• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Seabolt

new[] is flawed?

38 posts in this topic

Why don't they store the housekeeping data preceding the allocation then, making sure the returned pointer is aligned? Operator delete[] could find the housekeeping information based on the pointer passed to it, via the magic of subtraction.

 

Seems a no-brainer to me... (maybe the implementation was implemented before alignment became a major issue though, and it is retained for backwards compatibility).

This is how I always thought it worked. AFAIK, the housekeeping data is just the length of the array, so delete[] knows how many objects to call the destructor on. I just ran a test in GCC and this is indeed how it works (count stored at ReturnedAddress - 4)

 

I tried placement new[] as well, and the pointer returned is the same as the pointer passed in, and I can't find the count stored in memory anywhere shortly before or after the data. Also, calling delete[] on it crashes. I'm pretty sure destructors have to be manually called on placement new'd things, since there's nothing marking that the delete shouldn't also release the memory either.

Edited by DekuTree64
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I think I remember what you're talking about, somethinga bout knowing how many objects to call the destructor for. The strange thing was that it wouldn't do it on some pointers, but would on others. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a way to solve this issue, because I really like having arrays of objects. It's so nice for cache coherency!

The way to solve this would presumably be to overload operator new[], such that it returns properly aligned data. Possibly writing it in terms of regular operator new. Don't forget top overload operator delete[] too if you do that.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm a little late to replying, I didn't think this thread would blow up like it did.
 

I do have a question for tivolo, we initially thought about not using new delete new[] or delete[] but we didn't want to forsake our constructors and the like. Is there a good way around this, or do you just use Initialize() methods on all of your objects?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will placement new still have house keeping information that it needs to store? Would the pointer returned to the client be at the same position as the placement?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard guarantees that the pointer returned by placement new (both scalar and array variants) is equal to, and that the objects are constructed at, the pointer you pass to them. If you need any information about the number of objects to destroy later, you need to keep that information yourself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The standard guarantees that the pointer returned by placement new (both scalar and array variants) is equal to, and that the objects are constructed at, the pointer you pass to them.

No, it doesn't. Not for the array placement new. 5.3.4 paragraph 12 of the standard specifically states that the pointer returned by array placement new may be offset, and in practice most compilers will for complex types.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 18.6.1.3 lists the special forms of placement new where you pass the pointer to the memory location where the objects are constructed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they exist. I never said that they didn't. But implementations are still permitted to add array allocation overhead to array placement new as described in 5.3.4. And even if they weren't allowed to do it, it doesn't change the fact that most implementations do anyways.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the way I see it now is that section 18.6.1.3 lists the behavior of the function named operator new that the operator new calls to acquire memory before calling the constructors and whatever other book keeping it will do. Different functions to acquire the memory, but it's still the same operator new for initializing the array; book keeping included.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm a little late to replying, I didn't think this thread would blow up like it did.
 

I do have a question for tivolo, we initially thought about not using new delete new[] or delete[] but we didn't want to forsake our constructors and the like. Is there a good way around this, or do you just use Initialize() methods on all of your objects?

 

You don't have to forsake constructors and the likes.

But you have to do the things the compiler normally does for you yourself. That means that you have to use placement new on memory returned by your custom allocator, and also have to make sure the constructor/destructors are correctly invoked for arrays. I use regular placement new both for single instances as well as arrays, and don't rely on array placement new.

 

You can find really detailed info on my blog, search for "memory system", it's a five-part series.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0