hi i'm trying to send a QList as a parameter to another class but for some reason i got a read access violation...
CompareTimeChannel.h
class CompareTimeChannel : public IDataChannel
public:
// #brief The method used to receive the list
void setData(const QList< QSharedPointer<core::ITrackSection> > & sections);
// #brief The list
QList< QSharedPointer<core::ITrackSection> > _sections;
};
CompareTimeChannel.cpp
// #brief Empty constructor
CompareTimeChannel::CompareTimeChannel()
{
}
void CompareTimeChannel::setData(const QList< QSharedPointer<core::ITrackSection> > & sections)
{
//_sections = *new QList< QSharedPointer<core::ITrackSection> > ();
_sections.clear();
_sections.append(sections);
}
Running this code will throw Exception at 0x31cc78d, code: 0xc0000005: read access violation at: 0x4, flags=0x0 on _sections.clear();
I tried to initialize the list before (the commented line _sections = *new QList<...>) but the exception is thrown the same.
An answer would be very appreciated...
EDIT
Ok it's fixed!
First, like #AndreasT said, i had to initialize the default QList constructor.
Then, according to #10WaRRioR01 's answer, the issue comes from CompareTimeChannel which wasn't initialized the first time the method was called. Fixed using :
CompareTimeChannel* chan = static_cast<CompareTimeChannel*>(channel);
Q_ASSERT(chan);
if (chan) {
chan->setData(sections);
}
else {
qDebug() << "Dynamic cast failure";
}
Thank you all, guys!
//_sections = *new QList< QSharedPointer<core::ITrackSection> > ();
You shouldn't ever do something like this. This creates a new instance of QList on the heap and it will never be deleted, so you have a memory leak
You should have done
_sections = QList< QSharedPointer<core::ITrackSection> > ();
instead, and it would be legal. But the most simple way is to use a copy assignment like this
_sections = sections
The problem you got is most likely related to the data you have in _sections. Maybe you are calling your methods on a null CompareTimeChannel object
You should initialize sections in the constructor.
The commented line is just horribly wrong.
new constructs the List on the heap, then you dereference that with *new and the assignment implicitly calls the copy constructor of the new list on the Heap and copies that into the instance. The thing on the heap is still aruond though, so you just created a memory leak.
// #brief Empty constructor
CompareTimeChannel::CompareTimeChannel()
:_sections() // initialization default constructor.
{
}
Edit regarding the comment:
The QList.clear() method calls the destructors of every element of the list. At least one of your shared pointers seems not to be initialized correctly. If you need more info, please paste the code that puts stuff into _sections.
Edit Regarding the exception:
As I said the problem is most likely with the shared pointers not being set to anything interesting. When the SP gets destroyed it calls the destructor of its content, which must exist, otherwise it throws a read access violation, which would explain the symptoms.
This what you showed should work. Your problem is in some other place.
This kind of problems might be caused by many different mistakes, like: bad static_cast or bad c-style cast, break in binary compatibility when you are using dynamic libraries, write outside of table, problems with compiler cache (this happens is quite often so cure for that is below).
First what I would try to do:
make clean
qmake
make
This fixes such problem quite often. if i doesn't help you have to find other problems in your code.
Related
I have a class which is loaded from an external file, so ideally I would want its constructor to load from a given path if the load fails, I will want to throw an error if the file is not found/not readable (Throwing errors from constructors is not a horrible idea, see ISO's FAQ).
There is a problem with this though, I want to handle errors myself in some controlled manner, and I want to do that immediately, so I need to put a try-catch statement around the constructor for this object ... and if I do that, the object is not declared outside the try statement, i.e.:
//in my_class.hpp
class my_class
{
...
public:
my_class(string path);//Throws file not found, or other error error
...
};
//anywhere my_class is needed
try
{
my_class my_object(string);
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
//Problem... now my_object doesn't exist anymore
I have tried a number of ways of getting around it, but I don't really like any of them:
Firstly, I could use a pointer to my_class instead of the class itself:
my_class* my_pointer;
try
{
my_class my_pointer = new my_class(string);
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
The problem is that the instance of this object doesn't always end up in the same object which created it, so deleting all pointers correctly would be easy to do wrong, and besides, I personally think it is ugly to have some objects be pointers to objects, and have most others be "regular objects".
Secondly, I could use a vector with only one element in much the same way:
std::vector<my_class> single_vector;
try
{
single_vector.push_back(my_class(string));
single_vector.shrink_to_fit();
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
I don't like the idea of having a lot of single-element vectors though.
Thirdly, I can create an empty faux constructor and use another loading function, i.e.
//in my_class.hpp
class my_class
{
...
public:
my_class() {}// Faux constructor which does nothing
void load(string path);//All the code in the constructor has been moved here
...
};
//anywhere my_class is needed
my_class my_object
try
{
my_object.load(path);
}
catch(/*Whatever error I am interesetd in*/)
{
//error handling
}
This works, but largely defeats the purpose of having a constructor, so I don't really like this either.
So my question is, which of these methods for constructing an object, which may throw errors in the constructor, is the best (or least bad)? and are there better ways of doing this?
Edit: Why don't you just use the object within the try-statement
Because the object may need to be created as the program is first started, and stopped much later. In the most extreme case (which I do actually need in this case also) that would essentially be:
int main()
{
try
{
//... things which might fail
//A few hundred lines of code
}
catch(/*whaveter*/)
{
}
}
I think this makes my code hard to read since the catch statement will be very far from where things actually went wrong.
One possibility is to wrap the construction and error handling in a function, returning the constructed object. Example :
#include <string>
class my_class {
public:
my_class(std::string path);
};
my_class make_my_object(std::string path)
{
try {
return {std::move(path)};
}
catch(...) {
// Handle however you want
}
}
int main()
{
auto my_object = make_my_object("this path doesn't exist");
}
But beware that the example is incomplete because it isn't clear what you intend to do when construction fails. The catch block has to either return something, throw or terminate.
If you could return a different instance, one with a "bad" or "default" state, you could have just initialized your instance to that state in my_class(std::string path) when it was determined the path is invalid. So in that case, the try/catch block is not needed.
If you rethrow the exception, then there is no point in catching it in the first place. In that case, the try/catch block is also not needed, unless you want to do a bit of extra work, like logging.
If you want to terminate, you can just let the exception go uncaught. Again, in that case, the try/catch block is not needed.
The real solution here is probably to not use a try/catch block at all, unless there is actually error handling you can do that shouldn't be implemented as part of my_class which isn't made apparent in the question (maybe a fallback path?).
and if I do that, the object is not declared outside the try statement
I have tried a number of ways of getting around it
That doesn't need to be a problem. There's not necessarily need to get around it. Simply use the object within the try statement.
If you really cannot have the try block around the entire lifetime, then this is a use case for std::optional:
std::optional<my_class> maybe_my_object;
try {
maybe_my_object.emplace(string);
} catch(...) {}
The problem is that the instance of this object doesn't always end up in the same object which created it, so deleting all pointers correctly would be easy to do wrong,
A pointer returned by new is correct to delete. In the error case, simply set the pointer to null and there would be no problem. That said, use a smart pointer instead for dynamic allocation, if you were to use this approach.
single_vector.push_back(my_class(string));
single_vector.shrink_to_fit();
Don't push and shrink when you know the number of objects that are going to be in the vector. Use reserve instead if you were to use this approach.
The object creation can fail because a resource is unavailable. It's not the creation which fails; it is a prerequisite which is not fulfilled.
Consequently, separate these two concerns: First obtain all resources and then, if that succeeded, create the object with these resources and use it. The object creation as such in this design cannot fail, the constructor is nothrow; it is trivial boilerplate code (copy data etc.). If, on the other hand, resource acquisition failed, object creation and object use are both skipped: Your problem with existing but unusable objects is gone.
Responding to your edit about try/catch comprising the entire program: Exceptions as error indicators are better suited for things which are done in many places at various times in a program because they guarantee error handling (by default through an abort) while separating it from the normal control flow. This is impossible to do with classic return value examination, which leaves us with a choice between unreadable or unreliable programs.
But if you have long-lived objects which are created only rarely (in your example: only at startup) you don't need exceptions. As you said, constructor exceptions guarantee that only properly initialized objects can be used. But if such an object is only created at startup this danger is low. You check for success one way or another and exit the program which cannot perform its purpose if the initial resource acquisition failed. This way the error is handled where it occurred. Even in less extreme cases (e.g. when an object is created at the beginning of a large function other than main) this may be the simpler solution.
In code, my suggestion looks like this:
struct T2;
struct myEx { myEx(const char *); };
void exit(int);
T1 *acquireResource1(); // e.g. read file
T2 *acquireResource2(); // e.g. connect to db
void log(const char *what);
class ObjT
{
public:
struct RsrcT
{
T1 *mT1;
T2 *mT2;
operator bool() { return mT1 && mT2; }
};
ObjT(const RsrcT& res) noexcept
{
// initialize from file data etc.
}
// more member functions using data from file and db
};
int main()
{
ObjT::RsrcT rsrc = { acquireResource1(), acquireResource2() };
if(!rsrc)
{
log("bummer");
exit(1);
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
// all resources are available. "Real" code starts here.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
ObjT obj(rsrc);
// 1000 lines of code using obj
}
This problem has bugged me for several days now, and I just cant figure it out. What I am trying to do is get an Entity from the entityMap and make a copy of it. An Entity is essentialy a map of components, so I looped through each component and made a copy of it. I debugged the program, and it worked fine until the very last line, where it said "read access violation this was 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF7." It was very strange as everything was initialized (I checked the debugger)
if (entityMap.find(classname) != entityMap.end()) {
std::shared_ptr<Entity> & prefab = entityMap[classname];
std::shared_ptr<Entity> entity = std::shared_ptr<Entity>(new Entity());
for (auto & component : prefab->GetComponentMap()) {
Component * compPtr = component.second.get();
std::cout << compPtr->GetMemorySize() << "\n";
size_t size = sizeof(compPtr->GetMemorySize());
void * buffer = operator new(size);
memcpy(buffer, compPtr, size);
std::shared_ptr<Component> newComponent = std::shared_ptr<Component>(reinterpret_cast<Component *>(buffer));
entity->AddComponent(newComponent);
newComponent->SetOwner(entity);
}
Here is the offending line
newComponent->SetOwner(entity);
Here is all it does, setting the owner instance variable to the passed in parameter. That was where the debugger complained and sent me to file "memory" at _Decref method.
void Component::SetOwner(std::shared_ptr<Entity> owner) {
this->owner = owner;
}
The problem here is that you can’t copy objects just by copying the memory. For basic plain data objects without any constructors, destructors, or pointers this may work but for anything more complex it most likely won’t.
For example, if the object contains pointers to data and these are released in a destructor then the data is not deep copied, rather the pointer is, and you get double free and also possible pointers to unallocated memory. If the object relies on something being done in the constructor it is never done when copying memory. And depending on how the size is calculated it may not even be a complete copy.
This is why you should always provide a cloning mechanism in the class that takes care of these issues in a way that suits the object and makes sure there’s proper deep/shallow copying depending on the contents.
(Disclaimer: I have removed the Qt tag in case the problem is in my syntax / understanding of the references involved here)
I have a foreach loop with an object Member. When I enumerate through the list and try to access a member field, the debugger stops and I get a message:
Stopped: 'signal-received' -
The assert failure is:
inline QString::QString(const QString &other) : d(other.d)
{ Q_ASSERT(&other != this); d->ref.ref(); }
I have checked if the member is NULL, and it isn't. I have tried re-working the code, but I keep failing on this simple call.
Some thing's I missed out. MemberList is a singleton (definitely initialized and returns a valid pointer) that is created as the application launches and populates the MemberList with Members from a file. When this is created, there are definitely values, as I print them to qDebug(). This page is literally the next page. I am unsure as to how the List items can be destroyed.
The code is as follows:
int i = 0;
QList<Member*> members = ml->getMembers();
foreach (Member* mem, members)
{
QString memID = mem->getMemberID(); // Crash happens here
QListWidgetItem *lstItem = new QListWidgetItem(memID, lsvMembers);
lsvMembers->insertItem(i, lstItem);
i++;
}
The Member classes get is as follows:
QString getMemberID() const;
and the actual function is:
QString Member::getMemberID() const
{
return MemberID;
}
The ml variable is received as follows:
QList<Member*> MemberList::getMembers()
{
return MemberList::getInstance()->memberList;
}
Where memberList is a private variable.
Final answer:
I decided to rework the singleton completely and found that I was not instantiating a new Member, rather reusing the previous object over and over. This caused the double reference. S'pose thats pointers for you. Special thanks to Troubadour for the effort!
If mem is not null it could still be the case that the pointer is dangling i.e. the Member it was pointing to has been deleted.
If Member inherits from QObject then you could temporarily change your QList<Member*> that is stored in ml (assuming that's what's stored in ml) into a QList< QPointer<Member> >. If you then get a null QPointer in the list after calling getMembers or at any point during the loop then the object must have been destroyed at some point.
Edit
As regards the singleton, are you sure it's initiliased properly? In other words does MemberList::getInstance() return a valid pointer or just a random uninitialised one?
Edit2
Since we've exhausted most possibilities I guess it must be in the singleton somewhere. All I can suggest is to keep querying the first item in the list to find out exactly where it goes bad.
I am new to C++. I am getting HEAP CORRUPTION ERROR. Any help will be highly appreciated. Below is my code
class CEntity
{
//some member variables
CEntity(string section1,string section2);
CEntity();
virtual ~CEntity();
//pure virtual function ..
virtual CEntity* create()const = 0;
};
I derive CLine from CEntity as below
class CLine:public CEntity
{
// Again some variables ...
// Constructor and destructor
CLine(string section1,string section2);
CLine();
~CLine();
CLine* Create() const;
}
// CLine Implementation
CLine::CLine(string section1,string section2) : CEntity(section1,section2){};
CLine::CLine();
CLine* CLine::create() const {return new CLine();}
I have another class CReader which uses CLine object and populates it in a multimap as below
class CReader
{
public:
CReader();
~CReader();
multimap<int,CEntity*>m_data_vs_entity;
};
//CReader Implementation
CReader::CReader()
{
m_data_vs_entity.clear();
};
CReader::~CReader()
{
multimap<int,CEntity*>::iterator iter;
for(iter = m_data_vs_entity.begin();iter!=m_data_vs_entity.end();iter++)
{
CEntity* current_entity = iter->second;
if(current_entity)
delete current_entity;
}
m_data_vs_entity.clear();
}
I am reading the data from a file and then populating the CLine Class.The map gets populated in a function of CReader class. Since CEntity has a virtual destructor, I hope the piece of code in CReader's destructor should work. In fact, it does work for small files but I get HEAP CORRUPTION ERROR while working with bigger files. If there is something fundamentally wrong, then, please help me find it, as I have been scratching my head for quit some time now.
Thanks in advance and awaiting reply,
Regards,
Atul
Continued from Y'day :
Further studying this in detail I now have realized that Heap allocation error in my case is because I am allocating something, and then overwriting it with a higher size.
Below is the code where in my data gets populated in the constructor.
CEntity::CEntity(string section1,string section2)
{
size_t length;
char buffer[9];
//Entity Type Number
length = section1.copy(buffer,8,0);
buffer[length]='\0';
m_entity_type = atoi(buffer);
//Parameter Data Count
length = section1.copy(buffer,8,8);
buffer[length]='\0';
m_param_data_pointer = atoi(buffer);
//.... like wise ....
}
I am getting the values at a fixed interval of 8 chars and I am adding a '\0' so this, i guess will take care of any garbage value that I encounter.
About
Heap allocation error: after normal block (XXX) at XXX, CRT detected that application wrote to memory after end of Heap buffer. Mostly, Heap allocation errors occur somewhere else than where it crashes. I would appreciate if some one here would help me, how to make use of this normal block and the address.
Thanks,
Well, you're only showing half the problem.
Where's the code that creates the CLine objects and stores them in the CReader?
Also, what do you consider actually "owns" the CEntity objects? Generally, you should make the 'owner' responsible for creation as well as deletion...
I wrote earlier:
"You might like to consider storing
the CEntitys directly in the map,
rather than storing pointers.
Potentially less efficient, but also
much less scope for cockups."
As Neil points out, it's not CEntities that you will be storing, so that suggestion isn't going to help you much...
Finally, after two days of debugging, I was able to fix up the crash. It was due to me copying wrong number of characters from the string.
Lessons learnt :
1. When you encounter memory allocation errors, try to form a simple test case which has minimum entities to reproduce the problem.
2. A sure shot way is a line by line debugging. I agree,it test your patience, but then, there are no short cuts to success
3. And it gives you a chance to do a code review, further enhancing the quality of code that you produce in future
Thank you for all your help and formatting my code :)
Regards,
Atul
I have a very simple class that looks as follows:
class CHeader
{
public:
CHeader();
~CHeader();
void SetCommand( const unsigned char cmd );
void SetFlag( const unsigned char flag );
public:
unsigned char iHeader[32];
};
void CHeader::SetCommand( const unsigned char cmd )
{
iHeader[0] = cmd;
}
void CHeader::SetFlag( const unsigned char flag )
{
iHeader[1] = flag;
}
Then, I have a method which takes a pointer to CHeader as input and looks
as follows:
void updateHeader(CHeader *Hdr)
{
unsigned char cmd = 'A';
unsigned char flag = 'B';
Hdr->SetCommand(cmd);
Hdr->SetFlag(flag);
...
}
Basically, this method simply sets some array values to a certain value.
Afterwards, I create then a pointer to an object of class CHeader and pass it to
the updateHeader function:
CHeader* hdr = new CHeader();
updateHeader(hdr);
In doing this, the program crashes as soon as it executes the Hdr->SetCommand(cmd)
line. Anyone sees the problem, any input would be really appreciated
When you run into a crash, act like a crime investigator: investigate the crime scene.
what is the information you get from your environment (access violation? any debug messages? what does the memory at *Hdr look like? ...)
Is the passed-in Hdr pointer valid?
Then use logical deduction, e.g.:
the dereferencing of Hdr causes an access violation
=> passed in Hdr points to invalid memory
=> either memory wasn't valid to start with (wrong pointer passed in), or memory was invalidated (object was deleted before passing in the pointer, or someone painted over the memory)
...
It's probably SEGFAULTing. Check the pointers.
After
your adding some source code
your comment that the thing runs on another machine
the fact that you use the term 'flag' and 'cmd' and some very small datatypes
making me assume the target machine is quite limited in capacity, I suggest testing the result of the new CHeader for validity: if the system runs out of resources, the resulting pointer will not refer to valid memory.
There is nothing wrong with the code you've provided.
Are you sure the pointer you've created is the same same address once you enter the 'updateHeader' function? Just to be sure, after new() note the address, fill the memory, sizeof(CHeader), with something you know is unique like 0XDEAD, then trace into the updateHeader function, making sure everything is equal.
Other than that, I wonder if it is an alignment issues. I know you're using 8 bit values, but try changing your array to unsigned ints or longs and see if you get the same issue. What architecture are you running this on?
Your code looks fine. The only potential issue I can see is that you have declared a CHeader constructor and destructor in your class, but do not show the implementation of either. I guess you have just omitted to show these, else the linker should have complained (if I duplicate this project in VC++6 it comes up with an 'unresolved external' error for the constructor. It should also have shown the same error for the destructor if you had a... delete hdr; ...statement in your code).
But it is actually not necessary to have an implementation for every method declared in a class unless the methods are actually going to get called (any unimplemented methods are simply ignored by the compiler/linker if never called). Of course, in the case of an object one of the constructor(s) has to be called when the object is instantiated - which is the reason the compiler will create a default constructor for you if you omit to add any constructors to your class. But it will be a serious error for your compiler to compile/link the above code without the implementation of your declared constructor, so I will really be surprised if this is the reason for your problem.
But the symptoms you describe definitely sounds like the 'hdr' pointer you are passing to the updateHeader function is invalid. The reason being that the 1st time you are dereferencing this pointer after the updateHeader function call is in the... Hdr->SetCommand(cmd); ...call (which you say crashes).
I can only think of 2 possible scenarios for this invalid pointer:
a.) You have some problem with your heap and the allocation of memory with the 'new' operator failed on creation of the 'hdr' object. Maybe you have insufficient heap space. On some embedded environments you may also need to provide 'custom' versions of the 'new' and 'delete' operator. The easiest way to check this (and you should always do) is to check the validity of the pointer after the allocation:
CHeader* hdr = new CHeader();
if(hdr) {
updateHeader(hdr);
}
else
//handle or throw exception...
The normal behaviour when 'new' fails should actually be to throw an exception - so the following code will cater for that as well:
try{
CHeader* hdr = new CHeader();
} catch(...) {
//handle or throw specific exception i.e. AfxThrowMemoryException() for MFC
}
if(hdr) {
updateHeader(hdr);
}
else
//handle or throw exception...
}
b.) You are using some older (possibly 16 bit and/or embedded) environment, where you may need to use a FAR pointer (which includes the SEGMENT address) for objects created on the heap.
I suspect that you will need to provide more details of your environment plus compiler to get any useful feedback on this problem.