Search Results

Search found 341 results on 14 pages for 'destructor'.

Page 2/14 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What's wrong with my destructor?

    - by Ahmed Sharara
    // Sparse Array Assignment.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #include "stdafx.h" #include<iostream> using namespace std; struct node{ int row; int col; int value; node* next_in_row; node* next_in_col; }; class MultiLinkedListSparseArray { private: char *logfile; node** rowPtr; node** colPtr; // used in constructor node* find_node(node* out); node* ins_node(node* ins,int col); node* in_node(node* ins,node* z); node* get(node* in,int row,int col); bool exist(node* so,int row,int col); node* dummy; int rowd,cold; //add anything you need public: MultiLinkedListSparseArray(int rows, int cols); ~MultiLinkedListSparseArray(); void setCell(int row, int col, int value); int getCell(int row, int col); void display(); void log(char *s); void dump(); }; MultiLinkedListSparseArray::MultiLinkedListSparseArray(int rows,int cols){ rowPtr=new node* [rows+1]; colPtr=new node* [cols+1]; for(int n=0;n<=rows;n++) rowPtr[n]=NULL; for(int i=0;i<=cols;i++) colPtr[i]=NULL; rowd=rows;cold=cols; } MultiLinkedListSparseArray::~MultiLinkedListSparseArray(){ cout<<"array is deleted"<<endl; for(int i=rowd;i>=0;i--){ for(int j=cold;j>=0;j--){ if(exist(rowPtr[i],i,j)) delete get(rowPtr[i],i,j); } } // it stops in the last loop & doesnt show the done word cout<<"done"<<endl; delete [] rowPtr; delete [] colPtr; delete dummy; } void MultiLinkedListSparseArray::log(char *s){ logfile=s; } void MultiLinkedListSparseArray::setCell(int row,int col,int value){ if(exist(rowPtr[row],row,col)){ (*get(rowPtr[row],row,col)).value=value; } else{ if(rowPtr[row]==NULL){ rowPtr[row]=new node; (*rowPtr[row]).value=value; (*rowPtr[row]).row=row; (*rowPtr[row]).col=col; (*rowPtr[row]).next_in_row=NULL; (*rowPtr[row]).next_in_col=NULL; } else if((*find_node(rowPtr[row])).col<col){ node* out; out=find_node(rowPtr[row]); (*out).next_in_row=new node; (*((*out).next_in_row)).col=col; (*((*out).next_in_row)).row=row; (*((*out).next_in_row)).value=value; (*((*out).next_in_row)).next_in_row=NULL; } else if((*find_node(rowPtr[row])).col>col){ node* ins; ins=in_node(rowPtr[row],ins_node(rowPtr[row],col)); node* g=(*ins).next_in_row; (*ins).next_in_row=new node; (*((*ins).next_in_row)).col=col; (*(*ins).next_in_row).row=row; (*(*ins).next_in_row).value=value; (*(*ins).next_in_row).next_in_row=g; } } } int MultiLinkedListSparseArray::getCell(int row,int col){ return (*get(rowPtr[row],row,col)).value; } void MultiLinkedListSparseArray::display(){ for(int i=1;i<=5;i++){ for(int j=1;j<=5;j++){ if(exist(rowPtr[i],i,j)) cout<<(*get(rowPtr[i],i,j)).value<<" "; else cout<<"0"<<" "; } cout<<endl; } } node* MultiLinkedListSparseArray::find_node(node* out) { while((*out).next_in_row!=NULL) out=(*out).next_in_row; return out; } node* MultiLinkedListSparseArray::ins_node(node* ins,int col){ while(!((*ins).col>col)) ins=(*ins).next_in_row; return ins; } node* MultiLinkedListSparseArray::in_node(node* ins,node* z){ while((*ins).next_in_row!=z) ins=(*ins).next_in_col; return ins; } node* MultiLinkedListSparseArray::get(node* in,int row,int col){ dummy=new node; dummy->value=0; while((*in).col!=col){ if((*in).next_in_row==NULL){ return dummy; } in=(*in).next_in_row; } return in; } bool MultiLinkedListSparseArray::exist(node* so,int row,int col){ if(so==NULL) return false; else{ while((*so).col!=col){ if((*so).next_in_row==NULL) return false; else so=(*so).next_in_row; } return true; } }

    Read the article

  • destructor and copy-constructor calling..(why does it get called at these times)

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there, I have the following code #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Object { public: Object(int id){ cout << "Construct(" << id << ")" << endl; m_id = id; } Object(const Object& obj){ cout << "Copy-construct(" << obj.m_id << ")" << endl; m_id = obj.m_id; } Object& operator=(const Object& obj){ cout << m_id << " = " << obj.m_id << endl; m_id = obj.m_id; return *this; } ~Object(){ cout << "Destruct(" << m_id << ")" << endl; } private: int m_id; }; Object func(Object var) { return var; } int main(){ Object v1(1); cout << "( a )" << endl; Object v2(2); v2 = v1; cout << "( b )" << endl; Object v4 = v1; Object *pv5; pv5 = &v1; pv5 = new Object(5); cout << "( c )" << endl; func(v1); cout << "( d )" << endl; delete pv5; } which outputs Construct(1) ( a ) Construct(2) 2 = 1 ( b ) Copy-construct(1) Construct(5) ( c ) Copy-construct(1) Copy-construct(1) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) ( d ) Destruct(5) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) I have some issues with this, firstly why does Object v4 = v1; call the copy constructor and produce Copy-construct(1) after the printing of ( b ). Also after the printing of ( c ) the copy-constructor is again called twice?, Im not certain of how this function works to produce that Object func(Object var) { return var; } and just after that Destruct(1) gets called twice before ( d ) is printed. sorry for the long question, I'm confused with the above.

    Read the article

  • extraneous calls to copy-constructor and destructor

    - by eSKay
    [This question is a follow up to this question] class A { public: A() {cout<<"A Construction" <<endl;} A(A const& a){cout<<"A Copy Construction"<<endl;} ~A() {cout<<"A Destruction" <<endl;} }; int main() { { vector<A> t; t.push_back(A()); t.push_back(A()); // once more } } The output is: A Construction // 1 A Copy Construction // 1 A Destruction // 1 A Construction // 2 A Copy Construction // 2 A Copy Construction // WHY THIS? A Destruction // 2 A Destruction // deleting element from t A Destruction // deleting element from t A Destruction // WHY THIS?

    Read the article

  • Constructor/Destructor involving a class and a struct

    - by Bogdan Maier
    I am working on a program and need to make an array of objects, specifically I have a 31x1 array where each position is an object, (each object is basically built out of 6 ints). Here is what I have but something is wrong and i could use some help thank you. 31x1 struct header" const int days=31; struct Arr{ int days; int *M; }; typedef Arr* Array; 31x1 matrix constructor: void constr(){ int *M; M = new Expe[31]; // Expe is the class class header: class Expe { private: //0-HouseKeeping, 1-Food, 2-Transport, 3-Clothing, 4-TelNet, 5-others int *obj; } Class object constructor: Expe::Expe() { this->obj=new int[6]; } help please... because i`m pretty lost.

    Read the article

  • Why exactly is calling the destructor for the second time undefined behavior in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    As mentioned in this answer simply calling the destructor for the second time is already undefined behavior 12.4/14(3.8). For example: class Class { public: ~Class() {} }; // somewhere in code: { Class* object = new Class(); object->~Class(); delete object; // UB because at this point the destructor call is attempted again } In this example the class is designed in such a way that the destructor could be called multiple times - no things like double-deletion can happen. The memory is still allocated at the point where delete is called - the first destructor call doesn't call the ::operator delete() to release memory. For example, in Visual C++ 9 the above code looks working. Even C++ definition of UB doesn't directly prohibit things qualified as UB from working. So for the code above to break some implementation and/or platform specifics are required. Why exactly would the above code break and under what conditions?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't the C++ default destructor destroy my objects?

    - by Oszkar
    The C++ specification says the default destructor deletes all non-static members. Nevertheless, I can't manage to achieve that. I have this: class N { public: ~N() { std::cout << "Destroying object of type N"; } }; class M { public: M() { n = new N; } // ~M() { //this should happen by default // delete n; // } private: N* n; }; Then this should print the given message, but it doesn't: M* m = new M(); delete m; //this should invoke the default destructor

    Read the article

  • how to Clean up(destructor) a dynamic Array of pointers??

    - by Ahmed Sharara
    Is that Destructor is enough or do I have to iterate to delete the new nodes?? #include "stdafx.h" #include<iostream> using namespace std; struct node{ int row; int col; int value; node* next_in_row; node* next_in_col; }; class MultiLinkedListSparseArray { private: char *logfile; node** rowPtr; node** colPtr; // used in constructor node* find_node(node* out); node* ins_node(node* ins,int col); node* in_node(node* ins,node* z); node* get(node* in,int row,int col); bool exist(node* so,int row,int col); //add anything you need public: MultiLinkedListSparseArray(int rows, int cols); ~MultiLinkedListSparseArray(); void setCell(int row, int col, int value); int getCell(int row, int col); void display(); void log(char *s); void dump(); }; MultiLinkedListSparseArray::MultiLinkedListSparseArray(int rows,int cols){ rowPtr=new node* [rows+1]; colPtr=new node* [cols+1]; for(int n=0;n<=rows;n++) rowPtr[n]=NULL; for(int i=0;i<=cols;i++) colPtr[i]=NULL; } MultiLinkedListSparseArray::~MultiLinkedListSparseArray(){ // is that destructor enough?? cout<<"array is deleted"<<endl; delete [] rowPtr; delete [] colPtr; }

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between using IDisposable vs a destructor in C#?

    - by j0rd4n
    When would I implement IDispose on a class as opposed to a destructor? I read this article, but I'm still missing the point. My assumption is that if I implement IDispose on an object, I can explicitly 'destruct' it as opposed to waiting for the garbage collector to do it. Is this correct? Does that mean I should always explicitly call Dispose on an object? What are some common examples of this?

    Read the article

  • Why does the destructor of the class called twice ?

    - by dicaprio
    Apologies if the question sounds silly, I was following experts in SO and trying some examples myself, and this is one of them. I did try the search option but didn't find an answer for this kind. class A { public: A(){cout t; t.push_back(A()); // After this line , when the scope of the object is lost. } Why does the destructor of the class called twice ?

    Read the article

  • Why is the destructor of the class called twice ?

    - by dicaprio
    Apologies if the question sounds silly, I was following experts in SO and trying some examples myself, and this is one of them. I did try the search option but didn't find an answer for this kind. class A { public: A(){cout<<"A Contruction"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destruction"<<endl;} }; int main() { vector<A> t; t.push_back(A()); // After this line, when the scope of the object is lost. } Why is the destructor of the class called twice ?

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason I shouldn't do database calls from the destructor?

    - by ryeguy
    I want to create a sort of datamapper library, where you'd do something like this: $users = Users::getTable(); $users->add($newUser1); $users->add($newUser2); Now $users contains 2 user records, but they aren't yet persisted to the database. To be efficient, I'd like to flush them all at once. I would like to have a flush() method to do this (not an issue), but I'd also like for it to happen implicitly when the $users table reference falls out of scope. Is there any reason I shouldn't do this in the destructor?

    Read the article

  • Will the template argument's destructor to a templated class be called on deletion?

    - by Mutmansky
    If you have a templated base class as in the following example: class A{ A(); virtual ~A(); }; template <class T> class B : public T { B(); virtual ~B(); }; typedef B<A> C; class D : public C { D(); virtual ~D(); }; When you delete an instance of D, will the destructor of A be called? I'll probably create a test program to find out what happens, but just thinking about it, I wasn't sure what should happen.

    Read the article

  • How does the destructor know when to activate itself? Can it be relied upon?

    - by Robert Mason
    Say for example i have the following code (pure example): class a { int * p; public: a() { p = new int; ~a() { delete p; } }; a * returnnew() { a retval; return(&retval); } int main() { a * foo = returnnew(); return 0; } In returnnew(), would retval be destructed after the return of the function (when retval goes out of scope)? Or would it disable automatic destruction after i returned the address and i would be able to say delete foo; at the end of main()? Or, in a similar vein (pseudocode): void foo(void* arg) { bar = (a*)arg; //do stuff exit_thread(); } int main() { while(true) { a asdf; create_thread(foo, (void*)&asdf); } return 0; } where would the destructor go? where would i have to say delete? or is this undefined behavior? Would the only possible solution be to use the STL referenced-counted pointers? how would this be implemented? Thank you- i've used C++ for a while but never quite been in this type of situation, and don't want to create memory leaks.

    Read the article

  • Virtual destructor - How does it work?

    - by Prabhu
    Hello All, Few hours back I was fiddling with a Memory Leak issue and it turned out that I really got some basic stuff about virtual destructor wrong!! Let me put explain my class design. class Base { virtual push_elements()<br>{}<br> }; class Derived:public Base { vector<int> x; public: void push_elements(){ for(int i=0;i <5;i++) x.push_back(i); } }; void main() { Base* b = new Derived(); b->push_elements(); delete b; } The bounds checker tool reported a memory leak in the derived class vector. And I figured out that the destructor is not virtual and the derived class destructor is not called.And it surprisingly got fixed when I made the destructor virtual. But my question is "isn't the vector deallocated automatically even if the derived class destructor is not called"? Is that a quirk in BoundsChecker tool or is my understanding of virtual destructor is wrong:)

    Read the article

  • Is extending a base class with non-virtual destructor dangerous in C++

    - by Akusete
    Take the following code class A { }; class B : public A { }; class C : public A { int x; }; int main (int argc, char** argv) { A* b = new B(); A* c = new C(); //in both cases, only ~A() is called, not ~B() or ~C() delete b; //is this ok? delete c; //does this line leak memory? return 0; } when calling delete on a class with a non-virtual destructor with member functions (like class C), can the memory allocator tell what the proper size of the object is? If not, is memory leaked? Secondly, if the class has no member functions, and no explicit destructor behaviour (like class B), is everything ok? I ask this because I wanted to create a class to extend std::string, (which I know is not recommended, but for the sake of the discussion just bear with it), and overload the +=,+ operator. -Weffc++ gives me a warning because std::string has a non virtual destructor, but does it matter if the sub-class has no members and does not need to do anything in its destructor? -- FYI the += overload was to do proper file path formatting, so the path class could be used like class path : public std::string { //... overload, +=, + //... add last_path_component, remove_path_component, ext, etc... }; path foo = "/some/file/path"; foo = foo + "filename.txt"; //and so on... I just wanted to make sure someone doing this path* foo = new path(); std::string* bar = foo; delete bar; would not cause any problems with memory allocation

    Read the article

  • Linker error: wants C++ virtual base class destructor

    - by jdmuys
    Hi, I have a link error where the linker complains that my concrete class's destructor is calling its abstract superclass destructor, the code of which is missing. This is using GCC 4.2 on Mac OS X from XCode. I saw http://stackoverflow.com/questions/307352/g-undefined-reference-to-typeinfo but it's not quite the same thing. Here is the linker error message: Undefined symbols: "ConnectionPool::~ConnectionPool()", referenced from: AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool::~AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool()in RKConnector.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Here is the abstract base class declaration: class ConnectionPool { public: static ConnectionPool* newPool(std::string h, short p, std::string u, std::string pw, std::string b); virtual ~ConnectionPool() =0; virtual int keepAlive() =0; virtual int disconnect() =0; virtual sql::Connection * getConnection(char *compression_scheme = NULL) =0; virtual void releaseConnection(sql::Connection * theConnection) =0; }; Here is the concrete class declaration: class AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool: public ConnectionPool { protected: <snip data members> public: AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool(std::string h, short p, std::string u, std::string pw, std::string b); virtual ~AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool(); virtual int keepAlive(); // will make sure the connection doesn't time out. Call regularly virtual int disconnect(); // disconnects/destroys all connections. virtual sql::Connection * getConnection(char *compression_scheme = NULL); virtual void releaseConnection(sql::Connection * theConnection); }; Needless to say, all those members are implemented. Here is the destructor: AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool::~AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool() { printf("AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool destructor call"); // nothing to destruct in fact } and also maybe the factory routine: ConnectionPool* ConnectionPool::newPool(std::string h, short p, std::string u, std::string pw, std::string b) { return new AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool(h, p, u, pw, b); } I can fix this by artificially making my abstract base class concrete. But I'd rather do something better. Any idea? Thanks

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • C++ destructor problem with boost::scoped_ptr

    - by bb-generation
    I have a question about the following code: #include <iostream> #include <boost/scoped_ptr.hpp> class Interface { }; class A : public Interface { public: A() { std::cout << "A()" << std::endl; } virtual ~A() { std::cout << "~A()" << std::endl; } }; Interface* get_a() { A* a = new A; return a; } int main() { { std::cout << "1" << std::endl; boost::scoped_ptr<Interface> x(get_a()); std::cout << "2" << std::endl; } std::cout << "3" << std::endl; } It creates the following output: 1 A() 2 3 As you can see, it doesn't call the destructor of A. The only way I see to get the destructor of A being called, is to add a destructor for the Interface class like this: virtual ~Interface() { } But I really want to avoid any Implementation in my Interface class and virtual ~Interface() = 0; doesn't work (produces some linker errors complaining about a non existing implementation of ~Interface(). So my question is: What do I have to change in order to make the destructor being called, but (if possible) leave the Interface as an Interface (only abstract methods).

    Read the article

  • C++: Constructor/destructor unresolved when not inline?

    - by Anamon
    In a plugin-based C++ project, I have a TmpClass that is used to exchange data between the main application and the plugins. Therefore the respective TmpClass.h is included in the abstract plugin interface class that is included by the main application project, and implemented by each plugin. As the plugins work on STL vectors of TmpClass instances, there needs to be a default constructor and destructor for the TmpClass. I had declared these in TmpClass.h: class TmpClass { TmpClass(); ~TmpClass(); } and implemented them in TmpClass.cpp. TmpClass::~TmpClass() {} TmpClass::TmpClass() {} However, when compiling plugins this leads to the linker complaining about two unresolved externals - the default constructor and destructor of TmpClass as required by the std::vector<TmpClass> template instantiation - even though all other functions I declare in TmpClass.h and implement in TmpClass.cpp work. As soon as I remove the (empty) default constructor and destructor from the .cpp file and inline them into the class declaration in the .h file, the plugins compile and work. Why is it that the default constructor and destructor have to be inline for this code to compile? Why does it even maatter? (I'm using MSVC++8).

    Read the article

  • Constructor and Destructor of a singleton object called twice

    - by Bikram990
    I'm facing a problem in singleton object in c++. Here is the explanation: Problem info: I have a 4 shared libraries (say libA.so, libB.so, libC.so, libD.so) and 2 executable binary files each using one another shared library( say libE.so) which deals with files. The purpose of libE.so is to write data into a file and if the executable restarts or size of file exceeds a certain limit it is zipped and a new file is created with time stamp in name. It is using singleton object. It exports a handler class for getting and using singleton. Compressing only happens in the above said two cases. The user/loader executable can specify the starting name of file only no other control is provided by handler class. libA.so, libB.so, libC.so and libD.so have almost same behavior. They all have a class and declare and object of an handler which gets the instance of the singleton in libE.so and uses it for further purpose. All these libraries are linked to two executable binary files. If only one of the two executable runs then its fine, But if both executable runs one after other then the file of the first started executable gets compressed. Debug info: The constructor and destructor of the singleton object is called twice.(for each executable) The object of singleton is a static object and never deleted. The executable is not able to exit/return gives: glibc detected * (exe1 or exe2): double free or corruption (!prev): some_addr * Running with binaries valgrind gives that the above error is due to the destructor of the singleton object. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >