I have a program that creates a random amount of points interspersed throughout the program. While it runs, I would also like to create an object for each point and store it in a vector. I have created a Point class with various attributes but I have no idea on how to implement the above. When looking at other questions that deal with similar, yet nonidentical problems, pointers are used, but again, I have no idea on how to implement them.
Im not quite sure what you really want to achieve, but i hope this will help you though.
To create an object dynmically use the new operator. The new operator always returns a pointer:
Point* pointObj = new Point();
If you have specified a constructor the call is very similar to normal construction on stack:
Point* pointObj = new Point(x,y);
A std::vector stores objects at runtime (dynamically in the heap), but instead of creating them by it own it simply copies them:
std::vector<Point> vec; //if this object is destructed it contents are destructed aswell
Point pointObj(x,y); //point on stack; will get destructed if it gets out of scope
vec.push_back(pointObj) //copy pointObj to a dynamic location on the heap
Well, I don't know what parameters your Point constructor takes, but your description sounds as if you want to do something like this:
std::vector<Point> MyGlobalPointList;
and inside your program you have a few of these:
MyGlobalPointList.push_back(Point(x,y,color));
Are you looking for automatic object management tied with object creation here? If so, AbstractFactory can help you here. Apart from the factory being THE mechanism for constructing objects (Points) instead of doing so everywhere yourself, it can also carry out object management e.g. managing them in a vector.
class Point {
friend class PointFactory;
Point(int _x, int _y) : x(_x), y(_y) { }
private:
~Point(); //destructor is private
int x, y;
}
class PointFactory {
public:
Point* createPoint() { //Creates random point
return createPoint(rand(), rand());
}
Point* createPoint(int x, int y) { //Creates specified point
Point* p = new Point(x, y);
points.push_back(p);
return p;
}
void deletePoint(Point *p) { //p not in use anymore
std::vector<Point*>::iterator it = std::find(objects.begin(), objects.end(), p);
if (it != objects.end()) {
objects.erase(it);
}
delete p;
}
private:
std::vector<Point*> objects;
}
int main(...) {
Point *p = pointFactory.createPoint(); //instead of new Point()
//use p
pointFactory.deletePoint(p); //p not in use anymore
return 0;
}
Hope this is what you are looking for.
Ankur Satle
Related
I'm trying to realize two methds append() and clear().
In appened(), I need to newPoint to the end of a list. If the list is empty, then adds newPoint as the first(and only) point in the list.
In clear(),I need to remove all the points in a list.
Can you give me some advice to realize appened and clear.
Here is a code:
//
#pragma once
const int maxListSize = 10;
class Point
{
private:
float x;
float y;
public:
Point(float x0 = 0, float y0 = 0)
{
x = x0;
y = y0;
}
};
class PointList
{
private:
//Data members
int size;
int cursor;
Point points[maxListSize];
public:
PointList();
//List Manipalution operations
void append(Point newPoint);
void clear();
~PointList();
};
*I don't need you to write everything for me, just give me some advice. I would like to realize it by myself. Thank you for helping.
Since you store your list elements by value (Point points[maxListSize]),
it is quite easy to do:
PointList() :size(0) {}
void append(Point newPoint) { points[size++] = newPoint; }
void clear() { size = 0; }
This assumes that your Point object doesn't manage any resource, which is true for this particular example. Otherwise, inserted Point objects should be destroyed in clear.
To get the semantics that you're probably expecting for appending new items, and clearing out existing items, I suggest you look at the placement new operator, and manually calling the destructor of an item in the list.
Currently your class will construct all of the items in the list when you create the list. This can be quite time consuming for complex structures. Then, instead of the constructor for your elements being called, you'll instead be calling the copy-assignment operator, as the items are already constructed.
If you store your array as
char * points[sizeof(Point)*maxListSize];
Any only initialize the items when they're actually added, you avoid the construction cost when you create the list.
Your append function takes it's argument by value. Instead, I recommend you have two append functions. One that takes const&, and the other that takes an rvalue-reference. Then, inside the append function, call the placement new operator on the address of the next location in your array.
To clear the array, simple call the destructor for each element in the array one at a time.
I saw a few examples of creating a vector of class objects and many of them uses a pointer and new keyword. However, in many cases the delete is not used to free up memory allocated by new. I would like to know if the following piece of code uses delete properly.
I have a class Marker:
class Marker{
public:
Marker(int, float, float);
int marker_id();
private:
int id;
float mx;
float my;
};
It's constructor is:
Marker::Marker(int idno, float x, float y){
//ctor
id = idno;
mx = x;
my = y;
}
I need a vector marker_vec with objects or instances of Marker class. Hence, I wrote the following piece of code:
vector <Marker> marker_vec;
Marker *m = new Marker(last_id, m_x, m_y);
marker_vec.push_back(*m);
delete m;
If I use the above code in a loop to create marker_vec[0] and marker_vec[1], I believe that the delete wouldn't delete them and will only free up the pointer m. Is there any disadvantages for the above method?
This piece of code is alright, since when you push_back, the contents referenced by the m pointer will be copied and added as the last element of the vector. You're doing good by deallocating the memory you set properly (for every new there is a corresponding delete).
vector <Marker> marker_vec;
Marker *m = new Marker(last_id, m_x, m_y);
marker_vec.push_back(*m);
delete m;
I just think it's unnecessary for you to use pointers in this case having one type of Marker class and your std::vector of type <Marker>.
I would personally improve the implementation of this code to being statically instantiated. It's simple and cleaner in this case:
vector <Marker> marker_vec;
Marker m(last_id, m_x, m_y);
marker_vec.push_back*m);
However, if you maybe had inheritance like different type of markers:
class HighlighterMarker : public Marker { };
and
class PenMarker: public Marker { };
Only then, it'd make sense for you to use dynamic memory and your vector to be declared as:
std::vector <Marker*> marker_vec. This one can store all your references to any type of derived class Marker,
I have a question regarding how to correctly delete structs and it's respective pointers declared inside.
I have extracted an example from a project i have running and it doesn't seem to work correctly, the code doesn't crash but it seems i have some "memory leaks". I'm not sure that is the right wording. The issue is that the values is not really reset and are kept in the memory next time i initiate a class.
Sudocode below:
Header:
ProgramHeader.h
class ClassA : public publicClassA
{
public:
ClassA(void);
virtual ~ClassA();
private:
struct ApStruct{
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} fR;
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} f1kHz;
};
ApStruct* GetApStruct;
}
Program:
Program.cpp
#include "ProgramHeader.h"
ClassA::~ClassA()
{
//EDIT i did a typo my looks like this:
//delete ApStruct; //Wrong code
delete GetApStruct; //Corrected - however still not working
}
main()
{
GetApStruct = new ApStruct();
//Do Code
}
Hope it all makes a bit sense,
EDIT:
I have updated one wrong line in the code - however the question still remains the same. I will have a look at below to understand before i implement a solution.
EDIT 24/10/2015
I have been trying out a few of the suggestions below and im not able to find a solution to my issue, i must admit i also have difficulties to narrow it down what could cause it.
My code is part of a DLL. The code wraps some source code im not in control of, and therefore i have limited options how i init using constructors and new on pointers.
The reason i still think i have memory leak issues is if i add a "magic float" in my code the output of my functions change, even the float is not used anywhere - it is just declared.
I get different results when:
Calling InitCode - once!
then i will call CallCode multiple time - doing my calculations
Destruct the instance of the class
When i repeat the above again i get different result from the first time i run the code but afterwards it stays the same.
If i include the magic line all seems to work???
Updated SudoCode:
Program.cpp
#include "ProgramHeader.h"
ClassA::~ClassA()
{
//EDIT i did a typo my looks like this:
//delete ApStruct; //Wrong code
delete GetApStruct; //Corrected - however still not working
}
main()
{
void initCode()
{
GetApStruct = new ApStruct();
float InitValue = 0.F
//Magic line:
float magicLine = 123456.f; //If this line is commented out i get different results in my code
//End Magic Line
fr.refA[0] = &InitValue;
fr.refA[0] = &InitValue;
fr.refA[0] = &InitValue;
fr.pVarA = &InitValue;
...
}
void CallCode()
{
float CallValue = 123.F
//Magic line:
float magicLine = 123456.f; //If this line is commented out i get different results in my code
//End Magic Line
fr.refA[0] = &CallValue;
fr.refA[0] = &CallValue;
fr.refA[0] = &CallValue;
fr.pVarA = &CallValue;
...
}
}
Thanks guys for you support,
Thomas
I would recommend something like the following for allocation and cleanup...
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class ClassA
{
public:
ClassA(void);
virtual ~ClassA();
private:
struct ApStruct {
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} fR;
struct
{
float *refA[2];
float *refB[2];
float *pVarA;
} f1kHz;
};
ApStruct* GetApStruct;
};
ClassA::ClassA(void) {
GetApStruct = new ApStruct{};
GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] = new float{ 1.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] = new float{ 2.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refB[0] = new float{ 3.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refB[1] = new float{ 4.f };
GetApStruct->fR.pVarA = new float { 0.f };
// do same for struct f1kHz
// ...
cout << "Construction" << endl;
}
ClassA::~ClassA()
{
if (GetApStruct != nullptr) {
if (GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refA[0];
GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refA[1];
GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.refB[0] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refB[0];
GetApStruct->fR.refB[0] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.refB[1] != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.refB[1];
GetApStruct->fR.refB[1] = nullptr;
}
if (GetApStruct->fR.pVarA != nullptr) {
delete GetApStruct->fR.pVarA;
GetApStruct->fR.pVarA = nullptr;
}
// do same for struct f1kHz
// ...
// finally
delete GetApStruct;
GetApStruct = nullptr;
}
cout << "Destruction" << endl;
}
int main() {
{
ClassA a;
}
system("pause");
return 0;
}
Well when you create a structure/class object, it holds the variables and pointers in that object memory area( say an object occupies some space in memory. Let's call it a box). Those pointer variables when initialized with new() or malloc(), are given space outside of that box in which the object's data resides. Those pointers now point to some memory area that is outside of that object's memory area. Now when the object is destructed, that space occupied by object (as we called it the box) is destroyed accompanying the pointer variables. The memory area pointed by the pointers is still in there in program/process memory area. Now we have no clue what's it address or where it lies. That's called memory leak. To avoid this situation, we need to de-allocate the memory referenced by pointers using delete keyword. We're free to go now. I tried to illustrate it with a simple graphic below. ObjectA box illustrates the area occupied by it in the memory. Note that this container/box holds the local varialbes including pointer. The pointer points to some memory location, say 0xFFF... and is illustrated by green line. When we destroy ObjectA, It simply destroys everything in it including 0xFFF address. But the memory located on 0xFFF is still allocated in the memory. A memory leak.
In your destructor, de-allocate memory explicitly using delete keyword. Whoa! We saved the memory.
From Wikipedia Resource Acquisition Is Initialization
Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) is a programming idiom used prominently in C++. In RAII, resource acquisition is done during object creation, by the constructor, while resource release is done during object destruction, by the destructor. If objects are destroyed properly, resource leaks do not occur.
So you can new the memory used for pointers in constructor and release them in destructor:
ClassA::ClassA(void) {
GetApStruct = new ApStruct;
GetApStruct->fR.refA[0] = new float{ 1.f };
GetApStruct->fR.refA[1] = new float{ 2.f };
}
ClassA::~ClassA(void) {
delete []GetApStruct->fR.refA;
delete GetApStruct;
}
Alright, let me be direct:
If you are using new or delete, you are doing it wrong.
Unless you are an experienced user, or you wish to implement a low-level side project, do not ever use new and delete.
Instead, use the existing standard classes to handle memory ownership, and just avoid heap-allocation when it is unnecessary. As a bonus, not only will you avoid memory leaks, but you will also avoid dangling references (ie, using memory after deleting it).
class ClassA : public publicClassA {
public:
private:
struct ApStruct{
struct
{
float refA[2];
float refB[2];
float pVarA;
} fR;
struct
{
float refA[2];
float refB[2];
float pVarA;
} f1kHz;
};
ApStruct GetApStruct;
}
And yes, in your case it is as simple as removing the pointers. Otherwise, if you want dynamic arrays (ie, arrays whose length is unknown at compile-time) use std::vector.
Just want to know if the following is true, as I work towards a reset feature in a small game I'm working on.
So if I have a setup like so:
class Game {
public:
Game(Ball b, Paddle one, Paddle two) : b(b), one(one), two(two) { }
void initGame();
void resetGame();
private:
Ball b;
Paddle one;
Paddle two;
std::vector<GameObject *> objects;
};
Game::initGame() {
objects.push_back(&b);
objects.push_back(&one);
objects.push_back(&two);
}
Game::resetGame() {
while (!objects.empty()) {
objects.pop_back();
}
b = Ball();
one = Paddle();
two = Paddle();
initGame();
}
My question is with the resetGame method. I empty out the array of pointers, and then replace the objects below. Now, given they were pointers to pieces of memory, and the original objects get replaced, does the original memory leak? Should i have deleted the data first? I know delete is used in conjunction with new, but I'm not sure if the compiler cleans this up for me.
Thanks.
No, no leaks here because the memory is not dynamically allocated.
I am quite confused about this. How to return a dynamically allocated object from operator function?
Consider following example:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include "vld.h"
using std::cout;
class Point
{
public:
Point(int x,int y) : a(x),b(y)
{ }
Point()
{ }
Point operator + (Point p)
{
Point* temp=new Point();
temp->a=a+p.a;
temp->b=b+p.b;
Point p1(*temp); // construct p1 from temp
delete temp; // deallocate temp
return p1;
}
void show()
{
cout<<a<<' '<<b<<'\n';
}
private:
int a,b;
};
int main()
{
Point* p1=new Point(3,6);
Point* p2=new Point(3,6);
Point* p3=new Point();
*p3=*p2+*p1;
p3->show();
VLDEnable();
delete p1;
delete p2;
delete p3;
VLDReportLeaks();
system("pause");
}
Can I write this program without extra object p1 in this case in overloaded operator + function? How Can I directly return temp?
Your help will be highly appreciated.
Please help me.
You are a bit confused between Java syntax and C++. In C++, there is no need for new unless you want your objects to be dynamically allocated (on the heap). Just use
Point temp; // define the variable
// process it
return temp;
In this way, your local objects will be created on the stack, and you won't have to care about forgetting to delete them etc.
Returning a pointer from operator+ is wrong
Point* operator + (Point p)
{
Point* tmp = new Point;
// process
return tmp; // return the pointer to the dynamically-allocated object
}
It actually breaks the operator+, since you won't be able to chain it, i.e. a+b+c won't work anymore.
That's because a + b returns a pointer, then a + b + c tries invoking operator+ on a pointer, for which is not defined. Also, there are more serious issues, like leaking memory during the construction of your temporary objects in assignments, see #Barry's comment below. So I hope I have convinced you to return the object and not a pointer to it.