C++ : Implementing copy constructor and copy assignment operator - c++

Question

After reading about copy constructors and copy assignment operators in C++, I tried to create a simple example. Though the below snippet apparently works, I am not sure whether I am implementing the copy constructor and copy assignment operator the right way. Could you please point out if there are any mistakes/improvements or a better example to understand the relevant concepts.
class Foobase
{
int bInt;
public:
Foobase() {}
Foobase(int b) { bInt = b;}
int GetValue() { return bInt;}
int SetValue(const int& val) { bInt = val; }
};
class Foobar
{
int var;
Foobase *base;
public:
Foobar(){}
Foobar(int v)
{
var = v;
base = new Foobase(v * -1);
}
//Copy constructor
Foobar(const Foobar& foo)
{
var = foo.var;
base = new Foobase(foo.GetBaseValue());
}
//Copy assignemnt operator
Foobar& operator= (const Foobar& other)
{
if (this != &other) // prevent self-assignment
{
var = other.var;
base = new Foobase(other.GetBaseValue());
}
return *this;
}
~Foobar()
{
delete base;
}
void SetValue(int val)
{
var = val;
}
void SetBaseValue(const int& val)
{
base->SetValue(val);
}
int GetBaseValue() const
{
return(base->GetValue());
}
void Print()
{
cout<<"Foobar Value: "<<var<<endl;
cout<<"Foobase Value: "<<base->GetValue()<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Foobar f(10);
Foobar g(f); //calls copy constructor
Foobar h = f; //calls copy constructor
Foobar i;
i = f;
f.SetBaseValue(12);
f.SetValue(2);
Foobar j = f = z; //copy constructor for j but assignment operator for f
z.SetBaseValue(777);
z.SetValue(77);
return 1;
}

Answer 1

Your copy assignment operator is implemented incorrectly. The object being assigned to leaks the object its base points to.
Your default constructor is also incorrect: it leaves both base and var uninitialized, so there is no way to know whether either is valid and in the destructor, when you call delete base;, Bad Things Happen.
The easiest way to implement the copy constructor and copy assignment operator and to know that you have done so correctly is to use the Copy-and-Swap idiom.

Answer 2

Only Foobar needs a custom copy constructor, assignment operator and destructor. Foobase doesn't need one because the default behaviour the compiler gives is good enough.
In the case of Foobar you have a leak in the assignment operator. You can easily fix it by freeing the object before allocating it, and that should be good enough. But if you ever add a second pointer member to Foobar you will see that that's when things get complicated. Now, if you have an exception while allocating the second pointer you need to clean up properly the first pointer you allocated, to avoid corruption or leaks. And things get more complicated than that in a polynomial manner as you add more pointer members.
Instead, what you want to do is implement the assignment operator in terms of the copy constructor. Then, you should implement the copy-constructor in terms of a non-throwing swap function. Read about the Copy & Swap idiom for details.
Also, the default constructor of Foobar doesn't default-initialize the members. That's bad, because it's not what the user would expect. The member pointer points at an arbitrary address and the int has an arbitrary value. Now if you use the object the constructor created you are very near Undefined Behaviour Land.

Answer 3

I have a very simple patch for you:
class Foobar
{
int var;
std::unique_ptr<FooBase> base;
...
That should get you started.
The bottom line is:
Don't call delete in your code (Experts see point 2)
Don't call delete in your code (you know better...)