C++11
Common mistakes : when using new and delete
it is very difficult to free all dynamically allocated memory. Even if we can do that, it is often not safe from exceptions. Let us look at a simple example:
void FunctionMethod()
{
ClassA *a = new ClassA;
SomeOtherMethod();
delete a;
}
If an exception is thrown, the “a” object is never deleted. The following example shows a safer and shorter way to do that. It uses auto_ptr which is deprecated in C++11, but the old standard is still widely used. It can be replaced with C++11 unique_ptr or scoped_ptr from Boost if possible.
void FunctionMethod(){
std::auto_ptr<ClassA> a(new ClassA);
SomeOtherMethod();
}
No matter what happens, after creating the “a” object it will be deleted as soon as the program execution exits from the scope.
However, this was just the simplest example of this C++ problem. There are many examples when deleting should be done at some other place, perhaps in an outer function or another thread. That is why the use of new/delete in pairs should be completely avoided and appropriate smart pointers should be used instead.
Common mistakes : when we forgot Virtual Destructor
This is one of the most common errors that leads to memory leaks inside derived classes if there is dynamic memory allocated inside them. There are some cases when virtual destructor is not desirable, i.e. when a class is not intended for inheritance and its size and performance is crucial. Virtual destructor or any other virtual function introduces additional data inside a class structure, i.e. a pointer to a virtual table which makes the size of any instance of the class bigger.
However, in most cases classes can be inherited even if it is not originally intended. So it is a very good practice to add a virtual destructor when a class is declared. Otherwise, if a class must not contain virtual functions due to performance reasons, it is a good practice to put a comment inside a class declaration file indicating that the class should not be inherited. One of the best options to avoid this issue is to use an IDE that supports virtual destructor creation during a class creation.
One additional point to the subject are classes/templates from the standard library. They are not intended for inheritance and they do not have a virtual destructor. If, for example, we create a new enhanced string class that publicly inherits from std::string there is possibility that somebody will use it incorrectly with a pointer or a reference to std::string and cause a memory leak.
class FunString : public std::string
{
~FunString() {
}
};
int main()
{
std::string *s = new FunString();
delete s;
}
To avoid such C++ issues, a safer way of reusing of a class/template from the standard library is to use private inheritance or composition.
Common Mistake : When Deleting an Array With “delete” or Using a Smart Pointer
Creating temporary arrays of dynamic size is often necessary. After they are not required anymore, it is important to free the allocated memory. The big problem here is that C++ requires special delete operator with [] brackets, which is forgotten very easily. The delete[] operator will not just delete the memory allocated for an array, but it will first call destructors of all objects from an array. It is also incorrect to use the delete operator without [] brackets for primitive types, even though there is no destructor for these types. There is no guarantee for every compiler that a pointer to an array will point to the first element of the array, so using delete without [] brackets can result in undefined behaviour too.
Using smart pointers, such as auto_ptr, unique_ptr<T>, shared_ptr, with arrays is also incorrect. When such a smart pointer exits from a scope, it will call a delete operator without [] brackets which results in the same issues described above. If using of a smart pointer is required for an array, it is possible to use scoped_array or shared_array from Boost or a unique_ptr<T[]> specialization.
If functionality of reference counting is not required, which is mostly the case for arrays, the most elegant way is to use STL vectors instead. They don’t just take care of releasing memory, but offer additional functionalities as well.
Common Mistake : When Returning a Local Object by Reference
This is mostly a beginner’s mistake, but it is worth mentioning since there is a lot of legacy code that suffers from this issue. Let’s look at the following code where a programmer wanted to do some kind of optimization by avoiding unnecessary copying:
Complex& SumComplex(const Complex& a, const Complex& b)
{
Complex result;
…..
return result;
}
Complex& sum = TotalComplex(a, b);
The object “sum” will now point to the local object “result”. But where is the object “result” located after the TotalComplex function is executed? Nowhere. It was located on the stack, but after the function returned the stack was unwrapped and all local objects from the function were destructed. This will eventually result in an undefined behaviour, even for primitive types. To avoid performance issues, sometimes it is possible to use return value optimization:
Complex TotalComplex(const Complex& a, const Complex& b)
{
return Complex(a.real + b.real, a.imaginar + b.imaginar);
}
Complex sum = TotalComplex(a, b);
For most of today’s compilers, if a return line contains a constructor of an object the code will be optimized to avoid all unnecessary copying - the constructor will be executed directly on the “sum” object.
Posts
