Related
I have a class. Let's call it House. Houses of various properties are contained in a registry. Let's call this house registry. Within this class, I want to add a vector containing pointers to different houses sorted in different ways(perhaps by name and number). Within this class, I have a function that creates new House objects and inserts them in the respective order. In doing so I'm leaving memory leaks as the program may terminate in a myriad of ways but doesn't free up memory stored in the vector. I know I can use smart pointers. But how do I implement them in the right way? I'm intentionally leaving out the destructor as its implementation is fairly obvious. But this question is specifically about smart pointers. A great answer would preferably include their implementation with comparators.
class HouseRegistry{
struct House{
....
}
private:
vector<House*>HousesbyName;
vector<House*>HousesbyNumber
bool newHouse(...){
House *somehouse = new House;
....
HousesbyName.insert(inserter,somehouse);
HousesbyNumber.insert(inserter2,somehouse);
return true;
}
}
I know a solution might look something like
class HouseRegistry{
struct House{
....
}
private:
vector<shared_ptr<House>>HousesbyName;
vector<shared_ptr<House>>HousesbyNumber
bool newHouse(...){
auto somehouse = make_shared<House>();
....
HousesbyName.insert(inserter,somehouse);
HousesbyNumber.insert(inserter2,somehouse);
return true;
}
}
But it breaks for functions like Binary Search when the comparator function uses two House pointers as arguments. What would a subsequent comparator function look like in this case if looking for any preexisting occurrence of a house?
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<House>> HousesbyName;
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<House>> HousesbyNumber
auto somehouse = std::make_shared<House>();
...
HousesbyName.insert(inserter, somehouse);
HousesbyNumber.insert(inserter2, somehouse);
...
How do I ensured all pointers are freed?
In general: By always freeing every dynamic allocation after you no longer need them.
The general answer is simple, and following it isn't easy. There are ways to make it easier in different cases. The easiest way is to not use dynamic allocation manually at all in the first place. Your example doesn't necessarily demonstrate a need for it. You could use std::vector<House> to store the objects. Alternatively, your use cases seems appropriate for a multi-index container. The standard doesn't provide a multi-index container template, but Boost does.
But in case where you do need dynamic allocation, a simple way to avoid leaks is to never use new, std::malloc etc. and instead use containers or std::make_unique or std::make_shared and never call std::unique_ptr::release.
While working in a project with some legacy code i found this function:
std::vector<std::string> Object::getTypes(){
static std::string types [] = {"type1","type2", "type3"};
return std::vector<std::string> (types , types +2);
}
I would probably have written this as:
std::vector<std::string> Object::getTypes(){
std::vector<std::string> types;
types.push_back("type1");
types.push_back("type2");
types.push_back("type3");
return types;
}
Is this merely a style choice or is there something I'm missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if this is too basic.
Update:
Actually found different classes that override the same method do it one way or the other, so It's even more ambiguous. I would make them all the same but would prefer the better approach, if there is one.
Edit
Please note that the above legacy code is incorrect because it initializes the vector with only the first two elements of the array. However, this error has been discussed in the comments and thus should be preserved.
The correct initialization should have read as follows:
...
return std::vector<std::string> (types, types + 3);
...
If you have a C++11 capable compiler and library, returning an initializer list should be enough:
std::vector<std::string> Object::getTypes(){
return {"type1","type2", "type3"};
}
The code you found is more efficient (because types[] is only allocated once and push_back can/will cause re-allocations). The difference though is marginal, and unless you call getTypes in a (relatively big) loop it shouldn't matter at all (and probably it won't matter much even when you do call it in a big loop).
As such, unless it creates a concrete performance problem, it's a style choice.
Basically it's a style choice. I'd probably do something more like
std::vector<std::string> Object::getTypes(){
static std::string types [] = {"type1","type2", "type3"};
return std::vector<std::string> (types,
types + (sizeof(types)/sizeof(std::string)) );
}
which lets you change the number of things in types, without having to remember to update the count in the next line.
The array types in the first example is declared static. This means it only exists once in memory. So there are three options for what to return and they live in static memory. Then, when you create the vector to return, you are able to allocate it's memory in one shot by passing the beginning and ending of the array as iterators.
By doing it this way, you don't have successive calls to push_back which means the vector won't have to reallocate its internal block of memory.
Also, when the vector is constructed as part of the return call, older compilers will have an easier time of doing return value optimization.
One reason I like to use this style of initialization with iterators (and C++11's uniform initialization and initializer lists) is that it helps separating data from code.
Repeating push_back a lot of times feels bad because I desperately need to refactor that. Also, when you really just need to initialize the container with data, then you want to see a list of the data, and not really code that generates data. The method you found in the original version matches that principle better.
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.
I'd like to use a std::vector to control a given piece of memory. First of all I'm pretty sure this isn't good practice, but curiosity has the better of me and I'd like to know how to do this anyway.
The problem I have is a method like this:
vector<float> getRow(unsigned long rowIndex)
{
float* row = _m->getRow(rowIndex); // row is now a piece of memory (of a known size) that I control
vector<float> returnValue(row, row+_m->cols()); // construct a new vec from this data
delete [] row; // delete the original memory
return returnValue; // return the new vector
}
_m is a DLL interface class which returns an array of float which is the callers responsibility to delete. So I'd like to wrap this in a vector and return that to the user.... but this implementation allocates new memory for the vector, copies it, and then deletes the returned memory, then returns the vector.
What I'd like to do is to straight up tell the new vector that it has full control over this block of memory so when it gets deleted that memory gets cleaned up.
UPDATE: The original motivation for this (memory returned from a DLL) has been fairly firmly squashed by a number of responders :) However, I'd love to know the answer to the question anyway... Is there a way to construct a std::vector using a given chunk of pre-allocated memory T* array, and the size of this memory?
The obvious answer is to use a custom allocator, however you might find that is really quite a heavyweight solution for what you need. If you want to do it, the simplest way is to take the allocator defined (as the default scond template argument to vector<>) by the implementation, copy that and make it work as required.
Another solution might be to define a template specialisation of vector, define as much of the interface as you actually need and implement the memory customisation.
Finally, how about defining your own container with a conforming STL interface, defining random access iterators etc. This might be quite easy given that underlying array will map nicely to vector<>, and pointers into it will map to iterators.
Comment on UPDATE: "Is there a way to construct a std::vector using a given chunk of pre-allocated memory T* array, and the size of this memory?"
Surely the simple answer here is "No". Provided you want the result to be a vector<>, then it has to support growing as required, such as through the reserve() method, and that will not be possible for a given fixed allocation. So the real question is really: what exactly do you want to achieve? Something that can be used like vector<>, or something that really does have to in some sense be a vector, and if so, what is that sense?
Vector's default allocator doesn't provide this type of access to its internals. You could do it with your own allocator (vector's second template parameter), but that would change the type of the vector.
It would be much easier if you could write directly into the vector:
vector<float> getRow(unsigned long rowIndex) {
vector<float> row (_m->cols());
_m->getRow(rowIndex, &row[0]); // writes _m->cols() values into &row[0]
return row;
}
Note that &row[0] is a float* and it is guaranteed for vector to store items contiguously.
The most important thing to know here is that different DLL/Modules have different Heaps. This means that any memory that is allocated from a DLL needs to be deleted from that DLL (it's not just a matter of compiler version or delete vs delete[] or whatever). DO NOT PASS MEMORY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY ACROSS A DLL BOUNDARY. This includes creating a std::vector in a dll and returning it. But it also includes passing a std::vector to the DLL to be filled by the DLL; such an operation is unsafe since you don't know for sure that the std::vector will not try a resize of some kind while it is being filled with values.
There are two options:
Define your own allocator for the std::vector class that uses an allocation function that is guaranteed to reside in the DLL/Module from which the vector was created. This can easily be done with dynamic binding (that is, make the allocator class call some virtual function). Since dynamic binding will look-up in the vtable for the function call, it is guaranteed that it will fall in the code from the DLL/Module that originally created it.
Don't pass the vector object to or from the DLL. You can use, for example, a function getRowBegin() and getRowEnd() that return iterators (i.e. pointers) in the row array (if it is contiguous), and let the user std::copy that into its own, local std::vector object. You could also do it the other way around, pass the iterators begin() and end() to a function like fillRowInto(begin, end).
This problem is very real, although many people neglect it without knowing. Don't underestimate it. I have personally suffered silent bugs related to this issue and it wasn't pretty! It took me months to resolve it.
I have checked in the source code, and boost::shared_ptr and boost::shared_array use dynamic binding (first option above) to deal with this.. however, they are not guaranteed to be binary compatible. Still, this could be a slightly better option (usually binary compatibility is a much lesser problem than memory management across modules).
Your best bet is probably a std::vector<shared_ptr<MatrixCelType>>.
Lots more details in this thread.
If you're trying to change where/how the vector allocates/reallocates/deallocates memory, the allocator template parameter of the vector class is what you're looking for.
If you're simply trying to avoid the overhead of construction, copy construction, assignment, and destruction, then allow the user to instantiate the vector, then pass it to your function by reference. The user is then responsible for construction and destruction.
It sounds like what you're looking for is a form of smart pointer. One that deletes what it points to when it's destroyed. Look into the Boost libraries or roll your own in that case.
The Boost.SmartPtr library contains a whole lot of interesting classes, some of which are dedicated to handle arrays.
For example, behold scoped_array:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
boost::scoped_array<float> array(_m->getRow(atoi(argv[1])));
return 0;
}
The issue, of course, is that scoped_array cannot be copied, so if you really want a std::vector<float>, #Fred Nurk's is probably the best you can get.
In the ideal case you'd want the equivalent to unique_ptr but in array form, however I don't think it's part of the standard.