Search Results

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

Page 6/14 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• Using C++, why can `throw` cause `terminate()`, and when are the stack variables to be freed?

  - by nbolton

  I'm pondering a question on Brainbench. I actually realised that I could answer my question easily by compiling the code, but it's an interesting question nonetheless, so I'll ask the question anyway and answer it myself shortly. Take a look at this snippet: The question considers what happens when we throw from a destructor (which causes terminate() to be called). It's become clear to me by asking the question that the memory is indeed freed and the destructor is called, but, is this before or after throw is called from foo? Perhaps the issue here is that throw is used while the stack is unwinding that is the problem... Actually this is slightly confusing.

  Read the article

• Unique_ptr compiler errors

  - by Godric Seer

  I am designing and entity-component system for a project, and C++ memory management is giving me a few issues. I just want to make sure my design is legitimate. So to start I have an Entity class which stores a vector of Components: class Entity { private: std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Component> > components; public: Entity() { }; void AddComponent(Component* component) { this -> components.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Component>(component)); } ~Entity(); }; Which if I am not mistaken means that when the destructor is called (even the default, compiler created one), the destructor for the Entity, will call ~components, which will call ~std::unique_ptr for each element in the vector, and lead to the destruction of each Component, which is what I want. The component class has virtual methods, but the important part is its constructor: Component::Component(Entity parent) { parent.addComponent(this) // I am not sure if this would work like I expect // Other things here } As long as passing this to the method works, this also does what I want. My confusion is in the factory. What I want to do is something along the lines of: std::shared_ptr<Entity> createEntity() { std::shared_ptr<Entity> entityPtr(new Entity()); new Component(*parent); // Initialize more, and other types of Components return entityPtr; } Now, I believe that this setup will leave the ownership of the Component in the hands of its Parent Entity, which is what I want. First a small question, do I need to pass the entity into the Component constructor by reference or pointer or something? If I understand C++, it would pass by value, which means it gets copied, and the copied entity would die at the end of the constructor. The second, and main question is that code based on this sample will not compile. The complete error is too large to print here, however I think I know somewhat of what is going on. The compiler's error says I can't delete an incomplete type. My Component class has a purely virtual destructor with an implementation: inline Component::~Component() { }; at the end of the header. However since the whole point is that Component is actually an interface. I know from here that a complete type is required for unique_ptr destruction. The question is, how do I work around this? For reference I am using gcc 4.4.6.

  Read the article

• Does `throw` cause stack variables (full types) to be freed from memory in C++?

  - by nbolton

  I'm pondering a question on Brainbench. I actually realised that I could answer my question easily by compiling the code, but it's an interesting question nonetheless, so I'll ask the question anyway and answer it myself shortly. Take a look at this snippet: The question considers what happens when we throw from a destructor (which causes terminate() to be called). It's become clear to me by asking the question that the memory is indeed freed and the destructor is called, but, is this before or after throw is called from foo? Perhaps the issue here is that throw is used while the stack is unwinding that is the problem... Actually this is slightly confusing.

  Read the article

• Does `throw` cause stack variables to be freed from memory in C++?

  - by nbolton

  I'm pondering a question on Brainbench. I actually realised that I could answer my question easily by compiling the code, but it's an interesting question nonetheless, so I'll ask the question anyway and answer it myself shortly. Take a look at this snippet: The question considers what happens when we throw from a destructor (which causes terminate() to be called). It's become clear to me by asking the question that the memory is indeed freed and the destructor is called, but, is this before or after throw is called from foo? Perhaps the issue here is that throw is used while the stack is unwinding that is the problem... Actually this is slightly confusing.

  Read the article

• Bad_alloc exception when using new for a struct c++

  - by bsg

  Hi, I am writing a query processor which allocates large amounts of memory and tries to find matching documents. Whenever I find a match, I create a structure to hold two variables describing the document and add it to a priority queue. Since there is no way of knowing how many times I will do this, I tried creating my structs dynamically using new. When I pop a struct off the priority queue, the queue (STL priority queue implementation) is supposed to call the object's destructor. My struct code has no destructor, so I assume a default destructor is called in that case. However, the very first time that I try to create a DOC struct, I get the following error: Unhandled exception at 0x7c812afb in QueryProcessor.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: std::bad_alloc at memory location 0x0012f5dc.. I don't understand what's happening - have I used up so much memory that the heap is full? It doesn't seem likely. And it's not as if I've even used that pointer before. So: first of all, what am I doing that's causing the error, and secondly, will the following code work more than once? Do I need to have a separate pointer for each struct created, or can I re-use the same temporary pointer and assume that the queue will keep a pointer to each struct? Here is my code: struct DOC{ int docid; double rank; public: DOC() { docid = 0; rank = 0.0; } DOC(int num, double ranking) { docid = num; rank = ranking; } bool operator>( const DOC & d ) const { return rank > d.rank; } bool operator<( const DOC & d ) const { return rank < d.rank; } }; //a lot of processing goes on here; when a matching document is found, I do this: rank = calculateRanking(table, num); //if the heap is not full, create a DOC struct with the docid and rank and add it to the heap if(q.size() < 20) { doc = new DOC(num, rank); q.push(*doc); doc = NULL; } //if the heap is full, but the new rank is greater than the //smallest element in the min heap, remove the current smallest element //and add the new one to the heap else if(rank > q.top().rank) { q.pop(); cout << "pushing doc on to queue" << endl; doc = new DOC(num, rank); q.push(*doc); } Thank you very much, bsg.

  Read the article

• Performance implications of finalizers on JVM

  - by Alexey Romanov

  According to this post, in .Net, Finalizers are actually even worse than that. Besides that they run late (which is indeed a serious problem for many kinds of resources), they are also less powerful because they can only perform a subset of the operations allowed in a destructor (e.g., a finalizer cannot reliably use other objects, whereas a destructor can), and even when writing in that subset finalizers are extremely difficult to write correctly. And collecting finalizable objects is expensive: Each finalizable object, and the potentially huge graph of objects reachable from it, is promoted to the next GC generation, which makes it more expensive to collect by some large multiple. Does this also apply to JVMs in general and to HotSpot in particular?

  Read the article

• What's the C strategy to "imitate" a C++ template ?

  - by Andrei Ciobanu

  After reading some examples on stackoverflow, and following some of the answers for my previous questions (1), I've eventually come with a "strategy" for this. I've come to this: 1) Have a declare section in the .h file. Here I will define the data-structure, and the accesing interface. Eg.: /** * LIST DECLARATION. (DOUBLE LINKED LIST) */ #define NM_TEMPLATE_DECLARE_LIST(type) \ typedef struct nm_list_elem_##type##_s { \ type data; \ struct nm_list_elem_##type##_s *next; \ struct nm_list_elem_##type##_s *prev; \ } nm_list_elem_##type ; \ typedef struct nm_list_##type##_s { \ unsigned int size; \ nm_list_elem_##type *head; \ nm_list_elem_##type *tail; \ int (*cmp)(const type e1, const type e2); \ } nm_list_##type ; \ \ nm_list_##type *nm_list_new_##type##_(int (*cmp)(const type e1, \ const type e2)); \ \ (...other functions ...) 2) Wrap the functions in the interface inside MACROS: /** * LIST INTERFACE */ #define nm_list(type) \ nm_list_##type #define nm_list_elem(type) \ nm_list_elem_##type #define nm_list_new(type,cmp) \ nm_list_new_##type##_(cmp) #define nm_list_delete(type, list, dst) \ nm_list_delete_##type##_(list, dst) #define nm_list_ins_next(type,list, elem, data) \ nm_list_ins_next_##type##_(list, elem, data) (...others...) 3) Implement the functions: /** * LIST FUNCTION DEFINITIONS */ #define NM_TEMPLATE_DEFINE_LIST(type) \ nm_list_##type *nm_list_new_##type##_(int (*cmp)(const type e1, \ const type e2)) \ {\ nm_list_##type *list = NULL; \ list = nm_alloc(sizeof(*list)); \ list->size = 0; \ list->head = NULL; \ list->tail = NULL; \ list->cmp = cmp; \ }\ void nm_list_delete_##type##_(nm_list_##type *list, \ void (*destructor)(nm_list_elem_##type elem)) \ { \ type data; \ while(nm_list_size(list)){ \ data = nm_list_rem_##type(list, tail); \ if(destructor){ \ destructor(data); \ } \ } \ nm_free(list); \ } \ (...others...) In order to use those constructs, I have to create two files (let's call them templates.c and templates.h) . In templates.h I will have to NM_TEMPLATE_DECLARE_LIST(int), NM_TEMPLATE_DECLARE_LIST(double) , while in templates.c I will need to NM_TEMPLATE_DEFINE_LIST(int) , NM_TEMPLATE_DEFINE_LIST(double) , in order to have the code behind a list of ints, doubles and so on, generated. By following this strategy I will have to keep all my "template" declarations in two files, and in the same time, I will need to include templates.h whenever I need the data structures. It's a very "centralized" solution. Do you know other strategy in order to "imitate" (at some point) templates in C++ ? Do you know a way to improve this strategy, in order to keep things in more decentralized manner, so that I won't need the two files: templates.c and templates.h ?

  Read the article

• Is extending a singleton class wrong?

  - by Anwar Shaikh

  I am creating a logger for an application. I am using a third party logger library. In which logger is implemented as singleton. I extended that logger class because I want to add some more static functions. In these static functions I internally use the instance (which is single) of Logger(which i inherited). I neither creates instance of MyLogger nor re-implemented the getInstance() method of super class. But I am still getting warnings like destructor of MyLogger can not be created as parent class (Loggger) destructor is not accessible. I want to know, I am I doing something wrong? Inheriting the singleton is wrong or should be avoided??

  Read the article

• How often do you implement the big three?

  - by Neil Butterworth

  I was just musing about the number of questions here that either are about the "big three" (copy constructor, assignment operator and destructor) or about problems caused by them not being implemented correctly, when it occurred to me that I could not remember the last time I had implemented them myself. A swift grep on my two most active projects indicate that I implement all three in only one class out of about 150. That's not to say I don't implement/declare one or more of them - obviously base classes need a virtual destructor, and a large number of my classes forbid copying using the private copy ctor & assignment op idiom. But fully implemented, there is this single lonely class, which does some reference counting. So I was wondering am I unusual in this? How often do you implement all three of these functions? Is there any pattern to the classes where you do implement them?

  Read the article

• Boost::asio bug in MSVC10 - Failing BOOST_WORKAROUND in ~buffer_debug_check() in buffer.hpp

  - by shaz

  A straight compilation of example http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/doc/html/boost_asio/tutorial/tutdaytime3/src.html results in a runtime null pointer exception. Stack trace points to the buffer_debug_check destructor which contains this comment: // MSVC's string iterator checking may crash in a std::string::iterator // object's destructor when the iterator points to an already-destroyed // std::string object, unless the iterator is cleared first. The test #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, = 1400) succeeds in MSVC10 and (but) results in a null pointer exception in c:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\include\xutility line 123 _Iterator_base12& operator=(const _Iterator_base12& _Right) { // assign an iterator if (_Myproxy != _Right._Myproxy) _Adopt(_Right._Myproxy->_Mycont); return (*this); } _Right._Myproxy is NULL

  Read the article

• Are destructors of automatic objects invoked when terminate is called?

  - by nbolton

  I'm pondering a question on Brainbench. I actually realised that I could answer my question easily by compiling the code, but it's an interesting question nonetheless, so I'll ask the question anyway and answer it myself shortly. Take a look at this snippet: The question considers what happens when we throw from a destructor (which causes terminate() to be called). It's become clear to me by asking the question that the memory is indeed freed and the destructor is called, but, is this before or after throw is called from foo? Perhaps the issue here is that throw is used while the stack is unwinding that is the problem... Actually this is slightly confusing.

  Read the article

• C++: Delete a struct?

  - by Rosarch

  I have a struct that contains pointers: struct foo { char* f; int* d; wchar* m; } I have a vector of shared pointers to these structs: vector<shared_ptr<foo>> vec; vec is allocated on the stack. When it passes out of scope at the end of the method, its destructor will be called. (Right?) That will in turn call the destructor of each element in the vector. (Right?) Does calling delete foo delete just the pointers such as foo.f, or does it actually free the memory from the heap?

  Read the article

• Returning objects with dynamic memory

  - by Caulibrot

  I'm having trouble figuring out a way to return an object (declared locally within the function) which has dynamic memory attached to it. The problem is the destructor, which runs and deletes the dynamic memory when the object goes out of scope, i.e. when I return it and want to use the data in the memory that has been deleted! I'm doing this for an overloaded addition operator. I'm trying to do something like: MyObj operator+( const MyObj& x, const MyObj& y ) { MyObj z; // code to add x and y and store in dynamic memory of z return z; } My destructor is simply: MyObj::~MyObj() { delete [] ptr; } Any suggestions would be much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Destructors for C++ Interface-like classes

  - by sdg

  Starting to use PC-Lint on an existing code base (fear and trepidation). One thing that it complains about is the following: class IBatch { public: virtual void StartBatch() =0; virtual int CommitBatch() =0; }; Which when another class derives from this to use it like an interface base class 'IBatch' has no destructor So, the question: when you create Interface classes like the above, do you always include a virtual destructor? Why? (is it a style or a coding error?)

  Read the article

• The difference between delete and delete [] in C++

  - by Ilya Melamed

  I've written a class that contains two pointers, one is char* color_ and one in vertexesset* vertex_ where vertexesset is a class I created. In the destractor I've written at start delete [] color_; delete [] vertex_; When It came to the destructor it gave me a segmentation fault. Then I changed the destructor to: delete [] color_; delete vertex_; And now it works fine. What is the difference between the two?

  Read the article

• Possible mem leak?

  - by LCD Fire

  I'm new to the concept so don't be hard on me. why doesn't this code produce a destructor call ? The names of the classes are self-explanatory. The SString will print a message in ~SString(). It only prints one destructor message. int main(int argc, TCHAR* argv[]) { smart_ptr<SString> smt(new SString("not lost")); new smart_ptr<SString>(new SString("but lost")); return 0; } Is this a memory leak? The impl. for smart_ptr is from here edited: //copy ctor smart_ptr(const smart_ptr<T>& ptrCopy) { m_AutoPtr = new T(ptrCopy.get()); } //overloading = operator smart_ptr<T>& operator=(smart_ptr<T>& ptrCopy) { if(m_AutoPtr) delete m_AutoPtr; m_AutoPtr = new T(*ptrCopy.get()); return *this; }

  Read the article

• Implementing the ‘defer’ statement from Go in Objective-C?

  - by zoul

  Hello! Today I read about the defer statement in the Go language: A defer statement pushes a function call onto a list. The list of saved calls is executed after the surrounding function returns. Defer is commonly used to simplify functions that perform various clean-up actions. I thought it would be fun to implement something like this in Objective-C. Do you have some idea how to do it? I thought about dispatch finalizers, autoreleased objects and C++ destructors. Autoreleased objects: @interface Defer : NSObject {} + (id) withCode: (dispatch_block_t) block; @end @implementation Defer - (void) dealloc { block(); [super dealloc]; } @end #define defer(__x) [Defer withCode:^{__x}] - (void) function { defer(NSLog(@"Done")); … } Autoreleased objects seem like the only solution that would last at least to the end of the function, as the other solutions would trigger when the current scope ends. On the other hand they could stay in the memory much longer, which would be asking for trouble. Dispatch finalizers were my first thought, because blocks live on the stack and therefore I could easily make something execute when the stack unrolls. But after a peek in the documentation it doesn’t look like I can attach a simple “destructor” function to a block, can I? C++ destructors are about the same thing, I would create a stack-based object with a block to be executed when the destructor runs. This would have the ugly disadvantage of turning the plain .m files into Objective-C++? I don’t really think about using this stuff in production, I’m just interested in various solutions. Can you come up with something working, without obvious disadvantages? Both scope-based and function-based solutions would be interesting.

  Read the article

• First-chance exception at std::set dectructor

  - by bartek

  Hi, I have a strange exception at my class destructor: First-chance exception reading location 0x00000 class DispLst{ // For fast instance existance test std::set< std::string > instances; [...] DispLst::~DispLst(){ this->clean(); DeleteCriticalSection( &instancesGuard ); } <---- here instances destructor raises exception Call stack: X.exe!std::_Tree,std::allocator ,std::less,std::allocator ,std::allocator,std::allocator ,0 ::begin() Line 556 + 0xc bytes C++ X.exe!std::_Tree,std::allocator ,std::less,std::allocator ,std::allocator,std::allocator ,0 ::_Tidy() Line 1421 + 0x64 bytes C++ X.exe!std::_Tree,std::allocator ,std::less,std::allocator ,std::allocator,std::allocator ,0 ::~_Tree,std::allocator ,std::less,std::allocator ,std::allocator,std::allocator ,0 () Line 541 C++ X.exe!std::set,std::allocator ,std::less,std::allocator ,std::allocator,std::allocator ::~set,std::allocator ,std::less,std::allocator ,std::allocator,std::allocator () + 0x2b bytes C++ X.exe!DispLst::~DispLst() Line 82 + 0xf bytes C++ The exact place of error in xtree: void _Tidy() { // free all storage erase(begin(), end()); <------------------- HERE this->_Alptr.destroy(&_Left(_Myhead)); this->_Alptr.destroy(&_Parent(_Myhead)); this->_Alptr.destroy(&_Right(_Myhead)); this->_Alnod.deallocate(_Myhead, 1); _Myhead = 0, _Mysize = 0; } iterator begin() { // return iterator for beginning of mutable sequence return (_TREE_ITERATOR(_Lmost())); <---------------- HERE } What is going on ? I'm using Visual Studio 2008.

  Read the article

• iPhone static library Clang/LLVM error: non_lazy_symbol_pointers

  - by Bekenn

  After several hours of experimentation, I've managed to reduce the problem to the following example (C++): extern "C" void foo(); struct test { ~test() { } }; void doTest() { test t; // 1 foo(); // 2 } This is being compiled for iOS devices in XCode 4.2, using the provided Clang compiler (Apple LLVM compiler 3.0) and the iOS 5.0 SDK. The project is configured as a Cocoa Touch Static Library, and "Enable Linking With Shared Libraries" is set to No because I'm building an AIR native extension. The function foo is defined in another external library. (In my actual project, this would be any of the C API functions defined by Adobe for use in AIR native extensions.) When attempting to compile this code, I get back the error: FATAL:incompatible feature used: section type non_lazy_symbol_pointers (must specify "-dynamic" to be used) clang: error: assembler command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation) The error goes away if I comment out either of the lines marked 1 or 2 above, or if I change the build setting "Enable Linking With Shared Libraries" to Yes. (However, if I change the build setting, then I get multiple ld warning: unexpected srelocation type 9 warnings when linking the library into the final project, and the application crashes when running on the device.) The build error also goes away if I remove the destructor from test. So: Is this a bug in Clang? Am I missing some all-important and undocumented build setting? The interaction between an externally-provided function and a struct with a destructor is very peculiar, to say the least.

  Read the article

• Why the composite component fails to parent controls?

  - by lyborko

  Hi, I created my own Component : TPage , which Contains Subcomponent TPaper (TPanel). The problem is, that when I put controls such as TMemo or TButton on the TPaper (which fills up nearly whole area), the controls do not load at all. see example below TPaper = class(TPanel) protected constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);override; destructor Destroy;override; public procedure Paint; override; end; TPage = class(TCustomControl) private FPaper:TPaper; protected procedure CreateParams(var Params:TCreateParams); override; public constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);override; destructor Destroy;override; published property Paper: TPaper read FPaper write FPaper; end; constructor TPage.Create(AOwner: TComponent); begin inherited Create(AOwner); PaperOrientation:=poPortrait; PaperSize:=psA4; PaperBrush:=TBrush.Create; PaperBrush.Color:=clWhite; PDFDocument:=Nil; FPaper:=TPaper.Create(Self); FPaper.Parent:=Self; FPaper.SetSubComponent(True); end; ... Memo1 is parented in TPaper (TPanel) at design-time, but after pressing "Run" it does not exist. procedure TForm1.btn1Click(Sender: TObject); begin if not Assigned(Memo1) then ShowMessage('I do not exist'); //Memo1 is nil end; Have you any idea what's wrong? Thanks a lot P.S Delphi 7 When I put TMemo inside TPaper and save the unit (Unit1), after inspection of associated dfm file, there is no trace of TMemo component. (Thats why it can not load to app.)

  Read the article

• Disposing ActiveX resources owned by another thread

  - by Stefan Teitge

  I've got a problem problem with threading and disposing resources. I've got a C# Windows Forms application which runs expensive operation in a thread. This thread instantiates an ActiveX control (AxControl). This control must be disposed as it uses a high amount of memory. So I implemented a Dispose() method and even a destructor. After the thread ends the destructor is called. This is sadly called by the UI thread. So invoking activexControl.Dispose(); fails with the message "COM object that has been separated from its underlying RCW", as the object belongs to another thread. How to do this correctly or is it just a bad design I use? (I stripped the code down to the minimum including removing any safety concerns.) class Program { [STAThread] static void Main() { // do stuff here, e.g. open a form new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunStuff); // do more stuff } private void RunStuff() { DoStuff stuff = new DoStuff(); stuff.PerformStuff(); } } class DoStuff : IDisposable { private AxControl activexControl; DoStuff() { activexControl = new AxControl(); activexControl.CreateControl(); // force instance } ~DoStuff() { Dispose(); } public void Dispose() { activexControl.Dispose(); } public void PerformStuff() { // invent perpetuum mobile here, takes time } }

  Read the article

• Why are my connections not closed even if I explicitly dispose of the DataContext?

  - by Chris Simpson

  I encapsulate my linq to sql calls in a repository class which is instantiated in the constructor of my overloaded controller. The constructor of my repository class creates the data context so that for the life of the page load, only one data context is used. In my destructor of the repository class I explicitly call the dispose of the DataContext though I do not believe this is necessary. Using performance monitor, if I watch my User Connections count and repeatedly load a page, the number increases once per page load. Connections do not get closed or reused (for about 20 minutes). I tried putting Pooling=false in my config to see if this had any effect but it did not. In any case with pooling I wouldn't expect a new connection for every load, I would expect it to reuse connections. I've tried putting a break point in the destructor to make sure the dispose is being hit and sure enough it is. So what's happening? Some code to illustrate what I said above: The controller: public class MyController : Controller { protected MyRepository rep; public MyController () { rep = new MyRepository(); } } The repository: public class MyRepository { protected MyDataContext dc; public MyRepository() { dc = getDC(); } ~MyRepository() { if (dc != null) { //if (dc.Connection.State != System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed) //{ // dc.Connection.Close(); //} dc.Dispose(); } } // etc } Note: I add a number of hints and context information to the DC for auditing purposes. This is essentially why I want one connection per page load

  Read the article

• Mutual class instances in C++

  - by SepiDev

  Hi guys. What is the issue with this code? Here we have two files: classA.h and classB.h classA.h: #ifndef _class_a_h_ #define _class_a_h_ #include "classB.h" class B; //???? class A { public: A() { ptr_b = new B(); //???? } virtual ~A() { if(ptr_b) delete ptr_b; //???? num_a = 0; } int num_a; B* ptr_b; //???? }; #endif //_class_a_h_ classB.h: #ifndef _class_b_h_ #define _class_b_h_ #include "classA.h" class A; //???? class B { public: B() { ptr_a = new A(); //???? num_b = 0; } virtual ~B() { if(ptr_a) delete ptr_a; //???? } int num_b; A* ptr_a; //???? }; #endif //_class_b_h_ when I try to compile it, the compiler (g++) says: classB.h: In constructor ‘B::B()’: classB.h:12: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct A’ classB.h:6: error: forward declaration of ‘struct A’ classB.h: In destructor ‘virtual B::~B()’: classB.h:16: warning: possible problem detected in invocation of delete operator: classB.h:16: warning: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct A’ classB.h:6: warning: forward declaration of ‘struct A’ classB.h:16: note: neither the destructor nor the class-specific operator delete will be called, even if they are declared when the class is defined.

  Read the article

• C++: is it safe to work with std::vectors as if they were arrays?

  - by peoro

  I need to have a fixed-size array of elements and to call on them functions that require to know about how they're placed in memory, in particular: functions like glVertexPointer, that needs to know where the vertices are, how distant they are one from the other and so on. In my case vertices would be members of the elements to store. to get the index of an element within this array, I'd prefer to avoid having an index field within my elements, but would rather play with pointers arithmetic (ie: index of Element *x will be x - & array[0]) -- btw, this sounds dirty to me: is it good practice or should I do something else? Is it safe to use std::vector for this? Something makes me think that an std::array would be more appropriate but: Constructor and destructor for my structure will be rarely called: I don't mind about such overhead. I'm going to set the std::vector capacity to size I need (the size that would use for an std::array, thus won't take any overhead due to sporadic reallocation. I don't mind a little space overhead for std::vector's internal structure. I could use the ability to resize the vector (or better: to have a size chosen during setup), and I think there's no way to do this with std::array, since its size is a template parameter (that's too bad: I could do that even with an old C-like array, just dynamically allocating it on the heap). If std::vector is fine for my purpose I'd like to know into details if it will have some runtime overhead with respect to std::array (or to a plain C array): I know that it'll call the default constructor for any element once I increase its size (but I guess this won't cost anything if my data has got an empty default constructor?), same for destructor. Anything else?

  Read the article

• C/C++ macro/template blackmagic to generate unique name.

  - by anon

  Macros are fine. Templates are fine. Pretty much whatever it works is fine. The example is OpenGL; but the technique is C++ specific and relies on no knowledge of OpenGL. Precise problem: I want an expression E; where I do not have to specify a unique name; such that a constructor is called where E is defined, and a destructor is called where the block E is in ends. For example, consider: class GlTranslate { GLTranslate(float x, float y, float z); { glPushMatrix(); glTranslatef(x, y, z); } ~GlTranslate() { glPopMatrix(); } }; Manual solution: { GlTranslate foo(1.0, 0.0, 0.0); // I had ti give it a name ..... } // auto popmatrix Now, I have this not only for glTranslate, but lots of other PushAttrib/PopAttrib calls too. I would prefer not to have to come up with a unique name for each var. Is there some trick involving macros templates ... or something else that will automatically create a variable who's constructor is called at point of definition; and destructor called at end of block? Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >