I have a vector of object pointers
std::vector<Element*> elements;
When iterating through the vector, I would like to double dereference the iterator in order to call the object's methods.
std::cout << (*it)->getName() << std::endl;
This leads to a segfault. The relevant code is below.
I am thinking that the problem is with how I am initializing the vector, because I could move the for-loop to be in the method initialize() and it works fine. In takeTurn(), the vector is of the appropriate size and the pointers contain the correct addresses. Does this mean that the objects being pointed to are being prematurely destroyed?
main.cpp:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include "Element.h"
std::vector<Element*> elements;
void initialize() {
Element ice = Element("ice",1);
Element fire = Element("fire",2);
elements.push_back(&ice);
elements.push_back(&fire);
}
void takeTurn() {
std::vector<Element*>::iterator it;
for(it = elements.begin(); it != elements.end(); ++it) {
std::cout << (*it)->getName() << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
initialize();
takeTurn();
return 0;
}
Element.h:
#include <string>
class Element {
public:
Element(std::string name, int id);
int getID() { return id_; }
std::string getName() { return name_; }
private:
int id_;
std::string name_;
};
Element.cpp:
#include "Element.h"
Element::Element(std::string name, int id) {
name_ = name;
id_ = id;
}
Your initialize function is broken. You create local objects, and then push their addresses onto the vector. But when the function returns, those objects are destroyed, and the pointers are no longer valid. The simplest fix, unless you need polymorphism, is to just make a vector of Element objects, instead of pointers.
std::vector<Element> elements;
...
elements.push_back(Element("ice",1));
elements.push_back(Element("fire",2));
If you need polymorphism, then use smart pointers.
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Element>> elements;
...
elements.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Element>(new Element("ice",1)));
elements.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Element>(new Element("fire",2)));
If you were to continue to use raw pointers, then you would need some way to ensure the persistence of the objects, perhaps by allocating them with new. You would then need to ensure you call delete on each of those pointers you are done with them. I do not recommend this route.
You are passing pointers to local variables to the vector here:
Element ice = Element("ice",1);
Element fire = Element("fire",2);
elements.push_back(&ice);
elements.push_back(&fire);
When you exit the function, ice, and fire cease to exist, so you are left with dangling pointers.
The solution to this problem depends on whether you really need a vector of pointers. It might be simpler to have std::vector<Element>:
std::vector<Element> elements;
then
elements.push_back(Element("ice",1));
elements.push_back(Element("fire",2));
You push dangling pointers into your vector:
void initialize() {
Element ice = Element("ice",1);
Element fire = Element("fire",2);
elements.push_back(&ice);
elements.push_back(&fire);
}
here ice and fire is local variable. You push the address to the vector, then as final } is reached both get destroyed. Later when you rereference this invalid pointer behavior is undefined.
Your vector is storing pointers to local variables that are created on the stack. When the function is finished, the memory occupied by these variables will be reclaimed. If you try to access the memory, you will get a segfault.
void initialize() {
Element ice = Element("ice",1); // Local variable.
Element fire = Element("fire",2); // Local variable.
elements.push_back(&ice);
elements.push_back(&fire);
} // Ice and fire disappear.
Allocate the memory for the elements on the heap:
void initialize() {
Element *ice = new Element("ice",1);
Element *fire = new Element("fire",2);
elements.push_back(ice);
elements.push_back(fire);
}
Remember to free the memory when you are finished!
typedef std::vector<Element *>::iterator EIter;
for (EIter it = elements.begin(); it != elements.end(); ++it) {
delete *it;
}
Related
Today i went back and investigated an error i got in an old project. It's not exactly an error, rather, i don't know how to do what i need to do. Don't really want to go into the details of the project as it is old and buggy and inefficient and more importantly irrelevant. So i coded a new sample code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <time.h>
#include <random>
#include <string>
class myDoc;
class myElement
{
int myInt;
std::string myString;
myElement * nextElement;
//a pointer to the element that comes immediately after this one
public:
myElement(int x, std::string y) : myInt(x), myString(y){};
friend myDoc;
};//an element type
class myDoc
{
std::vector<myElement> elements;
public:
void load();
~myDoc()
{
//I believe i should delete the dynamic objects here.
}
};// a document class that has bunch of myElement class type objects as members
void myDoc::load()
{
srand(time(0));
myElement * curElement;
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
int randInt = rand() % 100;
std::string textInt = std::to_string(randInt);
curElement = new myElement(randInt,textInt);
//create a new element with a random int and its string form
if (i!=0)
{
elements[i-1].nextElement = curElement;
//assign the pointer to the new element to nextElement for the previous element
//!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the part that where i try to create a copy of the pointer
//that goes out of scope, but they get destroyed as soon as the stack goes out of scope
}
elements.push_back(*curElement);// this works completely fine
}
}
int main()
{
myDoc newDoc;
newDoc.load();
// here in newDoc, non of the elements will have a valid pointer as their nextElement
return 0;
}
Basic rundown: we have a document type that consists of a vector of element type we define. And in this example we load 20 random dynamically allocated new elements to the document.
My questions/problems:
When the void myElement::load() function ends, the pointer and/or the copies of it goes out of scope and get deleted. How do i keep a copy that stays(not quite static, is it?) at least until the object it points to is deleted?
The objects in the elements vector, are they the original dynamically allocated objects or are they just a copy?
I allocate memory with new, how/when should i delete them?
Here is a picture i painted to explain 1st problem(not very accurate for the specific example but the problem is the same), and thank you for your time.
Note: I assumed you want a vector of myElement objects where each one points to the element next to it. It is unclear if you want the objects in elements to point to copies of them, anyway it should be pretty easy to modify the code to achieve the latter
This is what happens in your code:
void myDoc::load()
{
..
curElement = new myElement(n,m); // Create a new element on the heap
...
// If this is not the first element we inserted, have the pointer for the
// previous element point to the heap element
elements[i-1].nextElement = curElement;
// Insert a COPY of the heap element (not the one you stored the pointer to)
// into the vector (those are new heap elements copied from curElement)
elements.push_back(*curElement);// this works completely fine
}
so nothing gets deleted when myDoc::load() goes out of scope, but you have memory leaks and errors since the pointers aren't pointing to the elements in the elements vector but in the first heap elements you allocated.
That also answers your second question: they're copies.
In order to free your memory automatically, have no leaks and point to the right elements you might do something like
class myElement
{
int a;
std::string b;
myElement *nextElement = nullptr;
//a pointer to the element that comes immediately after this one
public:
myElement(int x, std::string y) : a(x), b(y){};
friend myDoc;
};//an element type
class myDoc
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<myElement>> elements;
public:
void load();
~myDoc()
{}
};// a document class that has bunch of myElement class type objects as members
void myDoc::load()
{
srand((unsigned int)time(0));
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
int n = rand() % 100;
std::string m = std::to_string(n);
//create a new element with a random int and its string form
elements.emplace_back(std::make_unique<myElement>(n, m));
if (i != 0)
{
//assign the pointer to the new element to nextElement for the previous element
elements[i - 1]->nextElement = elements[i].get();
}
}
}
Live Example
No need to delete anything in the destructor since the smart pointers will be automatically destroyed (and memory freed) when the myDoc element gets out of scope. I believe this might be what you wanted to do since the elements are owned by the myDoc class anyway.
I'm trying to make this code work, but the object keep getting destroyed...
I've found that it has to do with the object being copied to the vector, but can't find any way to prevent it...
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Obje
{
private:
static int instances;
int id;
public:
static int getInstances();
void getId();
virtual void myClass();
Obje(int auxId);
~Obje();
};
int Obje::instances = 0;
int Obje::getInstances()
{
return instances;
}
Obje::Obje(int auxId)
{
this->id = auxId;
cout << "Obje Created." << endl;
Obje::instances++;
}
Obje::~Obje()
{
cout << "Obje Destroyed." << endl;
Obje::instances--;
}
void Obje::myClass()
{
cout << "Obje." << endl;
}
void Obje::getId()
{
cout << this->id << endl;
}
int main()
{
vector <Obje> list;
Obje *a = new Obje(59565);
list.push_back(*a);
Obje *b = new Obje(15485);
list.push_back(*b);
for(vector<Obje>::iterator it = list.begin(); it != list.end(); ++it)
{
it->getId();
}
return 0;
}
It Generates this output:
Obje Created.
Obje Created.
Obje Destroyed.
59565
15485
Obje Destroyed.
Obje Destroyed.
What does it mean the T(const T& new); i've saw as fix for this?
First of all, it is a bad practice to allocate an object in heap without using smart pointers and forgetting to delete it. Especially, when you are creating it just to make a copy of it.
list.push_back(*a); creates a copy of *a in vector. To create an item in vector without copying another item, you can do list.emplace_back(/*constructor parameters*/);, which is available from c++11. (see http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/emplace_back)
So, to make the result behavior match your expectations, you should go
vector <Obje> vec;
vec.emplace_back(59565);
vec.emplace_back(15485);
for(const auto & item : vec)
{
item.getId();
}
By the way, it is also a quite bad practice to call a vector as a list, as a list is a different container type and reading such code may be confusing a bit. I guess, I am starting being annoying, but it is better to call method getId as showId as now it returns nothing.
Regarding the use of heap, new and pointer, see my comment in your question.
Regarding the issue object was destroyed, the vector maintains an internal buffer to store object. When you push_back new object to the vector, if its internal buffer is full, it will (the stuff which will be executed when exception occurs won't be mentioned here.):
allocate new internal buffer which is big enough to store its new data.
move data from old internal buffer to new internal buffer.
destroy old buffer.
Hence, your object will be destroyed and copied to new location in this case, hence copy constructor will make it clearer to you.
P/S: AFAIK, some compilers move its data by memmove or std::move
I'm trying to maintain a fast-access vector in the following manner:
MyClass.h:
class MyClass{
private:
std::vector<Stuff> myStuffList;
std::tr1::unordered_map<std::string,Stuff*> myStuffListIndex;
...
public:
void addToStuffList(std::string key,Stuff stuff);
};
MyClass.cpp:
...
void MyClass::addToStuffList(std::string name, Stuff stuff){
myStuffList.push_back(stuff);//our man is guaranteed to be at tail
myStuffListIndex[name] = &myStuffList[myStuffList.size()-1];//store
//pointer to object that we just copy-constructed at tail of list
}
Stuff.h:
class Stuff{
private:
std::string name;
public:
Stuff();
Stuff(const Stuff&);
Stuff& operator=(const Stuff&);
...
};
Stuff.cpp:
Stuff::Stuff() : name(""){}
Stuff::Stuff(const Stuff& other){
if(this != &other){
this->name = other.name;
}
}
Stuff& Stuff::operator=(const Stuff& other){
if(this != &other){
this->name = other.name;
}
}
std::string Stuff::getName(){
return name;//exc_bad_access triggered here
}
Later, when I try to access items from the vector via the map I get an apparently intermittent exc_bad_access error as follows:
void methodA(){
Stuff localStuff;
myClassInstance.addToStuffList("mostrecentstuff",localStuff);
}
...
void methodB(){
//different method now, localStuff would be out of scope but
//shouldn't matter since we passed by value in addToStuffList, right?
Stuff* pStuff = myStuffListIndex["mostrecentstuff"];
std::cout << "Hello, my name is " << pStuff->getName() << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]){
methodA();
methodB();
}
Why does an access of pStuff->getName() throw exc_bad_access?
As said by PaulMcKenzie, a vector can be resized, and if it is, it can be relocated at a different address. Then all pointers to previous vector items become broken.
You should never keep pointers to items in std containers, but for vectors, you can keep their indices.
You would have :
std::vector<Stuff> myStuffList;
std::tr1::unordered_map<std::string,int> myStuffListIndex;
and
myStuffList.push_back(ability);//our man is guaranteed to be at tail
myStuffListIndex[name] = myStuffList.size() - 1;//store
If your application is mutithreaded, you will have to protect above code with a mutex
How does std::vector works?
It has a capacity. When this capacity is reached and you ask for the insertion of a new item, memory is reallocated with extra storage to hold this item. std::vector then moves its content from the first memory location to the newly allocated one.
Thus, your design is broken (you'ld need to update the map at each vector resize).
Then, concerning your test case, since you only perform one insertion, the pointer to the vector element is still valid. But looking at your addToStuffList() method, I see:
void MyClass::addToStuffList(std::string name, Stuff stuff){
myStuffList.push_back(ability);//our man is guaranteed to be at tail
myStuffListIndex[name] = &myStuffList[myStuffList.size()-1];//store
//pointer to object that we just copy-constructed at tail of list
}
Shouldn't it be:
myStuffList.push_back(stuff);
What is ability?
I'm writing a game framework, I have a vector<unique_ptr<Object>> list and I distribute pointers from that list by calling object.get() and sending that out. Before that I send out references instead of raw pointers but that resulted in other weird problem so I was told this is better. However when I remove a unique_ptr<Object>from the list, the raw pointers remains. I also can't deallocate them manually, I get an exception saying the pointer is not allocated.
So my question would be:
How do I delete raw pointers from removed unique_ptr's?
and is also a more general question:
Am I on the right track structure wise of passing pointers instead of references?
PxlObject* PxlFramework::AddObject(PxlObject* obj)
{
std::unique_ptr<PxlObject> u_ptr(obj);
objects_iterator = objects.insert(objects.end(), std::move(u_ptr));
return obj;
}
void PxlFramework::DeleteObject(PxlObject* obj) {
for(objects_iterator = objects.begin(); objects_iterator != objects.end(); ++objects_iterator)
{
if((*objects_iterator)->get_id() == obj->get_id())
{
//attempting to delete the raw pointer here but it will result in an error
delete obj;
//removing the unique_ptr<PxlObject> from the list here
std::swap((*objects_iterator), objects.back());
objects.pop_back();
break;
}
}
}
The whole point of std::unique_ptr is that it "owns" the object and it manages deletion automatically when the unique_ptr is destroyed. As such, you should not delete either a unique_ptr nor anything that a unique_ptr owns. To avoid this confusion, references are more common. Additionally, you have the oddity that your AddObject returns a pointer to a PxlObject that is not the one just added.
Something like this might be a little cleaner:
template<class Us...>
PxlObject& PxlFramework::AddObject(Us&&... obj)
{
std::unique_ptr<PxlObject> u_ptr(new PxlObject(std::forward<Us>(obj)...));
objects_iterator = objects.insert(objects.end(), std::move(u_ptr));
return **objects_iterator;
}
void PxlFramework::DeleteObject(PxlObject& obj) {
auto finder = [](std::unique_ptr<PxlObject>& p)->bool
{return obj.get_id()==p->get_id();};
auto it = find_if(objects.begin(), objects,end(), finder);
if (it != objects.end())
objects.erase(it);
else
throw ...;
}
You don't need delete the raw pointer directly you can use vector.erase instead. Here you have a simple example:
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
typedef vector<unique_ptr<int>> ptr_list_t;
void remove_number(int x, ptr_list_t& ptr_list)
{
for (ptr_list_t::iterator it = ptr_list.begin(); it != ptr_list.end(); ++it)
if (*(it->get()) == x) {
ptr_list.erase(it); // Use vector.erase for deleting objects from a vector.
// since it points to a unique_ptr, the object owned by it
// will be destroyed automatically.
break;
}
}
int main()
{
ptr_list_t ptr_list;
// Generating the pointer to numbers. 0 - 9
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
ptr_list.push_back(unique_ptr<int>(new int(i)));
// Remove the number 3.
remove_number(3, ptr_list);
// Printing the list. The number 3 will not appear.
for (ptr_list_t::iterator it = ptr_list.begin(); it != ptr_list.end(); ++it)
cout << *(it->get()) << endl;
return 0;
}
Other thing, I'm agreed with #MooingDuck: you should not delete either a unique_ptr nor anything that a unique_ptr owns. But you sure can. Take a look on unique_ptr.release. This function frees the ownership of the managed object.
I guess I don't fully understand how destructors work in C++. Here is the sample program I wrote to recreate the issue:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct Odp
{
int id;
Odp(int id)
{
this->id = id;
}
~Odp()
{
cout << "Destructing Odp " << id << endl;
}
};
typedef vector<shared_ptr<Odp>> OdpVec;
bool findOdpWithID(int id, shared_ptr<Odp> shpoutOdp, OdpVec& vec)
{
shpoutOdp.reset();
for (OdpVec::iterator iter = vec.begin(); iter < vec.end(); iter++)
{
Odp& odp = *(iter->get());
if (odp.id == id)
{
shpoutOdp.reset(iter->get());
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
int main()
{
OdpVec vec;
vec.push_back(shared_ptr<Odp>(new Odp(0)));
vec.push_back(shared_ptr<Odp>(new Odp(1)));
vec.push_back(shared_ptr<Odp>(new Odp(2)));
shared_ptr<Odp> shOdp;
bool found = findOdpWithID(0, shOdp, vec);
found = findOdpWithID(1, shOdp, vec);
}
Just before main() concludes, the output of this program is:
Destructing Odp 0
Destructing Odp 1
Why does this happen? I'm retaining a reference to each of the Odp instances within the vector. Does it have something to do with passing a shared_ptr by reference?
UPDATE I thought that shared_ptr::reset decremented the ref count, based on MSDN:
The operators all decrement the
reference count for the resource
currently owned by *this
but perhaps I'm misunderstanding it?
UPDATE 2: Looks like this version of findOdpWithID() doesn't cause the destructor to be called:
bool findOdpWithID(int id, shared_ptr<Odp> shpoutOdp, OdpVec& vec)
{
for (OdpVec::iterator iter = vec.begin(); iter < vec.end(); iter++)
{
Odp& odp = *(iter->get());
if (odp.id == id)
{
shpoutOdp = *iter;
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
This line right here is probably what is tripping you up.
shpoutOdp.reset(iter->get());
What you're doing here is getting (through get()) the naked pointer from the smart pointer, which won't have any reference tracking information on it, then telling shpoutOdp to reset itself to point at the naked pointer. When shpoutOdp gets destructed, it's not aware that there is another shared_ptr that points to the same thing, and shpoutOdp proceeds to destroy the thing it's pointed to.
You should just do
shpoutOdp = *iter;
which will maintain the reference count properly. As an aside, reset() does decrement the reference counter (and only destroys if the count hits 0).
So many things that are being used nearly correctly:
bool findOdpWithID(int id, shared_ptr<Odp> shpoutOdp, OdpVec& vec)
Here the parameter shpoutOdp is a a copy of the input parameter. Not such a big deal considering it is a shared pointer but that is probably not what you were intending. You probably wanted to pass by reference otherwise why pass it to the function in the first place.
shpoutOdp.reset();
Resetting a parameter as it is passed in.
Does this mean it could be dirty (then why have it as an input parameter) it make the function return a shared pointer as a result if you want to pass something out.
Odp& odp = *(iter->get());
Don't use get on shared pointers unless you really need to (and you really if ever need too). Extracting the pointer is not necessary to get at what the pointer points at and makes you more likely to make mistakes because you are handling pointers. The equivalent safe(r) line is:
Odp& odp = *(*iter); // The first * gets a reference to the shared pointer.
// The second star gets a reference to what the shared
//pointer is pointing at
This is where it all goes wrong:
shpoutOdp.reset(iter->get());
You are creating a new shared pointer from a pointer. Unfortunately the pointer is already being managed by another shared pointer. So now you have two shared pointers that think they own the pointer and are going to delete it when they go out of scope (the first one goes out of scope at the end of the function as it is a copy of the input parameter (rather than a reference)). The correct thing to do is just to do an assignment. Then the shared pointers know they are sharing a pointer:
shpoutOdp = *iter; // * converts the iterator into a shared pointer reference
The next line though not totally wrong does assume that the iterators used are random access (which is true for vector).
for (OdpVec::iterator iter = vec.begin(); iter < vec.end(); iter++)
But this makes the code more brittle as a simple change in the typedef OdpVec will break the code without any warning. So to make this more consistent with normal iterator usage, use != when checking against end() and also prefer the pre increment operator:
for (OdpVec::iterator iter = vec.begin(); iter != vec.end(); ++iter)
shared_ptr::reset destroys the contents already in the shared_ptr. If you want to affect only that single shared_ptr reference, simply assign to it.
EDIT: In response to comment, you can fix it by changing the body of your for loop to:
if ((*iter)->id == id)
{
shpoutOdp = *iter;
return true;
}
EDIT2: That all said, why aren't you using std::find_if here?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm> //for std::find_if
#include <functional> //for std::bind
struct Odp
{
int id;
int GetId()
{
return id;
}
Odp(int id)
{
this->id = id;
}
~Odp()
{
std::cout << "Destructing Odp " << id << std::endl;
}
};
typedef std::vector<shared_ptr<Odp> > OdpVec;
int main()
{
OdpVec vec;
vec.push_back(std::shared_ptr<Odp>(new Odp(0)));
vec.push_back(std::shared_ptr<Odp>(new Odp(1)));
vec.push_back(std::shared_ptr<Odp>(new Odp(2)));
OdpVec::iterator foundOdp = std::find_if(vec.begin(), vec.end(),
std::bind(std::equal_to<int>(), 0, std::bind(&Odp::GetId,_1)));
bool found = foundOdp != vec.end();
}
The nice thing about shared_ptr is that it handles the ref-counting internally. You don't need to manually increment or decrement it ever. (And that is why shared_ptr doesn't allow you to do so either)
When you call reset, it simply sets the current shared_ptr to point to another object (or null). That means that there is now one less reference to the object it pointed to before the reset, so in that sense, the ref counter has been decremented. But it is not a function you should call to decrement the ref counter.
You don't ever need to do that. Just let the shared_ptr go out of scope, and it takes care of decrementing the reference count.
It's an example of RAII in action.
The resource you need to manage (in this case the object pointed to by the shared_ptr) is bound to a stack-allocated object (the shared_ptr itself), so that its lifetime is managed automatically. The shared_ptr's destructor ensures that the pointed-to object is released when appropriate.