Related
I am trying to write a simple game using C++ and SDL. My question is, what is the best practice to store class member variables.
MyObject obj;
MyObject* obj;
I read a lot about eliminating pointers as much as possible in similar questions, but I remember that few years back in some books I read they used it a lot (for all non trivial objects) . Another thing is that SDL returns pointers in many of its functions and therefor I would have to use "*" a lot when working with SDL objects.
Also am I right when I think the only way to initialize the first one using other than default constructor is through initializer list?
Generally, using value members is preferred over pointer members. However, there are some exceptions, e.g. (this list is probably incomplete and only contains reason I could come up with immediately):
When the members are huge (use sizeof(MyObject) to find out), the difference often doesn't matter for the access and stack size may be a concern.
When the objects come from another source, e.g., when there are factory function creating pointers, there is often no alternative to store the objects.
If the dynamic type of the object isn't known, using a pointer is generally the only alternative. However, this shouldn't be as common as it often is.
When there are more complicated relations than direct owner, e.g., if an object is shared between different objects, using a pointer is the most reasonable approach.
In all of these case you wouldn't use a pointer directly but rather a suitable smart pointer. For example, for 1. you might want to use a std::unique_ptr<MyObject> and for 4. a std::shared_ptr<MyObject> is the best alternative. For 2. you might need to use one of these smart pointer templates combined with a suitable deleter function to deal with the appropriate clean-up (e.g. for a FILE* obtained from fopen() you'd use fclose() as a deleter function; of course, this is a made up example as in C++ you would use I/O streams anyway).
In general, I normally initialize my objects entirely in the member initializer list, independent on how the members are represented exactly. However, yes, if you member objects require constructor arguments, these need to be passed from a member initializer list.
First I would like to say that I completely agree with Dietmar Kühl and Mats Petersson answer. However, you have also to take on account that SDL is a pure C library where the majority of the API functions expect C pointers of structs that can own big chunks of data. So you should not allocate them on stack (you shoud use new operator to allocate them on the heap). Furthermore, because C language does not contain smart pointers, you need to use std::unique_ptr::get() to recover the C pointer that std::unique_ptr owns before sending it to SDL API functions. This can be quite dangerous because you have to make sure that the std::unique_ptr does not get out of scope while SDL is using the C pointer (similar problem with std::share_ptr). Otherwise you will get seg fault because std::unique_ptr will delete the C pointer while SDL is using it.
Whenever you need to call pure C libraries inside a C++ program, I recommend the use of RAII. The main idea is that you create a small wrapper class that owns the C pointer and also calls the SDL API functions for you. Then you use the class destructor to delete all your C pointers.
Example:
class SDLAudioWrap {
public:
SDLAudioWrap() { // constructor
// allocate SDL_AudioSpec
}
~SDLAudioWrap() { // destructor
// free SDL_AudioSpec
}
// here you wrap all SDL API functions that involve
// SDL_AudioSpec and that you will use in your program
// It is quite simple
void SDL_do_some_stuff() {
SDL_do_some_stuff(ptr); // original C function
// SDL_do_some_stuff(SDL_AudioSpec* ptr)
}
private:
SDL_AudioSpec* ptr;
}
Now your program is exception safe and you don't have the possible issue of having smart pointers deleting your C pointer while SDL is using it.
UPDATE 1: I forget to mention that because SDL is a C library, you will need a custom deleter class in order to proper manage their C structs using smart pointers.
Concrete example: GSL GNU scientific library. Integration routine requires the allocation of a struct called "gsl_integration_workspace". In this case, you can use the following code to ensure that your code is exception safe
auto deleter= [](gsl_integration_workspace* ptr) {
gsl_integration_workspace_free(ptr);
};
std::unique_ptr<gsl_integration_workspace, decltype(deleter)> ptr4 (
gsl_integration_workspace_alloc (2000), deleter);
Another reason why I prefer wrapper classes
In case of initialization, it depends on what the options are, but yes, a common way is to use an initializer list.
The "don't use pointers unless you have to" is good advice in general. Of course, there are times when you have to - for example when an object is being returned by an API!
Also, using new will waste quite a bit of memory and CPU-time if MyObject is small. Each object created with new has an overhead of around 16-48 bytes in a typical modern OS, so if your object is only a couple of simple types, then you may well have more overhead than actual storage. In a largeer application, this can easily add up to a huge amount. And of course, a call to new or delete will most likely take some hundreds or thousands of cycles (above and beyond the time used in the constructor). So, you end up with code that runs slower and takes more memory - and of course, there's always some risk that you mess up and have memory leaks, causing your program to potentially crash due to out of memory, when it's not REALLY out of memory.
And as that famous "Murphy's law states", these things just have to happen at the worst possible and most annoying times - when you have just done some really good work, or when you've just succeeded at a level in a game, or something. So avoiding those risks whenever possible is definitely a good idea.
Well, creating the object is a lot better than using pointers because it's less error prone. Your code doesn't describe it well.
MyObj* foo;
foo = new MyObj;
foo->CanDoStuff(stuff);
//Later when foo is not needed
delete foo;
The other way is
MyObj foo;
foo.CanDoStuff(stuff);
less memory management but really it's up to you.
As the previous answers claimed the "don't use pointers unless you have to" is a good advise for general programming but then there are many issues that could finally make you select the pointers choice. Furthermore, in you initial question you are not considering the option of using references. So you can face three types of variable members in a class:
MyObject obj;
MyObject* obj;
MyObject& obj;
I use to always consider the reference option rather than the pointer one because you don't need to take care about if the pointer is NULL or not.
Also, as Dietmar Kühl pointed, a good reason for selecting pointers is:
If the dynamic type of the object isn't known, using a pointer is
generally the only alternative. However, this shouldn't be as common
as it often is.
I think this point is of particular importance when you are working on a big project. If you have many own classes, arranged in many source files and you use them in many parts of your code you will come up with long compilation times. If you use normal class instances (instead of pointers or references) a simple change in one of the header file of your classes will infer in the recompilation of all the classes that include this modified class. One possible solution for this issue is to use the concept of Forward declaration, which make use of pointers or references (you can find more info here).
I've been looking into this for the past few days, and so far I haven't really found anything convincing other than dogmatic arguments or appeals to tradition (i.e. "it's the C++ way!").
If I'm creating an array of objects, what is the compelling reason (other than ease) for using:
#define MY_ARRAY_SIZE 10
// ...
my_object * my_array=new my_object [MY_ARRAY_SIZE];
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) my_array[i]=my_object(i);
over
#define MEMORY_ERROR -1
#define MY_ARRAY_SIZE 10
// ...
my_object * my_array=(my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object)*MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
if (my_object==NULL) throw MEMORY_ERROR;
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) new (my_array+i) my_object (i);
As far as I can tell the latter is much more efficient than the former (since you don't initialize memory to some non-random value/call default constructors unnecessarily), and the only difference really is the fact that one you clean up with:
delete [] my_array;
and the other you clean up with:
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) my_array[i].~T();
free(my_array);
I'm out for a compelling reason. Appeals to the fact that it's C++ (not C) and therefore malloc and free shouldn't be used isn't -- as far as I can tell -- compelling as much as it is dogmatic. Is there something I'm missing that makes new [] superior to malloc?
I mean, as best I can tell, you can't even use new [] -- at all -- to make an array of things that don't have a default, parameterless constructor, whereas the malloc method can thusly be used.
I'm out for a compelling reason.
It depends on how you define "compelling". Many of the arguments you have thus far rejected are certainly compelling to most C++ programmers, as your suggestion is not the standard way to allocate naked arrays in C++.
The simple fact is this: yes, you absolutely can do things the way you describe. There is no reason that what you are describing will not function.
But then again, you can have virtual functions in C. You can implement classes and inheritance in plain C, if you put the time and effort into it. Those are entirely functional as well.
Therefore, what matters is not whether something can work. But more on what the costs are. It's much more error prone to implement inheritance and virtual functions in C than C++. There are multiple ways to implement it in C, which leads to incompatible implementations. Whereas, because they're first-class language features of C++, it's highly unlikely that someone would manually implement what the language offers. Thus, everyone's inheritance and virtual functions can cooperate with the rules of C++.
The same goes for this. So what are the gains and the losses from manual malloc/free array management?
I can't say that any of what I'm about to say constitutes a "compelling reason" for you. I rather doubt it will, since you seem to have made up your mind. But for the record:
Performance
You claim the following:
As far as I can tell the latter is much more efficient than the former (since you don't initialize memory to some non-random value/call default constructors unnecessarily), and the only difference really is the fact that one you clean up with:
This statement suggests that the efficiency gain is primarily in the construction of the objects in question. That is, which constructors are called. The statement presupposes that you don't want to call the default constructor; that you use a default constructor just to create the array, then use the real initialization function to put the actual data into the object.
Well... what if that's not what you want to do? What if what you want to do is create an empty array, one that is default constructed? In this case, this advantage disappears entirely.
Fragility
Let's assume that each object in the array needs to have a specialized constructor or something called on it, such that initializing the array requires this sort of thing. But consider your destruction code:
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) my_array[i].~T();
For a simple case, this is fine. You have a macro or const variable that says how many objects you have. And you loop over each element to destroy the data. That's great for a simple example.
Now consider a real application, not an example. How many different places will you be creating an array in? Dozens? Hundreds? Each and every one will need to have its own for loop for initializing the array. Each and every one will need to have its own for loop for destroying the array.
Mis-type this even once, and you can corrupt memory. Or not delete something. Or any number of other horrible things.
And here's an important question: for a given array, where do you keep the size? Do you know how many items you allocated for every array that you create? Each array will probably have its own way of knowing how many items it stores. So each destructor loop will need to fetch this data properly. If it gets it wrong... boom.
And then we have exception safety, which is a whole new can of worms. If one of the constructors throws an exception, the previously constructed objects need to be destructed. Your code doesn't do that; it's not exception-safe.
Now, consider the alternative:
delete[] my_array;
This can't fail. It will always destroy every element. It tracks the size of the array, and it's exception-safe. So it is guaranteed to work. It can't not work (as long as you allocated it with new[]).
Of course, you could say that you could wrap the array in an object. That makes sense. You might even template the object on the type elements of the array. That way, all the desturctor code is the same. The size is contained in the object. And maybe, just maybe, you realize that the user should have some control over the particular way the memory is allocated, so that it's not just malloc/free.
Congratulations: you just re-invented std::vector.
Which is why many C++ programmers don't even type new[] anymore.
Flexibility
Your code uses malloc/free. But let's say I'm doing some profiling. And I realize that malloc/free for certain frequently created types is just too expensive. I create a special memory manager for them. But how to hook all of the array allocations to them?
Well, I have to search the codebase for any location where you create/destroy arrays of these types. And then I have to change their memory allocators accordingly. And then I have to continuously watch the codebase so that someone else doesn't change those allocators back or introduce new array code that uses different allocators.
If I were instead using new[]/delete[], I could use operator overloading. I simply provide an overload for operators new[] and delete[] for those types. No code has to change. It's much more difficult for someone to circumvent these overloads; they have to actively try to. And so forth.
So I get greater flexibility and reasonable assurance that my allocators will be used where they should be used.
Readability
Consider this:
my_object *my_array = new my_object[10];
for (int i=0; i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE; ++i)
my_array[i]=my_object(i);
//... Do stuff with the array
delete [] my_array;
Compare it to this:
my_object *my_array = (my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object) * MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
if(my_object==NULL)
throw MEMORY_ERROR;
int i;
try
{
for(i=0; i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE; ++i)
new(my_array+i) my_object(i);
}
catch(...) //Exception safety.
{
for(i; i>0; --i) //The i-th object was not successfully constructed
my_array[i-1].~T();
throw;
}
//... Do stuff with the array
for(int i=MY_ARRAY_SIZE; i>=0; --i)
my_array[i].~T();
free(my_array);
Objectively speaking, which one of these is easier to read and understand what's going on?
Just look at this statement: (my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object) * MY_ARRAY_SIZE). This is a very low level thing. You're not allocating an array of anything; you're allocating a hunk of memory. You have to manually compute the size of the hunk of memory to match the size of the object * the number of objects you want. It even features a cast.
By contrast, new my_object[10] tells the story. new is the C++ keyword for "create instances of types". my_object[10] is a 10 element array of my_object type. It's simple, obvious, and intuitive. There's no casting, no computing of byte sizes, nothing.
The malloc method requires learning how to use malloc idiomatically. The new method requires just understanding how new works. It's much less verbose and much more obvious what's going on.
Furthermore, after the malloc statement, you do not in fact have an array of objects. malloc simply returns a block of memory that you have told the C++ compiler to pretend is a pointer to an object (with a cast). It isn't an array of objects, because objects in C++ have lifetimes. And an object's lifetime does not begin until it is constructed. Nothing in that memory has had a constructor called on it yet, and therefore there are no living objects in it.
my_array at that point is not an array; it's just a block of memory. It doesn't become an array of my_objects until you construct them in the next step. This is incredibly unintuitive to a new programmer; it takes a seasoned C++ hand (one who probably learned from C) to know that those aren't live objects and should be treated with care. The pointer does not yet behave like a proper my_object*, because it doesn't point to any my_objects yet.
By contrast, you do have living objects in the new[] case. The objects have been constructed; they are live and fully-formed. You can use this pointer just like any other my_object*.
Fin
None of the above says that this mechanism isn't potentially useful in the right circumstances. But it's one thing to acknowledge the utility of something in certain circumstances. It's quite another to say that it should be the default way of doing things.
If you do not want to get your memory initialized by implicit constructor calls, and just need an assured memory allocation for placement new then it is perfectly fine to use malloc and free instead of new[] and delete[].
The compelling reasons of using new over malloc is that new provides implicit initialization through constructor calls, saving you additional memset or related function calls post an malloc And that for new you do not need to check for NULL after every allocation, just enclosing exception handlers will do the job saving you redundant error checking unlike malloc.
These both compelling reasons do not apply to your usage.
which one is performance efficient can only be determined by profiling, there is nothing wrong in the approach you have now. On a side note I don't see a compelling reason as to why use malloc over new[] either.
I would say neither.
The best way to do it would be:
std::vector<my_object> my_array;
my_array.reserve(MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i)
{ my_array.push_back(my_object(i));
}
This is because internally vector is probably doing the placement new for you. It also managing all the other problems associated with memory management that you are not taking into account.
You've reimplemented new[]/delete[] here, and what you have written is pretty common in developing specialized allocators.
The overhead of calling simple constructors will take little time compared the allocation. It's not necessarily 'much more efficient' -- it depends on the complexity of the default constructor, and of operator=.
One nice thing that has not been mentioned yet is that the array's size is known by new[]/delete[]. delete[] just does the right and destructs all elements when asked. Dragging an additional variable (or three) around so you exactly how to destroy the array is a pain. A dedicated collection type would be a fine alternative, however.
new[]/delete[] are preferable for convenience. They introduce little overhead, and could save you from a lot of silly errors. Are you compelled enough to take away this functionality and use a collection/container everywhere to support your custom construction? I've implemented this allocator -- the real mess is creating functors for all the construction variations you need in practice. At any rate, you often have a more exact execution at the expense of a program which is often more difficult to maintain than the idioms everybody knows.
IMHO there both ugly, it's better to use vectors. Just make sure to allocate the space in advance for performance.
Either:
std::vector<my_object> my_array(MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
If you want to initialize with a default value for all entries.
my_object basic;
std::vector<my_object> my_array(MY_ARRAY_SIZE, basic);
Or if you don't want to construct the objects but do want to reserve the space:
std::vector<my_object> my_array;
my_array.reserve(MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
Then if you need to access it as a C-Style pointer array just (just make sure you don't add stuff while keeping the old pointer but you couldn't do that with regular c-style arrays anyway.)
my_object* carray = &my_array[0];
my_object* carray = &my_array.front(); // Or the C++ way
Access individual elements:
my_object value = my_array[i]; // The non-safe c-like faster way
my_object value = my_array.at(i); // With bounds checking, throws range exception
Typedef for pretty:
typedef std::vector<my_object> object_vect;
Pass them around functions with references:
void some_function(const object_vect& my_array);
EDIT:
IN C++11 there is also std::array. The problem with it though is it's size is done via a template so you can't make different sized ones at runtime and you cant pass it into functions unless they are expecting that exact same size (or are template functions themselves). But it can be useful for things like buffers.
std::array<int, 1024> my_array;
EDIT2:
Also in C++11 there is a new emplace_back as an alternative to push_back. This basically allows you to 'move' your object (or construct your object directly in the vector) and saves you a copy.
std::vector<SomeClass> v;
SomeClass bob {"Bob", "Ross", 10.34f};
v.emplace_back(bob);
v.emplace_back("Another", "One", 111.0f); // <- Note this doesn't work with initialization lists ☹
Oh well, I was thinking that given the number of answers there would be no reason to step in... but I guess I am drawn in as the others. Let's go
Why your solution is broken
C++11 new facilities for handling raw memory
Simpler way to get this done
Advices
1. Why your solution is broken
First, the two snippets you presented are not equivalent. new[] just works, yours fails horribly in the presence of Exceptions.
What new[] does under the cover is that it keeps track of the number of objects that were constructed, so that if an exception occurs during say the 3rd constructor call it properly calls the destructor for the 2 already constructed objects.
Your solution however fails horribly:
either you don't handle exceptions at all (and leak horribly)
or you just try to call the destructors on the whole array even though it's half built (likely crashing, but who knows with undefined behavior)
So the two are clearly not equivalent. Yours is broken
2. C++11 new facilities for handling raw memory
In C++11, the comittee members have realized how much we liked fiddling with raw memory and they have introduced facilities to help us doing so more efficiently, and more safely.
Check cppreference's <memory> brief. This example shows off the new goodies (*):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
#include <algorithm>
int main()
{
const std::string s[] = {"This", "is", "a", "test", "."};
std::string* p = std::get_temporary_buffer<std::string>(5).first;
std::copy(std::begin(s), std::end(s),
std::raw_storage_iterator<std::string*, std::string>(p));
for(std::string* i = p; i!=p+5; ++i) {
std::cout << *i << '\n';
i->~basic_string<char>();
}
std::return_temporary_buffer(p);
}
Note that get_temporary_buffer is no-throw, it returns the number of elements for which memory has actually been allocated as a second member of the pair (thus the .first to get the pointer).
(*) Or perhaps not so new as MooingDuck remarked.
3. Simpler way to get this done
As far as I am concered, what you really seem to be asking for is a kind of typed memory pool, where some emplacements could not have been initialized.
Do you know about boost::optional ?
It is basically an area of raw memory that can fit one item of a given type (template parameter) but defaults with having nothing in instead. It has a similar interface to a pointer and let you query whether or not the memory is actually occupied. Finally, using the In-Place Factories you can safely use it without copying objects if it is a concern.
Well, your use case really looks like a std::vector< boost::optional<T> > to me (or perhaps a deque?)
4. Advices
Finally, in case you really want to do it on your own, whether for learning or because no STL container really suits you, I do suggest you wrap this up in an object to avoid the code sprawling all over the place.
Don't forget: Don't Repeat Yourself!
With an object (templated) you can capture the essence of your design in one single place, and then reuse it everywhere.
And of course, why not take advantage of the new C++11 facilities while doing so :) ?
You should use vectors.
Dogmatic or not, that is exactly what ALL the STL container do to allocate and initialize.
They use an allocator then allocates uninitialized space and initialize it by means of the container constructors.
If this (like many people use to say) "is not c++" how can be the standard library just be implemented like that?
If you just don't want to use malloc / free, you can allocate "bytes" with just new char[]
myobjet* pvext = reinterpret_cast<myobject*>(new char[sizeof(myobject)*vectsize]);
for(int i=0; i<vectsize; ++i) new(myobject+i)myobject(params);
...
for(int i=vectsize-1; i!=0u-1; --i) (myobject+i)->~myobject();
delete[] reinterpret_cast<char*>(myobject);
This lets you take advantage of the separation between initialization and allocation, still taking adwantage of the new allocation exception mechanism.
Note that, putting my first and last line into an myallocator<myobject> class and the second ands second-last into a myvector<myobject> class, we have ... just reimplemented std::vector<myobject, std::allocator<myobject> >
What you have shown here is actually the way to go when using a memory allocator different than the system general allocator - in that case you would allocate your memory using the allocator (alloc->malloc(sizeof(my_object))) and then use the placement new operator to initialize it. This has many advantages in efficient memory management and quite common in the standard template library.
If you are writing a class that mimics functionality of std::vector or needs control over memory allocation/object creation (insertion in array / deletion etc.) - that's the way to go. In this case, it's not a question of "not calling default constructor". It becomes a question of being able to "allocate raw memory, memmove old objects there and then create new objects at the olds' addresses", question of being able to use some form of realloc and so on. Unquestionably, custom allocation + placement new are way more flexible... I know, I'm a bit drunk, but std::vector is for sissies... About efficiency - one can write their own version of std::vector that will be AT LEAST as fast ( and most likely smaller, in terms of sizeof() ) with most used 80% of std::vector functionality in, probably, less than 3 hours.
my_object * my_array=new my_object [10];
This will be an array with objects.
my_object * my_array=(my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object)*MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
This will be an array the size of your objects, but they may be "broken". If your class has virtual funcitons for instance, then you won't be able to call those. Note that it's not just your member data that may be inconsistent, but the entire object is actully "broken" (in lack of a better word)
I'm not saying it's wrong to do the second one, just as long as you know this.
I made a cute generic (i.e. template) List class to handle lists in C++. The reason for that is that I found the std::list class terribly ugly for everyday use and since I constantly use lists, I needed a new one. The major improvement is that with my class, I can use [] to get items from it. Also, still to be implemented is an IComparer system to sort things.
I'm using this List class in OBJLoader, my class that loads Wavefront .obj files and converts them to meshes. OBJLoader contains lists of pointers to the following "types": 3D positions, 3D normals, uv texture coordinates, vertices, faces and meshes. The vertices list has objects that must be linked to some objects in all of the 3D positions, 3D normals and uv texture coordinates lists. Faces link to vertices and meshes link to faces. So they are all inter-connected.
For the sake of simplicity, let's consider that, in some context, there are just two lists of pointers: List<Person*> and List<Place*>. Person class contains, among others, the field List<Place*> placesVisited and the Place class contains the field List<Person*> peopleThatVisited. So we have the structure:
class Person
{
...
public:
Place* placeVisited;
...
};
class Place
{
...
public:
List<People*> peopleThatVisited;
};
Now we have the following code:
Person* psn1 = new Person();
Person* psn2 = new Person();
Place* plc1 = new Place();
Place* plc2 = new Place();
Place* plc2 = new Place();
// make some links between them here:
psn1->placesVisited.Add(plc1, plc2);
psn2->placesVisited.Add(plc2, plc3);
// add the links to the places as well
plc1->peopleThatVisited.Add(psn1);
plc2->peopleThatVisited.Add(psn1, psn2);
plc3->peopleThatVisited.Add(plc3);
// to make things worse:
List<Person*> allThePeopleAvailable;
allThePeopleAvailable.Add(psn1);
allThePeopleAvailable.Add(psn2);
List<Place*> allThePlacesAvailable;
allThePlacesAvailable.Add(plc1);
allThePlacesAvailable.Add(plc2);
allThePlacesAvailable.Add(plc3);
All done. What happens when we reach }? All the dtors are called and the program crashes because it tries to delete things two or more times.
The dtor of my list looks like this:
~List(void)
{
cursor = begin;
cursorPos = 0;
while(cursorPos < capacity - 1)
{
cursor = cursor->next;
cursorPos++;
delete cursor->prev;
}
delete cursor;
}
where Elem is:
struct Elem
{
public:
Elem* prev;
T value;
Elem* next;
};
and T is the generic List type.
Which brings us back to the question: What ways are there to safely delete my List classes? The elements inside may or may not be pointers and, if they are pointers, I would like to be able, when I delete my List, to specify whether I want to delete the elements inside or just the Elem wrappers around them.
Smart pointers could be an answer, but that would mean that I can't have a List<bubuType*>, but just List<smart_pointer_to_bubuType>. This could be ok, but again: declaring a List<bubuType*> would cause no error or warning and in some cases the smart pointers would cause some problems in the implementation: for example, I might want to declare a List<PSTR> for some WinAPI returns. I think getting those PSTR inside smart pointers would be an ugly job. Thus, the solution I'm looking for I think should be somehow related to the deallocation system of the List template.
Any ideas?
Without even looking at your code, I say: scrap it!
C++ has a list class template that's about as efficient as it gets, well-known to all C++ programmers, and comes bug-free with your compiler.
Learn to use the STL.1 Coming from other OO languages, the STL might seem strange, but there's an underlying reason for its strangeness, an alien beauty combining abstraction and performance - something considered impossible before Stepanov came and thought up the STL.
Rest assured that you are not the only one struggling with understanding the STL. When it came upon us, we all struggled to grasp its concepts, to learn its particularities, to understand how it ticks. The STL is a strange beast, but then it manages to combine two goals everybody thought could never be combined, so it's allowed to seem unfamiliar at first.
I bet writing your own linked list class used to be the second most popular indoor sport of C++ programmers - right after writing your own string class. Those of us who had been programming C++ 15 years ago nowadays enjoy ripping out those bug-ridden, inefficient, strange, and unknown string, list, and dictionary classes rotting in old code, and replacing it with something that is very efficient, well-known, and bug-free. Starting your own list class (other than for educational purposes) has to be one of the worst heresies.
If you program in C++, get used to one of the mightiest tools in its box as soon as possible.
1Note that the term "STL" names that part of the C++ standard library that stems from Stepanov's library (plus things like std::string which got an STL interface attached as an afterthought), not the whole standard library.
The best answer is that you must think on the lifetime of each one of the objects, and the responsibility of managing that lifetime.
In particular, in a relation from people and the sites they have visited, most probably neither of them should be naturally made responsible for the lifetime of the others: people can live independently from the sites that they have visited, and places exists regardless of whether they have been visited. This seems to hint that the lifetime of both people and sites is unrelated to the others, and that the pointers held are not related to resource management, but are rather references (not in the C++ sense).
Once you know who is responsible for managing the resource, that should be the code that should delete (or better hold the resource in a container or suitable smart pointer if it needs to be dynamically allocated), and you must ensure that the deletion does not happen before the other objects that refer to the same elements finish with them.
If at the end of the day, in your design ownership is not clear, you can fall back to using shared_ptr (either boost or std) being careful not to create circular dependencies that would produce memory leaks. Again to use the shared_ptrs correctly you have to go back and think, think on the lifetime of the objects...
Always, always use smart pointers if you are responsible for deallocating that memory. Do not ever use raw pointers unless you know that you're not responsible for deleting that memory. For WinAPI returns, wrap them into smart pointers. Of course, a list of raw pointers is not an error, because you may wish to have a list of objects whose memory you do not own. But avoiding smart pointers is most assuredly not a solution to any problem, because they're a completely essential tool.
And just use the Standard list. That's what it's for.
In the lines:
// make some links between them here:
psn1->placesVisited.Add(plc1, plc2);
psn2->placesVisited.Add(plc2, plc3);
// add the links to the places as well
plc1->peopleThatVisited.Add(psn1);
plc2->peopleThatVisited.Add(psn1, psn2);
plc3->peopleThatVisited.Add(plc3);
You have instances on the heap that contain pointers to each others. Not only one, but adding the same Place pointer to more than one person will also cause the problem (deleting more than one time the same object in memory).
Telling you to learn STL or to use shared_ptr (Boost) can be a good advice, however, as David Rodríguez said, you need to think of the lifetime of the objects. In other words, you need to redesign this scenario so that the objects do not contain pointers to each other.
Example: Is it really necessary to use pointers? - in this case, and if you require STL lists or vectors, you need to use shared_ptr, but again, if the objects make reference to each other, not even the best shared_ptr implementation will make it.
If this relationship between places and persons is required, design a class or use a container that will carry the references to each other instead of having the persons and places point at each other. Like a many-to-many table in a RDBMS. Then you will have a class/container that will take care of deleting the pointers at the end of the process. This way, no relations between Places and Persons will exist, only in the container.
Regards, J. Rivero
Without looking the exact code of the Add function, and the destructor of your list, it's hard to pin point the problem.
However, as said in the comments, the main problem with this code is that you don't use std::list or std::vector. There are proven efficient implementations, which fit what you need.
First of all, I would certainly use the STL (standard template library), but, I see that you are learning C++, so as an exercise it can be nice to write such a thing as a List template.
First of all, you should never expose data members (e.g. placeVisited and peopleThatVisited). This is a golden rule in object oriented programming. You should use getter and setter methods for that.
Regarding the problem around double deletion: the only solution is having a wrapper class around your pointers, that keeps track of outstanding references. Have a look at the boost::shared_ptr. (Boost is another magnificent well-crafted C++ library).
The program crashes because delete deallocates the memory of the pointer it is given it isn't removing the items from you list. You have the same pointer in at least two lists, so delete is getting called on the same block of memory multiple times this causes the crash.
First, smart pointers are not the answer here. All they will do is
guarantee that the objects never get deleted (since a double linked list
contains cycles, by definition).
Second, there's no way you can pass an argument to the destructor
telling it to delete contained pointers: this would have to be done
either via the list's type, one of its template arguments, partial
specialization or an argument to the constructor. (The latter would
probably require partial specialization as well, to avoid trying to
delete a non-pointer.)
Finally, the way to not delete an object twice is to not call delete on
it twice. I'm not quite sure what you thing is happening in your
destructor, but you never change cursor, so every time through, you're
deleting the same two elements. You probably need something more along
the lines of:
while ( cursor not at end ) {
Elem* next = cursor->next;
delete cursor;
cursor = next;
}
--
James Kanze
And you could easily implement [] around a normal list:
template <class Type>
class mystdlist : public std::list<Type> {
public:
Type& operator[](int index) {
list<Type>::iterator iter = this.begin();
for ( int i = 0; i < index; i++ ) {
iter++;
}
return *iter;
}
};
Why you would want to do this is strange, IMHO. If you want O(1) access, use a vector.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Common Uses For Pointers?
I am still learning the basics of C++ but I already know enough to do useful little programs.
I understand the concept of pointers and the examples I see in tutorials make sense to me. However, on the practical level, and being a (former) PHP developer, I am not yet confident to actually use them in my programs.
In fact, so far I have not felt the need to use any pointer. I have my classes and functions and I seem to be doing perfectly fine without using any pointer (let alone pointers to pointers). And I can't help feeling a bit proud of my little programs.
Still, I am aware that I am missing on one of C++'s most important feature, a double edged one: pointers and memory management can create havoc, seemingly random crashes, hard to find bugs and security holes... but at the same time, properly used, they must allow for clever and efficient programming.
So: do tell me what I am missing by not using pointers.
What are good scenarios where using pointers is a must?
What do they allow you to do that you couldn't do otherwise?
In which way to they make your programs more efficient?
And what about pointers to pointers???
[Edit: All the various answers are useful. One problem at SO is that we cannot "accept" more than one answer. I often wish I could. Actually, it's all the answers combined that help to understand better the whole picture. Thanks.]
I use pointers when I want to give a class access to an object, without giving it ownership of that object. Even then, I can use a reference, unless I need to be able to change which object I am accessing and/or I need the option of no object, in which case the pointer would be NULL.
This question has been asked on SO before. My answer from there:
I use pointers about once every six lines in the C++ code that I write. Off the top of my head, these are the most common uses:
When I need to dynamically create an object whose lifetime exceeds the scope in which it was created.
When I need to allocate an object whose size is unknown at compile time.
When I need to transfer ownership of an object from one thing to another without actually copying it (like in a linked list/heap/whatever of really big, expensive structs)
When I need to refer to the same object from two different places.
When I need to slice an array without copying it.
When I need to use compiler intrinsics to generate CPU-specific instructions, or work around situations where the compiler emits suboptimal or naive code.
When I need to write directly to a specific region of memory (because it has memory-mapped IO).
Pointers are commonly used in C++. Becoming comfortable with them, will help you understand a broader range of code. That said if you can avoid them that is great, however, in time as your programs become more complex, you will likely need them even if only to interface with other libraries.
Primarily pointers are used to refer to dynamically allocated memory (returned by new).
They allow functions to take arguments that cannot be copied onto the stack either because they are too big or cannot be copied, such as an object returned by a system call. (I think also stack alignment, can be an issue, but too hazy to be confident.)
In embedded programing they are used to refer to things like hardware registers, which require that the code write to a very specific address in memory.
Pointers are also used to access objects through their base class interfaces. That is if I have a class B that is derived from class A class B : public A {}. That is an instance of the object B could be accessed as if it where class A by providing its address to a pointer to class A, ie: A *a = &b_obj;
It is a C idiom to use pointers as iterators on arrays. This may still be common in older C++ code, but is probably considered a poor cousin to the STL iterator objects.
If you need to interface with C code, you will invariable need to handle pointers which are used to refer to dynamically allocated objects, as there are no references. C strings are just pointers to an array of characters terminated by the nul '\0' character.
Once you feel comfortable with pointers, pointers to pointers won't seem so awful. The most obvious example is the argument list to main(). This is typically declared as char *argv[], but I have seen it declared (legally I believe) as char **argv.
The declaration is C style, but it says that I have array of pointers to pointers to char. Which is interpreted as a arbitrary sized array (the size is carried by argc) of C style strings (character arrays terminated by the nul '\0' character).
If you haven't felt a need for pointers, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about them until a need arises.
That said, one of the primary ways pointers can contribute to more efficient programming is by avoiding copies of actual data. For example, let's assume you were writing a network stack. You receive an Ethernet packet to be processed. You successively pass that data up the stack from the "raw" Ethernet driver to the IP driver to the TCP driver to, say, the HTTP driver to something that processes the HTML it contains.
If you're making a new copy of the contents for each of those, you end up making at least four copies of the data before you actually get around to rendering it at all.
Using pointers can avoid a lot of that -- instead of copying the data itself, you just pass around a pointer to the data. Each successive layer of the network stack looks at its own header, and passes a pointer to what it considers the "payload" up to the next higher layer in the stack. That next layer looks at its own header, modifies the pointer to show what it considers the payload, and passes it on up the stack. Instead of four copies of the data, all four layers work with one copy of the real data.
A big use for pointers is dynamic sizing of arrays. When you don't know the size of the array at compile time, you will need to allocate it at run-time.
int *array = new int[dynamicSize];
If your solution to this problem is to use std::vector from the STL, they use dynamic memory allocation behind the scenes.
There are several scenarios where pointers are required:
If you are using Abstract Base Classes with virtual methods. You can hold a std::vector and loop through all these objects and call a virtual method. This REQUIRES pointers.
You can pass a pointer to a buffer to a method reading from a file etc.
You need a lot of memory allocated on the heap.
It's a good thing to care about memory problems right from the start. So if you start using pointers, you might as well take a look at smart pointers, like boost's shared_ptr for example.
What are good scenarios where using pointers is a must?
Interviews. Implement strcpy.
What do they allow you to do that you couldn't do otherwise?
Use of inheritance hierarchy. Data structures like Binary trees.
In which way to they make your programs more efficient?
They give more control to the programmer, for creating and deleting resources at run time.
And what about pointers to pointers???
A frequently asked interview question. How will you create two dimensional array on heap.
A pointer has a special value, NULL, that reference's won't. I use pointers wherever NULL is a valid and useful value.
I just want to say that i rarely use pointers. I use references and stl objects (deque, list, map, etc).
A good idea is when you need to return an object where the calling function should free or when you dont want to return by value.
List<char*>* fileToList(char*filename) { //dont want to pass list by value
ClassName* DataToMyClass(DbConnectionOrSomeType& data) {
//alternatively you can do the below which doesnt require pointers
void DataToMyClass(DbConnectionOrSomeType& data, ClassName& myClass) {
Thats pretty much the only situation i use but i am not thinking that hard. Also if i want a function to modify a variable and cant use the return value (say i need more then one)
bool SetToFiveIfPositive(int**v) {
You can use them for linked lists, trees, etc.
They're very important data structures.
In general, pointers are useful as they can hold the address of a chunk of memory. They are especially useful in some low level drivers where they are efficiently used to operate on a piece of memory byte by byte. They are most powerful invention that C++ inherits from C.
As to pointer to pointer, here is a "hello-world" example showing you how to use it.
#include <iostream>
void main()
{
int i = 1;
int j = 2;
int *pInt = &i; // "pInt" points to "i"
std::cout<<*pInt<<std::endl; // prints: 1
*pInt = 6; // modify i, i = 6
std::cout<<i<<std::endl; // prints: 6
int **ppInt = &pInt; // "ppInt" points to "pInt"
std::cout<<**ppInt<<std::endl; // prints: 6
**ppInt = 8; // modify i, i = 8
std::cout<<i<<std::endl; // prints: 8
*ppInt = &j; // now pInt points to j
*pInt = 10; // modify j, j = 10
std::cout<<j<<std::endl; // prints: 10
}
As we see, "pInt" is a pointer to integer which points to "i" at the beginning. With it, you can modify "i". "ppInt" is a pointer to pointer which points to "pInt". With it, you can modify "pInt" which happens to be an address. As a result, "*ppInt = &j" makes "pInt" points to "j" now. So we have all the results above.
I've been evaluating various smart pointer implementations (wow, there are a LOT out there) and it seems to me that most of them can be categorized into two broad classifications:
1) This category uses inheritance on the objects referenced so that they have reference counts and usually up() and down() (or their equivalents) implemented. IE, to use the smart pointer, the objects you're pointing at must inherit from some class the ref implementation provides.
2) This category uses a secondary object to hold the reference counts. For example, instead of pointing the smart pointer right at an object, it actually points at this meta data object... Who has a reference count and up() and down() implementations (and who usually provides a mechanism for the pointer to get at the actual object being pointed to, so that the smart pointer can properly implement operator ->()).
Now, 1 has the downside that it forces all of the objects you'd like to reference count to inherit from a common ancestor, and this means that you cannot use this to reference count objects that you don't have control over the source code to.
2 has the problem that since the count is stored in another object, if you ever have a situation that a pointer to an existing reference counted object is being converted into a reference, you probably have a bug (I.E., since the count is not in the actual object, there is no way for the new reference to get the count... ref to ref copy construction or assignment is fine, because they can share the count object, but if you ever have to convert from a pointer, you're totally hosed)...
Now, as I understand it, boost::shared_pointer uses mechanism 2, or something like it... That said, I can't quite make up my mind which is worse! I have only ever used mechanism 1, in production code... Does anyone have experience with both styles? Or perhaps there is another way thats better than both of these?
"What is the best way to implement smart pointers in C++"
Don't! Use an existing, well tested smart pointer, such as boost::shared_ptr or std::tr1::shared_ptr (std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr with C++ 11)
If you have to, then remember to:
use safe-bool idiom
provide an operator->
provide the strong exception guarantee
document the exception requirements your class makes on the deleter
use copy-modify-swap where possible to implement the strong exception guarantee
document whether you handle multithreading correctly
write extensive unit tests
implement conversion-to-base in such a way that it will delete on the derived pointer type (policied smart pointers / dynamic deleter smart pointers)
support getting access to raw pointer
consider cost/benifit of providing weak pointers to break cycles
provide appropriate casting operators for your smart pointers
make your constructor templated to handle constructing base pointer from derived.
And don't forget anything I may have forgotten in the above incomplete list.
Just to supply a different view to the ubiquitous Boost answer (even though it is the right answer for many uses), take a look at Loki's implementation of smart pointers. For a discourse on the design philosophy, the original creator of Loki wrote the book Modern C++ Design.
I've been using boost::shared_ptr for several years now and while you are right about the downside (no assignment via pointer possible), I think it was definitely worth it because of the huge amount of pointer-related bugs it saved me from.
In my homebrew game engine I've replaced normal pointers with shared_ptr as much as possible. The performance hit this causes is actually not so bad if you are calling most functions by reference so that the compiler does not have to create too many temporary shared_ptr instances.
Boost also has an intrusive pointer (like solution 1), that doesn't require inheriting from anything. It does require changing the pointer to class to store the reference count and provide appropriate member functions. I've used this in cases where memory efficiency was important, and didn't want the overhead of another object for each shared pointer used.
Example:
class Event {
public:
typedef boost::intrusive_ptr<Event> Ptr;
void addRef();
unsigned release();
\\ ...
private:
unsigned fRefCount;
};
inline void Event::addRef()
{
fRefCount++;
}
inline unsigned Event::release(){
fRefCount--;
return fRefCount;
}
inline void intrusive_ptr_add_ref(Event* e)
{
e->addRef();
}
inline void intrusive_ptr_release(Event* e)
{
if (e->release() == 0)
delete e;
}
The Ptr typedef is used so that I can easily switcth between boost::shared_ptr<> and boost::intrusive_ptr<> without changing any client code
If you stick with the ones that are in the standard library you will be fine.
Though there are a few other types than the ones you specified.
Shared: Where the ownership is shared between multiple objects
Owned: Where one object owns the object but transfer is allowed.
Unmovable: Where one object owns the object and it can not be transferred.
The standard library has:
std::auto_ptr
Boost has a couple more than have been adapted by tr1 (next version of the standard)
std::tr1::shared_ptr
std::tr1::weak_ptr
And those still in boost (which in relatively is a must have anyway) that hopefully make it into tr2.
boost::scoped_ptr
boost::scoped_array
boost::shared_array
boost::intrusive_ptr
See:
Smart Pointers: Or who owns you baby?
It seems to me this question is kind of like asking "Which is the best sort algorithm?" There is no one answer, it depends on your circumstances.
For my own purposes, I'm using your type 1. I don't have access to the TR1 library. I do have complete control over all the classes I need to have shared pointers to. The additional memory and time efficiency of type 1 might be pretty slight, but memory usage and speed are big issues for my code, so type 1 was a slam dunk.
On the other hand, for anyone who can use TR1, I'd think the type 2 std::tr1::shared_ptr class would be a sensible default choice, to be used whenever there isn't some pressing reason not to use it.
The problem with 2 can be worked around. Boost offers boost::shared_from_this for this same reason. In practice, it's not a big problem.
But the reason they went with your option #2 is that it can be used in all cases. Relying on inheritance isn't always an option, and then you're left with a smart pointer you can't use for half your code.
I'd have to say #2 is best, simply because it can be used in any circumstances.
Our project uses smart pointers extensively. In the beginning there was uncertainty about which pointer to use, and so one of the main authors chose an intrusive pointer in his module and the other a non-intrusive version.
In general, the differences between the two pointer types were not significant. The only exception being that early versions of our non-intrusive pointer implicitly converted from a raw pointer and this can easily lead to memory problems if the pointers are used incorrectly:
void doSomething (NIPtr<int> const &);
void foo () {
NIPtr<int> i = new int;
int & j = *i;
doSomething (&j); // Ooops - owned by two pointers! :(
}
A while ago, some refactoring resulted in some parts of the code being merged, and so a choice had to be made about which pointer type to use. The non-intrusive pointer now had the converting constructor declared as explicit and so it was decided to go with the intrusive pointer to save on the amount of code change that was required.
To our great surprise one thing we did notice was that we had an immediate performance improvement by using the intrusive pointer. We did not put much research into this, and just assumed that the difference was the cost of maintaining the count object. It is possible that other implementations of non-intrusive shared pointer have solved this problem by now.
What you are talking about are intrusive and non-intrusive smart pointers. Boost has both. boost::intrusive_ptr calls a function to decrease and increase the reference count of your object, everytime it needs to change the reference count. It's not calling member functions, but free functions. So it allows managing objects without the need to change the definition of their types. And as you say, boost::shared_ptr is non-intrusive, your category 2.
I have an answer explaining intrusive_ptr: Making shared_ptr not use delete. In short, you use it if you have an object that has already reference counting, or need (as you explain) an object that is already referenced to be owned by an intrusive_ptr.