want current_ptr's address to change (allocate a different spot of memory) so the linked list gets constructed if that's possible. And I can't use alloc for it only new and delete.
Calls of new produce different addresses every time you call it, unless you call delete, in which case the memory becomes reusable, so operator new can return it again.
Your code creates hanging pointers: when you call delete on line 3
Node *current_ptr = new Node(array[i], previous_ptr);
previous_ptr=current_ptr;
delete current_ptr;
the value of current_ptr and previous_ptr immediately become invalid. At the same time, the pointer returned by new becomes eligible for reuse, so you get the same pointer when you call new again.
You should not call delete on anything that you plan to use again.
In addition, previous_ptr declared inside a for loop is not useful, because its value is thrown away on each iteration. If you would like to keep that pointer between iterations, declare it outside the loop.
As far as I know, you cannot change a variables address and it doesn't make any sense to me, if you think about what is happening in the background.
If you need a different address for your data, allocate new memory, store your data a 2nd time and delete the old data.
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
After calling and using the function, I can access the parameters through the pointer. And I think the parameters are kept in memory. I'm trying to delete the parameters after using the code below.
int MyFunction(int p1,int p2)
{
int total = p1 + p2;
delete& p1;
delete& p2;
return total;
}
and using this
int a = MyFunction(15, 30);
(my project name) initiated a breakpoint.I get an error. How do I delete parameters ?
Your function parameters are passed by value, so they are allocated automatically, not dynamically. You cannot delete them. Being automatically allocated, they will also be automatically deallocated when the function returns, so just skip trying to delete them and go straight to returning.
You can only delete objects allocated on heap (via new).
The parameters to the function are allocated on stack before function call and the runtime "removes" them once the function exits.
(The removal just means that the stack pointer is moved to look as if the parameters no longer exist)
How to delete function parameter?
In general, you shouldn't delete arbitrary variables. You should only delete pointers that you explicitly allocated with new somewhere else in your code.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am still a beginner in c++, but I know something. I am studying the 1st term and I wanna make my own project, IMO it's the best way to learn to program. Anyway I wanna load data from file to dynamic array (and I know how to do that) but I to that job be done by special function and to that array be visible for other function (alternativity global). I know that using global variables is not good idea so I am thinking if it's possible to make variable friend with NO classes (bc I didn't use and learn classes yet)
Thanks in advance!
friend is not what you're looking for. A variable is just a named object. What you want to do here is not to somehow access the function's variable from the outside (that's not actually possible, function variables only exist when the function is executing). You want to transfer the object from one function to th other. That's done through the function's return value:
std::vector<int> readDataFromFile() {
std::vector<int> data;
// Read the file and store it into `data`
return data;
}
int main() {
std::vector<int> myData = readDataFromFile();
// Use `myData` as needed
}
You can see above that readDataFromFile works on its data variable, then returns it. This means that, right as readDataFromFile ends, myData in main (another, independent object) is initialized from data, and the data itself lives on.
Notes:
Do not use C-style arrays, new or delete. These are meant for compatibility with C and low-level memory management, not general use. A C++ dynamic array is an std::vector<YourType>.
Further notions:
Here myData is move-initialized, which means that no copy of the data is made: the dynamic array is transferred directly from data to myData
This is a case where NRVO can occur. That's an optimization which notices that data is redundant, and will replace it with direct access to myData, so there will only ever be one vector object throughout the program's execution. This is not observable in the general case., wo you don't need to worry about it.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it useful to create a pointer or an array of pointers on the heap ? if so when and why would I need to do so ?
For example:
#include <iostream>
class Box { /* things... */ };
int main(void){
// Single pointer on the heap
Box** pBox = new Box*(nullptr);
*pBox = new Box();
// Array of pointers on the heap
Box** pBoxes = new Box*[3]{};
pBoxes[0] = new Box();
pBoxes[1] = new Box();
pBoxes[2] = new Box();
// Delete pointers...
return 0;
}
EDIT: Just to make my question more clear ... I know dealing with raw pointers is not the best practice ... I just want to fully understand pointers and their uses as they are important part of c++ hence my question is (is it useful...).
The reasoning behind allocating any memory space on the heap or on the stack is not related to the type of variables allocated, it's related to how it's allocated and how it's meant to be used.
In any case, nowadays you should usually avoid new statements and use "managed" pointers, particularly the std::xxx variants.
From what i read, the heap has slower access speed than the stack so, I don't think that it is very useful to do what you are talking about.
Maybe this will help you trought your research: http://gribblelab.org/CBootcamp/7_Memory_Stack_vs_Heap.html
As another answer mentioned, usually actual access to the heap is slower than access to the stack, however access speed generally isn't the reason for creating and dealing with pointers.
The typical use case for pointers is to avoid copying data. When you're dealing with large objects and passing them between many functions, it is considered "better" to pass by reference rather than by value.
If you use the object from the stack (unless you pass it as a reference, but there are limitations when doing this) it makes a copy of the whole thing for the called method. When passing a pointer to a method, it is only copying an address.
See if this article helps you understand the differences.
Yes, there can be reasons to have pointers on the heap. A factory function that keeps track of every object it creates might store them in a vector, for example:
vector<unique_ptr<Box>> BoxFactory::allBoxes;
Box* BoxFactory::makeBox()
{
allBoxes.emplace_back(make_unique<Box>());
return allBoxes.back().get();
}
Note: some people have suggested that this is not double-indirection. It is:
// Accesses some_box_member of the first Box.
allBoxes.data()->get()->some_box_member
Just as with the OP's example, you have two pointers in play, not just one. The vector contains pointers which have been allocated on the heap, and those pointers contain another pointer that points to the Box object.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
For deleting and an array of element we use delete[].
Is it possible to delete the pointers the way I am doing below?
ClassA* object = new ClassA();
ClassA* pointer1 = object;
ClassA* object2 = new ClassA();
ClassA* pointer2 = object2;
delete pointer1,pointer2;
Why its not possible to use delete this way?
[Edit]
Can I put it like, what are the drawbacks due to which the above delete has not been implemented?
It's not possible, because there is no provision for it in the C++ language definition. I'm not sure there is any "good" answer to why the language doesn't support a list of items for delete, except for the fact that it's simpler to not do that.
You need to write one delete for each variable. Of course, if you have many pointerX, then you probably should be using an array instead, and use a loop to delete the objects.
Edit: Of course, if you are calling delete in many places in your code, you are probably doing something wrong - or at least, you are not following the RAII principles very well. It's of course necessary to learn/understand dynamic allocation to have full understanding of the language, but you should really avoid calling both new and delete in your own code - let someone else sort that out (or write classes that do "the right thing")
It is not working this way. delete is a command for a single pointer. You can put the pointers in a structure (e.g. array) or a container (e.g. using a vector container class) and delete for each one of them by iterating the structure/container.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Hello I have three classes
AbstSoccerTeam
PlayersSoccerTeam
PlayersFieldPlayerStates
PlayerSoccerTeam is a child class of AbstSoccerTeam.
bool AlanSoccerTeam::isClosestTeamMemberToSupportingPlayer(FieldPlayer* plyr)
is a method in player soccer team.
i am trying to call that method in the PlayersFieldPlayerStates class with this
PlayersSoccerTeam* sTeam;
sTeam->isClosestTeamMemberToSupportingPlayer(player);
I can get this problem when i run it
uninitialized local variable 'sTeam' used
I dont know whats going on or why i am getting this error.
Any help is apprecitated greatly
Thanking You
The problem is you have created a pointer to a PlayersSoccerTeam but you have not actually created the object itself yet.
I would suggest doing this.
PlayersSoccerTeam sTeam;
sTeam.isClosestTeamMemberToSupportingPlayer(player);
You could alternatively do this.
PlayersSoccerTeam* sTeam = new PlayersSoccerTeam()
sTeam->isClosestTeamMemberToSupportingPlayer(player);
As perhaps an interesting education experience create a constructor that prints something to stdout when it is run and then try doing these two options and yours to see what happens. A constructor will be run whenever a new object is created.
PlayersSoccerTeam* sTeam;
This line declares a pointer to a PlayersSoccerTeam and nothing else. All you get from this line is a pointer. It doesn't point anywhere in particular since you haven't initialized. There is no PlayersSoccerTeam anywhere to point to.
If you want an object of type PlayersSoccerTeam, then you just want:
PlayersSoccerTeam sTeam;
sTeam.isClosestTeamMemberToSupportingPlayer(player);
Since you told us about your hierarchy, it's possible that you want to use your PlayersSoccerTeam polymorphically as a AbstSoccerTeam. In this case you would need to use either a pointer or reference. This could be done like so:
AbstSoccerTeam* sTeam = new PlayersSoccerTeam();
// ...
delete sTeam;
Note that this still declares just a pointer, but the expression new PlayersSoccerTeam also creates a PlayersSoccerTeam object for the pointer to point to. Note that it's perfectly fine to assign a pointer to a PlayersSoccerTeam to a pointer to its parent AbstSoccerTeam - this is polymorphism in action. If you do this, you must make sure you delete sTeam; later, otherwise the object will be leaked.
A safer way to handle the user of dynamically allocated objects is to use a smart pointer, which you could do like so:
std::unique_ptr<AbstSoccerTeam> sTeam(new PlayersSoccerTeam());
Now you will not have to delete it because the std::unique_ptr takes care of that for you.