The proxy objects generated by gSoap indicate that I should use a vector of pointers:
class SOAP_CMAC ota__RoomStayTypeRoomRates
{
public:
std::vector<class ota__RoomRateType * >RoomRate;
//....
};
Rather than using:
vector.push_back(new Object());
and then having to delete the objects, I thought I might create a vector of objects and then use the address of those objects as they will be destroyed when the vector goes out of scope, thereby avoiding memory leaks:
OTARoomRates roomRates;
std::vector<ota__RoomRateType> rateObjectList;
rateObjectList.reserve(7);
for (int i = 0; i < 7; i++)
{
rateObjectList[i].RoomTypeCode = &roomTypeCode;
rateObjectList[i].RatePlanID = &ratePlanID;
//...
roomRates.RoomRate.push_back(&rateObjectList[i]);
}
I get a segfault. I suppose it's a bad idea. Can you explain why?
rateObjectList.reserve(7) doesn't actually allocate or construct any ota__RoomRateType objects; it simply requests that the vector expand its capacity enough to hold 7 objects.
Potentially, you wanted rateObjectList.resize(7). Or std::vector<ota__RoomRateType> rateObjectList(7); if you know the number at vector creation time.
Can you explain why?
Sure. If someone holds roomRates when rateObjectList destroyed then any attempt to use a pointer from roomRates can cause SEG_FAULT. That's a bad idea, anyway.
This is better in this case
vector.push_back(new Object());
Even better is to use smart-pointers, like boost::shared_ptr
Related
So I've completely edited my question.
I have a map called mTextMap which contains:
typedef std::map<const std::string, Text*> TextMap;
TextMap mTextMap;
And I have the following methods:
void Foo::setUpGame()
{
Text text(1,2,3,4); //create a Text object
mTextMap["MainText"] = &text; //save it in the map!
}
Text& Foo::getText(const std::string name)
{
auto i= mTextMap.find(name);
return *(i->second); //Gets a reference to the Text that is inside the map
}
Now if I use this way:
Foo foo;
foo.setUpGame();
Text& myText = foo.getText("MainText"); // Why is this corrupted?
The object myText is completely corrupted!!
Why is this happening?
The general problem seems to be, that you think that this line:
mTextMap["MainText"] = &text;
stores the text object in the map. IT DOESN'T! It stores a pointer to the object in the map and the text object itself will - as you said yourself - automatically be destructed at the end of the function. So now your pointer points to a non-existing object, which leads to the observed errors.
There are various solutions to your problem, depending on what exactly, you try to achieve and what you are going to do with your class.
One possibility is to use a map of Text objects (instead of pointers):
typedef std::map<const std::string, Text> TextMap;
void Foo::setUpGame()
{
Text text(1, 2, 3, 4); //create a Text object
mTextMap["MainText"] = text; //copy it into the map!
}
or
void Foo::setUpGame()
{
mTextMap.emplace("MainText", Text(1, 2, 3, 4)); //Doesn't require Text to be default constructable
}
Another possibility is to create the text objects on the heap and use smart pointers (e.g. unique_ptr)
typedef std::map<const std::string, std::unique_ptr<Text>> TextMap;
void Foo::setUpGame()
{
mTextMap["MainText"] = std::make_unique<Text>(1,2,3,4); //create object on the heap an store a pointer to it in the map
}
The std::unique_ptr will automatically destroy the text object, as soon as the map gets destroyed.
If you really need to have a map of raw pointers for some reason, you can use "new" as explained by David, but don't forget to delete them when you don't use them anymore - c++ doesn't have a garbage collector (like e.g. java) that would take care of this automatically.
The "text" object is going out of scope as soon as setUpGame completes. At this point, the heap memory is freed up to be overwritten by any new use of the heap. It is essentially a temporary scratchpad of items that only exists within the scope of a function (or within explicit scope operators inside a function).
David G's advice is sound: read more about the difference between stack and heap memory, and also consider the advice to use smart pointers. However, if you want a cheap, dirty fix to your immediate problem, you can try this:
void Foo::setUpGame()
{
static Text text(1,2,3,4); // Note use of "static" keyword
mTextMap["MainText"] = &text; //save it in the map!
}
Whilst I do not advocate the use of static as a shortcut to solving more fundamental architectural memory issues, you can use this as a short-term measure if you're desperate to get things working. Labeling the object as static ensures its lifetime will outlive the scope of the function. But I would not recommend it as a long-term solution to this kind of issue.
When you dynamically allocate memory for your object, it will live as long as you do not explicitly delete it from memory, it is not deleted after you exit the method it was created in, so you can put a pointer to it in a map and it will always be there (just be sure you delete the memory when removing the object from the map).
You can test this with the following simple code, where I declare a new Int in a function, return a pointer to the memory and print it in the other function that received the map (with the pointer in it). It prints correctly, which means the memory was not freed even when out of scope.
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
std::map<std::string, int*> myMap(){
int* test = new int(1);
std::map<std::string, int*> ObjMap;
ObjMap["object"] = test;
return ObjMap;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
// insert code here...
std::map<std::string, int*> mmap = myMap();
std::cout << *mmap["object"] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
So to answer your question, create your object dynamically like this:
Obj* obj = new obj(1,2,3,4);
And it will not be deleted when out of scope. Still, you need to delete the memory yourself unless you use Smart Pointer, like this: delete obj; (when you remove it from the map, to free the memory as it will not be freed automatically).
PS: You should read on how the Stack and Heap works and how Dynamic and Static allocation works (using the stack OR the heap). See this c++ dynamic memory allocation tutorial to have more informations.
Like MikeMB said, using Smart Pointers is easier as you will be sure you deleted the memory, and you will also be sure you never access a deleted memory. See this Stack Overflow topic for smart pointers informations: What is a smart pointer and when should I use one?
In my C++ code I have a class Object equipped with an id field of type int. Now I want to create a vector of pointers of type Object*. First I tried
vector<Object*> v;
for(int id=0; id<n; id++) {
Object ob = Object(id);
v.push_back(&ob);
}
but this failed because here the same address just repeats itself n times. If I used the new operator I would get what I want but I'd like to avoid dynamic memory allocation. Then I thought that what I need is somehow to declare n different pointers before the for loop. Straightforward way to this is to declare an array so I did this :
vector<Object*> v;
Object ar[n];
for(int i=0; i<n; i++) {
ar[i] = Object(i);
}
for(int i=0; i<n; i++) {
v.push_back(ar+i);
}
Is there still possibility to get a memory leak if I do it this way? Also going through an array declaration is a bit clumsy in my opinion. Are there any other ways to create vector of pointers but avoid manual memory management?
EDIT: Why do I want pointers instead of just plain objects?
Well I modified the original actual situation a bit because I thought in this way I can represent the question in the simplest possible form. Anyway I still think the question can be answered without knowing why I want a vector of pointers.
Actually I have
Class A {
protected:
vector<Superobject*> vec;
...
};
Class B: public A {...};
Class Superobject {
protected:
int id;
...
}
Class Object: public Superobject {...}
In derived class B I want to fill the member field vec with objects of type Object. If the superclass didn't use pointers I would have problems with object slicing. So in class B constructor I want to initialize vec as vector of pointers of type Object*.
EDIT2
Yes, it seems to me that dynamic allocation is the reasonable option and the idea to use an array is a bad idea. When the array goes out of scope, things will go wrong because the pointers in vector point to memory locations that don't necessarily contain the objects anymore.
In constructor for class B I had
B(int n) {
vector<Object*> vec;
Object ar[n];
for(int id=0; id<n; id++) {
ar[id] = Object(id);
}
for(int id=0; id<n; id++) {
v.push_back(ar+id);
}
}
This caused very strange behavior in objects of class B.
In this loop:
for(int id=0; id<n; id++) {
Object ob = Object(id);
v.push_back(&ob);
}
You are creating n times Object instance on stack. At every iteration there is created and removed element. You can simply avoid this using that:
for(int id=0; id<n; id++) {
Object* ob = new Object(id);
v.push_back(ob);
}
thanks that every new element exist on heap not on the stack. Try to add to in class Object constructor something like that:
std::cout<<"Object ctor()\n";
and the same in the destructor:
std::cout<<"Object dtor()\n";
If you dont want to create these objects with "new" try reason written by #woolstar
Your question about memory leaks makes me think you are worried about the lifecycle and cleanup of these objects. I originally proposed shared_ptr wrappers, but C++11 gave us unique_ptr, and C++14 filled in the missing make_unique. So with all that we can do:
vector<unique_ptr<SuperObject>> v ;
Which you create in place with the wonderfulness of perfect forwarding and variadic templates,
v.push_back( make_unique<Object>( ... ) ) ;
Yes you are going to have to live with some heap allocations, but everything will be cleaned up when v goes away.
Someone proposed a boost library, ptr_container, but that requires not only adding boost to your project, but educating all future readers what this ptr_container is and does.
No there is no memory leak in your version. When the program leaves your scope the vector as well the array are destroyed. To your second question: Why not simply store the objects directly in an vector?
vector<Object> v;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
Object obj = Object(i);
v.push_back(obj);
}
i saw some code like below, but i didn't see any delete statement, is there any memory leak problem?
struct RStatus
{
int fid;
int status;
};
void Foo()
{
vector<RStatus*> rsVec;
RStatus* rs = null;
rs = new RStatus(); // memory allocated here!
rs->fid = 0
rs->status = 0;
rsVec.push_back(rs);
}
If you use vector<RStatus*>, then you have to use delete, otherwise you will have a memory leak.
However, if you use vector<RStatus>, then you don't have to use delete — this is recommended1.
1. If you want to use pointers, then the recommendation is that you should be using smart pointers such as std::unique_ptr, or std::shared_ptr.
Yes, you should free your memory allocated :
struct RStatus
{
int fid;
int status;
};
void Foo()
{
vector<RStatus*> rsVec;
RStatus* rs = null;
rs = new RStatus(); // memory allocated here!
rs->fid = 0
rs->status = 0;
rsVec.push_back(rs);
// free :
unsigned int size = rsVec.size();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < size; i++ )
delete rsVec[i]; // delete because you used new
}
If you don't do that, all the memory will never be released at the vector destruction.
I would suggest you to use std::vector<RStatus> instead of std::vector<RStatus*>.
You may also used smart ptr. You can found some documentation about it here : http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/memory/shared_ptr/
EDIT: As suggested in comments, if an exception is thrown at rsVec.push_back(rs), the memory allocated will be lost, that's why smart pointers would be a better solution. Or again, use std::vector<RStatus> instead.
Yes, there is a memory leak: the pointer to the created structure is lost after the vector is destroyed, and the memory is never released.
Unless someone performs a delete for each element of rsVec before clearing or destroying the vector.
Yes, that code leaks the RStatus.
It also does nothing else: possibly the real code's vector gets passed to some function that takes posession of the vector's contents.
Tracking down memory leaks is generally not a local problem: every use of that pointer has to, in theory, be examine to figure out if it leaks. Techniques like 'if I allocate it, delete it' and RAII (including smart pointers) attempt to make it more local, so you can tell from an incomplete program if there is a leak.
use boost::shared_ptr if you don't want to bother yourself with a deletion of allocated objects.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm
struct RStatus
{
int fid;
int status;
};
void Foo()
{
vector<shared_ptr<RStatus> > rsVec;
shared_ptr<RStatus> rs = shared_ptr<RStatus>(); // empty shared_ptr
rs.reset(new RStatus()); // memory allocated here!
rs->fid = 0
rs->status = 0;
rsVec.push_back(rs); // shared_ptr is copied
}// vector is destroyed and shared_ptrs also
be careful however not to mixed up things using both shared_ptr and ordinary, raw pointers to avoid situation when shared_ptr tries to delete object which is already deleted
I need to insert pointers of classes (inherited from QObject) into a QList. I know that the following syntax can be used:
.h
QList<MyObject*> list;
.cpp
list.append(new MyObject("first", 1));
list.append(new MyObject("second", 2));
...
and then free memory:
if(!list.isEmpty())
{
qDeleteAll(list);
list.clear();
}
This should be valid and does not cause any memory leaks (as far as I know). However, I need to initialize objects before adding them to the collection. Can the following piece of code cause some errors like memory leaks or dangling pointers (I'll use the same way to delete pointers as above)?
MyObject *obj;
for(i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
obj = new MyObject();
if(!obj.Init(i, map.values(i)))
{
// handle error
}
else
{
list.append(obj);
}
}
Thanks.
if you take care of "obj" (the allocated but not initialized instance) in the "// handle error" case, your code is ok.
Use QSharedPointer instead.
QList<QSharedPointer<MyObject> > list;
To free memory you only have to do
if(!list.isEmpty())
{
list.clear();
}
To append to list
list.append(QSharedPointer<MyObject>(new MyObject("first", 1)));
list.append(QSharedPointer<MyObject>(new MyObject("second", 2)));
Use RAII (Resource Allocation Is Initialization). Initialize the object in constructor directly.
Then the code would look like:
for(i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
list.append( new MyObject( i, map.values(i)));
// In case of initialization failure, throw exception from the constructor
}
You can use QScopedPointer..
From the Qt 4.6 documentation,
The QScopedPointer class stores a pointer to a dynamically allocated object, and deletes it upon destruction.
Managing heap allocated objects manually is hard and error prone, with the common result that code leaks memory and is hard to maintain. QScopedPointer is a small utility class that heavily simplifies this by assigning stack-based memory ownership to heap allocations, more generally called resource acquisition is initialization(RAII).
Hope it helps..
Edit:
For example,
You will use,
QScopedPointer<QWidget> p(new QWidget());
instead of
QWidget *p = new QWidget();
and add the QScopedPointer into your QList without worrying about memory leak and dangling pointers.
This code is causing a memory leak for me, and I'm not sure why.
[EDIT] Included code from here into question:
#include "src/base.cpp"
typedef std::map<std::string, AlObj*, std::less<std::string>,
gc_allocator<std::pair<const std::string, AlObj*> > > KWARG_TYPE;
AlInt::AlInt(int val) {
this->value = val;
this->setup();
}
// attrs is of type KWARG_TYPE
void AlInt::setup() {
this->attrs["__add__"] = new AddInts();
this->attrs["__sub__"] = new SubtractInts();
this->attrs["__mul__"] = new MultiplyInts();
this->attrs["__div__"] = new DivideInts();
this->attrs["__pow__"] = new PowerInts();
this->attrs["__str__"] = new PrintInt();
}
int main() {
while (true) {
AlObj* a = new AlInt(3);
}
}
AlInt inherits from AlObj, which in turn inherits from gc. When I comment out the contents of setup() then I don't have a memory leak, this leads me to believe the issue is with the map not cleaning up, however I'm using the gc allocator, so I'm not sure where to look next. Thoughts?
The 'gc allocator' is allocating and looking after objects of this type:
std::pair<const std::string, AlObj*>
Just because this object has a pointer in it does not mean it the allocator will call delete on it.
If you want the object created in setUp() to be GC then you need to allocate them via the GC. Or learn to use boost:ptr_map or shared_ptr.
A map destroys (not deletes) the object it owns. In this case it owns the pointer not what the pointer points at. So when the map is destroyed it deallocates everything associated with the map and the object it owns (for pointers this means it does nothing).
If you have a map (or other container) that contains pointers. You must manually delete the pointers otherwise there will be a memory leak. Alternatively you can use boost::ptr_map or a map that contains a share_ptr
The allocator is deleting your pairs. But deleting a pair doesn't delete members of the pair that happen to be pointers.