Search Results

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

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

  • Problem with default member functions of class in C++ (constructor, destructor, operator=, copy cons

    - by Narek
    We know that compiler generates some member functions for user-defined class if that member functions are not defined but used, isn't it. So I have this kind of code: class AA { }; void main() { AA a; AA b(a); a = b; } This code works fine. I mean no compiler error. But the following code.... class AA { int member1; int member2; }; But this code gives an run time error, because variable "a" is used without being iniltialized!!! So my question is this: when we instantiate an int, it has a value. So why the default constructer doesn't work and by using those two int numbers initializes variable "a"??

    Read the article

  • How to make c# don't call destructor of a instance

    - by Bình Nguyên
    I have two forms and form1 needs to get data from form2, i use a parameter in form2 constructor to gets form1's instance like this: public form2(Form form1) { this.f = form1; } and in form1: Form form2 = new Form(this); But it seem form1 destruct was called when i closed form1. my question is how can i avoid this problem? EDIT: I have many typing mistakes in my question, i'm so sorry, fixed: I have two forms and form2 needs to get data from form1, i use a parameter in form1 constructor to gets form1's instance like this: private Form f; public form2(Form form1) { this.f = form1; } and in form1: Form form2 = new Form(this); But it seem form1 destruct was called when i closed form2. my question is how can i avoid this problem?

    Read the article

  • C++ LNK2019 error with constructors and destructors in derived classes

    - by BLH
    I have two classes, one inherited from the other. When I compile, I get the following errors: 1Entity.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "public: __thiscall Utility::Parsables::Base::Base(void)" (??0Base@Parsables@Utility@@QAE@XZ) referenced in function "public: __thiscall Utility::Parsables::Entity::Entity(void)" (??0Entity@Parsables@Utility@@QAE@XZ) 1Entity.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual __thiscall Utility::Parsables::Base::~Base(void)" (??1Base@Parsables@Utility@@UAE@XZ) referenced in function "public: virtual __thiscall Utility::Parsables::Entity::~Entity(void)" (??1Entity@Parsables@Utility@@UAE@XZ) 1D:\Programming\Projects\Caffeine\Debug\Caffeine.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 2 unresolved externals I really can't figure out what's going on.. can anyone see what I'm doing wrong? I'm using Visual C++ Express 2008. Here are the files.. "include/Utility/Parsables/Base.hpp" #ifndef CAFFEINE_UTILITY_PARSABLES_BASE_HPP #define CAFFEINE_UTILITY_PARSABLES_BASE_HPP namespace Utility { namespace Parsables { class Base { public: Base( void ); virtual ~Base( void ); }; } } #endif //CAFFEINE_UTILITY_PARSABLES_BASE_HPP "src/Utility/Parsables/Base.cpp" #include "Utility/Parsables/Base.hpp" namespace Utility { namespace Parsables { Base::Base( void ) { } Base::~Base( void ) { } } } "include/Utility/Parsables/Entity.hpp" #ifndef CAFFEINE_UTILITY_PARSABLES_ENTITY_HPP #define CAFFEINE_UTILITY_PARSABLES_ENTITY_HPP #include "Utility/Parsables/Base.hpp" namespace Utility { namespace Parsables { class Entity : public Base { public: Entity( void ); virtual ~Entity( void ); }; } } #endif //CAFFEINE_UTILITY_PARSABLES_ENTITY_HPP "src/Utility/Parsables/Entity.cpp" #include "Utility/Parsables/Entity.hpp" namespace Utility { namespace Parsables { Entity::Entity( void ) { } Entity::~Entity( void ) { } } }

    Read the article

  • Weird behaviour of C++ destructors

    - by Vilx-
    #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; int main() { vector< vector<int> > dp(50000, vector<int>(4, -1)); cout << dp.size(); } This tiny program takes a split second to execute when simply run from the command line. But when run in a debugger, it takes over 8 seconds. Pausing the debugger reveals that it is in the middle of destroying all those vectors. WTF? Note - Visual Studio 2008 SP1, Core 2 Duo 6700 CPU with 2GB of RAM. Added: To clarify, no, I'm not confusing Debug and Release builds. These results are on one and the same .exe, without even any recompiling inbetween. In fact, switching between Debug and Release builds changes nothing.

    Read the article

  • Destructors not called when native (C++) exception propagates to CLR component

    - by Phil Nash
    We have a large body of native C++ code, compliled into DLLs. Then we have a couple of dlls containing C++/CLI proxy code to wrap the C++ interfaces. On top of that we have C# code calling into the C++/CLI wrappers. Standard stuff, so far. But we have a lot of cases where native C++ exceptions are allowed to propagate to the .Net world and we rely on .Net's ability to wrap these as System.Exception objects and for the most part this works fine. However we have been finding that destructors of objects in scope at the point of the throw are not being invoked when the exception propagates! After some research we found that this is a fairly well known issue. However the solutions/ workarounds seem less consistent. We did find that if the native code is compiled with /EHa instead of /EHsc the issue disappears (at least in our test case it did). However we would much prefer to use /EHsc as we translate SEH exceptions to C++ exceptions ourselves and we would rather allow the compiler more scope for optimisation. Are there any other workarounds for this issue - other than wrapping every call across the native-managed boundary in a (native) try-catch-throw (in addition to the C++/CLI layer)?

    Read the article

  • help Implementing Object Oriented ansi-C approach??

    - by No Money
    Hey there, I am an Intermediate programmer in Java and know some of the basics in C++. I recently started to scam over "C language" [please note that i emphasized on C language and want to stick with C as i found it to be a perfect tool, so no need for suggestions focusing on why should i move back to C++ or Java]. Moving on, I code an Object Oriented approach in C but kindda scramble with the pointers part. Please understand that I am just a noob trying to extend my knowledge beyond what i learned in High School. Here is my code..... #include <stdio.h> typedef struct per{ int privateint; char *privateString; struct per (*New) (); void (*deleteperOBJ) (struct t_person *); void (*setperNumber) ((struct*) t_person,int); void (*setperString) ((struct*) t_person,char *); void (*dumpperState) ((struct*) t_person); }t_person; void setperNumber(t_person *const per,int num){ if(per==NULL) return; per->privateint=num; } void setperString(t_person *const per,char *string){ if(per==NULL) return; per->privateString=string; } void dumpperState(t_person *const per){ if(per==NULL) return; printf("value of private int==%d\n", per->privateint); printf("value of private string==%s\n", per->privateString); } void deleteperOBJ(struct t_person *const per){ free((void*)t_person->per); t_person ->per = NULL; } main(){ t_person *const per = (struct*) malloc(sizeof(t_person)); per = t_person -> struct per -> New(); per -> setperNumber (t_person *per, 123); per -> setperString(t_person *per, "No money"); dumpperState(t_person *per); deleteperOBJ(t_person *per); } Just to warn you, this program has several errors and since I am a beginner I couldn't help except to post this thread as a question. I am looking forward for assistance. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • C++ Suppress Automatic Initialization and Destruction

    - by Travis G
    How does one suppress the automatic initialization and destruction of a type? While it is wonderful that T buffer[100] automatically initializes all the elements of buffer, and destroys them when they fall out of scope, this is not the behavior I want. #include <iostream> static int created = 0, destroyed = 0; struct S { S() { ++created; } ~S() { ++destroyed; } }; template <typename T, size_t KCount> class Array { private: T m_buffer[KCount]; public: Array() { // some way to suppress the automatic initialization of m_buffer } ~Array() { // some way to suppress the automatic destruction of m_buffer } }; int main() { { Array<S, 100> arr; } std::cout << "Created:\t" << created << std::endl; std::cout << "Destroyed:\t" << destroyed << std::endl; return 0; } The output of this program is: Created: 100 Destroyed: 100 I would like it to be: Created: 0 Destroyed: 0 My only idea is to make m_buffer some trivially constructed and destructed type like char and then rely on operator[] to wrap the pointer math for me, although this seems like a horribly hacked solution. Another solution would be to use malloc and free, but that gives a level of indirection that I do not want.

    Read the article

  • Undefined behaviour with non-virtual destructors - is it a real-world issue?

    - by Roddy
    Consider the following code: class A { public: A() {} ~A() {} }; class B: public A { B() {} ~B() {} }; A* b = new B; delete b; // undefined behaviour My understanding is that the C++ standard says that deleting b is undefined behaviour - ie, anything could happen. But, in the real world, my experience is that ~A() is always invoked, and the memory is correctly freed. if B introduces any class members with their own destructors, they won't get invoked, but I'm only interested in the simple kind of case above, where inheritance is used maybe to fix a bug in one class method for which source code is unavailable. Obviously this isn't going to be what you want in non-trivial cases, but it is at least consistent. Are you aware of any C++ implementation where the above does NOT happen, for the code shown?

    Read the article

  • Does C++ require a destructor call for each placement new?

    - by Josh Haberman
    I understand that placement new calls are usually matched with explicit calls to the destructor. My question is: if I have no need for a destructor (no code to put there, and no member variables that have destructors) can I safely skip the explicit destructor call? Here is my use case: I want to write C++ bindings for a C API. In the C API many objects are accessible only by pointer. Instead of creating a wrapper object that contains a single pointer (which is wasteful and semantically confusing). I want to use placement new to construct an object at the address of the C object. The C++ object will do nothing in its constructor or destructor, and its methods will do nothing but delegate to the C methods. The C++ object will contain no virtual methods. I have two parts to this question. Is there any reason why this idea will not work in practice on any production compiler? Does this technically violate the C++ language spec?

    Read the article

  • Did Bjarne Stroustrup create the terms constructor/destructor when talking about objects?

    - by user104971
    I was watching this keynote and Bjarne Stroustrup (Creator of C++) claims that he hadn't yet invented the words constructor and destructor yet when he was giving an example of RAII. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBLXBJr0HU I know the concept of construction and destruction has been around a lot longer (even in C, a function that allocates and returns a struct and then a function that frees it etc.), but was Bjarne really the first to invent the terms?

    Read the article

  • Why does Java not have any destructor like C++?

    - by Abhishek Jain
    Java has its own garbage collection implementation so it does not require any destructor like C++ . This makes Java developer lazy in implementing memory management. And Garbage Collection is very expensive. Still we can have destructor along with garbage collector where developer can free resources and which can save garbage collector's work. This might improves the performance of application. Why does Java not provide any destructor kind of mechanism? Developer does not have control over GC but he/she can control or create object. Then why not give them ability to destruct the objects?

    Read the article

  • Who calls the Destructor of the class when operator delete is used in multiple inheritance.

    - by dicaprio-leonard
    This question may sound too silly, however , I don't find concrete answer any where else. With little knowledge on how late binding works and virtual keyword used in inheritance. As in the code sample, when in case of inheritance where a base class pointer pointing to a derived class object created on heap and delete operator is used to deallocate the memory , the destructor of the of the derived and base will be called in order only when the base destructor is declared virtual function. Now my question is : 1) When the destructor of base is not virtual, why the problem of not calling derived dtor occur only when in case of using "delete" operator , why not in the case given below: derived drvd; base *bPtr; bPtr = &drvd; //DTOR called in proper order when goes out of scope. 2) When "delete" operator is used, who is reponsible to call the destructor of the class? The operator delete will have an implementation to call the DTOR ? or complier writes some extra stuff ? If the operator has the implementation then how does it looks like , [I need sample code how this would have been implemented]. 3) If virtual keyword is used in this example, how does operator delete now know which DTOR to call? Fundamentaly i want to know who calls the dtor of the class when delete is used. Sample Code class base { public: base() { cout<<"Base CTOR called"<<endl; } virtual ~base() { cout<<"Base DTOR called"<<endl; } }; class derived:public base { public: derived() { cout<<"Derived CTOR called"<<endl; } ~derived() { cout<<"Derived DTOR called"<<endl; } }; I'm not sure if this is a duplicate, I couldn't find in search. int main() { base *bPtr = new derived(); delete bPtr;// only when you explicitly try to delete an object return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Why is object destructor not called when script terminates ?

    - by planetp
    I have a test script like this: package Test; sub new { bless {} } sub DESTROY { print "in DESTROY\n" } package main; my $t = new Test; sleep 10; The destructor is called after sleep returns (and before the program terminates). But it's not called if the script is terminated with Ctrl-C. Is it possible to have the destructor called in this case also?

    Read the article

  • Is it worth setting pointers to NULL in a destructor?

    - by Rob
    Imagine I have a class that allocates memory (forget about smart pointers for now): class Foo { public: Foo() : bar(new Bar) { } ~Foo() { delete bar; } void doSomething() { bar->doSomething(); } private: Bar* bar; }; As well as deleting the objects in the destructor is it also worth setting them to NULL? I'm assuming that setting the pointer to NULL in the destructor of the example above is a waste of time.

    Read the article

  • how to get stl map to construct/destruct inserted object only once.

    - by Alberto Toglia
    I have found a very prejudicial fact about stl maps. For some reason I cant get objects being inserted in the map to get constructed/destructed only once. Example: struct MyObject{ MyObject(){ cout << "constructor" << endl; } ~MyObject(){ cout << "destructor" << endl; } }; int main() { std::map<int, MyObject> myObjectsMap; myObjectsMap[0] = MyObject(); return 0; } returns: constructor destructor destructor constructor destructor If I do: typedef std::pair<int, MyObject> MyObjectPair; myObjectsMap.insert( MyObjectPair(0,MyObject())); returns: constructor destructor destructor destructor I'm inserting Objects responsible for their own memory allocation, so when destructed they'll clean themselves up, being destructed several times is causing me some trouble.

    Read the article

  • Why is the destructor called when the CPython garbage collector is disabled?

    - by Frederik
    I'm trying to understand the internals of the CPython garbage collector, specifically when the destructor is called. So far, the behavior is intuitive, but the following case trips me up: Disable the GC. Create an object, then remove a reference to it. The object is destroyed and the __del__ method is called. I thought this would only happen if the garbage collector was enabled. Can someone explain why this happens? Is there a way to defer calling the destructor? import gc import unittest _destroyed = False class MyClass(object): def __del__(self): global _destroyed _destroyed = True class GarbageCollectionTest(unittest.TestCase): def testExplicitGarbageCollection(self): gc.disable() ref = MyClass() ref = None # The next test fails. # The object is automatically destroyed even with the collector turned off. self.assertFalse(_destroyed) gc.collect() self.assertTrue(_destroyed) if __name__=='__main__': unittest.main() Disclaimer: this code is not meant for production -- I've already noted that this is very implementation-specific and does not work on Jython.

    Read the article

  • Constructor and Destructors in C++ [Not a question] [closed]

    - by Jack
    I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong - Lets say I have two classes A & B class A { public: A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;} }; class B:public A { public: B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;} ~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;} }; 1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way? 2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph) 3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • C++ destructos causing crash's

    - by larsonator
    ok, so i got a some what intricate program that simulates the uni systems of students, units, and students enrolling in units. Students are stored in a binary search tree, Units are stored in a standard list. Student has a list of Unit Pointers, to store which units he/she is enrolled in Unit has a list of Student pointers, to store students which are enrolled in that unit. The unit collections (storing units in a list) as made as a static variable where the main function is, as is the Binary search tree of students. when its finaly time to close the program, i call the destructors of each. but at some stage, during the destructors on the unit side, Unhandled exception at 0x002e4200 in ClassAllocation.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x00000000. UnitCollection destructor: UnitCol::~UnitCol() { list<Unit>::iterator itr; for(itr = UnitCollection.begin(); itr != UnitCollection.end();) { UnitCollection.pop_front(); itr = UnitCollection.begin(); } } Unit Destructor Unit::~Unit() { } now i got the same sorta problem on the student side of things BST destructors void StudentCol::Destructor(const BTreeNode * r) { if(r!= 0) { Destructor(r->getLChild()); Destructor(r->getRChild()); delete r; } } StudentCol::~StudentCol() { Destructor(root); } Student Destructor Student::~Student() { } so yeah any help would be greatly appreciated

    Read the article

  • C++ destructors causing crash's

    - by larsonator
    ok, so i got a some what intricate program that simulates the uni systems of students, units, and students enrolling in units. Students are stored in a binary search tree, Units are stored in a standard list. Student has a list of Unit Pointers, to store which units he/she is enrolled in Unit has a list of Student pointers, to store students which are enrolled in that unit. The unit collections (storing units in a list) as made as a static variable where the main function is, as is the Binary search tree of students. when its finaly time to close the program, i call the destructors of each. but at some stage, during the destructors on the unit side, Unhandled exception at 0x002e4200 in ClassAllocation.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x00000000. UnitCollection destructor: UnitCol::~UnitCol() { list<Unit>::iterator itr; for(itr = UnitCollection.begin(); itr != UnitCollection.end();) { UnitCollection.pop_front(); itr = UnitCollection.begin(); } } Unit Destructor Unit::~Unit() { } now i got the same sorta problem on the student side of things BST destructors void StudentCol::Destructor(const BTreeNode * r) { if(r!= 0) { Destructor(r->getLChild()); Destructor(r->getRChild()); delete r; } } StudentCol::~StudentCol() { Destructor(root); } Student Destructor Student::~Student() { } so yeah any help would be greatly appreciated

    Read the article

  • Constructor and Destructors in C++ work?

    - by Jack
    I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong - Lets say I have two classes A & B class A { public: A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;} }; class B:public A { public: B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;} ~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;} }; 1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way? 2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph) 3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land. Please comment.

    Read the article

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