Failure to overload operator delete

This is a discussion on Failure to overload operator delete within the C++ Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; I seem to be missing something. I'm failing to overload the delete operator for a class. Code: template < typename ...

  1. #1
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031

    Failure to overload operator delete

    I seem to be missing something. I'm failing to overload the delete operator for a class.

    Code:
    template<typename T> class DeleteChecker
    {
    public:
    	DeleteChecker();
    	~DeleteChecker();
    	DeleteChecker(T* p);
    	DeleteChecker(DeleteChecker& rRhs);
    	DeleteChecker& operator = (DeleteChecker& rRhs);
    	DeleteChecker& operator = (T* rRhs);
    	T& operator * ();
    	T* operator -> ();
    	//void* operator new(size_t size);
    	static void operator delete(void* /*pToDelete*/);
    	operator bool() const;
    	bool operator ! () const;
    	const T& operator [] (uint32_t Dimension) const;
    	T& operator [] (uint32_t Dimension);
    
    private:
    	void Init();
    	struct DeleteData
    	{
    		T* p;
    		uint32_t refCount;
    		//uint32_t Dimensions;
    		//bool 
    	};
    
    	DeleteData* m_pData;
    };
    Code:
    int main()
    {
    	struct Test
    	{
    		int x, y, z;
    	};
    	DeleteChecker<Test> p = new Test;
    	p->x = 0;
    	delete p;
    }
    Error 1 error C2440: 'delete' : cannot convert from 'DeleteChecker<T>' to 'void *' g:\w00t\visual studio 2008\projects\temp\temp.cpp 175

    Someone please try to jog my memory :/
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #2
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    I don't believe it should be static..

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  3. #3
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    Nor do I, but it made little difference, since the compiler treated it as static anyway.
    Removing "void*" causes another error instead.

    Code:
    void operator delete(void* /*pToDelete*/);
    Error 1 error C2440: 'delete' : cannot convert from 'DeleteChecker<T>' to 'void *' g:\w00t\visual studio 2008\projects\temp\temp.cpp 175

    Code:
    void operator delete(); //(void* /*pToDelete*/);
    Error 1 error C2802: static member 'operator delete' has no formal parameters g:\w00t\visual studio 2008\projects\temp\temp.cpp 33
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #4
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Hang on, you are not deleting a pointer - you are deleting a proxy object. That won't work, you'll have to do something else (meaning, replace "delete" with some member function of your class).

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  5. #5
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    Yeah, I am. I was trying to emulate the effect of delete in the object instead.
    The aim was to emulate a pointer via a class with added debugging facilities.
    Perhaps I should name it debug_ptr.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #6
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    I can see what your idea is. I think you would have to make a pointer of the class itself to make this work. You may be able to hide this by using either macros or clever template programming (I can think of how you MAY be able to do it with macros, not at all convinced templates are able to do this).

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  7. #7
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    Oh I see now what you mean.
    I made a nasty hack to get around it:

    Code:
    operator debug_ptr* () { return this; }
    Sssh. Don't tell anyone. It's the least I wanted to do and I'm sure it will cause multitude of problems, but let's test it first
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #8
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    1) new and delete are implicitly static, whether you add the keyword or not.

    2) new and delete are you used when you allocate/delete an object of that class type. Obviously, for delete, that means using delete with a pointer to that type.

    You cannot overload delete in a way that allows you to pass a plain object to it. You'll have to create a member function for that and call it the normal way. You cannot emulate pointer syntax here. Since it was expected that smart pointers (which is what the whole pointer syntax stuff was itnroduced for) would automatically delete objects, this was not seen as necessary.

    Edit: Seems you actually found a trick to do this. Just be aware that this means you can't actually allocate a DeleteChecker on the heap.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  9. #9
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Oh I see now what you mean.
    I made a nasty hack to get around it:

    Code:
    operator debug_ptr* () { return this; }
    Sssh. Don't tell anyone. It's the least I wanted to do and I'm sure it will cause multitude of problems, but let's test it first
    I won't tell anyone, but I can tell you that I think it MAY work. That's how iterators and other proxy objcets works, isn't it?

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  10. #10
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    Edit: Seems you actually found a trick to do this. Just be aware that this means you can't actually allocate a DeleteChecker on the heap.
    I know it will create all sorts of problem, but it wasn't meant to put on the heap anyway. I may as well disable the new operator to prevent disaster.
    We'll see how this turns out

    UPDATE:
    It seems everything does not work as it should.
    In fact... oh dear... it calls the destructor for debug_ptr FIRST and THEN operator delete!
    Oh no. This is not how it was supposed to work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  11. #11
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    I know it will create all sorts of problem, but it wasn't meant to put on the heap anyway. I may as well disable the new operator to prevent disaster.
    We'll see how this turns out

    UPDATE:
    It seems everything does not work as it should.
    In fact... oh dear... it calls the destructor for debug_ptr FIRST and THEN operator delete!
    Oh no. This is not how it was supposed to work.
    Well, that's what I'd expect, since you can't actually delete something FIRST, then destroy it, can you? So your destructor would have to do the "accounting" (and actual deleting of the object itself?), then let the delete operator just do what it needs to do [de-allocate, mainly].

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  12. #12
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    But this is a problem. How does the destructor know if it goes out of scope or delete is called on it?
    This kind of defies the need for the wrapper in the first place. Hmmm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  13. #13
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    But this is a problem. How does the destructor know if it goes out of scope or delete is called on it?
    This kind of defies the need for the wrapper in the first place. Hmmm.
    So, have a flag somewhere to see if it was created by new or not? You could have a hidden space before the actual object, perhaps?

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  14. #14
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    The biggest problem is that it checks for memory leaks, in the destructor.
    The code is something like:

    Code:
    if (get_refCount() == 0)
    {
    	if (get_p() == NULL)
    	{
    		delete [] get_p();
    		delete this; //m_pData;
    		throw std::runtime_error("Memory leak detected!");
    	}
    	//delete m_pData;
    	delete this;
    }
    else if (get_refCount() == 1 && m_pData->get_p())
    {
    	//delete m_pData;
    	delete [] get_p();
    	delete this;
    	throw std::runtime_error("Memory leak detected!");
    }
    [Work in progress, and not the original code that was in the destructor. As you can see, it also has some bugs, too, which I haven't worked on correcting yet.]
    The problem would be that the reference count == 1 and it would error.
    The idea is that is the reference count == 1 and the object goes out of scope, that would mean a memory leak since it's the hold pointer holding the data.

    I'm thinking of encapsulating the pointer in another class, so that it isn't affected by the destructor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  15. #15
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    I personally woudl override the global new/delete operators, and just allocate an extra block of memory to hold some admin data to detect the memory leaks (such as a linked list of the line/file/func and size of the allocation). When the application finishes, you can check the linked list to see if it's got anything left that shouldn't be there, and list that to a file or some such.

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. File I/O Assertion Failure in VS2008
    By clegs in forum C Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 04:47 AM
  2. Integer Emulation
    By Elysia in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 02:03 PM
  3. overload *
    By shuo in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2007, 05:44 AM
  4. Having trouble with operator*=()
    By Lurker in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-26-2003, 03:03 PM
  5. Am i a Failure?
    By Failure!!! in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-28-2003, 12:50 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21