I am using std::map to map string values to MyType *. My map declaration looks like this:
map<string, MyType *> *my_map = new map<string, MyType>;
my_map is a private member variable of one of my classes. My problem is that I am unsure of how to destroy the map. When deleteing the map, I would also like to call delete on all of the MyType * contained in the map. Here is my current destructor:
my_map->erase(my_map->begin(), my_map->end());
delete my_map;
Will this delete the pointers contained in the map, or do I need to iterate through the map to delete each pointer before calling erase?
Pointers merely point. When using raw pointers, you need to know which part of your app owns the resources that the pointers point to. If they are owned by the map, you will need to iterate over the map and call delete on each pointer before the map is destroyed. But if the map just holds pointers to objects that are owned by other parts of your code, you don't need to do anything.
A safer solution is to use shared_ptr to manage object lifetime, which will ensure that the object gets deleted properly when the last shared_ptr is destroyed. You can store shared_ptrs inside the map and if no other shared_ptr instances reference the objects within the map, the objects will be destroyed when the map is destroyed, as desired.
If you use smart pointers instead of raw pointers, everything will be cleaned up for you automatically.
// header:
using MapType = std::map<std::string, std::shared_ptr<MyType>>;
shared_ptr<MapType> my_map;
// usage:
my_map.emplace("foo", std::make_shared<MyType>());
// destructor:
MyClass::~MyClass()
{
// nothing!
}
Will this delete the pointers contained in the map [...]?
No, given the code you have provided, you will leak every member of the map.
As a rule, for every new there must be a matching delete. You have a delete for the map, but none for the elements within.
The most correct solution to this problem is to not use dynamic allocation at all. Just store MyTypes directory, if possible:
map<string, MyType>
... and instead of dynamically allocating the map itself, store that automatically:
map<string,MyType> my_map;
If automatic storage duration is not possible for some reason, then use a smart pointer for the dynamic allocations. Given a C++11 compiler, use unique_ptr (or, rarely, shared_ptr or even weak_ptr) for the elements in the map:
map<string, unique_ptr<MyType>> my_map;
(Given a C++03 compiler, use the Boost equivalents thereof.) Then when my_map is destroyed, all the elements will be deleted.
Baring all of this, if you are in a situation where none of the above will work for you (I would by highly suspect), then you will need to iterate the map youself:
struct deleter
{
template <typename T> operator() (const T& rhs) const
{
delete rhs.second;
}
};
for_each (my_map->begin(), my_map->end(), deleter());
In C++11, this could be made a lambda, something along the line of:
for_each (my_map->begin(), my_map->end(), [](auto item) -> void
{
delete item.second;
});
In modern C++, just make your life easier and use pointers only if strictly required.
You started with this code:
map<string, MyType *> *my_map = new map<string, MyType>;
The first thing you can do is to consider using a std::map instance as data member, instead of a pointer to it.
Then, if MyType is not super-expensive to copy and its instances are only owned by the map, just consider a simple map from string to MyType (instead of MyType*):
// my_map data member - no pointers --> automatically deleted in class destructor
map<string, MyType> my_map;
If you really need a map containing pointers, consider using smart pointers, like std::shared_ptr (available in C++11/14) for shared ownership, or std::unique_ptr for unique non-shared ownership.
(If you target C++98/03, an option is to use boost::shared_ptr. Since there is no move semantics, you can't have unique_ptr, which is heavily based on the move semantics feature.)
e.g.:
// Map containing _smart_ pointers
// --> default destructor is fine (no need for custom delete code)
map<string, shared_ptr<MyType>> my_map;
As you can see, using value semantics (instead of raw pointers), or smart pointers, you can simplify your code and use the automatic destruction provided by C++.
Related
I have two questions. First I have an std::unordered_map<int,Object*> where Object looks like this:
// Object.hpp
class Object {
public:
Object();
~Object(){};
int Id();
void setId(int i);
private:
int id;
};
This unordered_map is put in a class called DataSet which is used as a container to hold all of these objects. In DataSet I want to be able to properly erase a key/value pair given an integer id from Object.
To do this I tried to create an iterator that finds the key by id, and then deletes the pointer to the iterator, and finally erases the key/value pair. It looks like this:
int DataSet::deleteObject(int id)
{
std::unordered_map<int,Object*>::iterator found_it = objects.find(id);
if(found_it != objects.end()) {
delete *found_it;
objects.erase(found_it);
}
return 1;
}
However, when I compile it I get this error:
dataset.cpp:44:9: error: cannot delete expression of type 'value_type'
(aka 'pair<key_type, mapped_type>')
delete *found_it;
Is there a correct way to erase the Object at that location?
Second, when writing a clear() method, I realize I can't just do objects.clear(), so I was wondering if there was a way to actually clear the unordered_map.
For example when I used a std::vector I was able to do this:
std::vector<Object *>::reverse_iterator object;
for(object = objects.rbegin(); object < objects.rend(); object++)
delete(*object);
objects.clear();
But that won't work now for an unordered_map, so what is the right way to do this? The requirements that I am under make it so I can't change Object, or how the unordered_map is set up.
The first part of the question is quite simple: the iterator reference the value and a given location which is of type std::pair<int const, Object*>. You can't delete such an object. You'll get the pointer using the second part of the object, e.g.:
delete found_it->second;
However, it is actually quite uncommon and error-prone to take care of this kind of maintenance. You are much better off not storing an Object* but rather a std::unique_ptr<Object>: the std::unique_ptr<Object> will automatically release the object upon destruction. That would also simplify removing an element:
int DataSet::deletObject(int id) {
return objects.erase(id);
}
When storing std::unique_ptr<Object> you'll probably need to be a bit more verbose when inserting elements into the container, though, e.g.:
objects.insert(std::make_pair(key, std::unique_ptr<Object>(ptr)));
Given that your Object class doesn't have any virtual functions you could probably just store an Object directly, though:
std::unordered_map<int, Object> objects;
Dereferencing an unordered_map::iterator produces a unordered_map::value_type&, i.e. pair<const Key, Value>&.
You want
delete found_it->second;
objects.erase(found_it);
Stepping back a bit, are you sure you even need std::unordered_map<int,Object*> instead of std::unordered_map<int,Object>? If you use the latter you wouldn't have to worry about deleteing anything.
If you do need the mapped_type be an Object* you should use std::unordered_map<int,std::unique_ptr<Object>>. Again, this makes it unnecessary to manually delete the values before erasing an entry from the map.
Also, if Object is the base class for whatever types you're going to be adding to the map, don't forget that it needs a virtual destructor.
Simple question, I just want to initialize a map to be empty, instead of being a nullptr.
const std::map<std::string, std::string>* emptyDictionary;
I tried
const std::map<std::string, std::string>* emptyDictionary = {"", ""};
but obviously that's not right.
Thanks guys.
You forgot to make any map at all -- you just made a pointer! You can make the pointer point to a dynamically allocated map:
const std::map<std::string, std::string>* emptyDictionary
= new std::map<std::string, std::string>;
This map will be truly empty. If you add the initializer {{"", ""}}, which you may well do, then you don't actually have an empty map, but rather a map with one element which maps an empty string to an empty string.
Note that you can never modify your map through the const pointer, so it's a bit questionable why you'd want to do this.
Note also that wanton dynamic allocation is generally a poor programming style. There's almost surely a better way to do whatever you need to do, or, based on your comment, you're just grossly misunderstanding something: The best way to obtain a pointer is to take the address of an existing object:
std::map<std::string, std::string> m;
foo(&m); // pass address of m as a pointer
const std::map<std::string, std::string>* emptyDictionary
= new std::map<std::string, std::string>();
The default (empty) constructor of map will create an empty map http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/stl/map/map/.
Either declare the map with automatic allocation on the stack by just writing
std::map<std::string, std::string> emptyDictionary();
And send it to your function using the addres-off operator
yourfunction(&emptyDictionary);
However, if the dictionary will outlive the instance of it was created, you need to dynamically allocate it instead to avoid a call to its destructor.
const std::map<std::string, std::string>* emptyDictionary = new std::map<std::string, std::string>();
Then you dont need the address-of operator when calling your function.
yourfunction(emptyDictionary);
However, the responsibility of deallocation will then be yours. When you dont need the object any longer, you need to delete the object using the delete statement.
delete emptyDictionary;
I am looking for a way to insert multiple objects of type A inside a container object, without making copies of each A object during insertion. One way would be to pass the A objects by reference to the container, but, unfortunately, as far as I've read, the STL containers only accept passing objects by value for insertions (for many good reasons). Normally, this would not be a problem, but in my case, I DO NOT want the copy constructor to be called and the original object to get destroyed, because A is a wrapper for a C library, with some C-style pointers to structs inside, which will get deleted along with the original object...
I only require a container that can return one of it's objects, given a particular index, and store a certain number of items which is determined at runtime, so I thought that maybe I could write my own container class, but I have no idea how to do this properly.
Another approach would be to store pointers to A inside the container, but since I don't have a lot of knowledge on this subject, what would be a proper way to insert pointers to objects in an STL container? For example this:
std::vector<A *> myVector;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
A *myObj = new myObj();
myVector.pushBack(myObj);
}
might work, but I'm not sure how to handle it properly and how to dispose of it in a clean way. Should I rely solely on the destructor of the class which contains myVector as a member to dispose of it? What happens if this destructor throws an exception while deleting one of the contained objects?
Also, some people suggest using stuff like shared_ptr or auto_ptr or unique_ptr, but I am getting confused with so many options. Which one would be the best choice for my scenario?
You can use boost or std reference_wrapper.
#include <boost/ref.hpp>
#include <vector>
struct A {};
int main()
{
A a, b, c, d;
std::vector< boost::reference_wrapper<A> > v;
v.push_back(boost::ref(a)); v.push_back(boost::ref(b));
v.push_back(boost::ref(c)); v.push_back(boost::ref(d));
return 0;
}
You need to be aware of object lifetimes when using
reference_wrapper to not get dangling references.
int main()
{
std::vector< boost::reference_wrapper<A> > v;
{
A a, b, c, d;
v.push_back(boost::ref(a)); v.push_back(boost::ref(b));
v.push_back(boost::ref(c)); v.push_back(boost::ref(d));
// a, b, c, d get destroyed by the end of the scope
}
// now you have a vector full of dangling references, which is a very bad situation
return 0;
}
If you need to handle such situations you need a smart pointer.
Smart pointers are also an option but it is crucial to know which one to use. If your data is actually shared, use shared_ptr if the container owns the data use unique_ptr.
Anyway, I don't see what the wrapper part of A would change. If it contains pointers internally and obeys the rule of three, nothing can go wrong. The destructor will take care of cleaning up. This is the typical way to handle resources in C++: acquire them when your object is initialized, delete them when the lifetime of your object ends.
If you purely want to avoid the overhead of construction and deletion, you might want to use vector::emplace_back.
In C++11, you can construct container elements in place using emplace functions, avoiding the costs and hassle of managing a container of pointers to allocated objects:
std::vector<A> myVector;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
myVector.emplace_back();
}
If the objects' constructor takes arguments, then pass them to the emplace function, which will forward them.
However, objects can only be stored in a vector if they are either copyable or movable, since they have to be moved when the vector's storage is reallocated. You might consider making your objects movable, transferring ownership of the managed resources, or using a container like deque or list that doesn't move objects as it grows.
UPDATE: Since this won't work on your compiler, the best option is probably std::unique_ptr - that has no overhead compared to a normal pointer, will automatically delete the objects when erased from the vector, and allows you to move ownership out of the vector if you want.
If that's not available, then std::shared_ptr (or std::tr1::shared_ptr or boost::shared_ptr, if that's not available) will also give you automatic deletion, for a (probably small) cost in efficiency.
Whatever you do, don't try to store std::auto_ptr in a standard container. It's destructive copying behaviour makes it easy to accidentally delete the objects when you don't expect it.
If none of these are available, then use a pointer as in your example, and make sure you remember to delete the objects once you've finished with them.
I have a hashmap which contains items of struct Foo (not pointers). Now, I want to have pointers of those items in a list. How can I do this?
I have tried to iterate the hashmap and insert the &*iter's to the list but the pointers get invalidated as soon as they are out of scope.
I should be able to do this without dynamic allocation, shouldn't I?
I do like this and it does not work:
for(...)
{
Foo& bar = *iter;
list.insert(&bar);
}
Pointers to items in the hashmap will become invalid the same time iterators become invalid.
If you leave the hashmap alone (i.e. don't insert/delete/copy/anything after you have iterated it and taken addresses of its elements), your pointers should remain valid.
I have a hashmap which contains items
of struct Foo (not pointers). Now, I
want to have pointers of those items
in a list. How can I do this?
Like this:
typedef Whatever_Hash_Map<Foo> Container;
Container container;
...populate container...
std::list<Foo*> l;
for (Container::const_iterator i = container.begin(); i != container.end(); ++i)
l.insert(&*i);
...use list...
I have tried to iterate the hashmap
and insert the &*iter's to the list
but the pointers get invalidated as
soon as they are out of scope.
You can't use this list if you let anything go out of scope. If you need the list to persist past the return of the function that creates it, be sure to allocate the list itself on the heap and return a pointer to it.
I should be able to do this without
dynamic allocation, shouldn't I?
A list allocates nodes dynamically. The Hash Map probably internally allocates buckets dynamically. But, you don't have to explicitly allocate pointers-to-Foos dynamically - all the Standard and similar containers would copy the Foos onto the heap using value semantics (i.e. Foo's copy constructor or assignment operator).
I do like this and it does not work:
for(...) { Foo& bar = *iter;
list.insert(&bar); }
That in and of itself looks fine, the error is elsewhere in your code. That's why you should follow James' suggestion and post enough code that we can point out your error.
I've always been a bit confused about how STL containers (vector, list, map...) store values. Do they store references to the values I pass in, or do they copy/copy construct +store the values themselves?
For example,
int i;
vector<int> vec;
vec.push_back(i);
// does &(vec[0]) == &i;
and
class abc;
abc inst;
vector<abc> vec;
vec.push_back(inst);
// does &(vec[0]) == &inst;
Thanks
STL Containers copy-construct and store values that you pass in. If you want to store objects in a container without copying them, I would suggest storing a pointer to the object in the container:
class abc;
abc inst;
vector<abc *> vec;
vec.push_back(&inst);
This is the most logical way to implement the container classes to prevent accidentally storing references to variables on defunct stack frames. Consider:
class Widget {
public:
void AddToVector(int i) {
v.push_back(i);
}
private:
vector<int> v;
};
Storing a reference to i would be dangerous as you would be referencing the memory location of a local variable after returning from the method in which it was defined.
That depends on your type. If it's a simple value type, and cheap to copy, then storing values is probably the answer. On the other hand, if it's a reference type, or expensive to copy, you'd better store a smart pointer (not auto_ptr, since its special copy semantics prevent it from being stored in a container. Go for a shared_ptr). With a plain pointer you're risking memory leakage and access to freed memory, while with references you're risking the latter. A smart pointer avoids both.