Consider this code:
#include <vector> void Example() { std::vector<TCHAR*> list; TCHAR* pLine = new TCHAR[20]; list.push_back(pLine); list.clear(); // is delete called here? // is delete pLine; necessary? }
Does list.clear()
call delete
on each element? I.e. do I have to free the memory before / after list.clear()
?
No, memory are not freed. In C++11, you can use the shrink_to_fit method for force the vector to free memory. You can use it, but the standard specifies that it does not force extra memory to be released (§23.3.
vector::clear() clear() function is used to remove all the elements of the vector container, thus making it size 0.
So what your question should be: "Does std::vector<T*>::clear() call delete on its elements?" and here the answer is: No, it does not call delete . You have to do it manually like shown in your example code, or you can (and probably should) use objects like std::string or smart pointers instead of raw pointers.
std::vector will not automatically de-allocate the memory, so your program will leak.
std::vector
does call the destructor of every element it contains when clear()
is called. In your particular case, it destroys the pointer but the objects remain.
Smart pointers are the right way to go, but be careful. auto_ptr
cannot be used in std containers. boost::scoped_ptr
can't either. boost::shared_ptr
can, but it won't work in your case because you don't have a pointer to an object, you are actually using an array. So the solution to your problem is to use boost::shared_array
.
But I suggest you use std::basic_string<TCHAR>
instead, where you won't have to deal with memory management, while still getting the benefits of working with a string.
No (you need to do the delete yourself at the end as you suggest in your example as the destruction of the bald pointer doesnt do anything). But you can use a boost [or other RAII-based idiom] smart pointer to make it Do The Right Thing (auto_ptr
would not work correctly in a container as it has incompatible behaviour under copying etc.), but be sure you understand the pitfalls of such smart pointers before use. (As Benoit mentions, in this case, basic_string
is what you're really looking for here.)
Having said that there's a need to understand the pitfalls of smart pointers, having them take care of the memory management implicitly so you dont have to do it explicitly is far less error-prone.
EDIT: Substantially revised to encompass the elements Benoit brought into his far more thorough answer, thanks to strong prodding from the Earwicker and James Matta - thanks for pushing me to do the due diligence on this!
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With