I'm having some trouble to find the best way to accomplish what I have in mind due to my inexperience. I have a class where I need to a vector of objects. So my first question will be:
is there any problem having this: vector< AnyType > container* and then on the constructor initialize it with new (and deleting it on the destructor)?
Another question is: if this vector is going to store objects, shouldn't it be more like vector< AnyTipe* > so they could be dynamically created? In that case how would I return an object from a method and how to avoid memory leaks (trying to use only STL)?
Yes, you can do vector<AnyType> *container and new/delete it. Just be careful when you do subscript notation to access its elements; be sure to say (*container)[i], not container[i], or worse, *container[i], which will probably compile and lead to a crash.
When you do a vector<AnyType>, constructors/destructors are called automatically as needed. However, this approach may lead to unwanted object copying if you plan to pass objects around. Although vector<AnyType> lends itself to better syntactic sugar for the most obvious operations, I recommend vector<AnyType*> for non-primitive objects simply because it's more flexible.
is there any problem having this: vector< AnyType > *container and then on the constructor initialize it with new (and deleting it on the destructor)
No there isn't a problem. But based on that, neither is there a need to dynamically allocate the vector.
Simply make the vector a member of the class:
class foo
{
std::vector<AnyType> container;
...
}
The container will be automatically constructed/destructed along with the instance of foo. Since that was your entire description of what you wanted to do, just let the compiler do the work for you.
Don't use new and delete for anything.
Sometimes you have to, but usually you don't, so try to avoid it and see how you get on. It's hard to explain exactly how without a more concrete example, but in particular if you're doing:
SomeType *myobject = new SomeType();
... use myobject for something ...
delete myobject;
return;
Then firstly this code is leak-prone, and secondly it should be replaced with:
SomeType myobject;
... use myobject for something (replacing -> with . etc.) ...
return;
Especially don't create a vector with new - it's almost always wrong because in practice a vector almost always has one well-defined owner. That owner should have a vector variable, not a pointer-to-vector that they have to remember to delete. You wouldn't dynamically allocate an int just to be a loop counter, and you don't dynamically allocate a vector just to hold some values. In C++, all types can behave in many respects like built-in types. The issues are what lifetime you want them to have, and (sometimes) whether it's expensive to pass them by value or otherwise copy them.
shouldn't it be more like vector< AnyTipe* > so they could be dynamically created?
Only if they need to be dynamically created for some other reason, aside from just that you want to organise them in a vector. Until you hit that reason, don't look for one.
In that case how would I return an object from a method and how to avoid memory leaks (trying to use only STL)?
The standard libraries don't really provide the tools to avoid memory leaks in all common cases. If you must manage memory, I promise you that it is less effort to get hold of an implementation of shared_ptr than it is to do it right without one.
Related
I have a class. Let's call it House. Houses of various properties are contained in a registry. Let's call this house registry. Within this class, I want to add a vector containing pointers to different houses sorted in different ways(perhaps by name and number). Within this class, I have a function that creates new House objects and inserts them in the respective order. In doing so I'm leaving memory leaks as the program may terminate in a myriad of ways but doesn't free up memory stored in the vector. I know I can use smart pointers. But how do I implement them in the right way? I'm intentionally leaving out the destructor as its implementation is fairly obvious. But this question is specifically about smart pointers. A great answer would preferably include their implementation with comparators.
class HouseRegistry{
struct House{
....
}
private:
vector<House*>HousesbyName;
vector<House*>HousesbyNumber
bool newHouse(...){
House *somehouse = new House;
....
HousesbyName.insert(inserter,somehouse);
HousesbyNumber.insert(inserter2,somehouse);
return true;
}
}
I know a solution might look something like
class HouseRegistry{
struct House{
....
}
private:
vector<shared_ptr<House>>HousesbyName;
vector<shared_ptr<House>>HousesbyNumber
bool newHouse(...){
auto somehouse = make_shared<House>();
....
HousesbyName.insert(inserter,somehouse);
HousesbyNumber.insert(inserter2,somehouse);
return true;
}
}
But it breaks for functions like Binary Search when the comparator function uses two House pointers as arguments. What would a subsequent comparator function look like in this case if looking for any preexisting occurrence of a house?
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<House>> HousesbyName;
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<House>> HousesbyNumber
auto somehouse = std::make_shared<House>();
...
HousesbyName.insert(inserter, somehouse);
HousesbyNumber.insert(inserter2, somehouse);
...
How do I ensured all pointers are freed?
In general: By always freeing every dynamic allocation after you no longer need them.
The general answer is simple, and following it isn't easy. There are ways to make it easier in different cases. The easiest way is to not use dynamic allocation manually at all in the first place. Your example doesn't necessarily demonstrate a need for it. You could use std::vector<House> to store the objects. Alternatively, your use cases seems appropriate for a multi-index container. The standard doesn't provide a multi-index container template, but Boost does.
But in case where you do need dynamic allocation, a simple way to avoid leaks is to never use new, std::malloc etc. and instead use containers or std::make_unique or std::make_shared and never call std::unique_ptr::release.
I read other questions trying to figure this out but I didn't find much like what I have in mind. I'm kinda new to C++ and I just don't want to have my C++ code to look like "C with classes", or in other words, if there is a good "C++ way of doing this", that's what I'm looking for, but I'm a bit confused. Well, to the problem.
I have a class, say MyClass. Now, in other class, say MyContainer, I have a vector<MyClass> vec.
Let's say I'm now creating a method that populates a MyClass object with any arbitrary stuff and then pushes it into vec. First question is: should I allocate and push the object like the following? (using vector<MyClass> vec)
MyClass *obj = new MyClass(args);
vec.push_back(*obj);
I am not sure this is right, but by my understanding, this could make me avoid having to manually delete every instance of MyClass I put into vec when the instance of MyContainer is of no use anymore.
What bugs me is that, like I said, this does not seem right anyway, and the other way I can figure out is declaring vector<MyClass*> and writing:
MyClass *obj = new MyClass(args);
vec.push_back(obj);
But this would make me write a method to delete every instance of MyClass I created before, right?
So... What should I use and, if both are actually right, when one is preferrable to the other?
However, if everything is wrong from the start, how can I do this?
Thank yall!
PS: by the way, MyContainer is created in main(). I'm planning to use heap allocation. Should I?
Edit: I can't use C++11.
PS2: This is part of an assignment, but I found it general enough to be of use for anyone, not just me.
You probably shouldn't use new unless you need the object to survive beyond the local scope of the variable.
Just declare it on the stack:
MyClass obj(args);
vec.push_back(obj);
In C++11, you can avoid any risk of extra copies of obj by using:
vec.emplace_back(args);
Whether or not you should allocate on the heap or the stack as suggested by #happydave is highly dependent on the nature of "MyClass", IMO. If you need any kind of polymorphic behavior (i.e. you might have specialized subclasses of MyClass), then you should have a container of pointers.
If you're concerned about needing to delete each of the entries individually, there are two things that might help you:
1 . Use shared_ptr. So your code might look like this:
typedef std::shared_ptr<MyClass> MyClassPtr;
...
vector<MyClassPtr> vec;
vec.push_back(MyClassPtr(new MyClass());
The smart pointer will automatically delete MyClass when there are no more references to it.
2 . If you use bare pointers, you can still delete all the pointers with one line of code using std::for_each. This is described here: Can I call `delete` on a vector of pointers in C++ via for_each <algorithm>?
If you don't need polymorphic behavior and your class is copyable (either you gave it a copy constructor or the default copy is good for your implementation), then you can allocate on the stack.
I've been looking into this for the past few days, and so far I haven't really found anything convincing other than dogmatic arguments or appeals to tradition (i.e. "it's the C++ way!").
If I'm creating an array of objects, what is the compelling reason (other than ease) for using:
#define MY_ARRAY_SIZE 10
// ...
my_object * my_array=new my_object [MY_ARRAY_SIZE];
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) my_array[i]=my_object(i);
over
#define MEMORY_ERROR -1
#define MY_ARRAY_SIZE 10
// ...
my_object * my_array=(my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object)*MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
if (my_object==NULL) throw MEMORY_ERROR;
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) new (my_array+i) my_object (i);
As far as I can tell the latter is much more efficient than the former (since you don't initialize memory to some non-random value/call default constructors unnecessarily), and the only difference really is the fact that one you clean up with:
delete [] my_array;
and the other you clean up with:
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) my_array[i].~T();
free(my_array);
I'm out for a compelling reason. Appeals to the fact that it's C++ (not C) and therefore malloc and free shouldn't be used isn't -- as far as I can tell -- compelling as much as it is dogmatic. Is there something I'm missing that makes new [] superior to malloc?
I mean, as best I can tell, you can't even use new [] -- at all -- to make an array of things that don't have a default, parameterless constructor, whereas the malloc method can thusly be used.
I'm out for a compelling reason.
It depends on how you define "compelling". Many of the arguments you have thus far rejected are certainly compelling to most C++ programmers, as your suggestion is not the standard way to allocate naked arrays in C++.
The simple fact is this: yes, you absolutely can do things the way you describe. There is no reason that what you are describing will not function.
But then again, you can have virtual functions in C. You can implement classes and inheritance in plain C, if you put the time and effort into it. Those are entirely functional as well.
Therefore, what matters is not whether something can work. But more on what the costs are. It's much more error prone to implement inheritance and virtual functions in C than C++. There are multiple ways to implement it in C, which leads to incompatible implementations. Whereas, because they're first-class language features of C++, it's highly unlikely that someone would manually implement what the language offers. Thus, everyone's inheritance and virtual functions can cooperate with the rules of C++.
The same goes for this. So what are the gains and the losses from manual malloc/free array management?
I can't say that any of what I'm about to say constitutes a "compelling reason" for you. I rather doubt it will, since you seem to have made up your mind. But for the record:
Performance
You claim the following:
As far as I can tell the latter is much more efficient than the former (since you don't initialize memory to some non-random value/call default constructors unnecessarily), and the only difference really is the fact that one you clean up with:
This statement suggests that the efficiency gain is primarily in the construction of the objects in question. That is, which constructors are called. The statement presupposes that you don't want to call the default constructor; that you use a default constructor just to create the array, then use the real initialization function to put the actual data into the object.
Well... what if that's not what you want to do? What if what you want to do is create an empty array, one that is default constructed? In this case, this advantage disappears entirely.
Fragility
Let's assume that each object in the array needs to have a specialized constructor or something called on it, such that initializing the array requires this sort of thing. But consider your destruction code:
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i) my_array[i].~T();
For a simple case, this is fine. You have a macro or const variable that says how many objects you have. And you loop over each element to destroy the data. That's great for a simple example.
Now consider a real application, not an example. How many different places will you be creating an array in? Dozens? Hundreds? Each and every one will need to have its own for loop for initializing the array. Each and every one will need to have its own for loop for destroying the array.
Mis-type this even once, and you can corrupt memory. Or not delete something. Or any number of other horrible things.
And here's an important question: for a given array, where do you keep the size? Do you know how many items you allocated for every array that you create? Each array will probably have its own way of knowing how many items it stores. So each destructor loop will need to fetch this data properly. If it gets it wrong... boom.
And then we have exception safety, which is a whole new can of worms. If one of the constructors throws an exception, the previously constructed objects need to be destructed. Your code doesn't do that; it's not exception-safe.
Now, consider the alternative:
delete[] my_array;
This can't fail. It will always destroy every element. It tracks the size of the array, and it's exception-safe. So it is guaranteed to work. It can't not work (as long as you allocated it with new[]).
Of course, you could say that you could wrap the array in an object. That makes sense. You might even template the object on the type elements of the array. That way, all the desturctor code is the same. The size is contained in the object. And maybe, just maybe, you realize that the user should have some control over the particular way the memory is allocated, so that it's not just malloc/free.
Congratulations: you just re-invented std::vector.
Which is why many C++ programmers don't even type new[] anymore.
Flexibility
Your code uses malloc/free. But let's say I'm doing some profiling. And I realize that malloc/free for certain frequently created types is just too expensive. I create a special memory manager for them. But how to hook all of the array allocations to them?
Well, I have to search the codebase for any location where you create/destroy arrays of these types. And then I have to change their memory allocators accordingly. And then I have to continuously watch the codebase so that someone else doesn't change those allocators back or introduce new array code that uses different allocators.
If I were instead using new[]/delete[], I could use operator overloading. I simply provide an overload for operators new[] and delete[] for those types. No code has to change. It's much more difficult for someone to circumvent these overloads; they have to actively try to. And so forth.
So I get greater flexibility and reasonable assurance that my allocators will be used where they should be used.
Readability
Consider this:
my_object *my_array = new my_object[10];
for (int i=0; i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE; ++i)
my_array[i]=my_object(i);
//... Do stuff with the array
delete [] my_array;
Compare it to this:
my_object *my_array = (my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object) * MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
if(my_object==NULL)
throw MEMORY_ERROR;
int i;
try
{
for(i=0; i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE; ++i)
new(my_array+i) my_object(i);
}
catch(...) //Exception safety.
{
for(i; i>0; --i) //The i-th object was not successfully constructed
my_array[i-1].~T();
throw;
}
//... Do stuff with the array
for(int i=MY_ARRAY_SIZE; i>=0; --i)
my_array[i].~T();
free(my_array);
Objectively speaking, which one of these is easier to read and understand what's going on?
Just look at this statement: (my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object) * MY_ARRAY_SIZE). This is a very low level thing. You're not allocating an array of anything; you're allocating a hunk of memory. You have to manually compute the size of the hunk of memory to match the size of the object * the number of objects you want. It even features a cast.
By contrast, new my_object[10] tells the story. new is the C++ keyword for "create instances of types". my_object[10] is a 10 element array of my_object type. It's simple, obvious, and intuitive. There's no casting, no computing of byte sizes, nothing.
The malloc method requires learning how to use malloc idiomatically. The new method requires just understanding how new works. It's much less verbose and much more obvious what's going on.
Furthermore, after the malloc statement, you do not in fact have an array of objects. malloc simply returns a block of memory that you have told the C++ compiler to pretend is a pointer to an object (with a cast). It isn't an array of objects, because objects in C++ have lifetimes. And an object's lifetime does not begin until it is constructed. Nothing in that memory has had a constructor called on it yet, and therefore there are no living objects in it.
my_array at that point is not an array; it's just a block of memory. It doesn't become an array of my_objects until you construct them in the next step. This is incredibly unintuitive to a new programmer; it takes a seasoned C++ hand (one who probably learned from C) to know that those aren't live objects and should be treated with care. The pointer does not yet behave like a proper my_object*, because it doesn't point to any my_objects yet.
By contrast, you do have living objects in the new[] case. The objects have been constructed; they are live and fully-formed. You can use this pointer just like any other my_object*.
Fin
None of the above says that this mechanism isn't potentially useful in the right circumstances. But it's one thing to acknowledge the utility of something in certain circumstances. It's quite another to say that it should be the default way of doing things.
If you do not want to get your memory initialized by implicit constructor calls, and just need an assured memory allocation for placement new then it is perfectly fine to use malloc and free instead of new[] and delete[].
The compelling reasons of using new over malloc is that new provides implicit initialization through constructor calls, saving you additional memset or related function calls post an malloc And that for new you do not need to check for NULL after every allocation, just enclosing exception handlers will do the job saving you redundant error checking unlike malloc.
These both compelling reasons do not apply to your usage.
which one is performance efficient can only be determined by profiling, there is nothing wrong in the approach you have now. On a side note I don't see a compelling reason as to why use malloc over new[] either.
I would say neither.
The best way to do it would be:
std::vector<my_object> my_array;
my_array.reserve(MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
for (int i=0;i<MY_ARRAY_SIZE;++i)
{ my_array.push_back(my_object(i));
}
This is because internally vector is probably doing the placement new for you. It also managing all the other problems associated with memory management that you are not taking into account.
You've reimplemented new[]/delete[] here, and what you have written is pretty common in developing specialized allocators.
The overhead of calling simple constructors will take little time compared the allocation. It's not necessarily 'much more efficient' -- it depends on the complexity of the default constructor, and of operator=.
One nice thing that has not been mentioned yet is that the array's size is known by new[]/delete[]. delete[] just does the right and destructs all elements when asked. Dragging an additional variable (or three) around so you exactly how to destroy the array is a pain. A dedicated collection type would be a fine alternative, however.
new[]/delete[] are preferable for convenience. They introduce little overhead, and could save you from a lot of silly errors. Are you compelled enough to take away this functionality and use a collection/container everywhere to support your custom construction? I've implemented this allocator -- the real mess is creating functors for all the construction variations you need in practice. At any rate, you often have a more exact execution at the expense of a program which is often more difficult to maintain than the idioms everybody knows.
IMHO there both ugly, it's better to use vectors. Just make sure to allocate the space in advance for performance.
Either:
std::vector<my_object> my_array(MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
If you want to initialize with a default value for all entries.
my_object basic;
std::vector<my_object> my_array(MY_ARRAY_SIZE, basic);
Or if you don't want to construct the objects but do want to reserve the space:
std::vector<my_object> my_array;
my_array.reserve(MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
Then if you need to access it as a C-Style pointer array just (just make sure you don't add stuff while keeping the old pointer but you couldn't do that with regular c-style arrays anyway.)
my_object* carray = &my_array[0];
my_object* carray = &my_array.front(); // Or the C++ way
Access individual elements:
my_object value = my_array[i]; // The non-safe c-like faster way
my_object value = my_array.at(i); // With bounds checking, throws range exception
Typedef for pretty:
typedef std::vector<my_object> object_vect;
Pass them around functions with references:
void some_function(const object_vect& my_array);
EDIT:
IN C++11 there is also std::array. The problem with it though is it's size is done via a template so you can't make different sized ones at runtime and you cant pass it into functions unless they are expecting that exact same size (or are template functions themselves). But it can be useful for things like buffers.
std::array<int, 1024> my_array;
EDIT2:
Also in C++11 there is a new emplace_back as an alternative to push_back. This basically allows you to 'move' your object (or construct your object directly in the vector) and saves you a copy.
std::vector<SomeClass> v;
SomeClass bob {"Bob", "Ross", 10.34f};
v.emplace_back(bob);
v.emplace_back("Another", "One", 111.0f); // <- Note this doesn't work with initialization lists ☹
Oh well, I was thinking that given the number of answers there would be no reason to step in... but I guess I am drawn in as the others. Let's go
Why your solution is broken
C++11 new facilities for handling raw memory
Simpler way to get this done
Advices
1. Why your solution is broken
First, the two snippets you presented are not equivalent. new[] just works, yours fails horribly in the presence of Exceptions.
What new[] does under the cover is that it keeps track of the number of objects that were constructed, so that if an exception occurs during say the 3rd constructor call it properly calls the destructor for the 2 already constructed objects.
Your solution however fails horribly:
either you don't handle exceptions at all (and leak horribly)
or you just try to call the destructors on the whole array even though it's half built (likely crashing, but who knows with undefined behavior)
So the two are clearly not equivalent. Yours is broken
2. C++11 new facilities for handling raw memory
In C++11, the comittee members have realized how much we liked fiddling with raw memory and they have introduced facilities to help us doing so more efficiently, and more safely.
Check cppreference's <memory> brief. This example shows off the new goodies (*):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
#include <algorithm>
int main()
{
const std::string s[] = {"This", "is", "a", "test", "."};
std::string* p = std::get_temporary_buffer<std::string>(5).first;
std::copy(std::begin(s), std::end(s),
std::raw_storage_iterator<std::string*, std::string>(p));
for(std::string* i = p; i!=p+5; ++i) {
std::cout << *i << '\n';
i->~basic_string<char>();
}
std::return_temporary_buffer(p);
}
Note that get_temporary_buffer is no-throw, it returns the number of elements for which memory has actually been allocated as a second member of the pair (thus the .first to get the pointer).
(*) Or perhaps not so new as MooingDuck remarked.
3. Simpler way to get this done
As far as I am concered, what you really seem to be asking for is a kind of typed memory pool, where some emplacements could not have been initialized.
Do you know about boost::optional ?
It is basically an area of raw memory that can fit one item of a given type (template parameter) but defaults with having nothing in instead. It has a similar interface to a pointer and let you query whether or not the memory is actually occupied. Finally, using the In-Place Factories you can safely use it without copying objects if it is a concern.
Well, your use case really looks like a std::vector< boost::optional<T> > to me (or perhaps a deque?)
4. Advices
Finally, in case you really want to do it on your own, whether for learning or because no STL container really suits you, I do suggest you wrap this up in an object to avoid the code sprawling all over the place.
Don't forget: Don't Repeat Yourself!
With an object (templated) you can capture the essence of your design in one single place, and then reuse it everywhere.
And of course, why not take advantage of the new C++11 facilities while doing so :) ?
You should use vectors.
Dogmatic or not, that is exactly what ALL the STL container do to allocate and initialize.
They use an allocator then allocates uninitialized space and initialize it by means of the container constructors.
If this (like many people use to say) "is not c++" how can be the standard library just be implemented like that?
If you just don't want to use malloc / free, you can allocate "bytes" with just new char[]
myobjet* pvext = reinterpret_cast<myobject*>(new char[sizeof(myobject)*vectsize]);
for(int i=0; i<vectsize; ++i) new(myobject+i)myobject(params);
...
for(int i=vectsize-1; i!=0u-1; --i) (myobject+i)->~myobject();
delete[] reinterpret_cast<char*>(myobject);
This lets you take advantage of the separation between initialization and allocation, still taking adwantage of the new allocation exception mechanism.
Note that, putting my first and last line into an myallocator<myobject> class and the second ands second-last into a myvector<myobject> class, we have ... just reimplemented std::vector<myobject, std::allocator<myobject> >
What you have shown here is actually the way to go when using a memory allocator different than the system general allocator - in that case you would allocate your memory using the allocator (alloc->malloc(sizeof(my_object))) and then use the placement new operator to initialize it. This has many advantages in efficient memory management and quite common in the standard template library.
If you are writing a class that mimics functionality of std::vector or needs control over memory allocation/object creation (insertion in array / deletion etc.) - that's the way to go. In this case, it's not a question of "not calling default constructor". It becomes a question of being able to "allocate raw memory, memmove old objects there and then create new objects at the olds' addresses", question of being able to use some form of realloc and so on. Unquestionably, custom allocation + placement new are way more flexible... I know, I'm a bit drunk, but std::vector is for sissies... About efficiency - one can write their own version of std::vector that will be AT LEAST as fast ( and most likely smaller, in terms of sizeof() ) with most used 80% of std::vector functionality in, probably, less than 3 hours.
my_object * my_array=new my_object [10];
This will be an array with objects.
my_object * my_array=(my_object *)malloc(sizeof(my_object)*MY_ARRAY_SIZE);
This will be an array the size of your objects, but they may be "broken". If your class has virtual funcitons for instance, then you won't be able to call those. Note that it's not just your member data that may be inconsistent, but the entire object is actully "broken" (in lack of a better word)
I'm not saying it's wrong to do the second one, just as long as you know this.
So I have declared a vector in my class header like this:
...
private:
vector<Instruction> instructions;
...
Then in the .cpp implementation in the constructor, I try to initialize it like this:
instructions = new vector<Instruction>();
Xcode tells me: No viable overloaded '='
I am basically trying to get this class to behave like I would expect in java, where instances of the class retain this vector. Thats why I wanted to dynamically allocate it using new, so as to make sure that it doesn't get lost on the stack or something. Any help would be appreciated with this, thanks so much.
In order to do what you're trying to do the instructions = new vector<Instruction>() line is entirely unnecessary. Simply remove it. The vector will automatically get default-constructed when an instance of your class gets constructed.
An alternative is to make instructions into a pointer, but there doesn't appear to be any reason to do this here.
when you write
vector<Instruction> instructions;
you already have instantiated instructions to whatever memory model the user of your class is using e.g.
class YourClass
{
vector<Instruction> instructions;
};
...
int main()
{
YourClass class1; // stack
std::unique_ptr<YourClass> class2(new YourClass); // heap
...
}
In your class, you declare a std::vector<Instruction>. new vector<Instruction>(); returns you a std::vector<Instruction>*.
operator new returns a pointer, so you have a type mismatch.
The real issue is the fact that you are doing it at all. Do you have a good reason for dynamically allocating that vector? I doubt it, just omit that entirely as it will be allocated along with instances of your type.
You have a member value but you try to initialize it from a vector<Instruction>*. Initialize it from vector<Instruction> or change the declaration to a pointer. If you go down the second route, you need to observe the rule of three.
You might also want to get a decent C++ book from this list.
Also, I think you have a using namespace std; in your header which is bad.
Do not use new in C++ unless you know what you are doing. (Which you do not, currently.)
Instead use automatic objects. You already defined instructions to be an automatic object. You just need to init it as if it were one:
class wrgxl {
public:
wrgxl()
: instructions() // this initializes the vector using its default constructor
{
// nothing needed here
}
...
private:
vector<Instruction> instructions;
...
};
The initialization of instructions in the constructor's initialization list is optional, though, if you only want to call the default constructor anyway. So in this case, this would be enough:
wrgxl()
{
}
If you wanted to dynamically allocate a vector, you would need to make instructions a pointer to a vector. But this rarely ever make sense, since the vector already allocates its data dynamically, but wraps this, so you do not have to deal with the ugly details resulting from this.
One of those details is that, if you have a dynamically allocated object in a class, you will then have to worry about destruction, copy construction, and copy assignment for that class.
As Kerrek already pointed out, you will need to have a good C++ book in order to properly learn C++. Make your pick.
I think you are confusing C++'s with C#'s syntax.
First, unlike in many languages, variables allocated on the stack (such as yours), are initialized by calling the default constructor, so I suspect that what you are doing is unnecessary.
Second, in order to do what you are trying to do, you use the following syntax:
instructions = vector<Instruction>();
however, as I said, this is likely redundant (and wasteful on a non-optimizing compiler as it might call both the constructor and the assignment operator). A much better way to do this is found in sbi's answer.
Third, unlike in C#, the new operator allocates memory on the heap and returns a pointer to the newly allocated data. Your variable instructions is not a pointer, thus the error.
I'd like to use a std::vector to control a given piece of memory. First of all I'm pretty sure this isn't good practice, but curiosity has the better of me and I'd like to know how to do this anyway.
The problem I have is a method like this:
vector<float> getRow(unsigned long rowIndex)
{
float* row = _m->getRow(rowIndex); // row is now a piece of memory (of a known size) that I control
vector<float> returnValue(row, row+_m->cols()); // construct a new vec from this data
delete [] row; // delete the original memory
return returnValue; // return the new vector
}
_m is a DLL interface class which returns an array of float which is the callers responsibility to delete. So I'd like to wrap this in a vector and return that to the user.... but this implementation allocates new memory for the vector, copies it, and then deletes the returned memory, then returns the vector.
What I'd like to do is to straight up tell the new vector that it has full control over this block of memory so when it gets deleted that memory gets cleaned up.
UPDATE: The original motivation for this (memory returned from a DLL) has been fairly firmly squashed by a number of responders :) However, I'd love to know the answer to the question anyway... Is there a way to construct a std::vector using a given chunk of pre-allocated memory T* array, and the size of this memory?
The obvious answer is to use a custom allocator, however you might find that is really quite a heavyweight solution for what you need. If you want to do it, the simplest way is to take the allocator defined (as the default scond template argument to vector<>) by the implementation, copy that and make it work as required.
Another solution might be to define a template specialisation of vector, define as much of the interface as you actually need and implement the memory customisation.
Finally, how about defining your own container with a conforming STL interface, defining random access iterators etc. This might be quite easy given that underlying array will map nicely to vector<>, and pointers into it will map to iterators.
Comment on UPDATE: "Is there a way to construct a std::vector using a given chunk of pre-allocated memory T* array, and the size of this memory?"
Surely the simple answer here is "No". Provided you want the result to be a vector<>, then it has to support growing as required, such as through the reserve() method, and that will not be possible for a given fixed allocation. So the real question is really: what exactly do you want to achieve? Something that can be used like vector<>, or something that really does have to in some sense be a vector, and if so, what is that sense?
Vector's default allocator doesn't provide this type of access to its internals. You could do it with your own allocator (vector's second template parameter), but that would change the type of the vector.
It would be much easier if you could write directly into the vector:
vector<float> getRow(unsigned long rowIndex) {
vector<float> row (_m->cols());
_m->getRow(rowIndex, &row[0]); // writes _m->cols() values into &row[0]
return row;
}
Note that &row[0] is a float* and it is guaranteed for vector to store items contiguously.
The most important thing to know here is that different DLL/Modules have different Heaps. This means that any memory that is allocated from a DLL needs to be deleted from that DLL (it's not just a matter of compiler version or delete vs delete[] or whatever). DO NOT PASS MEMORY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY ACROSS A DLL BOUNDARY. This includes creating a std::vector in a dll and returning it. But it also includes passing a std::vector to the DLL to be filled by the DLL; such an operation is unsafe since you don't know for sure that the std::vector will not try a resize of some kind while it is being filled with values.
There are two options:
Define your own allocator for the std::vector class that uses an allocation function that is guaranteed to reside in the DLL/Module from which the vector was created. This can easily be done with dynamic binding (that is, make the allocator class call some virtual function). Since dynamic binding will look-up in the vtable for the function call, it is guaranteed that it will fall in the code from the DLL/Module that originally created it.
Don't pass the vector object to or from the DLL. You can use, for example, a function getRowBegin() and getRowEnd() that return iterators (i.e. pointers) in the row array (if it is contiguous), and let the user std::copy that into its own, local std::vector object. You could also do it the other way around, pass the iterators begin() and end() to a function like fillRowInto(begin, end).
This problem is very real, although many people neglect it without knowing. Don't underestimate it. I have personally suffered silent bugs related to this issue and it wasn't pretty! It took me months to resolve it.
I have checked in the source code, and boost::shared_ptr and boost::shared_array use dynamic binding (first option above) to deal with this.. however, they are not guaranteed to be binary compatible. Still, this could be a slightly better option (usually binary compatibility is a much lesser problem than memory management across modules).
Your best bet is probably a std::vector<shared_ptr<MatrixCelType>>.
Lots more details in this thread.
If you're trying to change where/how the vector allocates/reallocates/deallocates memory, the allocator template parameter of the vector class is what you're looking for.
If you're simply trying to avoid the overhead of construction, copy construction, assignment, and destruction, then allow the user to instantiate the vector, then pass it to your function by reference. The user is then responsible for construction and destruction.
It sounds like what you're looking for is a form of smart pointer. One that deletes what it points to when it's destroyed. Look into the Boost libraries or roll your own in that case.
The Boost.SmartPtr library contains a whole lot of interesting classes, some of which are dedicated to handle arrays.
For example, behold scoped_array:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
boost::scoped_array<float> array(_m->getRow(atoi(argv[1])));
return 0;
}
The issue, of course, is that scoped_array cannot be copied, so if you really want a std::vector<float>, #Fred Nurk's is probably the best you can get.
In the ideal case you'd want the equivalent to unique_ptr but in array form, however I don't think it's part of the standard.