Skip to main content

Do not delete [] a scalar pointer !!!

Recently I got tangled into this problem in my code - Calling a vector dtor for a scalar pointer. We all know that it is perfectly illegal to do that. For example, if we allocate something like this:-

OurClass *p = new OurClass();

and try to delete like this:-
delete []p;

then we are going to end up in trouble. Ofcourse we know that we will end up in trouble. But I have really not given a thought HOW ?

When we allocate an array of items eg. OurClass pa[] = new[5] pa(), the compiler actually allocates the necessary amount of memory, calls the ctors for each allocated class and also prefixes the block of memory of the 'n' items allocated with the number of items allocated.

NumItems | OurClassObject1 | OurClassObject2 | ...... | OurClassObjectn

But pa always points to the first item in the allocation, thereby the item count prefix remains hidden. When we call delete[] pa, the compiler uses the item count prefix to delete the allocated objects and call the dtors.

Now i think i don't need explain any further as what happens when i use delete []p, and what junk value will the compiler take from the memory location just before the memory location p believing it to be the item count.

I learnt this interesting information from OldNewThing Blog. Adam Nathan has explained it well with the compiler generated assembly and a bit of excellent code for the dtor.

And what if we do a scalar delete on a vector pointer, there is less harm, you do not unallocate the memory completely, you leave behind remnants of your allocated memory which you cannot reclaim.

Either way, it is better to be disciplined while programming.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Extension Methods - A Polished C++ Feature !!!

Extension Method is an excellent feature in C# 3.0. It is a mechanism by which new methods can be exposed from an existing type (interface or class) without directly adding the method to the type. Why do we need extension methods anyway ? Ok, that is the big story of lamba and LINQ. But from a conceptual standpoint, the extension methods establish a mechanism to extend the public interface of a type. The compiler is smart enough to make the method a part of the public interface of the type. Yeah, that is what it does, and the intellisense is very cool in making us believe that. It is cleaner and easier (for the library developers and for us programmers even) to add extra functionality (methods) not provided in the type. That is the intent. And we know that was exercised extravagantly in LINQ. The IEnumerable was extended with a whole lot set of methods to aid the LINQ design. Remember the Where, Select etc methods on IEnumerable. An example code snippet is worth a thousand ...
7 comments
Read more

Implementing COM OutOfProc Servers in C# .NET !!!

Had to implement our COM OOP Server project in .NET, and I found this solution from the internet after a great deal of search, but unfortunately the whole idea was ruled out, and we wrapped it as a .NET assembly. This is worth knowing. Step 1: Implement IClassFactory in a class in .NET. Use the following definition for IClassFactory. namespace COM { static class Guids { public const string IClassFactory = "00000001-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; public const string IUnknown = "00000000-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; } /// /// IClassFactory declaration /// [ComImport(), InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown), Guid(COM.Guids.IClassFactory)] internal interface IClassFactory { [PreserveSig] int CreateInstance(IntPtr pUnkOuter, ref Guid riid, out IntPtr ppvObject); [PreserveSig] int LockServer(bool fLock); } } Step 2: [DllImport("ole32.dll")] private static extern int CoR...
3 comments
Read more

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go! CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object. void SomeMethod() { CComPtr siPtr; HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent); siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello"); } Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr . As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference...
Post a Comment
Read more