471,082 Members | 745 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,082 software developers and data experts.

How to replace delete[] with a macro

foo
I'm creating a debug class called debug_mem_allocation for the purpose
of finding memory leaks.
I used macro's to replace the new and delete operators.
My problem is with trying to replace the delete[] operator with a
macro.

I can't replace the delete[] operator by using void* as the first
parameter, because then my code will not be able to modify the calling
function's pointer, nor would it get the source file name and line
number.
My current work around has been to modify the source code by replacing
delete[] with DELETE_ARRAY_AND_NULLIFY, which is defined as delete[]
for NON-DEBUG compile, and defined as an operator-() of my debug class
for DEBUG compile.

Can anyone think of a better way to replace the delete[] operator via
macro that would not require me to modify the source code?

My compilers are VC++ 6.0 and GNU 3.x

Here's the header:

class debug_mem_allocation
{
public:
enum ACTION_SWITCH{AllocateMem, DeAllocMem, GenerateReport};
debug_mem_allocation(const char* FileName, int LineNo, const char*
FunctionName)
:m_FileName(FileName), m_LineNo(LineNo), m_FuncName(FunctionName){}
template<typename T>
void operator+(T &ptr)
{
Log(ptr, DeAllocMem);
delete ptr;
ptr = NULL;
}
template<typename T>
void operator+(const T &ptr)
{
Log(ptr, DeAllocMem);
delete ptr;
}
template<typename T>
void operator-(T &ptr)
{
Log(ptr, DeAllocMem);
delete [] ptr;
ptr = NULL;
}
template<typename T>
T& operator<<(T &ptr)
{
Log(ptr, AllocateMem);
return ptr;
}
template<typename T>
void free_and_nullify(T &memblock , const char* VariableName)
{
Log(memblock, DeAllocMem);
free(memblock);
memblock = NULL;
}
void *malloc_and_log(size_t size );
void *realloc_and_log(void *memblock, size_t size );
static void SendOutCurrentLog();
private:
void Log(void const * const Ptr, ACTION_SWITCH Sw);
const char* m_FileName;
const int m_LineNo;
const char* m_FuncName;
};
#if (defined(DEBUG) || defined (_DEBUG)) &&
defined(USE_DEBUG_MEM_ALLOCATION)
#define new debug_ext::debug_mem_allocation(__FILE__, __LINE__,
__FUNCTION__)<< new
#define delete debug_ext::debug_mem_allocation(__FILE__,
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__)+
#define DELETE_ARRAY_AND_NULLIFY debug_ext::debug_mem_allocation(__FILE__,
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__)-
#define malloc(x) debug_ext::debug_mem_allocation(__FILE__,
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__).malloc_and_log(x)
#define realloc(m,s) debug_ext::debug_mem_allocation(__FILE__,
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__).realloc_and_log(m,s)
#define free(x) debug_ext::debug_mem_allocation(__FILE__,
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__).free_and_nullify(x, #x)
#else
#define DELETE_ARRAY_AND_NULLIFY delete []
#endif
Jul 19 '05 #1
2 6725

"foo" <ma*******@axter.com> wrote in message news:c1**************************@posting.google.c om...
I'm creating a debug class called debug_mem_allocation for the purpose
of finding memory leaks.
I used macro's to replace the new and delete operators.
My problem is with trying to replace the delete[] operator with a
macro.


You can't replace delete[] with a macro. You can only replace identifires.
Furthermore your code, even with delete, is fraught with perils.
Nothing says that delete has to be given a modifable lvalue.

Jul 19 '05 #2
foo
"Ron Natalie" <ro*@sensor.com> wrote in message news:<TK********************@giganews.com>...
"foo" <ma*******@axter.com> wrote in message news:c1**************************@posting.google.c om...
I'm creating a debug class called debug_mem_allocation for the purpose
of finding memory leaks.
I used macro's to replace the new and delete operators.
My problem is with trying to replace the delete[] operator with a
macro.


You can't replace delete[] with a macro. You can only replace identifires.
Furthermore your code, even with delete, is fraught with perils.
Nothing says that delete has to be given a modifable lvalue.

That's why there's an overloaded version of operator+()
template<typename T>
void operator+(const T &ptr)
{
Log(ptr, DeAllocMem);
delete ptr;
}
The overloaded version with the const does not try to set the pointer
to a NULL, but it does do the logging.
If delete is given an rvalue, this operator is used instead of the
following:
template<typename T>
void operator+(T &ptr)
{
Log(ptr, DeAllocMem);
delete ptr;
ptr = NULL;
}

The only problems I've seen with this is with VC++ in which I still
get compile errors for something like the following:
delete this;
Which gives me the following error:
error C2667: '-' : none of 2 overload have a best conversion
error C2593: 'operator -' is ambiguous

However, I don't get this error with the GNU compiler, so I'm thinking
this is a bug in VC++.
In any case it's rare to see this type of code, and it can easily be
modified to the following:
foofoo* t = this;
delete t;
Which makes VC++ happy.
fraught with perils suggest to me many problems. Is there something
else you see wrong with the code?

And I still think there's a C++ Guru out there who can think of a
better work-around for delete[] operator then what I have.
Jul 19 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by silver360 | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Scott | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by simon.robin.jackson | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.