Thread: need to delete an object to free memory

Hi,


i know this is not clever to do and there can be problems if an exception it thrown, but my app is running out of memory and this is because i load some data into my object process it and don't use it any more. now, with processed results i need to do some stuff further but for that i need memory. and i would have tons of it if i deleted my object. so how can i delete an object:

Code:

int main(){

Data<unsigned long, unsigned long> myobject(file_in);
vector<unsigned long> results(myobject.GetData().size());


  for(unsigned long i = 0;i<myobject.GetData().size();i++){
    // do stuff
  }
  //don't need myobject any more i have my results

delete myobject; // does not work

}

is there any way around this ?? I need memory. Should i maybe do this in another function and then send back a copy of my results. then my object should be deleted automatically since it is out of scope, right??

thnx

Use pointers ie:
delete must be used in conjunction with new.

Code:

myobject *obj = new myobject;
//do stuff with obj using the -> operator and not the . operator
//I'm done with obj lets get rid of it
delete obj;

Originally Posted by ~Kyo~

Use pointers ie:
delete must be used in conjunction with new.

Although that is an option, it is inferior to tabstop's suggestion because you then have to do manual memory management, unless you use appropriate smart pointers instead. (But do you even need to reuse the (smart) pointer in the first place?)

Originally Posted by laserlight

Although that is an option, it is inferior to tabstop's suggestion because you then have to do manual memory management, unless you use appropriate smart pointers instead. (But do you even need to reuse the (smart) pointer in the first place?)

He was trying to use delete to begin with instead of saying don't use delete I gave him another option. My response not only gives a solution it shows how to properly use delete(which is worth at least going over). Pointers aren't entirely evil either while they do give more places to make mistakes and memory leaks they also give you more control over the memory allocation(which is what he wanted?). Generally if your running out of memory you are probably not running on a modern computer, but more likely a FPGA or something.

Originally Posted by ~Kyo~

Pointers aren't entirely evil either while they do give more places to make mistakes and memory leaks they also give you more control over the memory allocation(which is what he wanted?).

With a smart pointer, it is possible to get the control over memory deallocation (well, not exactly: more like the lifetime of the object pointed to) in the middle of a block by calling an appropriate function, e.g., reset. At the same time, the advantage of RAII is retained.

Originally Posted by ~Kyo~

He was trying to use delete to begin with instead of saying don't use delete I gave him another option. My response not only gives a solution it shows how to properly use delete(which is worth at least going over). Pointers aren't entirely evil either while they do give more places to make mistakes and memory leaks they also give you more control over the memory allocation(which is what he wanted?). Generally if your running out of memory you are probably not running on a modern computer, but more likely a FPGA or something.

But the point was that the OP was looking to get rid of the memory occupied by the container and simply reached for delete as some kind of test, or the like, because he/she was unsure on how to accomplish this.
The easiest, fastest and less complex solution was also given: simply force the container to go out of scope. delete isn't necessary at all.