I'd like to know how C++ is dealing with memory of "objects" created by pointer inside class methods or functions.
For example method of class Example
void Example::methodExample()
{
ExampleObject *pointer = new ExampleObject("image.jpg");
}
Should i somehow delete this or it's automatically removed?
Sorry if my question is stupid but i am beginner : P
You have two options.
If you use a raw pointer, as you are using in your example, you must manually delete objects that were created with new.
If you don't, you have created a memory leak.
void Example::methodExample()
{
ExampleObject *pointer = new ExampleObject("image.jpg");
// Stuff
delete pointer;
}
Or you may use smart pointers, such as boost::scoped_ptr or C++11's std::unique_ptr.
These objects will automatically delete their pointed-to contents when they are deleted.
Some (like me) will say that this approach is preferred, because your ExampleObject will be correctly deleted even if an exception is thrown and the end of the function isn't reached.
void Example::methodExample()
{
boost::scoped_ptr<ExampleObject> pointer( new ExampleObject("image.jpg") );
// Stuff
}
You shouldn't be doing your own memory management at all in modern C++. Use unique_ptr or scoped_ptr, which will automatically delete the pointer when they go out of scope.
I think the appriate approach for dealing with raw pointers (as you exemplified) is to store the pointer as a member of the class. Then you can allocate memory for this pointer in any method you would like and leave to free the memory on the destructor of the class. Something along these lines:
class Example
{
public:
Example();
~Example();
void methodExample();
private:
ExampleObject* pointer;
};
void Example::Example()
: pointer(NULL)
{
}
void Example::~Example()
{
if (pointer) // release memory only if it was allocated
delete pointer;
}
void Example::methodExample()
{
pointer = new ExampleObject("image.jpg");
// add a safety check to verify if the allocation was successful
}
If your object is scoped within the function then your correct construct is not to use a pointer at all but use an automatic object, which should be created like this.
ExampleObject example("image.jpg");
You might use a pointer where you are, for example, in an if construct at the time, where the else condition would not construct an object, and then you want to use the object later.
In such a case use an automatic pointer object, preferably unique_ptr if available, boost::scoped_ptr if not, but even the deprecated std::auto_ptr is better than a raw one. For example:
std::unique_ptr<ExampleObject> example;
if( usingAnExample )
{
example.reset( new ExampleObject("image.jpg") );
}
else
{
// do stuff
}
// I still need example here if it was created
You should
delete pointer;
when you no longer need it. The pointer goes out of scope at the end of the function but the memory is still allocated on the heap.
Related
always delete pointer even if it is just in function call stack?
Isn't it disappeared when function stack released?
// just Simple class
class CSimple{
int a;
}
// just simple function having pointer.
void simpleFunc(){
CSimple* cSimple = new CSimple();
cSimple->a = 10;
//.. do sth
delete cSimple; // <<< Always, do I have to delete 'cSimple' to prevent the leak of memory?
}
void main(){
for( int =0 ; i< 10 ; i++){
simpleFunc();
}
}
when function stack released?
It is true that "CSimple *csimple" goes away when the function returns.
However, there's a big difference between the pointer, and what it's pointed to.
When a pointer object gets destroyed, nothing happens to whatever the pointer is pointing to. There isn't just one, but two objects here:
The pointer.
What it's pointing to.
In this case, the pointer is pointing to an object in dynamic scope that was created with new.
Nothing is going to happen to this object, otherwise, so you will leak memory.
Therefore, this object needs to be deleted.
After you understand, and fully wrap your brain around this concept, your next step will be to open your C++ book to the chapter that talks about the std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr classes, which will take care of these pesky details, for you. You should learn how to use them. Modern C++ code rarely needs to delete something; rather these smart pointers do all the work.
Yes.
On scope exit (ex. when function exists or block { ... } finishes), all objects created on stack will be destroyed and memory will be freed.
This applies to your case, ie. the pointer will be destroyed and memory occupied by the pointer will be freed. The object pointed by the pointer will not be cleared.
This is a common problem and a nightmare when you deal with multiple flow paths (if-else ladders, many return statements) and exceptions.
To solve this problem, we employ 2 main strategies:
RAII
Smart pointers (std::unique_ptr, boost::scoped_ptr, legacy std::auto_ptr, etc).
RAII - without academic consideration - is just creating object on stack, like this:
{
std::string s;
fancy_object obj;
}
When we exit he scope, obj and s destructors will be called duing stack unwinding. Compiler ensures this for all flow paths and will keep proper order of deallocations for us.
If you need to allocate memory on heap, using new, use a smart pointer.
int foo()
{
std::unique_ptr<Object> o(new Object);
... some more code ...
if( something ) { return -1 }
... some more code ...
if( something_else ) { return -2 }
else { not yet }
return 0;
}
As you can see, we can leave the scope using 3 "exists". Normally, you'd need to clear your memory in all cases, which is prone to human errors.
Instead of clearing the object manually in all 3 palces, we rely on automatic destructor call for objects created on stack. Compiler will figure it out. When we leave the scope, std::unique_ptr destructor will be called, calling delete on Object.
Don't be affraid of smart poiners. They are not "slow", "bloat" or other nonsense. Smart poiners are designed to have no overhead on access, adding extra security.
Very similar technique is used for locks. Check out std::lock_guard class.
Yes, you must delete the data that is being pointed to.
The pointer itself is on the stack and does not need to be deleten.
You can, however, store cSimple on the stack, then you don't have to delete it:
void simpleFunc(){
CSimple cSimple; // no new
cSimple.a = 10; // "." instead of "->"
//.. do sth
// no deletion
}
My following question is on memory management. I have for example an int variable not allocated dynamically in a class, let's say invar1. And I'm passing the memory address of this int to another classes constructor. That class does this:
class ex1{
ex1(int* p_intvar1)
{
ptoint = p_intvar1;
}
int* ptoint;
};
Should I delete ptoint? Because it has the address of an undynamically allocated int, I thought I don't need to delete it.
And again I declare an object to a class with new operator:
objtoclass = new ex1();
And I pass this to another class:
class ex2{
ex2(ex1* p_obj)
{
obj = p_obj;
}
ex1* obj;
};
Should I delete obj when I'm already deleting objtoclass?
Thanks!
Because it has the address of an undynamically allocated int I thought I don't need to delete it.
Correct.
Should I delete obj when I'm already deleting objtoclass?
No.
Recall that you're not actually deleting pointers; you're using pointers to delete the thing they point to. As such, if you wrote both delete obj and delete objtoclass, because both pointers point to the same object, you'd be deleting that object twice.
I would caution you that this is a very easy mistake to make with your ex2 class, in which the ownership semantics of that pointed-to object are not entirely clear. You might consider using a smart pointer implementation to remove risk.
just an appendix to the other answers
You can get rid of raw pointers and forget about memory management with the help of smart pointers (shared_ptr, unique_ptr).
The smart pointer is responsible for releasing the memory when it goes out of scope.
Here is an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class ex1{
public:
ex1(std::shared_ptr<int> p_intvar1)
{
ptoint = p_intvar1;
std::cout << __func__ << std::endl;
}
~ex1()
{
std::cout << __func__ << std::endl;
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<int> ptoint;
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<int> pi(new int(42));
std::shared_ptr<ex1> objtoclass(new ex1(pi));
/*
* when the main function returns, these smart pointers will go
* go out of scope and delete the dynamically allocated memory
*/
return 0;
}
Output:
ex1
~ex1
Should I delete obj when I'm already deleting objtoclass?
Well you could but mind that deleting the same object twice is undefined behaviour and should be avoided. This can happen for example if you have two pointers for example pointing at same object, and you delete the original object using one pointer - then you should not delete that memory using another pointer also. In your situation you might as well end up with two pointers pointing to the same object.
In general, to build a class which manages memory internally (like you do seemingly), isn't trivial and you have to account for things like rule of three, etc.
Regarding that one should delete dynamically allocated memory you are right. You should not delete memory if it was not allocated dynamically.
PS. In order to avoid complications like above you can use smart pointers.
You don't currently delete this int, or show where it's allocated. If neither object is supposed to own its parameter, I'd write
struct ex1 {
ex1(int &i_) : i(i_) {}
int &i; // reference implies no ownership
};
struct ex2 {
ex2(ex1 &e_) : e(e_) {}
ex1 &e; // reference implies no ownership
};
int i = 42;
ex1 a(i);
ex2 b(a);
If either argument is supposed to be owned by the new object, pass it as a unique_ptr. If either argument is supposed to be shared, use shared_ptr. I'd generally prefer any of these (reference or smart pointer) to raw pointers, because they give more information about your intentions.
In general, to make these decisions,
Should I delete ptoint?
is the wrong question. First consider things at a slightly higher level:
what does this int represent in your program?
who, if anyone, owns it?
how long is it supposed to live, compared to these classes that use it?
and then see how the answer falls out naturally for these examples:
this int is an I/O mapped control register.
In this case it wasn't created with new (it exists outside your whole program), and therefore you certainly shouldn't delete it. It should probably also be marked volatile, but that doesn't affect lifetime.
Maybe something outside your class mapped the address and should also unmap it, which is loosely analogous to (de)allocating it, or maybe it's simply a well-known address.
this int is a global logging level.
In this case it presumably has either static lifetime, in which case no-one owns it, it was not explicitly allocated and therefore should not be explicitly de-allocated
or, it's owned by a logger object/singleton/mock/whatever, and that object is responsible for deallocating it if necessary
this int is being explicitly given to your object to own
In this case, it's good practice to make that obvious, eg.
ex1::ex1(std::unique_ptr<int> &&p) : m_p(std::move(p)) {}
Note that making your local data member a unique_ptr or similar, also takes care of the lifetime automatically with no effort on your part.
this int is being given to your object to use, but other objects may also be using it, and it isn't obvious which order they will finish in.
Use a shared_ptr<int> instead of unique_ptr to describe this relationship. Again, the smart pointer will manage the lifetime for you.
In general, if you can encode the ownership and lifetime information in the type, you don't need to remember where to manually allocate and deallocate things. This is much clearer and safer.
If you can't encode that information in the type, you can at least be clear about your intentions: the fact that you ask about deallocation without mentioning lifetime or ownership, suggests you're working at the wrong level of abstraction.
Because it has the address of an undynamically allocated int, I
thought I don't need to delete it.
That is correct. Simply do not delete it.
The second part of your question was about dynamically allocated memory. Here you have to think a little more and make some decisions.
Lets say that your class called ex1 receives a raw pointer in its constructor for a memory that was dynamically allocated outside the class.
You, as the designer of the class, have to decide if this constructor "takes the ownership" of this pointer or not. If it does, then ex1 is responsible for deleting its memory and you should do it probably on the class destructor:
class ex1 {
public:
/**
* Warning: This constructor takes the ownership of p_intvar1,
* which means you must not delete it somewhere else.
*/
ex1(int* p_intvar1)
{
ptoint = p_intvar1;
}
~ex1()
{
delete ptoint;
}
int* ptoint;
};
However, this is generally a bad design decision. You have to root for the user of this class read the commentary on the constructor and remember to not delete the memory allocated somewhere outside class ex1.
A method (or a constructor) that receives a pointer and takes its ownership is called "sink".
Someone would use this class like:
int* myInteger = new int(1);
ex1 obj(myInteger); // sink: obj takes the ownership of myInteger
// never delete myInteger outside ex1
Another approach is to say your class ex1 does not take the ownership, and whoever allocates memory for that pointer is the responsible for deleting it. Class ex1 must not delete anything on its destructor, and it should be used like this:
int* myInteger = new int(1);
ex1 obj(myInteger);
// use obj here
delete myInteger; // remeber to delete myInteger
Again, the user of your class must read some documentation in order to know that he is the responsible for deleting the stuff.
You have to choose between these two design decisions if you do not use modern C++.
In modern C++ (C++ 11 and 14) you can make things explicit in the code (i.e., do not have to rely only on code documentation).
First, in modern C++ you avoid using raw pointers. You have to choose between two kinds of "smart pointers": unique_ptr or shared_ptr. The difference between them is about ownership.
As their names say, an unique pointer is owned by only one guy, while a shared pointer can be owned by one or more (the ownership is shared).
An unique pointer (std::unique_ptr) cannot be copied, only "moved" from one place to another. If a class has an unique pointer as attribute, it is explicit that this class has the ownership of that pointer. If a method receives an unique pointer as copy, it is explicit that it is a "sink" method (takes the ownership of the pointer).
Your class ex1 could be written like this:
class ex1 {
public:
ex1(std::unique_ptr<int> p_intvar1)
{
ptoint = std::move(p_intvar1);
}
std::unique_ptr<int> ptoint;
};
The user of this class should use it like:
auto myInteger = std::make_unique<int>(1);
ex1 obj(std::move(myInteger)); // sink
// here, myInteger is nullptr (it was moved to ex1 constructor)
If you forget to do "std::move" in the code above, the compiler will generate an error telling you that unique_ptr is not copyable.
Also note that you never have to delete memory explicitly. Smart pointers handle that for you.
I use extra brackets in my code. I thought when the destructor should be called after the local variable scope is ended but it doesn't work like this:
class TestClass {
public:
TestClass() {
printf( "TestClass()\n" );
}
~TestClass() {
printf( "~TestClass()\n" );
}
};
int main() {
int a, b, c;
{
TestClass *test = new TestClass();
}
}
It outputs:
TestClass()
So it doesn't call the destructor of the TestClass but why? If I call it manually (delete test) it calls the destructor, right. But why it doesn't call the destructor in the first case?
TestClass *test = new TestClass();
You using new which creates a dynamically allocated object (most likely placed on the heap). This type of resource needs to be manually managed by you. By managing, you should use delete on it after you have done using it.
{
TestClass *test = new TestClass();
// do something
delete test;
}
But for the most of your purposes and intents, you just have to use automatic-storage objects, which frees you the hassle of having to manually manage the object. It would also most likely to have better performance especially in short-lived objects. You should always prefer to use them unless you have a really good reason not to do so.
{
TestClass test;
// do something
}
However, if you need the semantics of dynamically allocated objects or that of pointers, it will always be better to use some mechanism to encapsulate the deletion/freeing of the object/resource for you, which also provides you additional safety especially when you are using exceptions and conditional branches. In your case, it would be better if you use std::unique_ptr.
{
std::unique_ptr<TestClass> test(new TestClass());
// auto test = std::make_unique<TestClass>(); in C++14
// do something (maybe you want to pass ownership of the pointer)
}
The following is a relevant link to help you decide whether to use automatic storage objects or dynamically allocated objects: Why should C++ programmers minimize use of 'new'?
Because you have a pointer to a dynamically allocated object. Only the pointer goes out of scope, not the object it points to. You have to call delete on the pointer in order for the pointee's destructor to get called.
Try with an automatic storage object instead:
{
TestClass test;
}
Here, the destructor will be called on exiting the scope.
The use of raw pointers to dynamically allocated objects in C++ is discouraged because it can easily lead to resource leaks like the one shown in your code example. If pointers to dynamically allocated objects are really needed, it is wise to handle them with a smart pointer, rather than to attempt to manually deal with their destruction.
This answer is good enough but just to add some more.
I see you have been coded with Java. In C++ to create variable/object in stack keyword new is not needed. Actually when you use keyword new your object is creating in heap and it doesn't destroys after leaving scope. To destroy it you need to call delete in your case delete test;
In such a structure as yours, after leaving scope you just lose pointer what points into object, so after leaving scope you cannot free memory and call destructor, but eventually OS call destructor just after exit() instruction is executed.
To sum up C++ != Java
I am not experienced in handling of the memory in a C++ program, so I would like a piece of advice in that case:
I want to create a new Object in a function in a class which is essential till the end of the program. As far as I am concerned, if I use the operator new, I should sometimes delete it. Taking into account that it must be initialized inside a class, when and how must I finally delete it?
I suggest the smart pointer idiom
#include <memory>
struct X
{
void foo() { }
};
std::share_ptr<X> makeX() // could also be a class member of course
{
return std::make_shared<X>();
}
int main()
{
std::share_ptr<X> stayaround = makeX();
// can just be used like an ordinary pointer:
stayaround->foo();
// auto-deletes <sup>1</sup>
}
If the pointer is truly a static variable, you can substitute a unique_ptr (which works similarly, but passes ownership on assignment; this means that the pointer doesn't have to keep a reference count)
Note To learn more about C++ smart pointers in general, see smart pointers (boost) explained
Note If you don't have the TR1/C++0x support for this, you can just use Boost Smartpointer
1 unless you are leaking copies of the shared_ptr itself; that would be some strange use of smart pointers previously unseen :)
Edit: Using some sort of smart pointer is often a good idea, but I believe it is still essential to have a solid understanding of manual memory management in C++.
If you want an object in a class to persist until the end of the program, you can simply make it a member variable. From what you've said, there's nothing to suggest you need to use new or delete here, just make it an automatic variable. If you did want to use new and delete for practice, you should read up on constructors and destructors for a class (you can and will use new and delete outside of classes, but I'm trying to keep this relevant to your question). Here's one I prepared earlier:
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(); // Default constructor.
~Foo(); // Destructor.
private:
int *member;
}
Foo::Foo() // Default constructor definition.
{
member = new int; // Creating a new int on the heap.
}
Foo::~Foo() // Destructor.
{
delete member; // Free up the memory that was allocated in the constructor.
}
This is a simple example, but it will hopefully help you out. Note that the variable will only persist as long as the object is alive. If the object is destroyed or goes out of scope, the destructor will be called and the memory will be freed.
You can use the smart pointer as suggested by Sehe or you can create a static object in the function and return a reference to it. You need not explictly delete the object, when the process terminates the object will be deleted. Like:
struct X {};
X& makeX() // could also be a class member of course
{
static X x;
return x;
}
int main()
{
X& stayaround = makeX();
}
On most operating systems (in particular Linux), if you allocate an object pointer with new Object, and don't bother delete-ing because you'll need it till the program ends, no harm is really done. There is some memory leak inside your program (you can use valgrind to hunt such leaks) but the kernel will release all the memory used by a process when it has ended.
A better alternative is to have a singleton class for the application data, like e.g. QApplication in Qt, ahd construct a single instance in that class early in your main, and have that class contain a smart or dumb pointer to your Object. The destructor should delete that object.
in the following code:
class x
{
private:
someRef& m_ref;
public:
x(someRef& someRef):m_ref(someRef)
{
}
do I need to do:
~x()
{
delete m_ref;
}
which by the way doesnt work without getting the pointer...
basically I'm asking: Do I need to call a destructor on a reference member?
No.
You only need to delete an object if you own it. If you were passed a reference, it means that someone else owns it, thus it's unnecessary and thankfully the language prevents it.
I don't think one actually strictly speaking ever deletes even pointers. What you delete are dynamically allocated objects (or arrays of objects) that the pointer is a handle for. If the object originates from a call to new and it is the responsibility of this class to clean up after this object, then you call delete.
It is technically possible that a reference might be referring to a dynamically allocated object:
int main()
{
//in principle a reference can also refer to a dynamically allocated object
x var(*new someRef);
}
//and if that is the intended usage:
x::~x()
{
delete &m_ref;
}
However, this would be incredibly bad style. By convention, the "owning" handle of a dynamically allocated object should not be a reference.
No. You can only delete pointers, not references, and even then you must only delete objects that you allocated using the new operator. And then you must be sure to delete them only once. Here is the case in which you would need to use delete in your destructor:
class x
{
private:
someObj* m_ptr;
public:
x():m_ptr(new someObj())
{
}
~x()
{
delete m_ptr;
}
But in general it's best to avoid even this and use smart pointers instead.
I want to clarify some misconceptions you seem to have that are beyond the intent of your question:
When a class's destructor is called all of it's members' destructors get called as well.
Calling delete is not the same as calling the destructor. delete explicitly calls the destructor and also calls operator delete at the objects location, it is a 2 part thing.
For a small bit of extra clarification I want to offer the following:
int *pi = new int;
//int& ir = pi; // can't do
// this a reference to the pointer but it is an error
// because or the type difference int& vs int* and
// static_cast won't help. reinterpret_cast would allow
// the assignment to take place but not help the 'delete ir'
int& ir = *pi; // this is OK - a reference to what the pointer points to.
// In other words, the the address of the int on the heap.
//delete ir; // can't do, it is a reference and you can't delete non-pointers.
delete &ir; // this works but it is still not "deleting a reference".
// The reference 'ir' is another name for the heap-based int.
// So, &ir is the address of that int, essentially a pointer.
// It is a pointer that is being used by delete, not a reference.