可以将文章内容翻译成中文,广告屏蔽插件可能会导致该功能失效(如失效,请关闭广告屏蔽插件后再试):
问题:
As far as I know, I should destroy in destructors everything I created with new
and close opened filestreams and other streams.
However, I have some doubts about other objects in C++:
std::vector
and std::string
s: Are they destroyed automatically?
If I have something like
std::vector<myClass*>
of pointers to classes. What happens when the vector destructor is called?
Would it call automatically the destructor of myClass
? Or only the vector is destroyed but all the Objects it contains are still existant in the memory?
What happens if I have a pointer to another class inside a class, say:
class A {
ClassB* B;
}
and Class A is destroyed at some point in the code. Will Class B be destroyed too or just the pointer and class B will be still existent somewhere in the memory?
回答1:
std::vector and std::strings: Are they destroyed automatically?
Yes (assuming member variables are not pointers to std::vector
and std::string
).
If I have something like std::vector what happens when the vector destructor is called?
Would it call automatically the destructor of myClass? Or only the vector is destroyed but all the Objects it contains are still existant in the memory?
If vector<MyClass>
then all objects contained in the vector will be destroyed. If vector<MyClass*>
then all objects must be explicitly delete
d (assuming the class being destructed owns the objects in the vector
). A third alternative is vector
of smart pointers, like vector<shared_ptr<MyClass>>
, in which case the elements of the vector
do not need to be explictly delete
d.
What happens if I have a pointer to another class inside a class
The B
must be explicitly delete
d. Again, a smart pointer could be used to handle the destruction of B
.
回答2:
You only need to worry about for the memory you have created dynamically (When you reserve memory with new
.)
For example:
Class Myclass{
private:
char* ptr;
public:
~Myclass() {delete[] ptr;};
}
回答3:
if they are in automatic storage, yes. You can have std::string* s = new std::string
, in which case you have to delete it yourself.
nothing, you need to manually delete memory you own (for memory allocated with new
).
if you allocated b
with new
, you should destroy it in the destructor explicitly.
A good rule of thumb is to use a delete/delete[]
for each new/new[]
you have in your code.
A better rule of thumb is to use RAII, and use smart pointers instead of raw pointers.
回答4:
It depends. std::vector
and std::string
and MyClass
all have 1 thing in common - if you declare a variable to be any of those types, then it will be allocated on stack, be local to the current block you're in, and be destructed when that block ends.
E.g.
{
std::vector<std::string> a;
std::string b;
MyClass c;
} //at this point, first c will be destroyed, then b, then all strings in a, then a.
If you get to pointers, you guessed correctly: Only the memory the pointer itself occupies (usually a 4 byte integer) will be automatically freed upon leaving scope. Nothing happens to the memory pointed to unless you explicitly delete
it (whether it's in a vector or not). If you have a class that contains pointers to other objects you may have to delete them in the destructor (depending on whether or not that class owns those objects). Note that in C++11 there are pointer classes (called smart pointers) that let you treat pointers in a similar fashion to 'normal' objects:
Ex:
{
std::unique_ptr<std::string> a = make_unique<std::string>("Hello World");
function_that_wants_string_ptr(a.get());
} //here a will call delete on it's internal string ptr and then be destroyed
回答5:
If I have something like std::vector what happens when the vector destructor is called?
It depends.
If you have a vector of values std::vector <MyClass>
, then the destructor of the vector calls the destructor for every instance of MyClass
in the vector.
If you have a vector of pointers std::vector <MyClass*>
, then you're responsible for deleting the instances of MyClass
.
What happens if I have a pointer to another class inside a class
ClassB
instance would remain in memory. Possible ways to have ClassA
destructor to make the job for you are to make B
an instance member or a smart pointer.
回答6:
std::vector
, std::string
and as far as I know all other STL containers have automatic destructors. This is the reason why it is often better to use these containers instead of new
and delete
since you will prevent memory leaks.
Your myClass
destructor will only be called if your vector is a vector of myClass
objects (std::vector< myClass >
) instead of a vector of pointers to myClass
objects (std::vector< myClass* >
).
In the first case the destructor of std::vector
will also call the destructor of myClass
for each of its elements; in the second case the destructor of std::vector
will call the destructor of myClass*
, which means it will free the space taken to store each pointer but will not free the space taken to store the myClass
objects themselves.
The Class B
objects you point to will not be destroyed, but the space assigned to store its pointer will be freed.
回答7:
Yes. std::vector
and std::string
are automatically when they finish out of scope, calling also the destructor of the objects contained (for std::vector
).
As said before, std::vector
is destroyed when it finish out of scope, calling the destructor of the objects contained. But in fact, in this case, the objects contained are the pointers, not the object pointed by the pointers. So you have to delete
them manually.
The same as (2). A will be destroyed and so the pointer, but not the class B pointed. You have to provide a destructor for A that delete
B.
In C++11 there is a very useful solution: use std::unique_pointer
. Can be use only to point a single object and this will be deleted when the pointer goes out of scope (for example when you destroy your std::vector
).
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/unique_ptr
回答8:
As I understand it, this should work as follows:
vector <int> test_vector = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7} // Call vector constructor
... Any manipulations with a vector ...
test_vector.~vector(); // Call vector destructor
Is that what you wanted?