Design question: using malloc?

[Christof Krueger]

Hello,

I'm quite new to C++ and have some base C knowledge. So I know how to
solve a given problem, by I sometimes tend to fall back to C. That is
what I want to avoid in my current project. Therefore I have the
following question:

I maintain a list of objects that are created. There is some information
that is logically related to each instance. I encapulate this in a
struct like this:

struct myListEntry {
myObject entry;
int relatedData;
}

What is the ideal way to implement adding another object to the vector?
(myVector has type vector<myListEntry> in this example)
Should I use malloc to reserve memory for my struct?
Should I do the following?
...
myListEntry newEntry;
newEntry.entry = something;
newEntry.relatedData = something_else;
myVector.push_back(newEntry);
...
Or is there another preferred way?

Regards,
Christof Krueger

[Thomas Wintschel]

"Christof Krueger" <ne**@pop2wap.net> wrote in message
news:br*************@news.t-online.com...

Hello,

I'm quite new to C++ and have some base C knowledge. So I know how to
solve a given problem, by I sometimes tend to fall back to C. That is
what I want to avoid in my current project. Therefore I have the
following question:

I maintain a list of objects that are created. There is some information
that is logically related to each instance. I encapulate this in a
struct like this:

struct myListEntry {
myObject entry;
int relatedData;
}

What is the ideal way to implement adding another object to the vector?
(myVector has type vector<myListEntry> in this example)
Should I use malloc to reserve memory for my struct?
Should I do the following?
...
myListEntry newEntry;
newEntry.entry = something;
newEntry.relatedData = something_else;
myVector.push_back(newEntry);
...
Or is there another preferred way?

Regards,
Christof Krueger

std::vector (and STL containers in general) allocate memory internally as
required. In this instance, your call to 'push_back' results in a copy of
the argument being stored in the vector. vector allocates memory for
the object and uses either a copy constructor or assignment operator to
initialize it.

An object stored in a container must at the minimum be 'Assignable'
which generally means that it has a copy constructor and an assignment
operator (if it is a simple type or a combination of simple types these are
not always required).

If you add these to your struct:

struct myListEntry {
myListEntry(const myObject& obj, const int& n)
: entry(obj), relatedData(n) {}
myListEntry & operator = (const myListEntry &rhs)
{
entry = rhs.entry;
relatedData = rhs.relatedData;
return *this;
}
myObject entry;
int relatedData;
}

then not only will the code you provided be fine but you could also write:

myVector.push_back(myListEntry(something, something_else));

Tom

[Christof Krueger]

> If you add these to your struct:

struct myListEntry {
myListEntry(const myObject& obj, const int& n)
: entry(obj), relatedData(n) {}
myListEntry & operator = (const myListEntry &rhs)
{
entry = rhs.entry;
relatedData = rhs.relatedData;
return *this;
}
myObject entry;
int relatedData;
}

then not only will the code you provided be fine but you could also write:

myVector.push_back(myListEntry(something, something_else));

I just had to check 3 books (without result) and then search the web to
find out the difference between struct and class in C++ in detail. Seems
that the only difference is that in a class the default visibility is
private and in a struct it is public. Good to know :)

Thank you very much for your help, Thomas!

The conclusion is: Dealing with malloc/free in C++ too much (or even at
all?!?) is not a good idea and should be avoided by using save
components from STL. Is that right?

Bye,
Christof

[David Harmon]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:48:29 +0100 in comp.lang.c++, Christof Krueger
<ne**@pop2wap.net> was alleged to have written:

I just had to check 3 books (without result) and then search the web to
find out the difference between struct and class in C++ in detail. Seems
that the only difference is that in a class the default visibility is
private and in a struct it is public. Good to know :)
This issue is covered in question "[7.8] What's the difference between the
keywords struct and class?" of Marshall Cline's C++ FAQ. You can get the
FAQ at: http://www.parashift.com/cpp-faq-lite/
The conclusion is: Dealing with malloc/free in C++ too much (or even at
all?!?) is not a good idea and should be avoided by using save
components from STL. Is that right?

Short answer: yes.

[someone else]

"Christof Krueger" <ne**@pop2wap.net> wrote in message
news:br*************@news.t-online.com...

If you add these to your struct:

struct myListEntry {
myListEntry(const myObject& obj, const int& n)
: entry(obj), relatedData(n) {}
myListEntry & operator = (const myListEntry &rhs)
{
entry = rhs.entry;
relatedData = rhs.relatedData;
return *this;
}
myObject entry;
int relatedData;
}

then not only will the code you provided be fine but you could also write:
myVector.push_back(myListEntry(something, something_else));

I just had to check 3 books (without result) and then search the web to
find out the difference between struct and class in C++ in detail. Seems
that the only difference is that in a class the default visibility is
private and in a struct it is public. Good to know :)

Thank you very much for your help, Thomas!

The conclusion is: Dealing with malloc/free in C++ too much (or even at
all?!?) is not a good idea and should be avoided by using save
components from STL. Is that right?

Bye,
Christof

I just wanted to add that TTBOMK the 'new' and 'delete' operators are
the c++ way to allocate and free memory

someone else

[Christof Krueger]

David Harmon wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:48:29 +0100 in comp.lang.c++, Christof Krueger
<ne**@pop2wap.net> was alleged to have written:

I just had to check 3 books (without result) and then search the web to
find out the difference between struct and class in C++ in detail. Seems
that the only difference is that in a class the default visibility is
private and in a struct it is public. Good to know :)

This issue is covered in question "[7.8] What's the difference between the
keywords struct and class?" of Marshall Cline's C++ FAQ. You can get the
FAQ at: http://www.parashift.com/cpp-faq-lite/

That was exactly where I found the answer on the web.
I bookmarked this FAQ as it looks very interesting.

The conclusion is: Dealing with malloc/free in C++ too much (or even at
all?!?) is not a good idea and should be avoided by using save
components from STL. Is that right?

Short answer: yes.

Thanks.

[Paul]

"Christof Krueger" <ne**@pop2wap.net> wrote in message
news:br*************@news.t-online.com...

Hello,

Should I use malloc to reserve memory for my struct?

Never use malloc unless you know darn well that the struct consists of all
POD (Plain-Old-Data) members, *and will always consist of POD types*.. If
you need to dynamically create an object, use operator new. The reason is
that if you happen to change your struct to have, say a std::string, as a
member, your malloc() call will introduce undefined behavior. To guard
against this, you use the C++ way of creating an object, and that is by
invoking the proper constructor. Operator new calls this constructor when
you create the object dynamiclly, while malloc doesn't know squat about C++
objects or constructors. Your struct contains a "myObject" member. Is this
a POD type? If it isn't, your call to malloc cannot be used safely, period.

The same thing can be stated for many functions from the 'C'-library. For
example, using memcpy() and memset() on non-POD types leads to undefined
behavior, calling qsort() on non-POD types again, undefined behavior. I
once had to correct a problem where a programmer had a struct of all int
members and used memset() to initialize all members to 0. Then one day, a
std::string object was introduced. The call to memset() was never changed,
and the application that was working was all of a sudden crashing. Chaning
the memset() to proper initialization via constructor corrected the problem.

Basically, you should completely get out of defaulting to using 'C'
functions such as malloc(), since not only are they not necessary for your
case, it is invalid to use them in many circumstances.

Paul

[Christof Krueger]

Paul wrote:

"Christof Krueger" <ne**@pop2wap.net> wrote in message
news:br*************@news.t-online.com...

Hello,

Should I use malloc to reserve memory for my struct?

Never use malloc unless you know darn well that the struct consists of all
POD (Plain-Old-Data) members, *and will always consist of POD types*.. If
you need to dynamically create an object, use operator new. The reason is
that if you happen to change your struct to have, say a std::string, as a
member, your malloc() call will introduce undefined behavior. To guard
against this, you use the C++ way of creating an object, and that is by
invoking the proper constructor. Operator new calls this constructor when
you create the object dynamiclly, while malloc doesn't know squat about C++
objects or constructors. Your struct contains a "myObject" member. Is this
a POD type? If it isn't, your call to malloc cannot be used safely, period.

The same thing can be stated for many functions from the 'C'-library. For
example, using memcpy() and memset() on non-POD types leads to undefined
behavior, calling qsort() on non-POD types again, undefined behavior. I
once had to correct a problem where a programmer had a struct of all int
members and used memset() to initialize all members to 0. Then one day, a
std::string object was introduced. The call to memset() was never changed,
and the application that was working was all of a sudden crashing. Chaning
the memset() to proper initialization via constructor corrected the problem.

Basically, you should completely get out of defaulting to using 'C'
functions such as malloc(), since not only are they not necessary for your
case, it is invalid to use them in many circumstances.

Paul

Thanks for your explanation of the problem, Paul.
So when I have non-POD types in my structure (let's take your example
with a struct full of ints and now with a std::string), is the situation
the following or am I taking something wrong(?): The std::string data is
allocated next to all the ints in memory and using a C function like
memset would set everything in the struct to 0, not only the character
date in std::string, but also other members???

My problem (until now) was, that I wasn't sure if it is good to use c++
features only, because it seemed some kind of inefficient and indirect
to me. But if programming pure c++ is commonly used in wild life, it
can't be that bad, so I'll try to get used to avoid mixing C and C++.

Thanks for your replies!

Christof Krueger

[Paul]

"Christof Krueger" <ne**@pop2wap.net> wrote in message
news:br*************@news.t-online.com...

So when I have non-POD types in my structure (let's take your example
with a struct full of ints and now with a std::string), is the situation
the following or am I taking something wrong(?): The std::string data is
allocated next to all the ints in memory and using a C function like
memset would set everything in the struct to 0, not only the character
date in std::string, but also other members???
You've gotta get out of the 'C' mind Christof ;) In C, all your types are
POD, so the "rules" you are used to for POD should apply to non-POD right?
No. When your struct contains non-POD membera, the only way to initialize
the struct, and thereby the members, is by constructing it correctly. You
do not construct or initialize such objects using malloc and memset. That's
the bottom line.

What if the std::string needs to have specific members set correctly on
construction? How does malloc()-ing the memory for the struct set up these
members? It can't -- like I said, malloc() knows zip, zero, nada, about C++
objects. When you now use the improperly constructed object, what do you
think will happen if you use such an object? The only thing that sets up
the members correctly is the constructor call, and only operator new can do
this (if you create the object dynamically).

Now, what if the std::string is a reference-counted string? If you used
memcpy() on such an item, you will screw up the reference counting
mechanism. This is exactly the situation I mentioned in my previous post
where the program crashed.

My problem (until now) was, that I wasn't sure if it is good to use c++
features only, because it seemed some kind of inefficient and indirect
to me. But if programming pure c++ is commonly used in wild life, it
can't be that bad, so I'll try to get used to avoid mixing C and C++.

Another thing that 'C' programmers tend to think is that their C code is
faster than C++. Not only is this, for the most part, a bogus claim, it
also leads to coding improperly and incorrectly when you resort to coding in
the 'C'-style.

Paul

[Christof Krueger]

Paul wrote:

"Christof Krueger" <ne**@pop2wap.net> wrote in message
news:br*************@news.t-online.com...

So when I have non-POD types in my structure (let's take your example
with a struct full of ints and now with a std::string), is the situation
the following or am I taking something wrong(?): The std::string data is
allocated next to all the ints in memory and using a C function like
memset would set everything in the struct to 0, not only the character
date in std::string, but also other members???

You've gotta get out of the 'C' mind Christof ;) In C, all your types are
POD, so the "rules" you are used to for POD should apply to non-POD right?
No. When your struct contains non-POD membera, the only way to initialize
the struct, and thereby the members, is by constructing it correctly. You
do not construct or initialize such objects using malloc and memset. That's
the bottom line.

Okay, just wanted to know "what if", to understand what happens behind
the scenes.
What if the std::string needs to have specific members set correctly on
construction? How does malloc()-ing the memory for the struct set up these
members? It can't -- like I said, malloc() knows zip, zero, nada, about C++
objects. When you now use the improperly constructed object, what do you
think will happen if you use such an object? The only thing that sets up
the members correctly is the constructor call, and only operator new can do
this (if you create the object dynamically).

Now, what if the std::string is a reference-counted string? If you used
memcpy() on such an item, you will screw up the reference counting
mechanism. This is exactly the situation I mentioned in my previous post
where the program crashed.

My problem (until now) was, that I wasn't sure if it is good to use c++
features only, because it seemed some kind of inefficient and indirect
to me. But if programming pure c++ is commonly used in wild life, it
can't be that bad, so I'll try to get used to avoid mixing C and C++.

Another thing that 'C' programmers tend to think is that their C code is
faster than C++. Not only is this, for the most part, a bogus claim, it
also leads to coding improperly and incorrectly when you resort to coding in
the 'C'-style.

I'me quite new to C and C++ programming both but I've seen more C code
than C++ code _before_ I started to actually program it myself. That is
why I still mix things up.
C code look intuitively faster, because its more complicated (not that
high level) and one think, that c++ programs have more overhead to
handle. But of course you can write a lot of *really* slow code in
low-level C :)
If you know some must-see links covering performance comparison between
C/C++ programs, please let me know.

Christof

[Peter van Merkerk]

> > Another thing that 'C' programmers tend to think is that their C code
is

faster than C++. Not only is this, for the most part, a bogus claim, it also leads to coding improperly and incorrectly when you resort to coding in the 'C'-style.

I'me quite new to C and C++ programming both but I've seen more C code
than C++ code _before_ I started to actually program it myself. That is
why I still mix things up.
C code look intuitively faster, because its more complicated (not that
high level) and one think, that c++ programs have more overhead to
handle. But of course you can write a lot of *really* slow code in
low-level C :)
If you know some must-see links covering performance comparison between
C/C++ programs, please let me know.

You might find this one an interesting read:
http://www.objectmentor.com/resource...tillUsingC.pdf

My advise is don't be overly concerned with performance. Though it is a bit
easier to write inefficient code in C++ than in C, well written C++ code
can be just as fast as well written C code. Often there are more important
concerns than performance, like correctness, maintainability and speed of
development. C++ offers a better compromise between efficiency and elegancy
than C code. My exprience is that only a small part of the code is really
relevant for the performance of an application. On modern hardware most
applications will run fast enough without using dirty tricks. Also many
applications are are more limited by I/O performance than CPU performance,
coding tricks to save CPU cycles won't help in this case.

--
Peter van Merkerk
peter.van.merkerk(at)dse.nl