Hi, if i create a new object like this:

for(i = 0; i< 10; ++i)
{
  ServerSystem *server = new ServerSystem();
}

why this isn't an error?

Quote:Original post by Tano_ITA

why this isn't an error?

Because it's not? That's perfectly valid code.

It is an error in that you aren't going to be able to delete any of those pointers you created. It's not a syntax error though so it will still build. Depending on what ServerSystem does it will probably run also.

Quote:Original post by Tano_ITA
Hi,
if i create a new object like this:

for(i = 0; i< 10; ++i){  ServerSystem *server = new ServerSystem();}

why this isn't an error?

What kind of error were you expecting?

you will get a memory leak at run time, but it is a perfectly valid piece of code.

Ok, thanks for the replyes. but if i want to access a particolary server object? For example, i want to delete 2 of 10 objects. Can i do that?

Thanks a lot. I know that's a stupid question, but i'm curious.. And sorry for my bad english! :)

Quote:Original post by Tano_ITA
Ok, thanks for the replyes. but if i want to access a particolary server object? For example, i want to delete 2 of 10 objects. Can i do that?

Thanks a lot. I know that's a stupid question, but i'm curious.. And sorry for my bad english! :)

And for this question?

Quote:Original post by monkey8751
It is an error in that you aren't going to be able to delete any of those pointers you created.

C++ is built on premise that "user knows better". In this case, user wants to allocate several objects.

Valid, and sane, yet somewhat advanced example (see boost's asio TCP connection examples):

class ServerSystem {  ServerSystem() {    registerEvent(this, onReceive, &ServerSystem::onReceive);    registerEvent(this, onShutdown, &ServerSystem::onShutdown);  }  void onShutdown() {    delete this;  }};

onShutdown gets called by some external handler.

While purists will start killing kittens when seeing such code, there is nothing wrong with it, and sometimes makes perfect sense.

This is also idiomatic approach for memory managed languages. There, references are tracked implicitly. So even if user loses a reference to an object, memory manager still has it. But the by far most important point: someone, somewhere, somehow needs to track what a certain byte of memory represents. It could even be DRAM itself. Or memory manager. Or meta-bits in memory. Or someone. In above example, event manager (in asio's example it's the IOCP) keeps track of this reference.

General advice for C++ is to de-allocate in same context as you allocate. But this is not even remotely required, and sometimes not even desired. Code such as this:

void concatStrings(string * s1, string * s2) {  return new string(s1, s2);}

is undesirable due to design/implementation coupling. Since C++ makes no distinction of how pointee was allocated, such function will implicitly need to use consistent allocation scheme.


All that said, general advice still holds. Manage what you allocate. Almost without exception, it makes code cleaner and simpler to follow. But if using C++, look into other options. After all, manual memory management is the defining trait of C++.

Quote:And for this question?

You somehow need to find them. Unless you remember where you put something, you will never find it again.

And don't do that. Just because of above options, this isn't a legit example of such practices. Allocate, remember, de-allocate. It will be a long time before you find a legit example where it may be desirable to forget what you allocated.