I have set up this example:
class UsefulClass {
public:
int id;
const bool operator< (const UsefulClass &other) const {
return this->id > other.id;
}
UsefulClass(int _id): id(_id) {
std::cout << "constructing " << id << std::endl;
}
~UsefulClass() {
std::cout << "destructing " << id << std::endl;
}
};
std::set<UsefulClass> set;
void create() {
UsefulClass object_1(1);
UsefulClass object_2(2);
set.insert(object_1);
set.insert(std::move(object_2));
std::cout << "create end" << std::endl;
}
int main() {
create();
std::cout << "main end" << std::endl;
}
I am expecting that the objects get destructed once when set gets deleted at the end of the program. But the objects get deleted twice:
constructing 1
constructing 2
create end
destructing 2
destructing 1
main end
destructing 1
destructing 2
Why is set.insert creating a copy here?
The objects in the set are different from the objects local to create(). The ones in the set are constructed using a copy constructor and move constructor, not the constructor UsefulClass(int), so you don't see their construction. The local objects get destroyed when the function create() returns, and then the objects in the set get destroyed at global cleanup after main ends.
object_1 and object_2 are created on stack and will be destroyed once the create() function ends. They need to be copied in the memory managed by set's allocator.
If you redefine the copy constructor, to trace its execution, you'll notice it is called at both inserts.
Rule of 3 applies to your case, if you print from dtor and want meaningful trace you should instrument copy (and maybe move) ctor also.
If you do that output will make sense and things should be properly paired.
Because your objects get copied on insertion into the set. Hence, when the create() function returns, the two local objects are destroyed. After main ends, the two copies that are in the set are destroyed, leading to the second pair of messages.
To illustrate whatever everybody has said before me, just create this simple example (it uses a new copy constructor for the set to use and uses a global variable to generate different ids each time a constructor is executed ---it's been tested, so you can put it in a file and compile):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <set>
using namespace std;
class UsefulClass {
static int instance;
public:
int id;
int i;
const bool operator<(const UsefulClass &other) const {
return id < other.id;
}
UsefulClass(int i){
id = instance++;
this->i = i;
cout << "constructing "
<< id
<< ":"
<< this->i
<< endl;
}
UsefulClass(const UsefulClass& other) {
id = instance++;
i = other.i;
cout << "constructing "
<< id
<< ":"
<< i
<< endl;
}
~UsefulClass(){
cout << "destructing "
<< id
<< ":"
<< i
<< endl;
}
};
int UsefulClass::instance = 0;
std::set<UsefulClass> myset;
void create() {
UsefulClass object_1(1);
UsefulClass object_2(2);
myset.insert(object_1);
/* please, explain what you mean with std::move, or which move
* have you used for the next statement. All i have is
* std::move(... ) for strings, but you have not defined
* string UsefulClass::operator string();
*/
myset.insert(/*std::move*/(object_2));
cout << "create end"
<< endl;
}
int main() {
create();
cout << "main end"
<< std::endl;
}
so you'll get a different instance id whenever you create a UsefulClass object and you'll see that when inserting into the set they are being copied as new instances. You'll see when each object is being created and when they are being deleted.
$ pru
constructing 0:1
constructing 1:2
constructing 2:1
constructing 3:2
create end
destructing 1:2
destructing 0:1
main end
destructing 2:1
destructing 3:2
Related
I encountered this issue, but I'm not sure what to make of it...
class Goo
{
char _ch;
string _str;
public:
function<void(void)> dobedo;
// Constructor 1
Goo(string s) : _str(s)
{
cout << "Constructed: [" << &_str << "]: " << _str << endl;
dobedo = [&]()
{
cout << "Dobedo: [" << &_str << "]: "<< _str << endl;
};
}
// Constructor 2
Goo(char ch) : _ch(ch)
{
dobedo = [&]() {
cout << "Dobedo: " << _ch << endl;
};
}
void show() { cout << "Show: [" << &_str << "]: " << _str << endl; }
};
int main()
{
string myStr1("ABCD");
string myStr2("EFGH");
vector<Goo> goos;
goos.push_back(Goo(myStr1));
goos.push_back(Goo(myStr2));
goos[0].dobedo();
goos[1].dobedo();
goos[0].show();
goos[1].show();
return 0;
}
For some reason, the function object wasn't able to print _str, despite being able to locate the memory address:
Constructed: [00EFF80C]: ABCD
Constructed: [00EFF7B0]: EFGH
Dobedo: [00EFF80C]:
Dobedo: [00EFF7B0]:
Show: [032F2924]: ABCD
Show: [032F296C]: EFGH
I did not have any problems with char variables though.
int main()
{
vector<Goo> goos;
goos.push_back(Goo('#'));
goos.push_back(Goo('%'));
goos[0].dobedo();
goos[1].dobedo();
return 0;
}
The output gives:
Dobedo: #
Dobedo: %
Any ideas?
You have undefined behaviour in your code without defining copy constructor. Default copy constructor copies all members by value. So your lambda object is copied and it holds references to destroyed object - _str (when vector had to be reallocated while calling push_back method).
Define copy constructor and move constructor for Goo class:
Goo(const Goo& g)
{
_str = g._str;
dobedo = [&]()
{
cout << "Dobedo: [" << &_str << "]: "<< _str << endl;
};
}
Goo(Goo&& g)
{
_str = move(g._str);
dobedo = [&]()
{
cout << "Dobedo: [" << &_str << "]: "<< _str << endl;
};
}
Your output clearly shows that the address of _str in constructor isn't the same as one in show. It means that your object was copied/moved. It may happen while it is pushed to a vector. BTW, it also may take place when you push/pop other elements to/from a vector as vector doesn't guarantee elements to stay at the same memory address.
When you create dobedo functor, all captured fields are copied to it. In the first case it was the address of _str which becomes invalid when the object is copied/moved (nobody updates it upon a move/copy!). Occasionally we may find an empty-string like stuff at that address (although accessing it is now a memory violation). In the second case, a character is captured and stored - and it definitely remains valid upon any object location change.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class foo
{
private:
static int cnt; // number in memory
static int nextid; // the next id number
public:
int id; // not shared - each object has it's own
foo()
{
cnt++; // update the counter of alive foos
id = nextid++; // assign an id
cout << "foo # " << id << " is alive " << endl;
}
~foo()
{
cnt--;
cout << "foo # " << id << " is dead " << endl;
}
void stats()
{
cout << "I am foo number " << id << endl;
gstats();
}
static void gstats()
{
cout << "Objects currently alive: " << cnt << endl;
cout << "Total number ever created: " << nextid << endl;
}
foo( foo &f)
{
cnt++; // update the counter of alive foos
id = nextid++; // assign an id
cout << "foo # " << id << " is alive and copied from " << f.id << endl;
}
};
int foo::cnt = 0;
int foo::nextid = 0;
void dmy1( foo a )
{
cout << "called dmy1 ( by value) id is " << a.id << endl;
}
void dmy2( foo &a)
{
cout << "called dmy2 (by reference) id is " << a.id << endl;
}
int main(void)
{
foo::gstats();
foo f1, f2;
f1.stats();
dmy1(f2);
foo::gstats();
}
This is the code my professor gave me to practice C++ static code.
But when I run this program, I have a question.
Objects currently alive: 0
Total number ever created: 0
foo # 0 is alive
foo # 1 is alive
I am foo number 0
Objects currently alive: 2
Total number ever created: 2
foo # 2 is alive and copied from 1
called dmy1 ( by value) id is 2
foo # 2 is dead
Objects currently alive: 2
Total number ever created: 3
foo # 1 is dead
foo # 0 is dead
This is the output.
But I don't know the reason why this function is called
Could you explain?
foo( foo &f)
{
cnt++; // update the counter of alive foos
id = nextid++; // assign an id
cout << "foo # " << id << " is alive and copied from " << f.id << endl;
}
And, also, Why static void gstats(){ ~ } is called after destructing foo #2 ?
Ok, i try to explain what happens
First it is showed no objects exist at this point
foo::gstats();
Now f1 and f2 are declared and created on stack (2 objects alive)
foo f1, f2;
f1.stats is called and shows the current state
f1.stats();
f2 is passed by value (copyed on stack with copy constructor call foo( foo &f)) to dmy1 (3 objects alive)
dmy1(f2);
after leaving dmy1 it's scope (stack variables used by it) is destroyed and f2's copy gets it's destructor called (2 objects alive) and this status is displayed
foo::gstats();
Then main() is left and it's scope is destroyed as well and f1 and f2's destructors are called (0 objects alive)
The function is called copy constructor. It's called because you pass the object f2 to dmy1 by value and a copy of the object is constructed. If you would change the object a inside dmy1, f2 would stay the same - because you implicitly constructed a copy when you passed the parameter in by value.
foo#2 is destructed when you exit the function dmy1, because it's only alive inside that function. So it's destructed before calling gstats.
It is copy constructor, as it was said. But copy constructor should have been declared like this:
foo(const foo &f)
{
...
}
I have a question regarding the following code, which crashes. I am creating a local variable in testfunction() and then pushing it (variable "y") into a list. This variable has a member pointer "b" of object type Ball. As I understand, this local variable "y" is on the stack, so its' destructor will be called after testfunction() is completed. Also, as I understand, a vector "copies" an object into its' list. From what I've learned, it is best practice to delete a pointer in the destructor if one exists in its' class. So, there is "delete b" in the destructor of Example.
The issue that I am having is that the object y.b is being destroyed at the completion of testfunction(). In main(), I am able to see the value of "name" and the address of "b", but the object "b" has already been deleted. I would like to avoid this.
I think there is an issue with the design of the code/use of pointers vs references, etc. Please guide me in the right direction, I am an idiot!
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Ball
{
public:
int a;
Ball()
{
a = 0;
}
~Ball()
{
cout << "destroyed Ball()" << endl;
}
};
class Example
{
public:
string name;
Ball* b;
Example()
{
name = "";
b = NULL;
}
~Example()
{
cout << "destroying Example()" << endl;
delete b;
}
};
void testfunction(vector<Example>& list)
{
cout << "entered testfunction1()" << endl;
Example y;
y.name = "myName";
y.b = new Ball();
y.b->a = 5;
cout << "y.b->a = " << y.b->a << endl;
list.push_back(y);
cout << "exit testfunction1()" << endl;
}
void testfunction2()
{
cout << "entered testfunction2()" << endl;
Example* y = new Example();
cout << "exit testfunction2()" << endl;
}
int main() {
vector<Example> list;
testfunction(list);
//testfunction2();
if(list[0].b == NULL)
cout << "b is null" << endl;
else
cout << "b is not null" << endl;
cout << list[0].name << endl;
cout << list[0].b << endl;
cout << "list[0].b->a = " << list[0].b->a << endl;
return 0;
}
Since class Example has a pointer member and it tries to own a dynamically allocated resource, it needs non-default copy operations, in other words, it needs user-defined copy constructor and assignment operator.
Inside testfunction, when you copy y into vector, both local y and y copied to the vector point to very same Ball object. The local y is destroyed at the end of the function and Ball is deleted. However, that deleted Ball still pointed by the y in vector
void testfunction(vector<Example>& list)
{
// ...
Example y;
y.name = "myName";
y.b = new Ball();
y.b->a = 5;
list.push_back(y);
// ...
} // <-- destructor for Example y is called and y.b is deleted
Define a copy constructor and an assignement operator for your class Example.
These shall copy properly your object (creating a duplicated Ball object) when pushed back on the vector.
Example(const Example& a)
{
name = a.name; // attention no dynamic allocation
cout << "copy" <<endl;
if (a.b) {
b = new Ball(*a.b); // create a new duplicated Ball
}
else b = NULL;
}
The problem in your example is that the default copy constructor is called when you pushback the object. It copies memberwise and so the pointer to Ball is copied, not the object pointed to.
Yet another alternative could be to replace your Ball* with shared_ptr<Ball> (and accordingly, new Ball with make_shared<Ball>() and the delete b of the object with a b.reset()). The principle is that this smart pointer keeps track of the number of time the object pointed to is used, so that it will not delete it twice, but only when its no longer used anywhere.
I was curios if default destructor is called, when I'm removing an element from an std::map. Here is an example which I have made:
class CTestMap{
public:
CTestMap() {
std::cout << "default constructor called" << std::endl;
}
CTestMap(int id) {
std::cout << "created object: " << id << std::endl;
m_id = id;
}
~CTestMap() {
std::cout << "destroyed object: " << this->m_id << std::endl;
}
int get_id(){
return m_id;
}
int m_id;
};
int main(void){
std::map<int, CTestMap>m;
std::map<int, CTestMap>::iterator m_it;
std::cout << "created map " << std::endl;
CTestMap t1(1);
std::cout << "created test object: " << t1.get_id() << std::endl;
CTestMap t2(2);
std::cout << "created test object: " << t2.get_id() << std::endl;
CTestMap t3(3);
std::cout << "created test object: " << t3.get_id() << std::endl;
m[1] = t1;
m_it = m.find(1);
std::cout << "inserted test object: " << m_it->second.get_id() << std::endl;
m[2] = t2;
m_it = m.find(2);
std::cout << "inserted test object: " << m_it->second.get_id() << std::endl;
m[3] = t3;
m_it = m.find(3);
std::cout << "inserted test object: " << m_it->second.get_id() << std::endl;
m_it = m.find(1);
std::cout << "will now erased test object: " << m_it->second.get_id() << std::endl;
m.erase(m.find(1));
std::cout << "erased test object: " << m[1].get_id() << std::endl;
m_it = m.find(1);
std::cout << "object shall no longer exist: " << m_it->second.get_id() << std::endl;
while(1);
return 0;
}
An here is the output:
./htest
created map
created object: 1
created test object: 1
created object: 2
created test object: 2
created object: 3
created test object: 3
default constructor called
destroyed object: 9377935
destroyed object: 9377935
inserted test object: 1
default constructor called
destroyed object: 9377935
destroyed object: 9377935
inserted test object: 2
default constructor called
destroyed object: 9377935
destroyed object: 9377935
inserted test object: 3
will now erased test object: 1
destroyed object: 1
default constructor called
destroyed object: 158830600
destroyed object: 158830600
erased test object: 158830600
object shall no longer exist: 158830600
Questions are:
Why so many times default constructor is called, when I'm only
creating 3 objects using my own constructor ?
Can I, based on
this example say, that each time I'm erasing any object from the
std::map, its destructor is called ? Is this general behavior of a
std::map ? I could not find this information.
What if I'm storing pointers to objects (I'm creating them using 'new' operator) ? When then delete shall be called ?
std::map stores a copy of the object you insert. When the
object is removed, it is this copy which is destructed. So
after m[1] = t1;, there are two identical instances of
CTestMap: t1 and the one in the map.
Also: m[1] = t1; will first create a new entry in the map,
using the default constructor, and later assign t1 to it.
In general, if you want to trace instance lifetime like this,
you need provide a user defined copy constructor and assignment
operator which trace as well. And you probably want to output
the this pointer in all of the traces. (Another technique
would be to dote each object with an immutable unique
identifier:
#define TRACE(m) std::cout << #m << '(' << m_objectId << ')' << std::endl
static int currentObjectId = 0;
class TestMap
{
int m_id;
int const m_objectId;
public:
TestMap()
: m_id( 0 )
, m_objectId( ++ currentObjectId )
{
TRACE(DFLT);
}
TestMap( int id )
: m_id( id )
, m_objectId( ++ currentObjectId )
{
TRACE(CTOR);
}
TestMap( TestMap const& other )
: m_id( other.m_id )
, m_objectId( ++ currentObjectId )
{
TRACE(COPY);
}
~TestMap()
{
TRACE(DTOR);
}
TestMap& operator=( TestMap const& other )
{
m_id = other.m_id;
TRACE(ASGN);
return *this;
}
};
You might want to add additional information (like m_id) to
the trace as well.
Also: your last output invokes undefined behavior. After
m.find(i), you should check first that the iterator hasn't
returned m.end(). If it has, dereferencing isn't allowed. So
your test output should be something like:
void
testOutput( std::map<int, TestMap> const& m, int i )
{
std::map<int, TestMap>::const_iterator entry = m.find( i );
if ( entry == m.end() ) {
std::cout << "no object at " << i << std::endl;
} else {
std::out << "object " << entry->second.m_id << " at " << i << std::endl;
}
}
(Finally: I think Microsoft has preempted the C prefix for
classes, so you should avoid it. If you want a prefix, choose
something else, to avoid confusion.)
If you store an actual object (rather than a reference or pointer), yes, the object gets destroyed when you erase it.
If you store pointers or references, then the object is not destroyed, and delete is not called on a pointer. If you want that to happen automatically, you should use a smart pointer (e.g. unique_ptr or shared_ptr depending on what behaviour you want).
If you don't use smart pointers, then you will need to take pointer stored, and delete the object yourself (after using erase to remove the element from the map).
Your default constructor is called a fourth time, because m[1] in
std::cout << "erased test object: " << m[1].get_id() << std::endl;
will construct a new object with key "1". This is because such an element doesn't exist in the map yet – otherwise it would just return that already existing object. (It did exist before, but you erased it in the line above! ;])
Here is the code first, it comes from 'Ruminations on C++' chapter 10
// TestCode.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <conio.h>
using namespace std;
class P_Node
{
friend class Picture;
protected:
P_Node() : use(1)
{
}
virtual ~P_Node()
{
}
private:
int use;
};
class Picture
{
friend Picture frame(const Picture&);
public:
Picture() : p(new P_Node)
{
cout << "Constructor\t" << "Picture::Picture()" << "\tcalled" << endl;
cout << "Picture p count\t" << p->use << endl;
}
Picture(const Picture& orig) : p(orig.p)
{
cout << "Copy Constructor\t" << "Picture::Picture(const Picture&)" << "\tcalled" << endl;
cout << "Picture p count\t" << p->use << endl;
orig.p->use++;
}
~Picture()
{
cout << "Destructor\t" << "Picture::~Picture()" << "\tcalled" << endl;
cout << "Picture p count before decrease\t" << p->use << endl;
if(--p->use == 0)
{
cout << "Picture p count after decrease\t" << p->use << endl;
cout << "Deleted" << endl;
delete p;
}
}
Picture& operator=(const Picture& orig)
{
cout << "operator=\t" << "Picture& Picture::operator=(const Picture& orig)" << "\tcalled" << endl;
cout << "Picture p count before decrease\t" << p->use << endl;
orig.p->use++;
if(--p->use == 0)
{
cout << "Picture p count after decrease\t" << p->use << endl;
delete p;
}
p = orig.p;
return *this;
}
private:
Picture(P_Node* p_node) : p(p_node)
{
// Why not p_node->use++?
cout << "Picture::Picture(P_Node* p_node)\tcalled" << endl;
}
P_Node *p;
};
class Frame_Pic : public P_Node
{
friend Picture frame(const Picture&);
private:
Frame_Pic(const Picture& pic) : p(pic)
{
cout << "Frame_Pic::Frame_Pic(const Picture& orig)" << "\tcalled" << endl;
}
Picture p;
};
Picture frame(const Picture& pic)
{
return new Frame_Pic(pic);
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
Picture my_pic;
frame(my_pic);
return 0;
}
The result is:
Constructor Picture::Picture() called
Picture p count 1
Copy Constructor Picture::Picture(const Picture&) called
Picture p count 1
Frame_Pic::Frame_Pic(const Picture& orig) called
Picture::Picture(P_Node* p_node) called
Destructor Picture::~Picture() called
Picture p count before decrease 1
Picture p count after decrease 0
Deleted
Destructor Picture::~Picture() called
Picture p count before decrease 2
Destructor Picture::~Picture() called
Picture p count before decrease 1
Picture p count after decrease 0
Deleted
I have two questions about this code:
Why is the copy constructor called before Frame_Pic's Constructor? In my mind, the copy constructor is called because frame(my_pic) is returning a Picture by value. But that should be called after Frame_Pic's Constructor.
In Picture::Picture(P_Node* p_node), why not increase the use count? isn't this creating a new Picture?
Thanks for any help.
I'm using VC6 under Windows XP.
1, Why is the Copy Constructor called before Frame_Pic's Constructor?
Because the p member is being copy-constructed in the initialization list of Frame_pic's constructor. The initialization list runs before the constructor's body is entered.
In my mind, the Copy Constructor is called because frame(my_pic) is returning a Picture by value. But that should be called after Frame_Pic's Constructor.
frame() is declared to return a Picture instance by value, but it is coded to return a Frame_pic* instead. Frame_pic derives from P_node, and Picture has a constructor that accepts a P_node*, and that constructor is accessible to frame() so the compiler allows it.
2, In Picture::Picture(P_Node* p_node), why not increase the use count? isn't this creating a new Picture?
The use count is on P_node, not Picture. The Picture that frame() returns owns the Frame_pic that frame() creates, whose use count member is already 1 by the Frame_pic constructor. That is why that Picture constructor does not increment the use count - it is already at the correct value.
The Frame_pic contains its own Picture that is copy-constructed from another Picture, so that Picture constructor needs to increment the use count of the original Picture.
The copy constructor is invoked by Frame_Pic's constructor (it's invoked by the initializer : p(pic)). However Frame_Pic's constructor doesn't print until after all initializers have been run.
Because the intended use of the constructor is not documented, it's hard to say. It may be a bug, or it may be 'attach semantics' - that is, it may be considering the case where you take manual control of the P_Node*, then later give it back. However attach semantics is unlikely, as there's no corresponding detach mechanism to return the pointer and clear it without decrementing the refcount. So, most likely a bug.
Note that while this sort of manual reference counting can be good as a learning exercise, modern C++ code generally uses smart pointers (eg, std::shared_ptr or boost::shared_ptr, invasive_ptr, etc) to automate the process.
Frame_Pic(const Picture& pic) : p(pic)
{
cout << "Frame_Pic::Frame_Pic(const Picture& orig)" << "\tcalled" << endl;
}
You initializing 'p' using its copy constructor 'p(pic)', hence it gets called in the order you see