I am working in mixed mode (managed C++ and C++ in one assembly). I am in a situation something like this.
ManagedStructure ^ managedStructure = gcnew ManagedStructure();
//here i set different properties of managedStructure
then I call "Method" given below and pass it "& managedStructure"
Method(void *ptrToStruct)
{
ManagedStructure ^ managedStructure2 = gcnew ManagedStructure();
memcpy(&managedStructure2 , ptrToStruct, sizeof(managedStructure2 ));
}
I have following question about this scenario.
1) Is it safe to use memcpy like this? and if not what is its alternate to achieve same functionality? ( I can't change "Method" definition)
2) I am not freeing any memory as both the structures are managed. Is it fine?
You could look into using a copy constructor or something similar. Check out this article as it explains a few things that might be useful.
I would assume your memory model is OK since it's all managed.
I'm not sure but you might need to pin managedStructure2 before the memcpy, look at the docs for pin_ptr<>. If it's not pinned, GC might happen on a separate thread in the middle of your memcpy, resulting in an intermittent bug.
Related
I read the official documentation for the StringToHGlobalUni method and it says that the FreeHGlobal method should be use to free memory.
The memory allocated by StringToHGlobalUni method is on the native heap, so I don't see why the delete operator could not be used.
I searched a lot, but I couldn't find any explanation why I can't use the delete operator.
I'm new to this and some explanations would help me. Can the delete operator be used or not ?
Code
const wchar_t* filePath = (const wchar_t*)(Marshal::StringToHGlobalUni(inputFilePath)).ToPointer();
Marshal::FreeHGlobal(IntPtr((void*)filePath));
Don't use Marshal::StringToHGlobalUni in C++/CLI.
Use either
PtrToStringChars (accesses Unicode characters in-place, no allocation) or
marshal_as<std::wstring> (manages the allocation with a smart pointer class that will free it correctly and automatically)
Apart from the fact that StringToHGlobalUni requires you to free the memory manually, the name of that function is completely misleading. It has absolutely no connection to HGLOBAL whatsoever.
For example:
... some code
int sizeOfSomeObject = someObject.length();
... some code, sizeOfSomeObject is not need anymore
now I need other int variable for other action(for example, for position in some object), and i have the dilemma: create a new variable or use sizeOfSomeObject for this. In the first case I will keep readability, but lose performance. In the second case - on the contrary. What usually do programmers in this situation?
In the first case I will keep readability, but lose performance. In the second case - on the contrary.
So did you benchmark it? I suspect no, you didn't. Most modern compilers do a lot of agressive analysis during register allocation, so if the optimizer perceives that there's a variable that's not used anymore, but there's a new variable of the same type, it will just merge the two variables to the same memory region or processor register. No need to worry about performance penalties.
And anyway, don't do premature optimization (which this is). In 90% of the cases, readability is more important than "performance".
All in all, go ahead and create a new variable with an appropriate, different, descriptive name. And just for fun, compile this version and the version in which you used the same variable name, and look at the generated assembly (or bytecode, or...) - and find out that they're identical.
I would use different named variables for different things.
In terms of something like this, I don't think just one variable would cause a massive performance hit. In most languages you have the option to clear variables from memory in some way when they are no longer in use, so I would recommend doing that so that the code means something to you or others when read at a later date.
In C++, you can use blocks for objects to be destroyed as soon as they are not needed anymore:
void some_function () {
{
MyClass c;
// ... here we use c ...
}
// now c has been destroyed
{
MyClass d;
// ... here we use d ...
}
// now d has been destroyed
}
In your example (with int variables), there is no reason to worry about performance. The worst thing that could probably happen is memory for two variables being used instead of one, but (i) that's negligible and (ii) int's will probably live in a CPU register, anyway. If you really worry, use the block approach for your int example.
It depends how often such an int would be initialized. If it's not in some hugely nested for loop, most (all) programmers will go for the first. Besides, most modern programming languages have a garbage collector, which cleans up left over objects.
Decent compiler will optimize out your second variable, so that shouldn't be an issue.
That said, there are situations where variable reuse makes sense. E.g., you might have some variable that holds a generic output populated from call to some external API. According to the context and parameters passed to the API you'll process the data differently but it's probably better (more readable etc.) to reuse the same data variable.
For example, something like this:
void* data = getSomeData(params);
//process data
//change params
data = getSomeData(params);
//process data
//change params
data = getSomeData(params);
i have a question regarding operator overloading in cli/c++ environment
static Length^ operator++(Length^ len)
{
Length^ temp = gcnew Length(len->feet, len->inches);
++temp->inches;
temp->feet += temp->inches/temp->inchesPerFoot;
temp->inches %= temp->inchesPerFoot;
return temp;
}
(the code is from ivor horton's book.)
why do we need to declare a new class object (temp) on the heap just to return it?
ive googled for the info on overloading but theres really not much out there and i feel kinda lost.
This is the way operator overloading is implemented in .NET. Overloaded operator is static function, which returns a new instance, instead of changing the current instance. Therefore, post and prefix ++ operators are the same. Most information about operator overloading talks about native C++. You can see .NET specific information, looking for C# samples, for example this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288467(v=vs.71).aspx
.NET GC allows to create a lot of lightweight new instances, which are collected automatically. This is why .NET overloaded operators are more simple than in native C++.
Yes, because you're overloading POST-increment operator here. Hence, the original value may be used a lot in the code, copied and stored somewhere else, despite the existance of the new value. Example:
store_length_somewhere( len++ );
While len will be increased, the original value might be stored by the function somewhere else. That means that you might need two different values at the same time. Hence the creation and return of a new value.
I've been using std::unique_ptr to store some COM resources, and provided a custom deleter function. However, many of the COM functions want pointer-to-pointer. Right now, I'm using the implementation detail of _Myptr, in my compiler. Is it going to break unique_ptr to be accessing this data member directly, or should I store a gajillion temporary pointers to construct unique_ptr rvalues from?
COM objects are reference-countable by their nature, so you shouldn't use anything except reference-counting smart pointers like ATL::CComPtr or _com_ptr_t even if it seems inappropriate for your usecase (I fully understand your concerns, I just think you assign too much weight to them). Both classes are designed to be used in all valid scenarios that arise when COM objects are used, including obtaining the pointer-to-pointer. Yes, that's a bit too much functionality, but if you don't expect any specific negative consequences you can't tolerate you should just use those classes - they are designed exactly for this purpose.
I've had to tackle the same problem not too long ago, and I came up with two different solutions:
The first was a simple wrapper that encapsulated a 'writeable' pointer and could be std::moved into my smart pointer. This is just a little more convenient that using the temp pointers you are mentioning, since you cannot define the type directly at the call-site.
Therefore, I didn't stick with that. So what I did was a Retrieve helper-function that would get the COM function and return my smart-pointer (and do all the temporary pointer stuff internally). Now this trivially works with free-functions that only have a single T** parameter. If you want to use this on something more complex, you can just pass in the call via std::bind and only leave the pointer-to-be-returned free.
I know that this is not directly what you're asking, but I think it's a neat solution to the problem you're having.
As a side note, I'd prefer boost's intrusive_ptr instead of std::unique_ptr, but that's a matter of taste, as always.
Edit: Here's some sample code that's transferred from my version using boost::intrusive_ptr (so it might not work out-of-the box with unique_ptr)
template <class T, class PtrType, class PtrDel>
HRESULT retrieve(T func, std::unique_ptr<PtrType, PtrDel>& ptr)
{
ElementType* raw_ptr=nullptr;
HRESULT result = func(&raw_ptr);
ptr.reset(raw_ptr);
return result;
}
For example, it can be used like this:
std::unique_ptr<IFileDialog, ComDeleter> FileDialog;
/*...*/
using std::bind;
using namespace std::placeholders;
std::unique_ptr<IShellItem, ComDeleter> ShellItem;
HRESULT status = retrieve(bind(&IFileDialog::GetResult, FileDialog, _1), ShellItem);
For bonus points, you can even let retrieve return the unique_ptr instead of taking it by reference. The functor that bind generates should have signature typedefs to derive the pointer type. You can then throw an exception if you get a bad HRESULT.
C++0x smart pointers have a portable way to get at the raw pointer container .get() or release it entirely with .release(). You could also always use &(*ptr) but that is less idiomatic.
If you want to use smart pointers to manage the lifetime of an object, but still need raw pointers to use a library which doesn't support smart pointers (including standard c library) you can use those functions to most conveniently get at the raw pointers.
Remember, you still need to keep the smart pointer around for the duration you want the object to live (so be aware of its lifetime).
Something like:
call_com_function( &my_uniq_ptr.get() ); // will work fine
return &my_localscope_uniq_ptr.get(); // will not
return &my_member_uniq_ptr.get(); // might, if *this will be around for the duration, etc..
Note: this is just a general answer to your question. How to best use COM is a separate issue and sharptooth may very well be correct.
Use a helper function like this.
template< class T >
T*& getPointerRef ( std::unique_ptr<T> & ptr )
{
struct Twin : public std::unique_ptr<T>::_Mybase {};
Twin * twin = (Twin*)( &ptr );
return twin->_Myptr;
}
check the implementation
int wmain ( int argc, wchar_t argv[] )
{
std::unique_ptr<char> charPtr ( new char[25] );
delete getPointerRef(charPtr);
getPointerRef(charPtr) = 0;
return charPtr.get() != 0;
}
I would like to know the difference between these two (sorry I do not know the name of this subject).
I come from C# where I was used to write System.data as well as classA.MethodA. I have already found out that in Cpp, with namespaces I need to use ::, with classmembers ->. But what about simple "."?
I have created System::data:odbc::odbcConnection^ connection. Later I was able to use connection.Open. Why not connection->open?
Im sorry, I am sure its something easily findable on the net, but I dont know english term for these.
Thank you guys
If you have a pointer to an object, you use:
MyClass *a = new MyClass();
a->MethodName();
On the other hand, if you have an actual object, you use dotted notation:
MyClass a;
a.MethodName();
To clarify the previous answers slightly, the caret character ^ in VC++ can be thought of as a * for most intents and purposes. It is a 'handle' to a class, and means something slightly different, but similar. See this short Googled explanation:
http://blogs.msdn.com/branbray/archive/2003/11/17/51016.aspx
So, in your example there, if you initialize your connection like:
System::Data::Odbc::OdbcConnection connect;
//You should be able to do this:
connect.Open();
Conversely, if you do this:
System::Data::Odbc::OdbcConnection^ connect1 = gcnew System::Data::Odbc::OdbcConnection();
connect1.Open(); // should be an error
connect1->Open(); //correct
The short answer: C++ allows you to manage your own memory. As such, you can create and manipulate memory, through usage of pointers (essentially integer variables containing memory addresses, rather than a value).
a.Method() means a is an instance of a class, from which you call Method.
a->Method() means a is a pointer to an instance of a class, from which you call Method.
When you use syntax like a->member, you are using a pointer to a structure or object.
When you use syntax like a.member, you are using the structure or object and not a pointer to the structure or object.
I did a quick google for you and THIS looks fairly quick and decent explanation.