I'm not sure if this is possible.
I need to prevent a all classes derived from X from being instantiated as local stack or member variables. I made all their destructors protected and this did the trick as far as outside scopes are concerned. However I need to prevent them from being instantiated by themselves, too. I mean if Y has member variables of type Z or instantiates local variables of type Z in its methods, thid doesn't cut it.
Now I could create private destructors in all the leaves of the hierarchy tree, but the problem is that every not should be allowed to be a (heap) variable. In the case X <- Y <- Z, all three should be instantiated but X and Y cannot have private destructors. Moreover even that doesn't stop me from having local variables of type Z in the methods of Z.
I guess by making their constructors private and adding operator new as friend to all of them will do the trick, but this is a LOT of extra work (since we use several versions of operator new) and the hierarchy is big.
So, is there a way of having a (preferably) compile-time, or a runtime error for stack instantiation of these objects, whithout resorting to the private-constructors-friend-new-way?
<edit>
The thing is that the previous programmers of this project wrote a ton of code and all classes in this hierarchy have terribly complicated destructors. And also, the authors indiscriminately called virtual methods in those destructros, which lead to a lot of unexplicable (to them) crashes and memory corruptions. Now converted all destructors to a obj->Release() pattern and in the top-most Release I have delete this. Obviously this wont work for stack objects and now I introduced some crashes of my own. Also I'm kinda short of time and the run/wait for crash/fix this specific crash method is very very slow
</edit>
In his book “More Effective C++” in item 27, Scott Meyers (incidentally my favorite author on C++) describes why it’s not possible in the general sense and within the bounds of portable or semi-portable C++ to definitively distinguish whether an object has been allocated on the stack, heap, or is statically allocated. It also discusses various options for ensuring an object can only be allocated on the stack, or on the heap. One of those is more or less do-able, the other doesn't have a truly portable foolproof way of working; I forget which is which. (Book is at work, I'm at home.)
Related
So I have read this about if class definitions occupy memory and this about if function occupy memory. This is what I do not get: How come class definitions do not occupy memory if functions do, or their code does. I mean, class definitions are also code, so shouldn't that occupy memory just like function code does?
It is not entirely correct to say that class definitions do not occupy memory: any class with member functions may place some code in memory, although the amount of code and its actual placement depends heavily on function inlining.
The Q&A at the first link talks about sizeof, which shows a per-instance memory requirement of the class, which excludes memory requirements for storing member functions, static members, inlined functions, dispatch tables, and so on. This is because all these elements are shared among all instances of the class.
You don't need to keep the class definition anywhere, because the details of how to create an instance of a class are encoded in its constructors.
(In a sense, the class definition is code, it's just not represented explicitly.)
All you need to know in order to create an object is
How big it is,
Which constructor to use for creating it, and
Which its virtual functions are.
To create an instance of class A:
Reserve a piece of memory of size sizeof(A) (or be handed one),
Associate that piece of memory with the virtual functions of A, if any (usually held in a table in a predetermined location), and
Tell the relevant A constructor where the A should be created, and then let it do the actual work.
You don't need to know a thing about the types of member variables or anything like that, the constructors know what to do once they know where the object is to be created.
(Every member variable can be found at an offset from the beginning of the object, so the constructor knows where things must be.)
To create a function, on the other hand, you would need to store its definition in some form and then generate the code at runtime. (This is usually called "Just-in-time" compilation.)
This requires a compiler, which means that you need to either
Include a compiler in every executable, or
Provide (or require everyone to install) a shared compiler for all executables (Java VMs usually contain at least one).
C++ compilers instead generate the functions in advance.
Abusing terminology a little, you could say that the functions are "instantiated" by the compilation process, with the source code as a blueprint.
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).
The question as what the title says, static functions? or functions of an object that is deleted right away?
I know that in a real situation the difference is completely unnoticable but i would still like to know which is more efficient in saving memory. I really don't mind the overhead given by the "new" and "delete" command.
MyClass::staticFunction();
or...
myObject = new MyClass;
myObject->normalFunction();
delete myObject;
edit: the second code might as well be MyClass().normalFunction(); silly...
there are a few things to consider here;
there will only be one instance of the myObject, and it is only used ONCE in the application.
after usage, it is deleted right away because it is not needed.
one would ask, why is this even in a class? why not just put the function where it is used with temporary variables? the answer is encapsulation and readability. i do believe static functions use the same resources as global functions since in fact, they really are global functions that enjoy class scope. the only reason i have to put it in it's own class is to make my code more readable, and encapsulation.
As it stands, none of this makes any sense. The real solution would be to provide a free function (a function at namespace scope), because this is what free functions are there for.
Oh, and since you asked: If calling this one single function has noticeable overhead in your code, then you will only find out about it through careful profiling. Profiling is also what would answer your question which way is faster.
But first make sure your code is easy to read and well maintainable. Optimizing this then will be much easier than fixing prematurely micro-"optimized" code. The only early optimizations you should employ are those that result in optimal data structures and algorithms.
(Note that new and delete will very likely have far greater overhead than what the function actually does, let alone calling it.)
in fact, they really are global functions that enjoy class scope
I think that is spot on.
It doesn't make much of a difference. However, the following would make a lot more sense:
{
MyClass myObject;
myObject.normalFunction();
}
Or even,
MyClass().normalFunction();
Why would you bother creating a heap-allocated instance of an object that doesn't even matter?
We can't say for certain without trying it on a specific platform (or knowing the details of that platform), but we can probably say that the static one will not be slower than the one with new & delete.
There is no overhead to calling non-virtual member function versus class static function versus a free function since binding is resolved at compile-time. The only difference is that member functions get one extra argument for this pointer, but with static and free function you have to pass the object somehow, so it's the same.
If the code is complex enough that you think it needs to be in its own class, then that suggests multiple methods and state stored in the object. You're asking to compare that to using multiple functions, and by implication state passed as arguments. If there's a lot of shared state between the methods, using an object is reasonable. If there's not, using multiple functions is reasonable.
For scoping you may just prefer using namespace.
On the other hand, since you're asking for memory efficience, I can see one reason why you may prefer the object. If you're going to have a consider amount of memory allocated, encapsulating it in the object members sounds like a way to free them afterwards.
I know what is the difference and how they both work but this question is more about coding style.
Whenever I'm coding I make many classes, they all have variables and some of them are pointers and some are normal variables. I usually prefer variables to pointers if that members lasts as long as the class does but then my code becomes like this:
engine->camera.somevar->x;
// vs
engine->camera->somevar->x;
I don't like the dot in the middle. Or with private variables:
foo_.getName();
// vs
foo_->gatName();
I think that dot "disappears" in a long code. I find -> easier to read in some cases.
My question would be if you use pointers even if the variable is going to be created in the constructor and deleted in the destructor? Is there any style advice in this case?
P.S. I do think that dot is looks better in some cases.
First of all it is bad form to expose member variables.
Second your class should probably never container pointers.
Slight corolary: Classes that contain business logic should never have pointers (as this means they also contain pointer management code and pointer management code should be left to classes that have no business logic but are designed specifically for the purpose of managing pointers (smart pointers and containers).
Pointer management classes (smart pointers/containers) should be designed to manage a single pointer. Managing more than one is much more difficult than you expect and I have yet to find a situation where the extra complexity paid off.
Finally public members should not expose the underlying implementation (you should not provide access to members even via getters/setters). This binds the interface to tightly to the implementation. Instead your public interface should provide a set of actions that can be performed on the object. i.e. methods are verbs.
In C++ it is rare to see pointers.
They are generally hidden inside other classes. But you should get used to using a mixture of -> and . as it all depends on context and what you are trying to convey. As long as the code is clean and readable it does not matter too much.
A personal addendum:
I hate the _ at then end of your identifier it makes the . disapear foo_.getName() I think it would look a lot better as foo.getName()
If the "embedded" struct has exactly the same lifetime as the "parent" struct and it is not referenced anywhere else, I prefer to have it as a member, rather than use a pointer. The produced code is slightly more efficient, since it saves a number of calls to the memory allocator and it avoids a number of pointer dereferences.
It is also easier to handle, since the chance of pointer-related mistakes is reduced.
If, on the other hand, there is the slightest chance that the embedded structure may be referenced somewhere else I prefer to use a separate struct and pointers. That way I won't have to refactor my code if it turns out that the embedded struct needs to be pulled out from its parent.
EDIT:
I guess that means that I usually go with the pointer alternative :-)
EDIT 2:
And yes, my answer is assuming that you really want (or have) to chose between the two i.e. that you write C-style code. The proper object-oriented way to access class members is through get/set functions.
My comments regarding whether to include an actual class instance or a pointer/reference to one are probably still valid, however.
You should not make your choice because you find '->' easier to read :)
Using a member variable is usually better as you can not make mistakes with you pointer.
This said, using a member variable force you to expose your implementation, thus you have to use references. But then you have to initialize then in your constructor, which is not always possible ...
A solution is to use std::auto_ptr or boost::scoped_ptr ot similar smart pointer. There you will get advantage of both solution, with very little drawbacks.
my2c
EDIT:
Some useful links :
Article on std::auto_ptr
boost::scoped_ptr
Pimpl : private implementation
Ideally, you shouldn't use either: you should use getter/setter methods. The performance hit is minimal (the compiler will probably optimize it away, anyway).
The second consideration is that using pointers is a generally dangerous idea, because at some point you're likely to screw it up.
If neither of these faze you, then I'd say all that's left is a matter of personal preference.
Just out of curiosity: Why C++ choose a = new A instead of a = A.new as the way to instantiate an object? Doesn't latter seems more like more object-oriented?
Just out of curiosity: Why C++ choose a = new A instead of a = A.new as the way to instance-lize an object? Doesn't latter seems more like more object-oriented?
Does it?
That depends on how you define "object-oriented".
If you define it, the way Java did, as "everything must have syntax of the form "X.Y", where X is an object, and Y is whatever you want to do with that object, then yes, you're right. This isn't object-oriented, and Java is the pinnacle of OOP programming.
But luckily, there are also a few people who feel that "object-oriented" should relate to the behavior of your objects, rather than which syntax is used on them. Essentially it should be boiled down to what the Wikipedia page says:
Object-oriented programming is a programming paradigm that uses "objects" – data structures consisting of datafields and methods together with their interactions – to design applications and computer programs. Programming techniques may include features such as information hiding, data abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, polymorphism, and inheritance
Note that it says nothing about the syntax. It doesn't say "and you must call every function by specifying an object name followed by a dot followed by the function name".
And given that definition, foo(x) is exactly as object-oriented as x.foo().
All that matters is that x is an object, that is, it consists of datafields, and a set of methods by by which it can be manipulated. In this case, foo is obviously one of those methods, regardless of where it is defined, and regardless of which syntax is used in calling it.
C++ gurus have realized this long ago, and written articles such as this.
An object's interface is not just the set of member methods (which can be called with the dot syntax). It is the set of functions which can manipulate the object. Whether they are members or friends doesn't really matter. It is object-oriented as long as the object is able to stay consistent, that is, it is able to prevent arbitrary functions from messing with it.
So, why would A.new be more object-oriented? How would this form give you "better" objects?
One of the key goals behind OOP was to allow more reusable code.
If new had been a member of each and every class, that would mean every class had to define its own new operation. Whereas when it is a non-member, every class can reuse the same one. Since the functionality is the same (allocate memory, call constructor), why not put it out in the open where all classes can reuse it? (Preemptive nitpick: Of course, the same new implementation could have been reused in this case as well, by inheriting from some common base class, or just by a bit of compiler magic. But ultimately, why bother, when we can just put the mechanism outside the class in the first place)
The . in C++ is only used for member access so the right hand side of the dot is always an object and not a type. If anything it would be more logical to do A::new() than A.new().
In any case, dynamic object allocation is special as the compiler allocates memory and constructs an object in two steps and adds code to deal with exceptions in either step ensuring that memory is never leaked. Making it look like a member function call rather than a special operation could be considered as obscuring the special nature of the operation.
I think the biggest confusion here is that new has two meanings: there's the built-in new-expression (which combines memory allocation and object creation) and then there's the overloadable operator new (which deals only with memory allocation). The first, as far as I can see, is something whose behavior you cannot change, and hence it wouldn't make sense to masquerade it as a member function. (Or it would have to be - or look like - a member function that no class can implement / override!!)
This would also lead to another inconsistency:
int* p = int.new;
C++ is not a pure OOP language in that not everything is an object.
C++ also allows the use of free functions (which is encouraged by some authors and the example set in the SC++L design), which a C++ programmer should be comfortable with. Of course, the new-expression isn't a function, but I don't see how the syntax reminding vaguely of free-function call can put anybody off in a language where free function calls are very common.
please read the code (it works), and then you'll have different ideas:
CObject *p = (CObject*)malloc(sizeof *p);
...
p = new(p) CObject;
p->DoSomthing();
...
A.new is a static function of A while a = new A allocates memory and calls the object's constructor afterwards
Actually, you can instantiate object with something like A.new, if you add the proper method:
class A{
public: static A* instance()
{ return new A(); }
};
A *a = A::instance();
But that's not the case. Syntax is not the case either: you can distinguish :: and . "operations" by examining right-hand side of it.
I think the reason is memory management. In C++, unlike many other object-oriented languages, memory management is done by user. There's no default garbage collector, although the standard and non-standard libraries contain it, along with various techniques to manage memory. Therefore the programmer must see the new operator to understand that memory allocation is involved here!
Unless having been overloaded, the use of new operator first allocates raw memory, then calls the object constructor that builds it up within the memory allocated. Since the "raw" low-level operation is involved here, it should be a separate language operator and not just one of class methods.
I reckon there is no reason. Its a = new a just because it was first drafted that way. In hindsight, it should probably be a = a.new();
Why one should have seperate new of each class ?
I dont think its needed at all because the objective of new is to
allocate appropriate memory and construct the object by calling constructor.
Thus behaviour of new is unique and independent irrespective of any class. So why dont make is resuable ?
You can override new when you want to do memory management by yourself ( i.e. by allocating memory pool once and returning memory on demand).