As someone who never dealt with freeing memory and so on, I got the task to create a dynamic array of struct and create functions to add or delete array elements. When deleting I have to free the memory which is no longer necessary.
when deleting the 2nd element of an array of the size of 3, I move the 3rd element to the 2nd position and then delete the last one. When deleting the last one, I always get an error... Is there anyone who can find an solution for me?
struct myFriend {
myFriend() {
number=0;
hobbys = new char*[10];
}
int number;
char* name;
char** hobbys;
};
int main() {
myFriend* friendList = new myFriend[10];
myFriend* tempFriend = new myFriend;
tempFriend->number=1;
tempFriend->name = "ABC";
myFriend* tempFriend2 = new myFriend;
tempFriend2->number=2;
tempFriend->name = "XYZ";
myFriend* tempFriend3 = new myFriend;
tempFriend3->number=3;
tempFriend3->name = "123";
friendList[0] = *tempFriend;
friendList[1] = *tempFriend2;
friendList[2] = *tempFriend3;
friendList[1] = friendList[2]; //move 3rd element on 2nd position
delete &(friendList[2]); //and delete 3rd element to free memory
}
Why did you create temporary variables? They're not even needed.
If you use std::vector and std::string, the problem you're facing will disappear automatically:
std::vector<myFriend> friendList(10);
friendList[0]->number=1;
friendList[0]->name = "ABC";
friendList[1]->number=2;
friendList[1]->name = "XYZ";
friendList[2]->number=3;
friendList[2]->name = "123";
To make it work, you should redefine your struct as:
struct myFriend {
int number;
std::string name;
std::vector<std::string> hobbys;
};
If you're asked to work with raw pointers, then you should be doing something like this:
struct Friend
{
int number;
char* name;
};
Friend * friends = new Friend[3];
friends[0]->number=1;
friends[0]->name = new char[4];
strcpy(friends[0]->name, "ABC");
//similarly for other : friends[1] and friends[2]
//this is how you should be deleting the allocated memory.
delete [] friends[0]->name;
delete [] friends[1]->name;
delete [] friends[2]->name;
delete [] friends; //and finally this!
And if you do any of the following, it would be wrong, and would invoke undefined behavior:
delete friends[2]; //wrong
delete &(friends[2]); //wrong
It is impossible to delete a subset from array allocated by new []
myFriend* friendList = new myFriend[10];
You have a single whole array
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| friendList[0] | friendList[1] | ..... | friendList[9] |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
You can not delete &(friendList[2]).
You get from C++ whole array of 10 elements.
This array starts from friendList (or &(friendList[0])).
operator delete with pointer to the address returned by new (i.e. friendList) is valid
only.
Two things I noticed. (1) You are apparently supposed to "create functions to add or delete elements" but you haven't done that, you have only created one function. (2) You are making your work harder than it needs to be by using a struct that also needs to manage memory. I suggest you use a simpler struct.
Your assignment is, in effect, to make a simple 'vector' class, so I suggest that you do that. Start with a struct that is empty. If the teacher requires you to use the myFriend struct as written, you can add that in after you finish making your vector like functions. I'm going to assume that you aren't allowed to make a class yet because most instructors make the mistake of leaving that until last.
struct MyStruct {
int value; // start with just one value here. Dealing with pointers is more advanced.
};
MyStruct* array;
int size;
int capacity;
void addMyStruct(MyStruct& value); // adds a MyStruct object to the end.
void removeMyStructAtPosition(int position); // removes the MyStruct object that is at 'position'
// I leave the functions for you to implement, it's your homework after all, but I give some clues below.
void addMyStruct(MyStruct& value) {
// First check that there is enough capacity in your array to hold the new value.
// If not, then make a bigger array, and copy all the contents of the old array to the new one.
// (The first time through, you will also have to create the array.)
// Next assign the new value to array[size]; and increment size
}
void removeMyStructAtPosition(int position) {
// If the position is at end (size - 1,) then simply decrement size.
// Otherwise you have to push all the structs one to the left (array[i] = array[i + 1])
// from position to the end of the array.
}
int main() {
// test your new class here.
// don't forget to delete or delete [] any memory that you newed.
}
The array size is fixed at 10, so you don't need to delete any elements from it. But you do need to delete the name and hobbys elements of friendList[1] (and before you overwrite it). There are two problems here:
You are setting friendList[0]->name = "ABC"; Here, "ABC" is a constant zero-terminated string somewhere in memory. You are not allowed to delete it. So you have to make a copy.
You want to delete hobby[i] whenever it was assigned. But in your code, you can't tell whether it was assigned. So you have to set every element to 0 in the constructor, so that you will later know which elements to delete.
The proper place to delete these elements is in myFriends's destructor.
It seems the point of the question is to manage a dynamic array. The main problem is that he is using an array of friendList. Use an array of pointers to friendList:
struct myFriend {
myFriend() {
number=0;
hobbys = new char*[10];
}
int number;
char* name;
char** hobbys;
};
int main() {
myFriend** friendList = new myFriend*[10];
myFriend* tempFriend = new myFriend;
tempFriend->number=1;
tempFriend->name = "ABC";
myFriend* tempFriend2 = new myFriend;
tempFriend2->number=2;
tempFriend->name = "XYZ";
myFriend* tempFriend3 = new myFriend;
tempFriend3->number=3;
tempFriend3->name = "123";
friendList[0] = tempFriend;
friendList[1] = tempFriend2;
friendList[2] = tempFriend3;
friendList[1] = friendList[2]; //move 3rd element on 2nd position
delete friendList[2]; //and delete 3rd element to free memory
}
But everybody else is right -- there are major issues around memory allocation for both 'hobbys' and for 'name' that you need to sort out separately.
To do your homework I'd suggest to learn much more about pointers, new/delete operators, new[]/delete[] operators (not to be confused with new/delete operators) and objects creation/copying/constructors/destructors. It is basic C++ features and your task is all about this.
To point some directions:
1) When you dynamically allocate the object like this
MyType* p = new MyType;
or
MyType* p = new MyType(constructor_parameters);
you get the pointer p to the created object (new allocates memory for a single object of type MyType and calls the constructor of that object).
After your work with that object is finished you have to call
delete p;
delete calls the destructor of the object and then frees memory. If you don't call delete your memory is leaked. If you call it more than once the behavior is undefined (likely heap corruption that may lead to program crash - sometimes at very strange moment).
2) When you dynamically allocate array like this
MyType* p = new MyType[n];
you get the pointer p to the array of n created object located sequentially in memory (new[] allocates single block of memory for n objects of type MyType and calls default constructors for every object).
You cannot change the number of elements in this dynamic array. You can only delete it.
After your work with that array is finished you have to call
delete[] p; // not "delete p;"
delete[] calls the destructor of every object in the array and then frees memory. If you don't call delete[] your memory is leaked. If you call it more than once the behavior is undefined (likely program crash). If you call delete instead of delete[] the behavior is undefined (likely destructor called only for the first object and then attempt to free memory block - but could be anything).
3) When you assign the struct/class then operator= is called. If you have no operator= explicitly defined for your struct/class then implicit operator= is generated (it performs assignment of every non-static member of your struct/class).
Related
I have a little problem to initialize (constructor) an array pointer of object. See the class below. Class test has 2 variable member, a pointer (value) that will be an array, and his size (size); and a constructor with parameters, and a destructor. In main function, I will create an array pointer of objects, and I have problem with it. If I create a single object like:
test obj(4); it will create a object, and his instance, value array is big 4.
Then if i want to create an array of objects:
test *obj;
obj = new test[2]{4,7};
I will create 2 object: obj[0] that is big 4, and obj[1] that is big 7.
So if I want to create more object:
test *obj;
obj=new test[100]{/*here I must write 100 numbers*/}
and this is the problem.
Because I cant write something like this:
test *obj;
obj=new int[100]{4}
I want that each value[] (instance of test class) is big 4, and I wont write 100 times "4".
I thought the analogy of declaring array:
If I write int array[5]={0,0,0,0,0}, I must write 4 times "0", or I can write also:
int array[5]={0} and each value is set to 0. (it's also true that if write int array[5]={5}, first index will be 5 and others 0).
Should I use a default constructor? What should I do?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class test
{
private:
int* value;
int size;
public:
test(int size)
{
this->size = size;
value = new int[size];
}
~test()
{
delete[]value;
}
};
You can allocate the memory on the stack and get rid of dynamic allocation and memory management.
test array[100];
std::fill(std::begin(array), std::end(array), test(100));
Note that you would need a default constructor here.
You can iterate over your pointer to initialize each element
test *obj = new test[100];
for(size_t i = 0; i != 100; ++i)
{
obj[i] = test(/*parameters*/);
/* Remember to provide a move assignment operator
which invalidates the pointer member, otherwise when the
temporary variable is destroyed the new object pointer
member will point to data no more available*/
}
// ...
delete [] obj;
However it would be better to use std::vector
std::vector<test> obj(100, test(/*parameters*/));
Using std::vector your test object is initialized 100 times passing its arguments, using a pointer the allocation (new test[100]) will default construct every element, then you are going to assign each element the new value, that's why std::vector is a better solution to your problem
In the code below I'm allocating an array dynamically by using the new keyword. Before I run out of scope I call delete[] on my array, and afterwards I set the punter to null.
My Question is, if this is enough, will delete[] make sure that the allocated memory for all 3 Car objects in my array is released. Or do I have to do something specific to release the memory used by every single object?
void main()
{
Car * myArray = new Car[]{ * new Car("BMW"),*new Car("AUDI"), * new Car("SKODA") };
delete[] myArray;
myArray = nullptr;
}
Also, the car class looks like this. Is it also enough to set the name to null here. Name is a char pointer. Or maybe it isn't needed to set the pointer to null since it isn't referencing anything on the heap.
Car::Car(char * newName)
{
name = newName;
}
Car::~Car()
{
name = nullptr;
}
EDIT:
First of all, thanks for all the great answers and comments. I learned a lot from reading them.
Now I understand, that I need to specify a size when declaring a dynamic allocated array.
Besides that I also understand, that I need to stop using new as much as I do. I guess its better to throw the objects on the stack, and let them go out of scope at some point. Besides that I guess my destructor on my car does nothing.
After reading the comments and the answers, I'v change my code to this:
int main()
{
Car * myArray = new Car[3]{ Car("BMW"), Car("AUDI"), Car("SKODA") };
delete[] myArray;
myArray = nullptr;
}
In your case, you have already leaked the memory from your calls to new Car("BMW") and have lost the pointer to be able to free the memory.
This line:
Car * myArray = new Car[]{ * new Car("BMW"),*new Car("AUDI"), * new Car("SKODA") };
Creates an array of 3 Car objects, then for each entry it creates a new Car object, uses it to initialize the object in the array, then forgets about the new object.
It can be more simply written like this:
Car * myArray = new Car[3]{ Car("BMW"), Car("AUDI"), Car("SKODA") };
or even
Car * myArray = new Car[3]{ "BMW", "AUDI", "SKODA" };
In which case your delete[] is enough to free up the memory used.
Note that
Car::~Car()
{
name = nullptr;
}
does not do anything to free memory. Once the Car destructor is called, no one should be accessing name for that object again (in fact it is undefined behavior), so there is little point in setting it to null.
Edit Note: As pointed out by R Sahu and Aslak Berby, Car * myArray = new Car[]{ ... }; is not a valid way to make an array, use Car * myArray = new Car[3]{ ... }; instead.
You cannot use:
Car * myArray = new Car[]{ * new Car("BMW"),*new Car("AUDI"), * new Car("SKODA") };
You need to specify a size.
Car * myArray = new Car[3]{ * new Car("BMW"),*new Car("AUDI"), * new Car("SKODA") };
Even after that, calling
delete [] myArrary;
is going to leak memory. That line is equivalent to:
Car * myArray = new Car[3];
Car* car1 = new Car("BMW");
Car* car2 = new Car("AUDI");
Car* car3 = new Car("SKODA");
myArray[0] = *car1;
myArray[1] = *car2;
myArray[2] = *car3;
The line
delete [] myArrary;
does not delete the objects allocated separately for car1, car2, and car3. You'll have to explicitly delete those too.
delete car3;
delete car2;
delete car1;
However, you cannot use
Car * myArray = new Car[3];
since Car does no have a default constructor. You can add a default constructor to Car. Failing that you can to use:
Car * myArray = new Car[3]{ Car("BMW"), Car("AUDI"), Car("SKODA") };
Then, it is sufficient to use:
delete [] myArrary;
to deallocate the memory.
Car * myArray = new Car[X];
This code already creates X Car objects. All you have to do is use them really..
However, I think your confussion lies here: this is another approach to do it
Car ** myArray = new Car*[3] { new Car("BMW"), new Car("AUDI"), new Car("SKODA") };
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
delete myArray[i];
delete[] myArray;
This code allocates an array of 3 Car* pointers. Therefore, you have not created any Car object yet, which is why you initialize each Car* pointer with with a new Car() call, which actually creates the Car object.
yes it is sufficient only if you are creating a plain array of Car elements since an array name is a pointer to its first element
You are informing the compiler that its an array by specifying the []
In your case you seem to be creating car pointers so you have to clean up the memory location occupied by each car and then the memory allocated for the whole array.
What you incorrectly attempted to do is this but don't do it. Its convoluted
Car** cararrptr = new Car*[3];
cararrptr[0] = new Car("win");
cararrptr[1] = new Car("lin");
cararrptr[2] = new Car("ios");
//now to clean up
delete cararrptr[0];
delete cararrptr[1];
delete cararrptr[2];
delete[] cararrptr;
Take a look at this discussion
delete[] an array of objects
Basically you need a delete (or delete[]) for every new. But in a more complex program this can be very difficult (and error prone) to assure.
Instead of raw pointers you should learn to use smart pointers like shared_ptr or unique_ptr. These let you avoid explicit new and delete in most cases.
I agree with the comments that you are using the keyword new too much.
I suggest using std::vector instead.
Here is a working example where the class Garage has a vector of Car's on the heap/freestore and later deleting it with destructor ~Garage
Example for illustration only:
class Car {
Car();
string m_name;
public:
Car(const string &);
void print();
};
Car::Car(const string &s) : m_name{s} { }
void Car::print()
{
cout << m_name << endl;
}
class Garage {
string m_name;
vector<Car> *m_cars; // for allocating on heap
public:
Garage(const string &);
~Garage();
void add(const Car &);
void print();
};
// Creating a new vector on heap
Garage::Garage(const string &s) : m_name{s}, m_cars{new vector<Car>} { }
Garage::~Garage()
{
delete m_cars; // deleting the vector.
}
void Garage::add(const Car &c)
{
m_cars->push_back(c);
}
void Garage::print()
{
for (auto car : *m_cars)
car.print();
}
int main()
{
Garage garage{"Luxury garage"};
garage.add(Car("BMW"));
garage.add(Car("Audi"));
garage.add(Car("Skoda"));
garage.print();
}
Using new vector above is only for demonstration, it's not needed. Using a std::vector without new is faster and safer for this purpose and you won't need to delete it after use.
Also consider using Smart Pointers instead of using new.
You can add a object to the heap or the stack. If you add it to the heap you create it dynamicaly as you go. This is done using new and you get a pointer in return.
Car *aCar=new Car("BMW");
If you create it on the stack, you will just define it as you do with other variables.
Car anotherCar("BMW");
If you create it on the heap, you also need to deallocate it from the heap. This is done with delete.
delete aCar;
You never dealocate a object you created on the stack. That will automtically be dealocated when you go out of scope.
As for creating a array, you can create a array of statick or dynamicall objects.
Dynamical:
Car **cars=new Car*[3];
cars[0]=new Car("BMW");
cars[1]=new Car ....
All of those need to be deleted seperatly. No cascading here.
delete cars[0];
delete cars[1];
// And finaly the array.
delete[] cars;
You can create them staicaly:
Car cars[]={"BWM", "AUDI"};
This time all the objects including the array is pushed to the stack and will be deleted when you go out of scope.
In between you can create stuff that is a stackbased array that points to heap allocated objects, or a heapallocated static array as other suggest here.
As for C++ I would suggest using the std:: library and in this case std::vector;
Either:
std::vector<Car *> myArray;
myArray.push_back(new Car("BMW"));
.....
// Cleanup:
for(auto car : myArray)
delete car;
Or:
Car car;
std::vector<Car> myArray;
car.SetType("BMW");
myArray.push_back(std::move(car));
I am not sure how I ended up here on a two year old post. None of the answers really give a simple C++ solution so here is a 60 second solution using containers and no new/delete in sight.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
struct Car {
// Allows implicit conversion from char *
Car(const char *manufacturer) : manufacturer_(manufacturer) {}
std::string manufacturer_;
};
int main() {
std::vector<Car> cars{ "BMW", "AUDI", "SKODA" };
for (const auto& car : cars) {
std::cout << car.manufacturer_ << "\n";
}
}
live demo
No. delete []myArray Will merely result in something called a dangling pointer.
Which basically means that the program no longer owns the memory pointed to
myArray, but myArray still points to that memory.
To avoid dangling pointers assign your pointer to nullptr after deletion.
delete[]myArray;
myArray = nullptr;
This isn't the code I'm working on but it's the gist of what I want to do.
object *objects; int totalObjects;
void addObject(object o)
{
objects[totalObjects] = o;
totalObjects++;
}
It's giving me an access error when I try this:
Unhandled exception at 0x00e8a214 in crow.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation writing location 0xcccccccc
Am I going to have to use 'new' and if so do I have to create a new array to copy to every time? Can I just add or take elements from the array I'm using?
Why don't you just use std::vector?
std::vector<object> objects;
void addObject(object o)
{
objects.push_back(o);
}
..or
void addObject(const object &o)
{
objects.push_back(o);
}
to remove additional copying.
When it comes to implementing your own dynamic array without std::vector, Yes. you need to allocate new memory, and copy your array to new memory block. Here's my example code with malloc and placement new.
#include <stdlib.h> // for malloc/free
#include <new> // for placement new, std::bad_alloc
object *objects = nullptr;
size_t totalObjects = 0;
void addObject(const object &o)
{
object *old_objects = objects;
size_t old_size = totalObjects;
size_t new_size = totalObjects + 1;
object *new_objects = (object *)malloc(sizeof(object) * new_size);
if (new_objects == nullptr)
throw std::bad_alloc();
size_t i;
try
{
for (i = 0; i < old_size; ++i)
{
new (&new_objects[i]) object(old_objects[i]); // placement new
}
}
catch (...)
{
// destroy new_objects if an exception occurs during creating new_objects
for (size_t j = 0; j < i; ++j)
{
new_objects[i].~object();
}
free(new_objects);
throw;
}
objects = new_objects;
free(old_objects);
}
(I haven't tested the code yet >o<)
Note that I used malloc and placement new, not new operator. It's impossible to call copy constructor of each element of the dynamic array with array-new.
However, if your object is TriviallyCopyable, you can use realloc. It can be more efficient, because realloc can just expand memory block, without copying - if the memory is enough.
..And you can select multiple lines and just press TAB in Visual Studio (..or many other editors).
You declared an object pointer, but not yet allocated the actual memory to store object objects. Your assignment statement merely tries to copy the input object o into an unallocated array member.
This is why you should use new before the assignment. The new operator asks the system to allocate some memory in the required size, then return the address of that memory and assign it to the pointer. Then, the pointer points to that newly allocated memory and the assignment (or copying) can be made.
When you finished using the array space, you should free the allocated memory using delete.
Okay, I'm going to add an answer to my own question. Let me know if this is bad etiquette. I just wanted to post some of my own code to duel with yours.
#include <vector>
std::vector<object> objects;
okay so I want to have two arrays (vectors) for the objects and double for distances so I may end up with
std::vector<double> distances;
void swap(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
objects.swap_ranges(a,b);
distances.swap_ranges(a,b)
}
I'm going by the cplusplus.com reference for this function so let me know if I have it wrong. I'm going to go through it and completely redo my code.
Is there a type like the matrix that will let me hold data of different types so I don't have to invent a new object to handle each one individually?
If what you wrote is the most efficient and fast way to do this then I'll make a new class to hold both items.
thanks :)
I have a struct like this:
struct m_doc{
char id[30];
int ISBN[30];
char title[50];
char author[50];
int year[30];
};
As I'm trying to delete an element inside it by using the delete operator, this happened:
if (doc.id[i] == doc.id[j])
delete[] doc.author[j], doc.id[j], doc.ISBN[j], doc.title[j], doc.year[j];//expression must have pointer type
The error is on the doc of doc.author only, while the others are fine.
Array declared that way are deleted automatically when they go out of scope.
You only have to delete arrays declared like this:
int* array = new int[30];
//Do work
delete[] array;
You should however prefer std::vector over the latter array style and std::array instead of the arrays you used in your code. It is much less error prone.
In your case (and almost always), std::vector is the most appropriate data type. Then you can do stuff like this:
if (doc.id[i] == doc.id[j]) {
doc.author.erase(doc.author.begin() + j);
//and so on
}
You may only delete what you have created with new. You could create a pointer as follows:
m_doc *instance = new m_doc();
Then you could delete that later...
delete m_doc;
Or you could create each of the members as pointers which are manually newed up.
I've been brushing up on my C++ as of late, and I have a quick question regarding the deletion of new'd memory. As you can see below i have a simple class that holds a list of FileData *. I created an array to hold the FileData objects to be pushed into the list. When ReportData is destructed I loop through the list and delete each element. My question is, how can i delete the array when I'm done using reportData, so that I do not have any memory leaks?
Report.h
class REPORTAPI ReportData {
public:
ReportData()
{
}
virtual ~ReportData()
{
printf("Starting ReportData Delete\n");
for (list<FileData*>::iterator i = ReportFileData.begin(), e = ReportFileData.end(); i != e; )
{
list<FileData*>::iterator tmp(i++);
delete *tmp;
ReportFileData.erase(tmp);
}
for (list<SupressionData*>::iterator i = ReportSupressionData.begin(), e = ReportSupressionData.end(); i != e; )
{
list<SupressionData*>::iterator tmp(i++);
delete *tmp;
ReportSupressionData.erase(tmp);
}
ReportFileData.clear();
ReportSupressionData.clear();
printf("Finished ReportData Delete\n");
}
list<FileData *> ReportFileData;
list<SupressionData *> ReportSupressionData;
}
extern "C" __declspec(dllexport) FileData* __stdcall createFileData(string fileName, long recordCount, long addPageCount)
{
return new FileData(fileName, recordCount, addPageCount);
}
Main.cpp
ReportData *reportData = createrd();
if (reportData != NULL)
{
CreateFileDataFunc createfd (reinterpret_cast<CreateFileDataFunc>(GetProcAddress (dll, "createFileData")));
const int num_files = 5;
FileData *fileData[num_files];
char buff[256] = {'\0'};
for (int i = 0; i < num_files; i++)
{
sprintf(buff, "test: %d", i);
fileData[i] = createfd(buff, 1, 1);
reportData->ReportFileData.push_back(fileData[i]);
}
delete reportData;
reportData = NULL;
delete [] fileData; // this is throwing an access violation error:
//EAccessViolation: 'Access violation at address 326025AF. Write of address 00000008'.
}
--- I removed the delete oprations from the ReportData dtor
and I'm now looping and deleting:
for(int i = 0; i < num_files; i++)
{
delete fileData[i];
}
This is easier to understand then having to rely on a separate object's dtor to clean up memory.
You don't. fileData is an automatic (stack) variable. You didn't allocate it with new, so you don't delete it.
[Edit: also I'm not sure, but I think you could face problems deleting those FileData objects from main.cpp, considering that they were allocated in some dll. Does the dll provide a deleter function?]
Your array is not dynamically allocated, so you don't need to delete it. Each element, however, is pointing to a dynamically allocated object (from your comment):
createfd is a function pointer that returns a new instance of FileData though
What you need to do is loop over the elements of the array, and free each of them.
for(int i = 0; i < num_files; i++)
{
delete fileData[i];
}
// allocate on the stack, no manual delete required
FileData *fileData[num_files];
// allocate on the heap, must delete after usage
FileData *fileData = new FileData[num_files];
// ..
delete [] fileData;
Have you thought about wrapping FileData* with a smart pointer?
The problem with your dtor is that an exception will cause a memory leak (with some other problems relating to exceptions leaking out of dtor's).
"My question is, how can i delete the array when I'm done using reportData, so that I do not have any memory leaks?"
That's the wrong question. The right question is "who should delete these FileData objects?", and the answer is "whoever constructs them, ideally, in this cae Main.cpp". Farming out the job to reportData is awkward and precarious; doing the job twice (once in the ReportData destructor and again in Main.cpp) violates memory.
If you must destroy the objects in ~ReportData(), just don't do anything about them in Main.cpp. Then your code will be correct. Horrible, but correct.
Don't deallocate anything in main().
The destructor for reportData will handle everything allocated with createfd() (just make sure that createfd() is returning what it allocated with new(), since you must not delete anything that was not new'd).
fileData is allocated locally, on the stack, not through new. Since it wasn't allocated by new, don't delete it.
The pointers that were passed into fileData were also passed into reportData, and reportData is responsible for all deletions there. You could check to see that they weren't allocated from an inaccessible memory pool (say in a dynamically linked library); if they were, that's a problem.
So, assuming the deletes are correct in the ReportData destructor, remove any deletion of fileData and you're good.
There is no need to delete or clear either of the two lists - this will be done for you by the default destructor. Assuming that the pointers the lists contain (to "arrays"? I'm not clear) have been dynamically allocated, you need to delete them. However, you can (and should) avoid having to do this explicitly by making the lists contain std::vectors or suitable smart pointers.