I have a question concerning working with classes in c++. I must say I'm a beginner. For example, i have this class:
class student {
private:
char* name;
public:
int nrcrt;
student() {
name = new char[7];
name = "Anonim";
nrcrt = 0;
}
student(char* n, int n) {
this->name = new char[7];
strcpy(name, n);
nrcrt = nr;
}
~student() {
delete [] name;
}
char* get_name() {
return this->name;
}
}
void main() {
student group[3];
group[0] = student("Ana", 1);
group[1] = student("Alex", 2);
group[2] = student("Liam", 5);
for (i=0; i<3; i++) {
if (group.nrcrt[i] != 0)
cout << group[i].get_name() << Endl;
}
}
My question is why is it displaying different characters?
first of all your code is not working.
3.cpp:40:18: error: request for member ‘nrcrt’ in ‘group’, which is of non-class type ‘student [3]’
if(group.nrcrt[i]!=0)
i is also not declared.please make proper changes.
group.nrcrt[i]
should be changed to:
group[i].nrcrt
When the array is created, your default constructor is used.
When you assign to the elements, your destructor is called, deleting name.
The default constructor is assigning a literal to name, and deleting that memory has undefined behaviour.
In your default constructor, replace
name = "Anonim";
with
strcpy(name, "Anonim");
Your compiler should have warned you about the assignment.
If it didn't, increase the warning level of your compiler.
If it did, start listening to your compiler's warnings.
do not worry. C++ could look a bit scary as first but it is ok when you get into it. First, let's say that all classes it is good to start with upper case letters. Secondly, you have two constructors (default without parameters and one or more with, in our case one). Default consructor you need to declare an array of objects:
Student group[3];
The next important thing is that you then do not need the rest of the constructors in that case.
group[0]=student("Ana",1);
group[1]=student("Alex",2);
group[2]=student("Liam",5);
Remember to include ; at the end of class declaration. To put all the statements and expression throughout your interation within the same loop. Here is what I found as an errors anf fix them. Could probably have more.
class Student
{
private:
char* name;
public:
int nrcrt;
Student()
{
name=new char[7];
strcpy(name, "Anonim");
nrcrt=0;
}
Student( char* n, int n)
{
this->name=new char[7];
strcpy(name, n);
nrcrt=nr;
}
~Student()
{
delete [] name;
}
char* get_name()
{
return this->name;
}
};
int main()
{
Student group[3];
for(int i=0;i<3;i++)
{
if(group.nrcrt[i]!=0)
cout<<group[i].get_name()<<endl;
}
return 0;
}
Related
i am new in this and i am working on App of media player and recording app. in which i have shown song list of device in the listview and recording start / stop / play. Now i want to convert that .mp3 recorded file into .mp4 and one image will show on behalf of a video in that file. Help me to achive this i have no idea and i refer many links and i didnt find anything.
Please check this link for your first question:
Why can't we initialize class members at their declaration?
Usually constructor is use to initialize value to data variables of class.
For 2nd Question:
If data member is not initialize after creation of object, It will contain garbage value. So initialize or assign suitable value to as per your need.
Check below code:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class swap_values
{
int a, b, temp;
public:
swap_values(){
a=0;b=0;temp=0;
}
swap_values(int x, int y){
a = x;
b = y;
temp = 0;
}
void swapped()
{
temp = b;
b=a;
a=temp;
}
void print(){
cout<<"a: "<<a<<" b: "<<b<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
int x =10; int y = 20;
swap_values obj(x, y);
obj.print();
obj.swapped();
obj.print();
return 0;
}
Everything can be done in better ways but just using your code this will work for you -
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Swap {
private:
int a,b,temp;
public:
Swap()
{
a=10;
b=20;
temp=0;
}
void swapNums()
{
temp=a; a=b; b=temp;
cout<<a<<" " <<b<<endl;
}
};
int main() {
Swap s;
s.swapNums();
return 0;
}
You can avoid using class name as some function name. You can instead use constructor without a return type where you can initialise the member variables. swap method looks fine.
i am not able to initialize my variable in class.
class swap
{
int a=10; \\cannot declare here
int b=20; \\ cannot declare here
}
Since C++11, this is fine, you can have default member initialization.
The error is due to missing semicolon after }.
why it has garbage value with b ??
a=b;
b=temp;
temp=a;
Since temp was never initialized before assigning it to b, temp has an indeterminate value.
Any usage will lead to undefined behavior.
Here's a simple Swap struct:
struct Swap
{
int a = 10; // default member initialization
int b = 20; // default member initialization
Swap(int a = 20, int b = 10): a(b), b(a) {}; // swap on initialization
// using member initializer list
};
Swap s;
std::cout << s.a // 20
<< s.b // 10
<< std::endl;
In this example, default member initialization is "obsolete" / "redundant" due to member initializer list.
i used malloc in order to allocate new nodes in the list,yet i am facing an error with a certain part of my code;
the following solution applies only to deleting and inserting
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
struct Node{
int value;
struct Node * Next;
struct Node * Previous;
};
typedef struct Node Node;
struct List{
int Count;
int Total;
Node * First;
Node * Last;
};
typedef struct List List;
List Create();
void Add(List a,int value);
void Remove(List a,Node * b);
List Create()
{
List a;
a.Count=0;
return a;
}
void Add(List a,int value)
{
Node * b = (Node *)malloc(sizeof(Node));
if(b==NULL)
printf("Memory allocation error \n");
b->value=value;
if(a.Count==0)
{
b->Next=NULL;
b->Previous=NULL;
a.First=b;
}
else
{
b->Next=NULL;
b->Previous=a.Last;
a.Last->Next=b;
}
++a.Count;
a.Total+=value;
a.Last=b;
}
void Remove(List a,Node * b)
{
if(a.Count>1)
{
if(a.Last==b)
{
b->Previous->Next=NULL;
}
else
{
b->Previous->Next=b->Next;
b->Next->Previous=b->Previous;
}
}
free(b);
}
in the delete function,in the last else condition,i am not certain whether or not using b->Next->Previous is okay,and will work;when using the -> operator,am i adressing to the node pointer or to it's value?
The short answer: Yes, b->Next->Previous is fine -- it's a struct Node*, just like the right hand side b->Previous.
I think that your error lies with the handling of Count: It is incremented by Add(), but Remove() doesn't decrement it. In fact, as the list itself only needs to know whether it is empty or not, you can remove it and instead see if a.First == NULL. (Your a.Count == 1 test can likewise be replaced with a.First != NULL && a.First->Next == NULL test.)
If you're promising Count in you API, you can add it back when you've got the list itself working. The same "remove-then-add-back" might be useful with Total. Think of both of these as caches.
An even better solution would be to implement a circular list:
struct List
{
Node Anchor;
//...
};
List Create()
{
List l;
l.Anchor.Next = l.Anchor.Previous = &l;
return l;
}
bool IsEmpty(List const* l)
{
// Both or neither point at 'l'.
assert((l->Anchor.Next == l) == (l->Anchor.Previous == l));
return l->Anchor.Next == l;
}
// Add a node 'n' to some list after 'ln'.
void AddAfter(Node* n, Node* ln)
{
n->Previous = ln;
n->Next = ln->Next;
n->Next->Previous = n->Previous->Next = n;
}
Node* Remove(Node* n)
{
n->Previous->Next = n->Next;
n->Next->Previous = n->Previous;
n->Next = n->Previous = n; // nice and proper
return x;
}
Now you longer need special cases for empty lists. I let Remove() return the node itself, to make it easy to either move nodes between lists (AddAfter(Remove(somenode), &otherlist.Anchor)) or remove and delete notes (free(Remove(somenode))).
One wart here is that my Anchor node now wastes space for data that never will be used -- but that is easily fixable.
# include "stdafx.h"
# include <iostream>
#include <ctype.h>
using namespace std;
class a
{
protected:
int d;
public:
virtual void assign(int A) = 0;
int get();
};
class b : a
{
char* n;
public:
b()
{
n=NULL;
}
virtual ~b()
{
delete n;
}
void assign(int A)
{
d=A;
}
void assignchar(char *c)
{
n=c;
}
int get()
{
return d;
}
char* getchart()
{
return n;
}
};
class c : b
{
b *pB;
int e;
public:
c()
{
pB=new b();
}
~c()
{
delete pB;
}
void assign(int A)
{
e=A;
pB->assign(A);
}
int get()
{
return e;
}
b* getp()
{
return pB;
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
c *pC=new c();
pC->assign(10);
b *p=pC->getp();
p->assignchar("a");
char *abc=p->getchart();
delete pC;
cout<<*abc<<endl;
getchar();
}
i'm a noob at c++ and was experimenting when i got to this point. I don't understand why i keep getting a memory corruption message from VS2010. I am trying to replicate a problem which is at a higher level by breaking it down into smaller bits, any help would be appreciated.
From a cursory glance, you are passing a static char array to AssignChar that cannot be deleted (ie when you type "A" into your code, its a special block of memory the compiler allocates for you).
You need to understand what assignment of a char* does (or any pointer to type). When you call n=c you are just assigning the pointer, the memory that pointer points to remains where it is. So, unless this is exactly what you meant to do, you will have 2 pointers pointing to the same block of memory.. and you need to decide which to delete (you can't delete it twice, that'd be bad).
My advice here is to start using C++, so no more char* types, use std::string instead. Using char* is C programming. Note that if you did use a std::string, and passed one to assignChars, it would copy as you expected (and there is no need to free std::string objects in your destructor, they handle all that for you).
The problem occurs when you're trying to delete pC.
When ~c() destructor calls ~b() destructor - you're trying to delete n;.
The problem is that after assignchar(), n points to a string literal which was given to it as an argument ("a").
That string is not dynamically allocated, and should not be freed, meaning you should either remove the 'delete n;' line, or give a dynamically-allocated string to assignchar() as an argument.
In this code snippet, the Init() function acts as a on-demand initializer that fills in all member variables of the structure. This is done to avoid calling default constructors all members of a large array on the stack:
struct Foo {
int m_Member;
void Init(int i);
};
void Foo::Init(int i) {
m_Member = i;
// Many other members initialized here.
}
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
assert(n <= 64);
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
buffer[i].Init(i * 3);
}
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
This triggers a static analysis error in VS2012 with /analyze:
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer'.: Lines: 17, 19, 20
I'm looking for a way to annotate Foo::Init() so that this warning doesn't occur. There are plenty of other ways to make the warning go away, including:
Adding an empty constructor
Moving Init() to the constructor and calling placement new in the loop
But I'd like to avoid changing the structure of the code.
I've tried the following annotation without success:
void _At_(this, _Out_) Init();
This syntax is accepted, but only changes the warning to be:
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer'.: Lines: 18, 20, 21
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer[BYTE:0]'.: Lines: 18, 20, 21
Does anyone know how I can declare the intent of this Init() function to the static analysis engine?
Your question is somewhat elusive. You have shown SomeFunction taking int, but want annotation for method Init or constructor.
The warning shown is absolutely correct, assert won't hide the warning. You need to put if to check if n is greateer than 64 and reset n (or do something else, but not to loop when n>=64).
For annotation you need to use __in_bcount or similar alternative. An example:
bool SetBuffer(__in_bcount(8) const char* sBuffer);
Whichs says sBuffer is of 8 bytes (not elements).
You can read this this article for more information.
Too ugly to add an extra helper?
struct Foo {
int m_Member;
void Init(int i);
};
void Foo::Init(int i) {
m_Member = i;
// Many other members initialized here.
}
void Initialize(__in_bcount(sizeof(Foo) * n) Foo* buffer, int n) {
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
buffer[i].Init(i * 3);
}
}
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
assert(n <= 64);
Initialize(buffer, n);
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
I found a work around by implementing a function to index the array. I flagged the return value as invalid so that this new function only escapes the uninitialized value check in the specific case where the return value is only used to initialize. I've only tested this in VS2017.
#define _Ret_invalid_ _SAL2_Source_(_Ret_invalid_, (), _Ret1_impl_(__notvalid_impl))
template <typename T>
_Ret_invalid_ T& UninitialzedIndex(T* pt, int index)
{
return pt[index];
}
Then, where the value is indexed, I call UninitialzedIndex instead of operator[]
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
if (n <= 64)
return;
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
UninitialzedIndex(buffer, i).Init(i * 3);
}
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
Just add a default constructor (that calls Init()). What is wrong with that?
[Edit] The root problem is not how to lie to the static analyzer or your compiler. It is how to enforce that you don't leave foo in an uninitialized state. There is nothing wrong with adding a default constructor. I'd say the desire to NOT do it imposes risk.
Perhaps some client will use that poorly constructed foo class (Long after you wrote it and long after you are gone) and perhaps they will forget to call .Init() ?? What then? They will be left with data that is uninitialized.
If you are looking to enforce that rule, no amount of static analysis will help you there.
Take care of the foundation before you put on the roof.
I have the following in my WinRT component:
public value struct WinRTStruct
{
int x;
int y;
};
public ref class WinRTComponent sealed
{
public:
WinRTComponent();
int TestPointerParam(WinRTStruct * wintRTStruct);
};
int WinRTComponent::TestPointerParam(WinRTStruct * wintRTStruct)
{
wintRTStruct->y = wintRTStruct->y + 100;
return wintRTStruct->x;
}
But, it seems that the value of winRTStruct->y and x are always 0 inside the method, when called from C#:
WinRTComponent comp = new WinRTComponent();
WinRTStruct winRTStruct;
winRTStruct.x = 100;
winRTStruct.y = 200;
comp.TestPointerParam(out winRTStruct);
textBlock8.Text = winRTStruct.y.ToString();
What is the correct way to pass a struct by reference so it an be updated inside the method of a WinRTComponent written in C++/CX?
You cannot pass a struct by reference. All value types (including structs) in winrt are passed by value. Winrt structs are expected to be relatively small - they're intended to be used for holding things like Point and Rect.
In your case, you've indicated that the struct is an "out" parameter - an "out" parameter is write-only, its contents are ignored on input and are copied out on return. If you want a structure to be in and out, split it into two parameters - one "in" parameter and another "out" parameter (in/out parameters are not allowed in WinRT because they don't project to JS the way you expect them to project).
My co-worker helped me solve this.
In WinRT components, it seems that the best way to do this is to define a ref struct instead of a value struct:
public ref struct WinRTStruct2 sealed
{
private: int _x;
public:
property int X
{
int get(){ return _x; }
void set(int value){ _x = value; }
}
private: int _y;
public:
property int Y
{
int get(){ return _y; }
void set(int value){ _y = value; }
}
};
But this creates other problems. Now the VS11 compiler gives INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR when I try to add a method to the ref struct that returns an instance of the struct.