Home > Access Violation > Access Violation Delete Pointer

Access Violation Delete Pointer

Mistake #3 : Using auto_ptr ! You should not call expired(). Dec 1 '11 at 20:39 2 Yes, wherever possible replace dynamic memory with RIAA classes like unique_ptr and vector. –Mooing Duck Dec 1 '11 at 20:40 5 (1) Deleting bufferPtr = boost::scoped_array(new BYTE[MAX_PACKET_SIZE]); ... //No delete needed } On the vector point, if it's easy to work with a vector I'd opt for it or any other STL Container when this content

I just call Remove() if the time == 2.0f. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:"Questions seeking debugging help ("why isn't this code working?") must include the desired behavior, a specific problem or error and the shortest If it is to be deleted then you should call reset(). You must test the valued returned by lock() as Manuel Freiholz suggests.

Back to top #7 Fl00Fy Members 198 Like 0Likes Like Posted 16 March 2013 - 09:51 AM Alright. I was adding 8 64-bit value addresses to the pointer instead of adding 1 address at a time. The auto_ptr feature was outright dangerous and has now been deprecated.

  1. Unlucky people release the program with a (hidden) bug that is later exploited.
  2. So, you use the decryption program to try to get the original text file back.
  3. It just call the Update function.
  4. It requires years of experience and great discipline to avoid errors in C++.
  5. It's unlikely the compiler can optimise away the double-check, since the compiler cannot assume a single-threaded environment.
  6. R Schubert #4.2 is wrong: If you pass a naked pointer to a shared_ptr constructor, and the constructor call fails, delete is called on the passed-in pointer.
  7. How to explain extreme human dimorphism?
  8. Browse other questions tagged c++ exception memory c++11 access-violation or ask your own question.
  9. I have also added the delete[] operator to free the memory.
  10. I've made a bunch of these mistakes myself - these just happen because of nuances of the language and C++ leaves a lot of room to shoot yourself in the foot.

Compute the Median Memorable ordinals 3-prong grounded female plug for 12-gauge wire with an 18-gauge ground wire What is the "crystal ball" in the meteorological station? I can't think of how to do that it's so abnormal! MFC is even written to handle that case (some, not all classes). –Stephen Kellett May 29 '14 at 23:58 add a comment| Did you find this question interesting? delete already calls the destructor automatically.

C++ is a very powerful language, and as you say, knowledge of other languages is not enough to use C++ to its full potential. It is both safe and performant if you store your actual objects in a container (preferably a vector) and implement the relationships between them using raw pointers. I have voted to close the question. It has a certain characteristic that is probably not familiar to all C++ developers, and could cause serious problems for somebody who is not careful.

The preferred patterns we use is using Reset for deleting the pointer or Reset it with a new underlying object. This is an interesting way to design self referencial data structures. I have also added the delete[] operator to free the memory. I think the recommendation should be that if you think about using an array, just use a vector.

Nowhere. An object should be assigned to a shared_ptr as soon as it is created. Otherwise you force all your functions to accept shared-pointer parameters, which is inefficient and restrictive. Topic archived.

What do you think? http://supportcanonprinter.com/access-violation/access-violation-rtl100.html You can get a handle to the raw pointer from a shared_ptr using the shared_ptr.get() api. If your intent is to delete the object managed by the unique_ptr, consider using unique_ptr.reset(). But where is the object “result” located after the SumComplex function is executed?

If it is, you have more serious problems. It uses atomic operations for increasing/decreasing a reference counter, so it is thread safe. Boyfriend is coowner with sister, wants to move out How to explain extreme human dimorphism? http://supportcanonprinter.com/access-violation/what-is-an-access-violation.html However, this is risky and should be avoided.

Deb Haldar That makes sense. Thanks One possible approach for testing: First of all make sure that you can process each and every byte of a file (without encryption). vector) in the displayed code, but might improve things if you used them consistently in the rest of your code.

Which probably will be in your destructor. [edit] or if you have some sort of delete/erase function.[/edit] Last edited on Mar 27, 2014 at 1:32am UTC Mar 27, 2014 at 2:57am

Could removing an object affect the collection structure? –zehelvion Oct 6 '12 at 16:36 How do you store your objects? So long as the method doesn't read/write any data members or call any virtual functions you won't get a crash (crazy stuff!). If you try to get a bigger and bigger buffer to try to keep it from overflowing, sooner or later you will ask for more memory than the system can give. Here’s the output after re-executing the main().

There is no any protection from a compiler to avoid it. Deb Haldar Agreed - thanks Francisco. Watch out for these 9 Red Flags ! check my blog Cost effective drivetrain maintanance Special header with logo in center of it Safe way to get a few more inches under car on flat surface Changing thickness of outline in QGIS

Mistake #7 : Not using a custom deleter when using an array of pointers with a shared_ptr ! It's interesting you should mention vector of unique_ptr - that's what I typically tend to use for most of my needs. Even if we can do that, it is often not safe from exceptions. The role is that raw pointers are never ever to be deleted because they are always assumed to be owned by someone else.

Consider the following example: int main() { Aircraft* myAircraft = new Aircraft("F-16"); shared_ptr pAircraft(myAircraft); cout << pAircraft.use_count() << endl; // ref-count is 1 shared_ptr pAircraft2(myAircraft); cout << pAircraft2.use_count() << endl; // more stack exchange communities company blog Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges sign up log in tour help Tour Start here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed If functionality of reference counting is not required, which is mostly the case for arrays, the most elegant way is to use STL vectors instead. thanks! 1
void linkedlist::insertnode(int index, itemtype data) { if (index < 0 || index > linkedlist::size()) { return; } else { node* temp1 = new node(); temp1->data = data; temp1->next =

how can I do that? how to stop muting nearby strings or will my fingers reshape after some practice? There are some cases when virtual destructor is not desirable, i.e. Copyright © 2017 A CODER'S JOURNEY.

Johannes Schaub "Mistake # 10 : Not using a expiry check when calling weak_ptr.lock()". I apologize for the confusion. Check this. –Chnossos May 3 '14 at 11:56 "this" can be NULL / nullptr. One additional point to the subject are classes/templates from the standard library.

Your destructor should look like : ~BSTree() { delete left; delete right; // possibly ... I was adding 8 64-bit value addresses to the pointer instead of adding 1 address at a time. Compactness of the open and closed unit intervals Special header with logo in center of it Anagram puzzle whose solution is guaranteed to make you laugh How did Adebisi make his You cannot reply to this topic 6 replies to this topic #1 Fl00Fy Members 198 Like 0Likes Like Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:38 AM Well I'm working on

The child is passed the parent's weak_ptr. If you are, you should be using an object pool. If it must be a pointer maybe you could use a Boost Smart Pointer instead: #include #define MAX_PACKET_SIZE 0x3FFF DWORD MyClass::GetFile( LPCSTR lpszRemoteFile, LPCSTR lpszLocalFile ) { boost::scoped_array bufferPtr; ... The second example contains single quotation marks instead of double quotes (which may happen by accident) which will also result in calling of the first constructor and creating a string with