C / C++ / MFC

Migrating from VC6 to VS2005 [modified]

2-Jun-06 5:04

Roger Stoltz wrote:
Could be. I was thinking about the factory pattern, but the OP said that would always be using new to create the objects. That's why I suggested overriding the new operator.

My recommendation (instead of overriding the new/delete operators) would be to use a smart pointer (since it appears he wants it to self-destruct):

class MyClass<br />
{<br />
MyClass() { cout << "I got created!" << endl; }<br />
~MyClass() { cout << "I got destroyed!" << endl; }<br />
};<br />
<br />
void main()<br />
{<br />
   shared_ptr<MyClass> pClass(new MyClass);<br />
}

If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week

Zac

Re: delete in ctor !

BadKarma2-Jun-06 5:13

BadKarma

2-Jun-06 5:13

Zac Howland wrote:
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week

couldn't be more correct;P

codito ergo sum

Obliterator2-Jun-06 1:36

Obliterator

2-Jun-06 1:36

I'm trying to compile my old application in VS2005.
But the compiler no longer accepts the default assignment of NULL to a vector iterator. How do I resolve this?

I declare my function like this:

vector<CSomeClass*>::iterator MyFunction(vector<CSomeClass*>::iterator itStartPos = NULL);

The compiler says:

error C2440: 'default argument' : cannot convert from 'int' to 'std::_Vector_iterator<_Ty,_Alloc>'

I can't default the parameter to myVectorList.begin() because the function declaration is not aware of which list the iterator belongs.

Thanks

--

The Obliterator

-- modified at 7:40 Friday 2nd June, 2006

Re: Migrating from VC6 to VS2005 [modified]

C^hris L^osinger2-Jun-06 1:58

C^hris L^osinger

2-Jun-06 1:58

Obliterator wrote:
function declaration is not aware of which list the iterator belongs.

does the function itself know ? if not, how do you know the iterator is valid ? (can't test against vec.end() if you don't have the vector)

a quick run through Google tells me that it's not possible, in general, to set iterators to NULL. iterators are not pointers, for one thing.

i think you'll need to re-work that function a bit

Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker

Re: Migrating from VC6 to VS2005 [modified]

Obliterator2-Jun-06 2:17

Obliterator

2-Jun-06 2:17

Good point. Actually, I simplified the function declaration for the purposes of the queston. The end vector is also supplied as a parameter to the function.

However, the function is indeed aware of the list and simply defaults to the beginning of the list if itStartPos parameter is NULL.

I guess your right - I'm going to have to drop the default parameter here and update each call to the function. Serves me right for using a hack to assign NULL to it in the first place. Damn this new strict checking!!!

Thanks for your response. Much appreciated.

--

The Obliterator

Re: Migrating from VC6 to VS2005

Michael Dunn2-Jun-06 7:46

Michael Dunn

2-Jun-06 7:46

Starting with VC7, STL iterators were type-checked better. You can't treat a collection<T>::iterator as a T* (or any other pointer value, like NULL).

--Mike--
Visual C++ MVP Cool | :cool:

LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ

Re: Migrating from VC6 to VS2005

Obliterator9-Jun-06 2:33

Obliterator

9-Jun-06 2:33

So I see. This is causing me some real headaches!!!
Is there no assignement that can be made to the iterator which means its invalid?

I used to assign NULL to iterators to mean they wern't being used.
Then I could simply check its NULL status and act accordingly.

There must be a way of saying an iterator is invalid.
If I assign it the value of vectorlist.end() I could test against that - but does initial end assignment remain valid after things are added to the vector list?

--

The Obliterator

Right way to delete a pointer

zahid_ash2-Jun-06 1:31

zahid_ash

2-Jun-06 1:31

CSocket * sock;

is it a right way to delete a pointer

sock = NULL;
delete sock;

Or can I directly do

delete sock;

Regards.

Cedric Moonen2-Jun-06 1:40

Cedric Moonen

2-Jun-06 1:40

zahid_ash wrote:
sock = NULL;
delete sock;

This won't do anything !
You first have to delete the pointer THEN set it to NULL:

delete sock;
sock = NULL;

Cédric Moonen
Software developer

Charting control

Amar Sutar2-Jun-06 1:41

Amar Sutar

2-Jun-06 1:41

CSocket* pSocket;

// Allocate a memory for pSocket

// Delete a allocated memory
if(pSocket)
{
delete pSocket;
pSocket = NULL;
}

Regards
Amar. Smile | :)

Viorel.2-Jun-06 2:14

Viorel.

2-Jun-06 2:14

I think you can even skip the checking for NULL:

delete pSocket; // without redundant "if(pSocket != NULL) ..."
pSocket = NULL;

This is because delete operator performs itself a test for null pointers. You only have to be sure that pSocked was properly initialized before with a right value or with NULL.

-- modified at 9:42 Friday 2nd June, 2006

Zac Howland2-Jun-06 3:50

2-Jun-06 3:50

Viorel Bejan wrote:
This is because delete operator performs itself a test for null pointers. You only have to be sure that pSocked was properly initialized before with a right value or with NULL.

This only happens in debug builds. You should ALWAYS check for null before deleting a pointer. Calling delete NULL has undefined behavior and should be avoided.

If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week

Zac

Nish Nishant2-Jun-06 3:54

Nish Nishant

2-Jun-06 3:54

Zac Howland wrote:
This only happens in debug builds. You should ALWAYS check for null before deleting a pointer. Calling delete NULL has undefined behavior and should be avoided.

That's not true, Zac.

See 16.8 on http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/freestore-mgmt.html[^]

Regards,
Nish

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.
Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)

Zac Howland2-Jun-06 4:58

2-Jun-06 4:58

Yes, the standard says that. However, most compilers did not meet that standard until recently (and some still don't). It is one of those better safe than sorry things.

If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week

Zac

Nemanja Trifunovic2-Jun-06 6:17

Nemanja Trifunovic

2-Jun-06 6:17

Zac Howland wrote:
However, most compilers did not meet that standard until recently (and some still don't). It is one of those better safe than sorry things.

Compilers don't meet the Standard mostly in some areas of template handling. Deleting a zero is perfectly safe and has been for quite a while.

My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.

Zac Howland2-Jun-06 8:09

2-Jun-06 8:09

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Compilers don't meet the Standard mostly in some areas of template handling. Deleting a zero is perfectly safe and has been for quite a while.

Let me put it this way ...

There is a reason why the DirectX libraries define the following macro:

#define SAFE_DELETE(p) if(p) { delete p; p = NULL; }

If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week

Zac

Nemanja Trifunovic2-Jun-06 12:50

Nemanja Trifunovic

2-Jun-06 12:50

Zac Howland wrote:
There is a reason why the DirectX libraries define the following macro

Yep, there is: Microsoft DirectX programmers don't know C++ very well. Poke tongue | ;-P

My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.

Nemanja Trifunovic2-Jun-06 4:48

Nemanja Trifunovic

2-Jun-06 4:48

Zac Howland wrote:
Calling delete NULL has undefined behavior and should be avoided.

Nope, delete NULL is required by the C++ Standard to do nothing.

It is perfectly safe.

My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.

SteveKing2-Jun-06 3:40

SteveKing

2-Jun-06 3:40

Always NULL the pointer after deleting it. Otherwise you could (if you're not very, very careful) try to delete the same pointer twice, which will result in an access violation.
Deleting a NULL pointer however is perfectly safe.