Thread: memory leak in the code?

Hello everyone,


Should I delete memory pointed by pointer a if there is bad_alloc when allocating memory in memory pointed by pointer b? I am not sure whether there will be memory leak if I do not delete a.

Code:

try {
    a = new int [N];
    b = new int [M];
} catch (bad_alloc)
{
    // if a success, but b fail, should we try to delete[] a here to avoid memory leak?

}

thanks in advance,
George

Hi iMalc,


They are member variables. How to deal with this case?

Originally Posted by iMalc

Unless you set pointers a & b both to NULL to begin with then you wont know which of the two has thrown.
The answer really depends on the declaration of a & b. Are they locals, or member variables?

However this is a really useful place to use smart pointers regardless.

regards,
George

Hi anon,


What do you mean "one naked pointer" and "a third allocation"?

Originally Posted by anon

If you are interested in exception safety, you should not be handling more than one naked pointer Guess how much complexity it would add to keep all resources under control, if you were to add a third allocation!

If you are not interested in exception safety then simply don't bother to catch bad_alloc

regards,
George

Thanks for your clarification, Mats!


If I can not use smart pointer, I will write local try catch block for each naked pointer or define a macro to do that to save typing. :-)

Originally Posted by matsp

A "naked" pointer in this context is any "not smart" pointer, so a pointer directly to some data, rather than wrapped in a class.

A third allocation would be another line, like:

Code:

   c = new int [X];

For each new pointer you add, a new line of delete [] would have to be added too.

--
Mats

regards,
George

>> Exactly who/what are you quoting, abachler?
A non-standard source I would imagine.

>> If I can not use smart pointer, I will write local try catch block for each naked pointer or define a macro to do that to save typing.
That would be difficult to do in a macro because you have to delete all previously allocated objects as well.

You could create a class that holds the pointer, and in the destructor of that class delete the data. That way, if any of the allocations throw an exception, the function will exit and the destructors of the other objects will be called, and the memory will be freed.

Oh, wait, that's what vector does.

I have yet to hear a good reason not to use vector instead of a dynamically allocated array. As for non-array dynamic allocations, the same issue applies.

Hi Daved,


Two more comments,

1.

Originally Posted by Daved

You could create a class that holds the pointer, and in the destructor of that class delete the data. That way, if any of the allocations throw an exception, the function will exit and the destructors of the other objects will be called, and the memory will be freed.

You should use smart pointer to point to the objects on heap, other than using raw pointers, or else destructor is not ensured to be invoked.

Originally Posted by Daved

I have yet to hear a good reason not to use vector instead of a dynamically allocated array. As for non-array dynamic allocations, the same issue applies.

What is the issue which vector will have, not dynamically allocated array will not have? Could you provide more information or some pseudo code please?


regards,
George

Yes, laserlight.


I just want to learn in what situations using dynamic allocated array is better than using vector? In my experience, I always think vector is better than dynamic allocated array for a couple of reasons. :-)

Originally Posted by laserlight

I think you are misinterpreting Daved due to convoluted language. What Daved meant to say is: "I have yet to hear a good reason to use a dynamically allocated array instead of a vector".

regards,
George