It is my understanding that when you make a copy of a class that defines a pointer variable, the pointer is copied, but the data that the pointer is pointing to is not.
My question is: Is one to assume that the "pointer copy" in this case is simply instantiating a new pointer (dynamic memory allocation) of the same type? Eg., the new pointer is simply a new allocation containing an arbitrary memory address and one should take care to point that new pointer to the appropriate memory address?
I presume there is a quite simple answer to this question, and I apologize for its trivial nature, but I am trying to understand pointers at a deeper level and this came up upon my researching pointers on the internet.
Regards,
Chad
The pointer will be simply copied as a value - so both classes will point to the same original memory, no new allocation takes place. Shallow copy - this is what the language does by default.
If you need to allocate new memory and make a copy of the data you have to do that yourself in the copy constructor. Deep copy - you have to do this yourself
edit: This is one of the advantages of C++, you are free to decide how copying works. It might be that a copy of the object which only does read access to the memory can avoid the cost of copying the memory. You can also implement classes which only make a copy of the original data if the new object needs to do a write.
First off, the pointer in your class is static, (i.e. the compiler knows that there is a pointer in this class and what size it is, so no dynamic memory allocation is needed when the class is instantiated).
If you copy the class (and have not special copy constructor defined) then the pointer in the new class will point to the same place in memory as the pointer in the old class. To clarify:
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
int *p;
};
int main() {
A a,b;
a.p = new int(10);
b = a;
std::cout << "*(a.p) = " << *(a.p) << std::endl; // 10
std::cout << "*(b.p) = " << *(b.p) << std::endl; // 10
*(b.p) = 3;
std::cout << "*(a.p) = " << *(a.p) << std::endl; // 3
std::cout << "*(b.p) = " << *(b.p) << std::endl; // 3
return 0;
}
Now if you want to allocate new memory when copying, you need to write a copy constructor and a copy assignment constructor:
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
int *p;
A() : p(0) {}
A(const A& other) { // copy constructor
p = new int(*other.p);
}
A& operator=(const A& other) { // copy assignment constructor
// protect against self assignment
if (this != &other) {
if (p != 0) {
*p = *other.p;
} else { // p is null - no memory allocated yet
p = new int(*other.p);
}
}
return *this;
}
~A() { // destructor
delete p;
}
};
int main() {
A a,b;
a.p = new int(10);
b = a;
std::cout << "*(a.p) = " << *(a.p) << std::endl; // 10
std::cout << "*(b.p) = " << *(b.p) << std::endl; // 10
*(b.p) = 3;
std::cout << "*(a.p) = " << *(a.p) << std::endl; // 10
std::cout << "*(b.p) = " << *(b.p) << std::endl; // 3
return 0;
}
When you do this you should also write a destructor (see Rule of three ), because the memory that is being allocated in the copy / copy assignment constructors needs to be de-allocated if the class is destroyed:
Pointers don't instantiate dynamic memory allocation. Pointers and allocations are entirely different things.
If you copy a pointer that points to dynamically allocated memory, you have two pointers pointing at the same allocated memory. Since you've copied it, it already points to the memory block. Specifically, if using the compiler-generated copy constructor, the new pointer will point to the exact same thing as the old pointer. You don't need to do anything with it if that's OK.
You do have the problem of when to free the memory. Freeing it twice will typically cause heap corruption, which is nasty. Not freeing it will cause a memory leak, which may be acceptable in some circumstances. Freeing it before the other pointer is through with it will also cause problems. For this reason, people who have multiple pointers to the same memory often go to the Boost project and use their shared_ptr template (which will be in the upcoming new Standard, and is present in most up-to-date systems).
If you want each pointer to point to separate chunks of memory, you have to set that up by writing your own copy constructor, and allocating a new chunk and copying necessary data in it. (You also need to write your own assignment operator, for the exact same reasons, and your own destructor so you can free the memory. There's a rule of thumb, called the Rule of Three, that says if you need to write your own copy constructor, assignment operator, or destructor, you probably need to write all of them.)
The copied pointer will point to the exact same address. There's no new allocation.
Yes, pointers simply contain memory addresses, if you want to make a deeper copy you need to code that yourself, in the copy constructor.
If you're always referencing the same kind of data via a pointer from the same class, and need to copy the data along with the objects, you could also consider making it just a plain member, not a pointer.
Related
In the following code, I want to disable the move construction of base class Vector from derived class VectorMap, and call the copy constructor.
#include <iostream>
#include<algorithm>
struct Vector{
int* _ptr=nullptr;
int _size=0;
Vector(int n){
_ptr = new int[n];
_size = n;
std::cout<< " Construct "<<this<<std::endl;
}
Vector(void) { std::cout <<" Construct " << this << std::endl; }
virtual ~Vector(void) {
if (_ptr != nullptr) {
std::cout << "Deconstruct " << this << " -> delete " << _ptr << std::endl;
delete _ptr;
return;
}
std::cout << "Deconstruct " << this << std::endl;
}
Vector(Vector&& v2) noexcept {
int* p2=v2._ptr; int s2=v2._size;
v2._ptr=_ptr;
v2._size=_size;
_ptr=p2; _size=s2;
std::cout << "Move construct " << this << std::endl;
}
Vector(const Vector& v3){
_ptr=new int[v3._size];
_size=v3._size;
memcpy(_ptr,v3._ptr,sizeof(int) * _size);
}
};
struct VectorMap
: public Vector {
VectorMap(int* p,int size){
_ptr=p;
_size=size;
}
~VectorMap(void) override {
_ptr=nullptr; _size=0;
}
};
int main(void) {
Vector v1(10);
Vector v2=VectorMap(v1._ptr,5); // v1._ptr will be deleted twice
return sizeof(v2);
}
As you can see, if move constructor is called in the line Vector v2=VectorMap(v1._ptr,5);, the data pointer in v1 will be deleted twice, one is by v2, and another is by v1. Since they share the same pointer. Is there any way to modify VectorMap to call copy constructor rather than move constructor in such case?
The primary problem is muddy ownership semantics.
Vector creates a resource (dynamic array), and is apparently intended to have unique ownership over it.
VectorMap on the other hand takes a pointer in its constructor, and gives it to its base Vector that takes ownership. But right before destruction, VectorMap rescinds the ownership by setting the base Vector pointer to null. So, VectorMap sort of pretends to own the resource until it's time for the responsibility of the ownership at which point it backs down.
This inheritance also causes other problem situations. Consider for example making a copy of VectorMap. Look at what the copy constructor of the base does. It allocates memory for the copy. But the desturctor of the VectorMap copy sets the pointer to null, so in this case the pointer is deleted zero times. It leaks memory.
As an analogy, disabling slicing would be a bandage for the wound, but what you really should do is to not stick your hand inside a running blender. If VectorMap is supposed to not have ownership, then it shouldn't inherit a base that takes ownership. It's unclear to me what the point of VectorMap class even is.
Furthermore, a class that has unique ownership of a resource such as Vector really should encapsulate that bare pointer with private access specifier. Sure, such classes sometimes still provide a way to copy or throw away that value (like std::vector::data and std::unique_ptr::release), but it's important that only happens through a specific function to reduce chance of accidental violation of ownership semantics.
Another serious bug:
_ptr=new int[v3._size];
// ...
delete _ptr;
You must not delete a pointer to a dynamic array. You must use delete[]. Using delete results in undefined behaviour.
Another bug: You forgot to include the header that declares memcpy. Also, I would recommend using std::copy instead.
I'm trying to store structs in a vector. Struct needs to dynamically allocate memory for char* of a given size.
But as soon as I add the struct to a vector, its destructor gets called, as if I lost the pointer to it.
I've made this little demo for the sake of example.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct Classroom
{
char* chairs;
Classroom() {} // default constructor
Classroom(size_t size)
{
std::cout << "Creating " << size << " chairs in a classroom" << std::endl;
chairs = new char[size];
}
~Classroom()
{
std::cout << "Destroyng chairs in a classroom" << std::endl;
delete[] chairs;
}
};
std::vector<Classroom> m_classrooms;
int main()
{
m_classrooms.push_back(Classroom(29));
//m_classrooms.push_back(Classroom(30));
//m_classrooms.push_back(Classroom(30));
system("Pause");
return 0;
}
The output is
Creating 29 chairs in a classroom
Destroyng chairs in a classroom
Press any key to continue . . .
Destroyng chairs in a classroom
Yes, seems like the destructor gets called twice! Once upon adding to a vector, and second time upon the program finishing its execution.
The exact same thing happens when I try to use a class instead of a struct.
Can someone explain why this happens and what are the possible ways to accomplish my task correctly?
The Classroom class cannot be used in a std::vector<Classroom> safely because it has incorrect copy semantics. A std::vector will make copies of your object, and if the copy semantics have bugs, then you will see all of those bugs manifest themselves when you start using the class in containers such as vector.
For your class to have correct copy semantics, it needs to be able to construct, assign, and destruct copies of itself without error (those errors being things like memory leaks, double deletion calls on the same pointer, etc.)
The other thing missing from your code is that the size argument needs to be known within the class. Right now, all you've posted is an allocation of memory, but there is nothing that saves the size. Without knowing how many characters were allocated, proper implementation of the user-defined copy constructor and assignment operator won't be possible, unless that char * is a null-terminated string.
Having said that, there a multiple ways to fix your class. The easiest way is to simply use types that have correct copy semantics built into them, instead of handling raw dynamically memory yourself. Those classes would include std::vector<char> and std::string. Not only do they clean up themselves, these classes know their own size without having to carry a size member variable.
struct Classroom
{
std::vector<char> chairs;
Classroom() {} // default constructor
Classroom(size_t size) : chairs(size)
{
std::cout << "Creating " << size << " chairs in a classroom" << std::endl;
}
};
The above class will work without any further adjustments to it, since std::vector<char> has correct copy semantics already. Note that there is no longer a need for the destructor, since std::vector knows how to destroy itself.
If for some reason you had to use raw dynamically allocated memory, then your class has to implement a user-defined copy constructor, assignment operation, and destructor.
#include <algorithm>
struct Classroom
{
size_t m_size;
char* chairs;
// Note we initialize all the members here. This was a bug in your original code
Classroom() : m_size(0), chairs(nullptr)
{}
Classroom(size_t size) : m_size(size), chairs(new char[size])
{}
Classroom(const Classroom& cRoom) : m_size(cRoom.m_size),
chairs(new char[cRoom.m_size])
{
std::copy(cRoom.chairs, cRoom.chairs + cRoom.m_size, chairs);
}
Classroom& operator=(const Classroom& cRoom)
{
if ( this != &cRoom )
{
Classroom temp(cRoom);
std::swap(temp.m_size, m_size);
std::swap(temp.chairs, chairs);
}
return *this;
}
~Classroom() { delete [] chairs; }
};
Note the usage of the member-initialization list when initializing the members of the class. Also note the usage of the copy / swap idiom when implementing the assignment operator.
The other issue that was corrected is that your default constructor was not initializing all of the members. Thus in your original class a simple one line program such as:
int main()
{
Classroom cr;
}
would have caused issues, since in the destructor, you would have deleted an uninitialized chairs pointer.
After this, a std::vector<Classroom> should now be able to be safely used.
#LPVOID
Using emplace_back(..) to create the object in place can help you avoid the double free or corruption error you are facing here.
m_classrooms.emplace_back(29)
However, it is a better practice to always follow the rule of 3/5/0 to not end up with a dangling pointer.
I am a beginner in programming and I am learning about copy constructors. From different sources I can see that copy constructors are useful if I want to "deep copy" a class object so the new object's pointer members will point to new memory locations.
My question is, what is the advantage of defining the copy constructor as I do in class CopyCat in my example, if I get the same result with an empty copy constructor (as in class EmptyCat)?
My second question is, why do class Cat and class EmptyCat work differently? The only difference between them is that I define an empty copy constructor in EmptyCat. But as I run the program I can see that in EmptyCat after the copying the pointer member points to a new location while in class Cat it works as a shallow copy.
#include "iostream"
class Cat
{
public:
void GetMem() { std::cout << itsAge << "\n"; }
private:
int * itsAge = new int;
};
class EmptyCat
{
public:
EmptyCat() {}
~EmptyCat() {}
EmptyCat(EmptyCat&obj) {}
void GetMem() { std::cout << itsAge << "\n"; }
private:
int * itsAge = new int;
};
class CopyCat
{
public:
CopyCat() {}
~CopyCat() {}
CopyCat(CopyCat&obj);
int GetAge() { return *itsAge; }
void GetMem() { std::cout << itsAge << "\n"; }
private:
int * itsAge = new int;
};
CopyCat::CopyCat(CopyCat & obj)
{
itsAge = new int;
*itsAge = obj.GetAge();
}
int main()
{
Cat Garfield;
Cat Kitty(Garfield);
std::cout << "Memory addresses for the objects' <itsAge> member:" << std::endl;
std::cout << "Garfield and Kitty (Class Cat):" << std::endl;
Garfield.GetMem();
Kitty.GetMem();
EmptyCat Meow;
EmptyCat Purr(Meow);
std::cout << std::endl << "Meow and Purr (Class EmptyCat):" << std::endl;
Meow.GetMem();
Purr.GetMem();
CopyCat Fluffy;
CopyCat Felix(Fluffy);
std::cout << std::endl << "Fluffy and Felix (Class CopyCat):" << std::endl;
Fluffy.GetMem();
Felix.GetMem();
system("pause");
return 0;
}
If I run the program I get this:
Memory addresses for the objects' <itsAge> member:
Garfield and Kitty (Class Cat):
00BBDA60
00BBDA60
Meow and Purr (Class EmptyCat):
00BB46A0
00BB8280
Fluffy and Felix (Class CopyCat):
00BB82B0
00BBE8A0
Press any key to continue . . .
Deep copying and shallow copying is rather a C concept, where you have only structures and raw pointers. A pointer can be owned, in which case the copy must be deep, or it can be shared, in which case the copy is shallow (and you have to be careful about freeing it if it's allocated with malloc).
In C++, new is now effectively deprecated. We have unique pointers, which are "owning pointers" and "shared pointers". However pointers are relatively rare. Array members of classes are std::vectors, string members are std::strings. And copies are automatically deep, (You use a reference if you want a shallow copy).
Pointers are held back for relatively unusual situations, like trees and graphs.
My question is, what is the advantage of defining the copy constructor as I do in class CopyCat in my example, if I get the same result with an empty copy constructor (as in class EmptyCat)?
You don't get the same result. CopyCat allocates new memory and copies the value from the old class. The EmptyCat just allocates new memory, but does not copy the value.
My second question is, why do class Cat and class EmptyCat work differently? The only difference between them is that I define an empty copy constructor in EmptyCat. But as I run the program I can see that in EmptyCat after the copying the pointer member points to a new location while in class Cat it works as a shallow copy.
In Cat you haven't declared a copy constructor, so the compiler will generate one when needed. The default copy constructor does a member-wise copy from the original. In your case, this will copy the pointer (so that it stores the same address as the original).
In the EmptyCat you have a user defined copy constructor. But as that one doesn't handle the pointer member, its default value will be used.
int * itsAge = new int;
This is what allocates a new int and gets you a different pointer value.
You are not getting the same behavior with and without an empty copy constructor. EmptyCat(EmptyCat& obj) { } does absolutely nothing.
CopyCat(CopyCat& obj) {
itsAge = new int;
*itsAge = obj.GetAge();
}
dynamically allocates a new int and assigns to it a value from the obj.
A copy constructor is used for many things such as when I need to use pointers or dynamically allocate memory for an object. But looking at this example at tutorialpoint.com:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Line
{
public:
int getLength( void );
Line( int len ); // simple constructor
Line( const Line &obj); // copy constructor
~Line(); // destructor
private:
int *ptr;
};
// Member functions definitions including constructor
Line::Line(int len)
{
cout << "Normal constructor allocating ptr" << endl;
// allocate memory for the pointer;
ptr = new int;
*ptr = len;
}
Line::Line(const Line &obj)
{
cout << "Copy constructor allocating ptr." << endl;
ptr = new int;
*ptr = *obj.ptr; // copy the value
}
Line::~Line(void)
{
cout << "Freeing memory!" << endl;
delete ptr;
}
int Line::getLength( void )
{
return *ptr;
}
void display(Line obj)
{
cout << "Length of line : " << obj.getLength() <<endl;
}
// Main function for the program
int main( )
{
Line line(10);
display(line);
return 0;
}
the result is :
Normal constructor allocating ptr
Copy constructor allocating ptr.
Length of line : 10
Freeing memory!
Freeing memory!
and when I commented out (the copy constructor) and the code inside destructor I got the same results:
Normal constructor allocating ptr
Length of line : 10
So what is the difference between using the copy constructor here or not? Also why does "Freeing Memory!" occur twice?
The argument to the display() function is passed by value, so the compiler calls the copy constructor to create it. When the class defines its copy constructor you get the correct semantics: the copy constructor makes a copy, and that copy has its own memory to hold the length. When you remove the copy constructor, the compiler generates one for you, and the copy that gets passed to display() has the same pointer as the original. When that copy gets destroyed it deletes the memory that ptr points to. When the original gets destroyed it deletes the same memory again (which happens to have no visible effects here). That's definitely not what you want to have happen, which is why you need to define a copy constructor. As #Joe says: inside the destructor, print the value of `ptr' to see this more clearly.
Print the address of the memory being freed.
I believe you will find the compiler generated the constructor for you, did a value copy of the contents, including the pointer, and you are double-freeing the pointer and just getting lucky that the runtime isn't complaining about it.
The compiler generated copy constructor is still being called - nothing has changed in that regard, you just aren't printing anything from it since you didn't write it.
If we don’t define our own copy constructor, the C++ compiler creates a default copy constructor for each class which does a member wise copy between objects. The compiler created copy constructor works fine in general. We need to define our own copy constructor only if an object has pointers or any run time allocation of resource like file handle, a network connection..
A constructor of some type T of the form
T (const & T);
The single argument must be a const reference to an existing object of same type
Creates a duplicate of the existing object
Used whenever a copy of an object is needed
Including arguments to functions, results returned from functions
Problems with pointer-based arrays in C++:–
No range checking.
Cannot be compared meaningfully with ==
No array assignment (array names are const pointers).
If array passed to a function, size must be passed as a separate argument.
My professor in C++ has shown us this as an example in overloading the operator new (which i believe is wrong):
class test {
// code
int *a;
int n;
public:
void* operator new(size_t);
};
void* test::operator new(size_t size) {
test *p;
p=(test*)malloc(size);
cout << "Input the size of array = ?";
cin >> p->n;
p->a = new int[p->n];
return p;
}
Is this right?
It's definitely "not right", in the sense that it's giving me the creeps.
Since test has no user-declared constructors, I think it could work provided that the instance of test isn't value-initialized (which would clear the pointer). And provided that you write the corresponding operator delete.
It's clearly a silly example, though - user interaction inside an overloaded operator new? And what if an instance of test is created on the stack? Or copied? Or created with test *tp = new test(); in C++03? Or placement new? Hardly user-friendly.
It's constructors which must be used to establish class invariants (such as "I have an array to use"), because that's the only way to cover all those cases. So allocating an array like that is the kind of thing that should be done in a constructor, not in operator new. Or better yet, use a vector instead.
As far as the standard is concerned - I think that since the class is non-POD the implementation is allowed to scribble all over the data in between calling operator new and returning it to the user, so this is not guaranteed to work even when used carefully. I'm not entirely sure, though. Conceivably your professor has run it (perhaps many years ago when he first wrote the course), and if so it worked on his machine. There's no obvious reason why an implementation would want to do anything to the memory in the specific case of this class.
I believe that is "wrong" because he
access the object before the
constructor.
I think you're correct on this point too - casting the pointer returned from malloc to test* and accessing members is UB, since the class test is non-POD (because it has private non-static data members) and the memory does not contain a constructed instance of the class. Again, though, there's no reason I can immediately think of why an implementation would want to do anything that stops it working, so I'm not surprised if in practice it stores the intended value in the intended location on my machine.
Did some Standard checking. Since test has private non-static members, it is not POD. So new test default-initializes the object, and new test() value-initializes it. As others have pointed out, value-initialization sets members to zero, which could come as a surprise here.
Default-initialization uses the implicitly defined default constructor, which omits initializers for members a and n.
12.6.2p4: After the call to a constructor for class X has completed, if a member of X is neither specified in the constructor's mem-initializers, nor default-initialized, nor value-initialized, nor given a value during execution of the body of the constructor, the member has indeterminate value.
Not "the value its memory had before the constructor, which is usually indeterminate." The Standard directly says the members have indeterminate value if the constructor doesn't do anything about them.
So given test* p = new test;, p->a and p->n have indeterminate value and any rvalue use of them results in Undefined Behavior.
The creation/destruction of objects in C++ is divided into two tasks: memory allocation/deallocation and object initialization/deinitialization. Memory allocation/deallocation is done very differently depending on an object's storage class (automatic, static, dynamic), object initialization/deinitialization is done using the object's type's constructor/destructor.
You can customize object initialization/deinitialization by providing your own constructors/destructor. You can customize the allocation of dynamically allocated objects by overloading operator new and operator delete for this type. You can provide different versions of these operators for single objects and arrays (plus any number of additional overloads).
When you want to fine-tune the construction/destruction of objects of a specific type you first need to decide whether you want to fiddle with allocation/deallocation (of dynamically allocated objects) or with initialization/deinitialization. Your code mixes the two, violating one of C++' most fundamental design principle, all established praxis, every known C++ coding standard on this planet, and your fellow-workers' assumptions.
Your professor is completely misunderstanding the purpose of operator new whose only task is to allocate as much memory as was asked and to return a void* to it.
After that the constructor is called to initialize the object at that memory location. This is not up to the programmer to avoid.
As the class doesn't have a user-defined constructor, the fields are supposed to be uninitialized, and in such a case the compiler has probably freedom to initialize them to some magic value in order to help finding use of uninitialized values (e.g for debug builds). That would defeat the extra work done by the overloaded operator.
Another case where the extra work will be wasted is when using value-initialization: new test();
This is very bad code because it takes initialization code that should be part of a constructor and puts it in operator new which should only allocate new memory.
The expression new test may leak memory (that allocated by p->a = new int[p->n];) and the expression new test() definitely will leak memory. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the implementation zeroing, or setting to an alternate value, the memory returned by a custom operator new before that memory is initialized with an object even if the subsequent initialization wouldn't ordinarily touch the memory again. If the test object is value-initialized the leak is guaranteed.
There is also no easy way to correctly deallocate a test allocated with new test. There is no matching operator delete so the expression delete t; will do the wrong thing global operator delete to be called on memory allocated with malloc.
This does not work.
Your professor code will fail to initialize correctly in 3/4 of cases.
It does not initialize objects correctly (new only affects pointers).
The default constructor generated for tests has two modes.
Zero Initialization (which happens after new, but POD are set to zero)
Default Initialization (POD are uninitialized)
Running Code (comments added by hand)
$ ./a.exe
Using Test::new
Using Test::new
A Count( 0) // zero initialized: pointer leaked.
A Pointer(0)
B Count( 10) // Works as expected because of default init.
B Pointer(0xd20388)
C Count( 1628884611) // Uninitialized as new not used.
C Pointer(0x611f0108)
D Count( 0) // Zero initialized because it is global (static storage duration)
D Pointer(0)
The Code
#include <new>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
class test
{
// code
int *a;
int n;
public:
void* operator new(size_t);
// Added dredded getter so we can print the values. (Quick Hack).
int* getA() const { return a;}
int getN() const { return n;}
};
void* test::operator new(size_t size)
{
std::cout << "Using Test::new\n";
test *p;
p=(test*)malloc(size);
p->n = 10; // Fixed size for simple test.
p->a = new int[p->n];
return p;
}
// Objects that have static storage duration are zero initialized.
// So here 'a' and 'n' will be set to 0
test d;
int main()
{
// Here a is zero initialized. Resulting in a and n being reset to 0
// Thus you have memory leaks as the reset happens after new has completed.
test* a = new test();
// Here b is default initialized.
// So the POD values are undefined (so the results are what you prof expects).
// But the standard does not gurantee this (though it will usually work because
// of the it should work as a side effect of the 'zero cost principle`)
test* b = new test;
// Here is a normal object.
// New is not called so its members are random.
test c;
// Print out values
std::cout << "A Count( " << a->getN() << ")\n";
std::cout << "A Pointer(" << a->getA() << ")\n";
std::cout << "B Count( " << b->getN() << ")\n";
std::cout << "B Pointer(" << b->getA() << ")\n";
std::cout << "C Count( " << c.getN() << ")\n";
std::cout << "C Pointer(" << c.getA() << ")\n";
std::cout << "D Count( " << d.getN() << ")\n";
std::cout << "D Pointer(" << d.getA() << ")\n";
}
A valid example of what the professor failed to do:
class test
{
// code
int n;
int a[1]; // Notice the zero sized array.
// The new will allocate enough memory for n locations.
public:
void* operator new(size_t);
// Added dredded getter so we can print the values. (Quick Hack).
int* getA() const { return a;}
int getN() const { return n;}
};
void* test::operator new(size_t size)
{
std::cout << "Using Test::new\n";
int tmp;
std::cout << How big?\n";
std::cin >> tmp;
// This is a half arsed trick from the C days.
// It should probably still work.
// Note: This may be what the professor should have wrote (if he was using C)
// This is totally horrible and whould not be used.
// std::vector is a much:much:much better solution.
// If anybody tries to convince you that an array is faster than a vector
// The please read the linked question below where that myth is nailed into
// its over sized coffin.
test *p =(test*)malloc(size + sizeof(int) * tmp);
p->n = tmp;
// p->a = You can now overflow a upto n places.
return p;
}
Is std::vector so much slower than plain arrays?
As you show this is wrong. You can also see how easy it is to get this wrong.
There usually isn't any reason for it unless you are trying to manage your own memory allocations and in a C++ environment you would be better off learning the STL and write custom allocators.