Question

I am currently implementing a basic garbage collector which purpose it is to delete all left dynamically allocated objects at the end of program. I hope the class documentation makes it more clear:

/**
 * This basic garbage collector provides easy memory leak prevention.
 * Just derive your class from utils::Object and the collector will
 * care about freeing dynamically allocated objects. This basic
 * implementation will just free all internal cached objects at the end
 * of program. So allocated memory which was not freed manually will
 * stay blocked up to this point.
 */
class GarbageCollector {
private:
    // All object collector should care about (true means array)
    std::map< Object*, bool > objects;

    GarbageCollector();
    /**
     * Free left allocated memory.
     */
    ~GarbageCollector() {
        std::map< Object*, bool >::iterator it = objects.begin();
        int counter = 0;
        while( it != objects.end() ) {
            // save pointer and iterate to next because
            // delete will remove obj from object set
            Object* obj = it->first;
            bool array = it->second;
            ++it;
            ++counter;
            if( array ) {
                delete[] obj;
            }
            else
                delete obj;
        }
        if( counter )
            std::cout << "GC: " << counter << " object(s) freed\n";
    }
public:
    /**
     * @return Static collector instance.
     */
    static GarbageCollector& getCollector();

    void addObject( Object* obj );
    void addArray( Object* obj );
    void remove( Object* obj );
};

This base class Object from which other classes will inherit from will add the pointer of the allocated memory to this gc:

class Object {
public:
    void* operator new( std::size_t size ) {
        void* ptr = malloc( size );
        if( !ptr )
            throw std::bad_alloc();
        GarbageCollector::getCollector().addObject( static_cast<Object*>(ptr) );
        return ptr;
    }
    void operator delete( void* ptr ) {
        GarbageCollector::getCollector().remove( static_cast<Object*>(ptr) );
        free( ptr );
    }
    void* operator new[]( std::size_t size ) {
        void* ptr = malloc( size );
        if( !ptr )
            throw std::bad_alloc();
        GarbageCollector::getCollector().addArray( static_cast<Object*>(ptr) );
        return ptr;
    }
    void operator delete[]( void* ptr ) {
        GarbageCollector::getCollector().remove( static_cast<Object*>(ptr) );
        free( ptr );
    }
};

This works fine for the new statement. But if try to allocate an array via new[] the program crashes. Valgrind –leak-check=yes gives this output:

==3030== Invalid read of size 8
==3030==    at 0x408305: utils::GarbageCollector::~GarbageCollector() (garbageCollector.cpp:40)
==3030==    by 0x55A4820: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:78)
==3030==    by 0x55A48A4: exit (exit.c:100)
==3030==    by 0x558A313: (below main) (libc-start.c:258)
==3030==  Address 0x5b8e038 is 8 bytes before a block of size 144 alloc'd
==3030==    at 0x4C28F9F: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==3030==    by 0x409A59: utils::Object::operator new[](unsigned long) (object.cpp:45)
==3030==    by 0x409B58: start() (main.cpp:49)
==3030==    by 0x409C30: main (main.cpp:54)
==3030== 
==3030== Invalid free() / delete / delete[]
==3030==    at 0x4C282E0: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==3030==    by 0x409AE8: utils::Object::operator delete[](void*) (object.cpp:54)
==3030==    by 0x408339: utils::GarbageCollector::~GarbageCollector() (garbageCollector.cpp:40)
==3030==    by 0x55A4820: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:78)
==3030==    by 0x55A48A4: exit (exit.c:100)
==3030==    by 0x558A313: (below main) (libc-start.c:258)
==3030==  Address 0x5b8e038 is 8 bytes before a block of size 144 alloc'd
==3030==    at 0x4C28F9F: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==3030==    by 0x409A59: utils::Object::operator new[](unsigned long) (object.cpp:45)
==3030==    by 0x409B58: start() (main.cpp:49)
==3030==    by 0x409C30: main (main.cpp:54)
==3030== 
GC: 1 object(s) freed
==3030== 
==3030== HEAP SUMMARY:
==3030==     in use at exit: 144 bytes in 1 blocks
==3030==   total heap usage: 8 allocs, 8 frees, 896 bytes allocated
==3030== 
==3030== 144 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
==3030==    at 0x4C28F9F: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==3030==    by 0x409A59: utils::Object::operator new[](unsigned long) (object.cpp:45)
==3030==    by 0x409B58: start() (main.cpp:49)
==3030==    by 0x409C30: main (main.cpp:54)
==3030== 
==3030== LEAK SUMMARY:
==3030==    definitely lost: 144 bytes in 1 blocks
==3030==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3030==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3030==    still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3030==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3030== 
==3030== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==3030== ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)

I debugged the program an the gc is trying to delete the memory at the adress which new[] returned. Can you tell me where my fault is?

Answer 1

You cannot use delete[] expression with a pointer returned from operator new[]. You must use operator delete[] directly.

This is because new[] expression sometimes adjusts the result of operator new[], and delete[] expression adjusts the argument in the opposite direction So:

• If you have a pointer returned by a new[] expression, free it with a delete[] expression.
• If you have a pointer returned by a call to operator new[], free it with a call to operator delete[].

In general, this is also true with respect to new expression/operator new/delete expression/operator delete, but GCC lets you get away with this.

This is a technical answer, concerning only the crash. The usefulness of the code as a memory leak prevention tool is discussed in comments.

Update A quick an dirty example of the thesis can be found at http://ideone.com/0atp5

Please note that if you call operator delete[] instead of delete[],

• The destructors will not be called (but if you free all objects automatically, destructors are not needed anyway)
• You do not need to cast pointers to Object* and back, just store everything as a void*.