C++ default constructor, initializing pointer with new object

29,080

Solution 1

That's because you are trying to delete too much:

  • you are deleting a non-allocated object in the second constructor (remove delete yc;)
  • you are trying to delete a stack-allocated object, b. delete a; will try to delete a pointer to b, which is an object on the stack; what happens depend on your OS (I expect an exception/core dump/whatever)

EDIT: another problem I spotted.. a->setMyClass(NULL)

I would suggest:

  • this post on smart pointers
  • this blog post on RAII
  • any C/C++ primer explaining stack vs. heap allocation (static vs. dynamic?)

Solution 2

You're violating the rule of three.

What is The Rule of Three?

Also this is recipe for disaster:

 myClass(yourClass * tyc ) { delete yc; yc = tyc; }

What happens if tyc==yc? Right. Not pretty :)

 myClass(yourClass * tyc ) { if (yc!=tyc) { delete yc; yc = tyc; } }
Share:
29,080
Alex
Author by

Alex

Updated on July 09, 2022

Comments

  • Alex
    Alex almost 2 years

    I have the following problem: In myClass I want to default initialize a pointer to yourClass, with a new yourClass adress. Unfortunately, if I want to delete the pointer at any point I get a (core dump).

    class myClass
    {
          protected:
          yourClass * yc;
    
          public:
          myClass() { yc = new yourClass(); }
    
          myClass(yourClass * tyc ) { delete yc; yc = tyc; }
    
          ~myClass() { delete yc; yc = NULL; }
    
          void setMyClass (yourClass * tyc) { delete yc; yc = tyc; }
    
          void print () { yc->print(); }
    };
    
    int main()
    {
      yourClass b (//parameter);
      myClass * a = new myClass();
      a->print();
      a->setMyClass(&b)
      a->print();
    
      delete a;
      return 0;
    }
    

    The print() of a, should result in two different prints, dependent on //parameters.

    I considered yourClass yc; instead of a yourClass* yc, but I want to know if it is possible.

    EDIT: I reworked the code in the following way and it works. Still looks complicated, smart pointers seem promising and I still did not apply the "Rule of Three". Here the code. Thanks all.

    class myClass
    {
          protected:
          yourClass * yc;
          bool dynamic;
    
          public:
            myClass() { dynamic = true; yc = new yourClass (); }
            myClass (yourClass * tyc ) 
            { 
              // dynamic init (like default)
              if (tyc == NULL ) { dynamic = true; yc = new yourClass (); }
              // static use of yc
              else { dynamic = false; yc = tyc; } 
            }
            // because only if dynamic is true, we need to erase
            ~blu () { if (dynamic) { delete yc; dynamic = false; } } 
    
            void setMyClass(yourClass* tyc) 
            { 
              // leaving unchanged if new-stuff is NULL or like old-stuff
              if ( tyc == yc || tyc == NULL ) return;
              else // treating dynamic and static differently
              { 
                if (dynamic) // if flag is set, must be deleted 
                {
                  delete yc; yc = tyc; dynamic = false;
                }
                else // must not be deleted, dynamic is still false
                {
                  yc = tyc;
                }
              }
            }
            void print () { yc->print(); }
    };
    
  • Crog
    Crog over 11 years
    A work around for the second issue may be to store a flag for 'ownsYc' which you could set as false when setMyClass () is called and only delete yc in the destructor if the flag is true
  • Lorenzo Dematté
    Lorenzo Dematté over 11 years
    it is more disaster than that :) in the constructor, yc will always be not initialized: if you are lucky, it's delete NULL (segfault); otherwise it's delete some-random-thing
  • Lorenzo Dematté
    Lorenzo Dematté over 11 years
    @Crog ...ummm... yes, but still it is a very, very dangerous design.. In C++, I believe it is always better to have RIIA; besides, there are smart pointers (stroustrup.com)
  • Lorenzo Dematté
    Lorenzo Dematté over 11 years
    So the code you are proposing will crash anyway (assume the compiler initialize yc to 0...)
  • sehe
    sehe over 11 years
    @dema80 I agree, I didn't have the time to actually read that code. Shame on me. I just thought I'd highlight this classic pitfall, since it is slightly more subtle (even Scott Meyer once published a smartptr with this type of bug, in a book)