I have an Entity class, which contains 3 pointers: m_rigidBody, m_entity, and m_parent. Somewhere in Entity::setModel(std::string model), it's crashing. Apparently, this is caused by bad data in m_entity. The weird thing is that I nulled it in the constructor and haven't touched it since then. I debugged it and put a watchpoint on it, and it comes up that the m_entity member is being changed in the constructor for std::string that's being called while converting a const char* into an std::string for the setModel call. I'm running on a Mac, if that helps (I think I remember some problem with std::string on the Mac). Any ideas about what's going on?
EDIT: Here's the code for GEntity:
GEntity::GEntity(GWorld* world, unsigned long int idNum) {
GEntity(world, idNum, btTransform::getIdentity());
}
GEntity::GEntity(GWorld* world, unsigned long int idNum, btTransform trans) : m_id(idNum), m_trans(trans), m_world(world) {
// Init unused properties
m_rigidBody = NULL;
m_entity = NULL; // I'm setting it here
m_parent = NULL;
// Find internal object name
std::ostringstream ss;
ss << "Entity" << idNum << "InWorld" << world;
m_name = ss.str();
// Create a scene node
m_sceneNode = m_world->m_sceneMgr->getRootSceneNode()->createChildSceneNode(m_name+"Node");
// Initialize the SceneNode's transformation
m_sceneNode->setPosition(bv3toOv3(m_trans.getOrigin()));
m_sceneNode->setOrientation(bqToOq(m_trans.getRotation()));
}
void GEntity::setModel(std::string model) {
m_model = model;
// Delete entity on model change
if(m_entity != NULL) { // And by the time this line comes around, it's corrupt
m_world->m_sceneMgr->destroyEntity(m_entity);
m_entity = NULL;
}
// Create new entity with given model
m_entity = m_world->m_sceneMgr->createEntity(m_name+"Ent", model);
// Apply a new rigid body if needed
if(m_rigidBody != NULL) {
initPhysics();
}
}
void GEntity::initPhysics() {
deinitPhysics();
}
void GEntity::deinitPhysics() {
if(m_rigidBody != NULL) {
m_world->m_dynWorld->removeRigidBody(m_rigidBody);
delete m_rigidBody;
m_rigidBody = NULL;
}
}
And here's the definition of GEntity:
class GEntity : public btMotionState {
public:
GEntity(GWorld* world, unsigned long int idNum);
GEntity(GWorld* world, unsigned long int idNum, btTransform trans);
void setModel(std::string modelName);
void initPhysics();
void deinitPhysics();
void getWorldTransform(btTransform& worldTrans) const;
void setWorldTransform(const btTransform &trans);
void parent(GEntity* parent);
protected:
unsigned long int m_id;
// Physics representation
btTransform m_trans;
btRigidBody* m_rigidBody;
// Graphics representation
Ogre::SceneNode* m_sceneNode;
Ogre::Entity* m_entity;
// Engine representation
GWorld* m_world;
GEntity* m_parent;
std::string m_name;
std::string m_model; // Used to find physics collision mesh
};
And here's the code calling setModel:
// Setup game world
GWorld* world = new GWorld(win);
GEntity* ent = world->createEntity();
ent->setModel(std::string("Cube.mesh"));
Your problem is that this line is constructing a nameless temporary GEntity inside the constructor body for a different GEntity. The temporary is then thrown away once the statement completes and no further initialization of the non-temporary GEntity is performed.
GEntity(world, idNum, btTransform::getIdentity());
If you want to share some initialization code between your two constructors you should create a member function that performs the required actions and call this function from both constructors. C++ doesn't (currently) allow you to delegate initialization from one constructor to a different constructor or call two constructors on the same object.
My best guess is that the problem is in GWorld::createEntity. If you're creating a local GEntity on the stack and returning a pointer to it, you'll see something like what you describe, as the GEntity is destroyed when GWorld::createEntity returns and the memory is reused for the temp string constructed to pass to setModel
Edit
I see you've added more code, including the definition of createEntity. That looks fine, but I would still suggest looking for some way in which the GEntity you're seeing the problem with gets deleted (and the memory reused for a string) before you call setModel.
One solution I have found is to use string.resize(n), which will resize the function. However, I do not know why this works, and I feel my problem is with my code since std::string is part of the standard C++ library.
I can't find the answer but I can make a suggestion that will help catch the problem:
Add assertions. A lot of assertions. Each one of those functions really need some assertions at least at their beginning. That will certainly help you catch wrong states early.
And by the way, you should use a constant reference as parameter of your setModel() function.
In C++ you can not call a constructor from within a constructor.
Try
GEntity::GEntity(GWorld* world, unsigned long int idNum) : GEntity(world, idNum, btTransform::getIdentity() {}
Related
I added a destructor to some code and it seems to be calling early and causing problems. I added a debug statement to see where it is being called and that made me even more confused. I understand that managing my own memory is not best practice but I wanted to try it out myself.
This is basically my GameObject class:
class GameObject
{
public:
int xCoord = 0, yCoord = 0, prevX, prevY;
int status = 0, weight = -1;
int id = -1;
GameObject(CommandComponent* commands,
PhysicsComponent* physics,
GraphicsComponent* graphics)
: commandComponent(commands),
physicsComponent(physics),
graphicsComponent(graphics)
{};
~GameObject()
{
std::cout << "Destructor called " << id << std::endl;
delete commandComponent;
delete physicsComponent;
delete graphicsComponent;
};
void update(World& world, int command, sf::Time dt)
{
commandComponent->update(*this, world, command);
physicsComponent->update(*this, world);
graphicsComponent->update(*this, dt);
};
void update(World& world, int command)
{
commandComponent->update(*this, world, command);
physicsComponent->update(*this, world);
};
sf::Sprite draw()
{
return *(graphicsComponent->draw());
};
void setCoords(int x, int y)
{
prevX = xCoord;
xCoord = x;
prevY = yCoord;
yCoord = y;
};
void setId(int newId)
{
id = newId;
}
private:
CommandComponent* commandComponent = NULL;
GraphicsComponent* graphicsComponent = NULL;
PhysicsComponent* physicsComponent = NULL;
};
This is the createPlayer Method:
GameObject* createPlayer(sf::Texture* text)
{
return new GameObject(new PlayerCommandComponent(), new PlayerPhysicsComponent(), new PlayerGraphicsComponent(text));
};
This is a method I invoke to add the new object to a vector based on if it is an active object or an inactive one I also add it to an array :
void World::addObject(GameObject object, int id, int type){
object.setId(id);
if (type == 0)
{
inactiveObjects.push_back(object);
}
else if (type == 1)
{
activeObjects.push_back(object);
}
}
Finally this is my test code that creates the Game Objects and calls the above function and where I see the destructors being called from:
void World::test()
{
// Player
std::cout << "Starting to create id 0\n";
addObject((*createPlayer(&(mTextures.get(Textures::PlayerCharacter)))), 0, 1);
activeObjects.at(0).setCoords(3, 3);
activeObjects.at(0).weight = 10;
std::cout << "Created id 0\n";
// Test Objects
std::cout << "Starting to create id 1\n";
addObject((*createPlayer(&(mTextures.get(Textures::PlayerCharacter)))), 1, 1);
activeObjects.at(1).setCoords(3, 4);
activeObjects.at(1).weight = 7;
std::cout << "Created id 1\n";
addObject((*createPlayer(&(mTextures.get(Textures::PlayerCharacter)))), 2, 1);
activeObjects.at(2).setCoords(5, 4);
activeObjects.at(2).weight = 2;
addObject((*createPlayer(&(mTextures.get(Textures::Enemy)))), 3, 1);
activeObjects.at(3).setCoords(6, 6);
activeObjects.at(3).weight = -1;
addObject((*createPlayer(&(mTextures.get(Textures::Enemy)))), 4, 1);
activeObjects.at(4).setCoords(1, 1);
activeObjects.at(4).weight = 0;
std::cout << "Done Creating Test Objects\n";
I guess my main question is how come the Destructors are being called? Im assuming its related to how I'm constructing the object in the createPlayer method, Perhaps it's going out of scope after I return it but I thought using the new keyword would prevent that from happening? I'm puzzled here.
Several things at play here.
GameObject* createPlayer(sf::Texture* text)
returns a dynamically allocated GameObject. This could be done better, read up on std::unique_ptr, but there is nothing strictly wrong here. I mention it mostly to point out std::unique_ptr and set up
addObject((*createPlayer(&(mTextures.get(Textures::PlayerCharacter)))), 0, 1);
because this is where thing start to go wrong. When you find code that uses new and dereferences and discards the the result, you're looking at a memory leak. You've lost the pointer to the dynamically allocated object and without the pointer it is next to impossible to find the allocation again so that you can delete it.
Storing the dereferenced object will invoke either the copy constructor or the assignment operator and at this point you need to consider The Rule of Three: If you need a to define a custom destructor, you probably need to define a custom assignment operator and a copy constructor. This is a standard example of when you need to observe the Rule of Three. What goes wrong is well-explained in the Rule of Three Link, so stop, read, and understand it before going any further. Failure to do this means the rest of this answer will be nigh-useless to you.
You cannot write good, non-trivial C++ code without a firm grip on the Rule of Three and all of its friends.
You can step around the Rule of Three here by changing
void World::addObject(GameObject object, int id, int type)
to
void World::addObject(GameObject * object, int id, int type)
and pass object by reference. This doesn't help much because
inactiveObjects.push_back(object);
is expecting an object, not a pointer.
You can change that as well, but should you? std::vector is at its absolute best when it directly contains an object. Pointers lead to pointer chasing, poor caching behaviour and ultimately suuuhhhfering. Don't store pointers unless you have a compelling reason to do so.
And if you do, manage the pointers with a std::unique_ptr beginning to end.
What I would do:
Jump straight over the Rule of Three and go to The Rule of Five.
Exterminate as many dynamically allocated variables as possible so that I don't need to do much work, if any, with point 2. This means no pointers for (or in) commandComponent, physicsComponent and graphicsComponent if possible.
Add a move constructor and move assignment operator to GameObject as well as CommandComponent, PhysicsComponent, and GraphicsComponent. Keep all resource management as close to the resource as possible. This allows you to keep higher level classes as ignorant as possible. If GraphicsComponent knows how to copy and move itself, GameObject doesn't need to know how to move it. This allows you to take advantage of The Rule of Zero, and the Rule of Zero should be what you strive for in all of your classes.
Use move semantics to get a GameObject, not a GameObject* from createPlayer down to the activeObjects and inactiveObjects vectors.
Enjoy the reduced memory management load.
I'm a complete beginner in c++ and everything has been going on well until now. I'm new to the idea of pointers (I'm from python), and I have this weird error.
So basically, I created this "SearchNode" class, and found below is one of it's methods "getChildren" which should return a vector of other SearchNode instances, representing the possible cells to which a Knight (chessboard) could travel from it's current state. (BFS)
That said, when I finish pushing into my vector, all the elements suddenly point to 1st element only. Could someone help me out here?
PS: it's a similar problem to c++ push_back doesn't work as it is supposed ... but unlike Angela (who's was writing her own compiler), I'm a total beginner in c++. Your help with be greatly appreciated.
UPDATE
I got rid of the int*, and used array for my state. I could now successfully search the graph (therefore the states are ok) and find the shortest path, but I couldn't seem to reconstruct the path.
To test, I started at {0,0} and could find {4,4}, but the path, according to the getPath method was {4,4}, {3,6}, {3,6}, {3,6} ... (infinite loop of {3,6}). Is there something wrong with my parent pointers, or my getPath function? Thanks for your support in advance.
//Search class
class SearchNode
{
public:
//Variables
SearchNode *m_parent;
array<int,2> m_state; //I don't understand typedef's yet, will use them when I'm clearer with them :)
//Normal Constructor
SearchNode(array<int,2>& state_, SearchNode *parent_=nullptr) :
m_state(state_),
m_parent(parent_)
{}
//Method to get Next reachable states. Returns instances of SearchNode.
vector<SearchNode> getChildren()
{
int legalMoves[8][2] = {{1,2},{1,-2},{-1,2},{-1,-2},{2,1},{2,-1},{-2,1},{-2,-1}};
vector<SearchNode> children;
children.reserve(8);
for(int i=0; i<8; i++)
{
int x = (m_state[0] + legalMoves[i][0]);
int y = (m_state[1] + legalMoves[i][1]);
if( (x>-1) and (x<9) and (y<9) and (y>-1)) // Within the bounds of the board
{
array<int,2> childState = {x,y};
SearchNode childNode = SearchNode(childState,this);
children.push_back(childNode);
}
}
return children;
}
void getPath()
{
cout<<"\nPath: ";
cout<< this->print();
SearchNode current = *this;
unsigned int counter = 1;
while((current.m_parent!=nullptr) and counter< 10)
{
counter++;
cout<< (current.m_parent)->print();
current = *(current.m_parent);
}
cout << (current.m_parent)->print();
}
string print()
{
stringstream out;
out << "{" << this->m_state[0] << "," << this->m_state[1] << "} ";
return out.str();
}
};
Lots of mistakes and errors, I strongly suggest you turn up the warning level in your compiler so you can get more information. With GCC/G++/Clang, try "-Wall" or "-Wextra", as moshbear points out.
Your nodes never get assigned the "parent" value, you're creating a "shadow" local variable called "parent" and assigning that. To avoid common errors like this, use a prefix or postfix for member variable names to separate them from local names, e.g. "m_parent" or "_parent".
You don't assign default values in your constructor, you explicitly leave the values uninitialized.
SearchNode()
{
//do nothing
}
and then you introduce this garbage data in your pointer-based constructor, what you probably want is
SearchNode() : parent(NULL), state(NULL) {}
Your copy constructor is a disaster. You need to read up on and understand pointers and local variables.
//Start Node constructor. Still looking for an equivalent for null.
SearchNode(int *state)
{
int genericStartState[2] = {-1,-1};
SearchNode blankParent = SearchNode();
SearchNode genericStart = SearchNode(genericStartState,&blankParent);
this->parent = &genericStart;
this->state=state;
}
Firstly, "blankParent" here is a local variable containing random data because of your current copy constructor. Secondly, you're taking the address of it - of a private, local variable, which is about to stop existing when you hit the "}" at the end of the routine.
"genericStartState" is also about to go out of scope.
And aside from that, I don't think you want or need this particular constructor.
But fundamentally, the bug in your subject, is because you do the same thing in your assignment loop -- you use a temporary, local array to store the new values, and then pass a pointer to that to your constructor. Since you are taking the address, it will be the same every loop.
int childState[2] = { x, y };
SearchNode childNode = SearchNode(childState,this);
This is why all of your nodes have the same state - because they all point to the same memory location (edit: as pointed out by DyP, that side-effect isn't something you can count on, just an artefact of ordering in this case).
It might be easier for you to use simple array of ints rather than a pointer in your node structure.
Here's how the constructor side of things might look, if your compiler is VisualStudio 2012 or G++ 4.8 or Clang 4.2.
class SearchNode
{
public:
typedef std::array<int, 2> State;
private:
// I use the 'm_' convention for members, 'g_' for globals, 's_' for statics.
SearchNode* m_parent;
State m_state;
public:
//////////
// Default ctor.
SearchNode()
: m_parent(nullptr) // C++11 constant meaning pointer with value 0
, m_state({-1, -1}) // preferred but requires recent C++11 features
{
//m_state[0] = m_state[1] = -1; // had to do this instead for gcc 4.7.3
}
//////////
// Normal ctor
// I use the '_'-postfix convention for parameter names.
SearchNode(SearchNode* parent_, const State& state_)
: m_parent(parent_)
, m_state(state_)
{
}
//////////
// Copy constructor.
// We could do this, but it's the default behavior anyway.
/*
SearchNode(const SearchNode& rhs)
: m_parent(rhs.m_parent)
, m_state(rhs.m_state)
{
}
*/
// Current C++11 compilers let us be explicit and do this:
//SearchNode(const SearchNode& rhs) = default;
// But it's the default behavior so we don't have to do this one at all.
};
The latest C++11 language changes (MSVC > 2012, GCC >= 4.8, Clang >= 4.1) would allow you to replace the first two constructors with
// Kill two birds with one stone and have default parameters on our normal ctor,
// replacing both the default and normal ctor with one function.
SearchNode(SearchNode* parent_ = nullptr, const State& state_ = { -1, -1 }))
: m_parent(parent_)
, m_state(state_)
{
}
If you had a fully C++1y compatible compiler, you could boil all that down to:
class SearchNode
{
public:
typedef std::array<int, 2> State;
private:
// I use the 'm_' convention for members, 'g_' for globals, 's_' for statics.
SearchNode* m_parent = nullptr; // c++1y keyword to replace 'NULL'
State m_state = { -1, -1 };
public:
SearchNode() = default;
SearchNode(const State& rhs_) = default; // not strictly required.
SearchNode(SearchNode* parent_, const State& state_)
: m_parent(parent_), m_state(state_)
{}
};
I'm quite new to C++ and I am trying to store objects inside a std::vector like this:
Event.h:
//event.h
class Event
{
public:
Event();
Event(std::string name);
~Event();
void addVisitor(Visitor visitor);
private:
std::vector<Visitor> m_visitors;
};
Event.cpp:
//event.cpp
Event::Event() :
m_name("Unnamed Event")
{
}
Event::Event(std::string name) :
m_name(name)
{
}
void Event::addVisitor(Visitor visitor)
{
this->m_visitors.push_back(visitor);
}
void Event::listVisitors()
{
std::vector<Visitor>::iterator it;
for(it = this->m_visitors.begin();it != this->m_visitors.end(); ++it)
{
std::cout << it->getName() << std::endl;
}
}
Visitor.h:
//visitor.h
class Visitor
{
public:
Visitor();
Visitor(std::string name);
~Visitor();
std::string getName() const;
void listVisitors();
private:
std::string m_name;
};
Visitor.cpp:
//visitor.cpp
Visitor::Visitor() :
m_name("John Doe")
{
}
Visitor::Visitor(std::string name) :
m_name(name)
{
}
std::string Visitor::getName() const
{
return m_name;
}
main.cpp:
//main.cpp
int main()
{
Event *e1 = new Event("Whatever");
Visitor *v1 = new Visitor("Dummy1");
Visitor *v2 = new Visitor("Dummy2");
e1->addVisitor(*v1);
e1->addVisitor(*v2);
}
If I do it like this I would have to add a copy constructor which would make a deep copy so the object gets copied properly into the vector. I'm looking for a way around it by only storing pointers to the objects in a vector.
I already tried it with std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Visitor> > m_visitors, but then I got some errors when calling addVisitor in main.cpp. Of course I changed the declaration of the class members accordingly.
How would an appropriate declaration of the members and the member function look like to make it work?
Stylistically, if you are passing pointers, just accept pointers as the function arguments.
What's happening in the example code above is that the visitors are getting copied to become function arguments and the pointers you had are unreferenced by anything outside of the main function.
I can't speak to what the errors are that you're seeing as you didn't describe them but it probably has to do with incompatible types.
Just get rid of the news because for these data structures they're unnecessary.
int main()
{
Event e1("Whatever");
Visitor v1("Dummy1");
Visitor v2("Dummy2");
e1.addVisitor(v1);
e1.addVisitor(v2);
}
I would suggest that if you don't know how to use pointers you couldn't possibly want to store them instead (they're a hassle IMO to store in the vector when copying by value works just fine).
The compiler generated copy constructor should work just fine.
No manual deep copy required, because you are quite correctly using std::string, which supports RAII.
However, your main function has three memory leaks — there is no need to use new there anyway, so simply don't.
General rule of thumb:
If, at any time T, you're thinking of introducing more pointers into your code, then you're probably going in the wrong direction.
I have been beating my head around this issue of static versus non-static, callback functions, function pointers, etc... My goal is to access data of a struct outside the scope of my callback interface. I am trying to do this within my class called TextDetect. I thought I was on track when I asked this question: Avoiding a static member function in c++ when using a callback interface from C
However, I still can't access the data without losing scope over the data that I am most interested. At runtime, I get "Access violation reading location ..." I'll point it out below where it fails.
I implemented the answer to my previous question as the following class, shown entirely (Note: vtrInitialize is part of a 3rd party api code int vtrInitialize(const char *inifile, vtrCallback cb, void *calldata);):
class TextDetect {
const char * inifile;
vtrImage *vtrimage;
int framecount;
public:
TextDetect();
~TextDetect();
void vtrCB(vtrTextTrack *track);
static void vtrCB_thunk(vtrTextTrack *track, void *calldata);
int vtrTest(cv::Mat);
bool DrawBox(cv::Mat&);
vtrTextTrack *texttrack;
};
TextDetect::TextDetect() : inifile("vtr.ini")
{
if (vtrInitialize(inifile, vtrCB_thunk, static_cast<void *>(this) ) == -1)
std::cout << "Error: Failure to initialize" << std::endl;
vtrimage = new vtrImage;
}
int TextDetect::vtrTest(cv::Mat imagetest)
{
/*store image data in an image structure*/
}
void TextDetect::vtrCB(vtrTextTrack *track)
{
/*send data to command line from callback */
I've tried copying the data I need a variety of ways and nothing works (this code is a continuation from above):
//texttrack = track;
//texttrack = new vtrTextTrack (*track);
memcpy(texttrack,track,sizeof(*track));
//vtrTextTrackFree(track);
}
void TextDetect::vtrCB_thunk(vtrTextTrack *track, void *calldata)
{
static_cast<TextDetect *>(calldata)->vtrCB(track);
}
This is the member function were I want the data to be used. Texttrack is public member so I might need it outside my class as well (this code is a continuation from above):
bool TextDetect::DrawBox(cv::Mat& tobeboxed)
{
And I get the access violation error at runtime here at this line of code (this code is a continuation from above):
if (texttrack->best->ocrconf > 90)
{
/*do some more stuff*/
}
}
Hopefully I'm understanding this correctly.
It seems to me that the problem is trying to copy those vtrTextTrack structs improperly.
This:
//texttrack = track;
just copies the pointer. If the owner of the struct (probably the caller of the callback function) destroys/deletes the vtrTextTrack, then you're holding on to an invalid pointer.
This one:
memcpy(texttrack,track,sizeof(*track));
will copy all the members of the vtrTextTrack, but will not copy what's being pointed to by it's member pointers (e.g. texttrack->best). Again, if the owner destroys/deletes the track, then you're holding on to invalid pointers.
And since
//texttrack = new vtrTextTrack (*track);
didn't work, I'm guessing that vtrTextTrack doesn't provide a copy constructor.
As for a workaround, first check if your third party library provides a function to copy these structs. If that's not the case (could this be by design?), then you may have to implement one yourself. This might be hard because there might be all kinds of internals that you don't know about. If you don't need the whole vtrTextTrack, I'd say define another struct and store only the information you need. Something along the lines of
SomeType* bestCopier(SomeType* src)
{
SomeType* temp;
/* copy over struct */
return temp;
}
Foo* fooCopier(Foo* src)
{
/*...*/
}
struct myTextTrack
{
public:
myTextTrack(vtrTextTrack* src)
{
//copy over stuff
m_best = bestCopier(src->best);
m_foo = fooCopier(src->foo);
}
private:
/* the members you care about*/
SomeType* m_best;
Foo * m_foo;
}
I have a thread-class Buffer (own made class), and many derived classes such as BufferTypeA, BufferTypeB...
Since I have to synchronize them in a certain order, I'm giving any of them an integer which represents the order to run certain task. I also have to know inside each thread Buffer which one is next to run the task, so I'm passing every BufferType a reference to an integer which all of them must share and I didn't want to make it Global.
I got lost at any point and I don't see where.
First I create all the BufferTypes from a class where I also define that shared integer as:
int currentThreadOrder;
And when creating the BufferTypes:
int position = 0;
if (NULL == bufferA) {
bufferA = new BufferTypeA(¤tThreadOrder, ++position,
waitCondition);
}
if (NULL == bufferB) {
bufferB = new BufferPos(¤tThreadOrder, ++position,
waitCondition);
}
if (NULL == bufferC) {
bufferC = new BufferRtk(¤tThreadOrder, ++position,
waitCondition);
}
Then, in BufferTypeA header:
class BufferTypeA: public Buffer {
public:
BufferTypeA(int currentThreadOrder,
int threadConnectionOrder = 0,
QWaitCondition *waitCondition = NULL);
//..
}
And in cpp file:
BufferTypeA::BufferTypeA(int currentThreadOrder, int threadConnectionOrder, QWaitCondition *waitCondition):
Buffer(currentThreadOrder, threadConnectionOrder, waitCondition) { }
Now I'll show Buffer header:
class Buffer: public QThread {
public:
Buffer(int ¤tThreadOrder,
int threadConnectionOrder = 0,
QWaitCondition *waitCondition = NULL);
//...
protected:
QWaitCondition *waitCondition;
int threadConnectionOrder;
int ¤tThreadOrder; // Shared address
}
And finally the cpp:
Buffer::Buffer(int ¤tThreadOrder, int threadConnectionOrder, QWaitCondition *waitCondition) {
this->threadConnectionOrder = threadConnectionOrder;
this->waitCondition = waitCondition;
this->currentThreadOrder = currentThreadOrder;
}
And the error I'm getting is error: uninitialized reference member Buffer::currentThreadOrder.
I'm embarrased to ask, because it's going to be a simple problem with pointers and addresses, but I can't see where the problem is, so please help.
When you create a class with a data-member that is a reference, the reference needs to be assigned a value in the constructor initializer list.
References have to be given a value when they are created, they are not pointers. They have to start with a value and that value cannot be changed (while the contents that is pointed to by that value can be changed).
Essentially you can think of a reference as an alias for an existing variable. You can't give a friend a nickname if you don't have a friend :)
RESPONSE TO COMMENT:
You don't "share a reference" between objects. Each object will have its own reference to the same variable. When you "pass by reference" you are telling the compiler that you want the variable in your function to actually be the variable in your outer scope, rather than creating a new variable by value. This means that you only have one variable at one memory location. The reference is just memory in some other place that forwards you to that same memory location.
Think of this as call forwarding... I can have 15 phone numbers in 15 different countries. I can set them all up to forward calls to my cell in the US. So, people are calling me no matter which number they call.
Each of your classes just has another reference to forward the "phone calls" or variable reads/writes to that same memory location. So, you're not sharing a reference between classes, you're making sure that each class HAS a reference to the same underlying memory location.
Back to the metaphore, each class won't have the same phone, but each class' phone will forward to the same number (variable) none-the-less which lets them all set/get the same value in the end.
RESPONSE II:
Here's a simple example to get your head going, it's pretty easy to apply to your classes. I didn't compile it but it should work minus a typo or two possibly.
class A
{
public:
A(int& shared) : m_shared(shared)
{
//No actions needed, initializer list initializes
//reference above. We'll just increment the variable
//so you can see it's shared in main.
m_shared += 7;
}
void DoSomethingWithIt()
{
//Will always reflect value in main no matter which object
//we are talking about.
std::cout << m_shared << std::endl;
}
private:
//Reference variable, must be initialized in
//initializer list of constructor or you'll get the same
//compiler error again.
int& m_shared;
};
int main()
{
int my_shared_integer = 0;
//Create two A instances that share my_shared_integer.
//Both A's will initialize their internal reference to
//my_shared_integer as they will take it into their
//constructors "by reference" (see & in constructor
//signature) and save it in their initializer list.
A myFirstA(my_shared_integer);
A mySecondA(my_shared_integer);
//Prints 14 as both A's incremented it by 7 in constructors.
std::cout << my_shared_integer << std::endl;
}
you pass a pointer int* as 1st argument to BufferTypeA, which expects and int, while you said in your question you meant to use a int&. To do this, the ctor of BufferTypeA should take a int& and initialise it in an initialisation list (i.e. not within the { } part of the ctor) like
class BufferType {
int &Ref;
public:
BufferTypeA(int& ref) : Ref(ref) { /* ... */ }
};
and in your construction of BufferA you must not pass an address, but the reference, i.e.
int counter;
Buffer = new BufferType(counter);
You want code like this:
Buffer::Buffer(
int ¤tThreadOrder0,
const int threadConnectionOrder0,
QWaitCondition *const waitCondition0
) :
threadConnectionOrder(threadConnectionOrder0),
waitCondition(waitCondition0),
currentThreadOrder(currentThreadOrder0)
{}
The reason is related to the reason you cannot write
const double pi;
pi = 3.14;
but can write
const double pi = 3.14;
A reference is typically implemented as a constant pointer, to which one cannot assign an address after one has initialized the pointer. Your version of the code assigns, as in the first pi example. My version of the code initializes, as in the second pi example.