pvigier's blog

computer science, programming and other ideas

Non empty destructors in C++

Have you already faced problems with nontrivial destructors?

I face one recently which was really annoying. In this article, I want to share with you my knowledge of this problem and the solutions I use to address it.

The problem

The problem is not really that the destructor is nonempty but that the destructor is nontrivial: there is a release of memory or some states are changed in another part of the app.

Let us take a very simple example with a class that does dynamic allocation to explain the problem:

class A
{
public:
    A() : mPointer(new int(0))
    {

    }

    ~A()
    {
        delete mPointer;
    }

private:
    int* mPointer;
}

As we allocate an integer in the constructor, the natural solution for memory management is to free it in the destructor. However, this will have terrible consequences.

For instance, if we do this:

int main()
{
    A a;
    A anotherA(a);

    return 0;
}

A segmentation fault will occur.

Why?

Because when the main function ends, the destructor of A is called to delete a and anotherA. When a is destroyed the memory cell to which a’s mPointer points to is freed. Then, when anotherA is destroyed, we try to free the memory to which anotherA’s mPointer points to. But as anotherA is a copy of a, its mPointer points to the same memory cell as a’s mPointer. Thus, we try to free twice the same memory cell which causes the Segmentation fault.

So, the problem is that because of the copy the destructor is called twice on the same attributes.

Note that the copy or move constructors are often called when we use containers. For instance, there is a copy or a move when the std::vector’s push_back is called.

First solution: rule of three

Firstly, this rule has nothing to do with Star Wars’ Rule of two.

The rule of three is a design rule that say that if one of the following is defined then the two others should also be defined:

  • destructor
  • copy constructor
  • copy assignment operator

In particular, if the destructor is nonempty then we should define the copy constructor and the copy assignment operator.

So for our previous class A, we would do the following:

class A
{
public:
    A() : mPointer(new int(0))
    {

    }

    // Copy constructor
    A (const A& other) : mPointer(new int(other.mPointer))
    {

    }

    ~A()
    {
        delete mPointer;
    }

    // Copy assignment operator
    A& operator=(const A& other)
    {
        delete mPointer;
        mPointer = new int(other.mPointer);
        return *this;
    }

private:
    int* mPointer;
}

With this definition of A, there is no problem anymore with our previous main.

With C++11 the rule of three becomes the rule of five as we should also define the move constructor and the move assignment operator but I omit that for the sake of simplicity and brevity.

The main disadvantage of this method is that we have to write a lot of code to obtain the correct behavior. But this is the idiomatic way to encapsulate a low-level resource and follow RAII.

Second solution: RAII

Another solution is to ensure the destructor is empty by, for instance, using only attributes that follows RAII (standard containers, std::strings, smart pointers, a file stream, etc.).

In our case, for A, we could use a smart pointer instead of a plain one:

#include <memory>

class A
{
public:
    A() : mPointer(new int(0))
    {

    }

private:
    std::unique_ptr<int> mPointer;
}

The code is simpler, we have not to worry about the memory and the previous main executes successfully.

If adequate, this is the solution that should be chosen.

Third solution: forbid copy and move

The third solution is a bit radical: it is to forbid copy and move.

To do that I use the two following class:

class NonCopyable
{
public:
    NonCopyable() = default;
    NonCopyable(const NonCopyable&) = delete;
    NonCopyable& operator=(const NonCopyable&) = delete;
};
class NonMovable
{
public:
    NonMovable() = default;
    NonMovable(NonMovable&&) = delete;
    NonMovable& operator=(NonMovable&&) = delete;
};

As copy and move are not safe for A, I would make A inherit from both:

class A : public NonCopyable, public NonMovable
{
public:
    A() : mPointer(new int(0))
    {

    }

    ~A()
    {
        delete mPointer;
    }

private:
    int* mPointer;
}

This time, if we try to compile the previous main, we would obtain a compile-time error. But if the program compile, we are ensured that no wild segmentation fault will occur during execution because of a copy or a move.

This solution has the benefit of being very fast to implement.

Fourth solution: set up and tear down

The last solution is to manage the initialization and the finalization outside of the constructor and the destructor.

In our example, we could use a method setUp to allocate the memory and tearDown to release it:

class A
{
public:
    A() : mPointer(nullptr)
    {

    }

    ~A()
    {

    }

    void setUp()
    {
        mPointer = new int(0)
    }

    void tearDown()
    {
        delete mPointer;
        mPointer = nullptr;
    }

private:
    int* mPointer;
}

Then we can transform the previous main to obtain the correct behavior:

int main()
{
    A a;
    a.setUp();
    A anotherA(a);
    a.tearDown();

    return 0;
}

This solution works well but requires from the user of the class to be more careful and to manage himself the memory. Moreover, this is non-idiomatic and bad C++. It is better to follow the rule of three/five to encapsulate the resource.

That’s all for this post, I hope you find it useful.

If you are interested in my adventures during the development of Vagabond, you can follow me on Twitter.

Tags: cpp


Subscribe to the newsletter if you do not want to miss any new article: