Effective C++, 2E | Item 7: Be prepared for out-of-memory conditions Back to Item 6: Use delete on pointer members in destructors. Continue to Item 8: Adhere to convention when writing operator new and operator delete. Item 7: Be prepared for out-of-memory conditions. When operator new can't allocate the memory you request, it throws an exception. (It used to return 0, and some older compilers still do that. You can make your compilers do it again if you want to, but I'll defer that discussion until the end of this Item.) Deep in your heart of hearts, you know that handling out-of-memory exceptions is the only truly moral course of action. At the same time, you are keenly aware of the fact that doing so is a pain in the neck. As a result, chances are that you omit such handling from time to time. Like always, perhaps. Still, you must harbor a lurking sense of guilt. I mean, what if new really does yield an exception? You may think that one reasonable way to cope with this matter is to fall back on your days in the gutter, i.e., to use the preprocessor. For example, a common C idiom is to define a type-independent macro to allocate memory and then check to make sure the allocation succeeded. For C++, such a macro might look something like this: #define NEW(PTR, TYPE) \ try { (PTR) = new TYPE; } \ catch (std::bad_alloc&) { assert(0); } ("Wait! What's this std::bad_alloc business?", you ask. bad_alloc is the type of exception operator new throws when it can't satisfy a memory allocation request, and std is the name of the namespace (see Item 28) where bad_alloc is defined. "Okay," you continue, "what's this assert business?" Well, if you look in the standard C include file (or its namespace-savvy C++ equivalent, see Item 49), you'll find that assert is a macro. The macro checks to see if the expression it's passed is non-zero, and, if it's not, it issues an error message and calls abort. Okay, it does that only when the standard macro NDEBUG isn't defined, i.e., in debug mode. In production mode, i.e., when NDEBUG is defined, assert expands to nothing to a void statement. You thus check assertions only when debugging.) This NEW macro suffers from the common error of using an assert to test a condition that might occur in production code (after all, you can run out of memory at any time), but it also has a drawback specific to C++: it fails to take into account the myriad ways in which new can be used. There are three common syntactic forms for getting new objects of type T, and you need to deal with the possibility of exceptions for each of these forms: new T; new T(constructor arguments); new T[size]; This oversimplifies the problem, however, because clients can define their own (overloaded) versions of operator new, so programs may contain an arbitrary number of different syntactic forms for using new. How, then, to cope? If you're willing to settle for a very simple error-handling strategy, you can set things up so that if a request for memory cannot be satisfied, an error-handling function you specify is called. This strategy relies on the convention that when operator new cannot satisfy a request, it calls a client-specifiable error-handling function often called a new-handler before it throws an exception. (In truth, what operator new really does is slightly more complicated. Details are provided in Item 8.) To specify the out-of-memory-handling function, clients call set_new_handler, which is specified in the header more or less like this: typedef void (*new_handler)(); new_handler set_new_handler(new_handler p) throw(); As you can see, new_handler is a typedef for a pointer to a function that takes and returns nothing, and set_new_handler is a function that takes and returns a new_handler. set_new_handler's parameter is a pointer to the function operator new should call if it can't allocate the requested memory. The return value of set_new_handler is a pointer to the function in effect for that purpose before set_new_handler was called. You use set_new_handler like this: // function to call if operator new can't allocate enough memory void noMoreMemory() { cerr << "Unable to satisfy request for memory\n"; abort(); } int main() { set_new_handler(noMoreMemory); int *pBigDataArray = new int[100000000]; ... } If, as seems likely, operator new is unable to allocate space for 100,000,000 integers, noMoreMemory will be called, and the program will abort after issuing an error message. This is a marginally better way to terminate the program than a simple core dump. (By the way, consider what happens if memory must be dynamically allocated during the course of writing the error message to cerr...) When operator new cannot satisfy a request for memory, it calls the new-handler function not once, but repeatedly until it can find enough memory. The code giving rise to these repeated calls is shown in Item 8, but this high-level description is enough to conclude that a well-designed new-handler function must do one of the following: Make more memory available. This may allow operator new's next attempt to allocate the memory to succeed. One way to implement this strategy is to allocate a large block of memory at program start-up, then release it the first time the new-handler is invoked. Such a release is often accompanied by some kind of warning to the user that memory is low and that future requests may fail unless more memory is somehow made available. Install a different new-handler. If the current new-handler can't make any more memory available, perhaps it knows of a different new-handler that is more resourceful. If so, the current new-handler can install the other new-handler in its place (by calling set_new_handler). The next time operator new calls the new-handler function, it will get the one most recently installed. (A variation on this theme is for a new-handler to modify its own behavior, so the next time it's invoked, it does something different. One way to achieve this is to have the new-handler modify static or global data that affects the new-handler's behavior.) Deinstall the new-handler, i.e., pass the null pointer to set_new_handler. With no new-handler installed, operator new will throw an exception of type std::bad_alloc when its attempt to allocate memory is unsuccessful. Throw an exception of type std::bad_alloc or some type derived from std::bad_alloc. Such exceptions will not be caught by operator new, so they will propagate to the site originating the request for memory. (Throwing an exception of a different type will violate operator new's exception specification. The default action when that happens is to call abort, so if your new-handler is going to throw an exception, you definitely want to make sure it's from the std::bad_alloc hierarchy. For more information on exception specifications, see Item M14.) Not return, typically by calling abort or exit, both of which are found in the standard C library (and thus in the standard C++ library see Item 49). These choices give you considerable flexibility in implementing new-handler functions. Sometimes you'd like to handle memory allocation failures in different ways, depending on the class of the object being allocated: class X { public: static void outOfMemory(); ... }; class Y { public: static void outOfMemory(); ... }; X* p1 = new X; // if allocation is unsuccessful, // call X::outOfMemory Y* p2 = new Y; // if allocation is unsuccessful, // call Y::outOfMemory C++ has no support for class-specific new-handlers, but it doesn't need to. You can implement this behavior yourself. You just have each class provide its own versions of set_new_handler and operator new. The class's set_new_handler allows clients to specify the new-handler for the class (just like the standard set_new_handler allows clients to specify the global new-handler). The class's operator new ensures that the class-specific new-handler is used in place of the global new-handler when memory for class objects is allocated. Consider a class X for which you want to handle memory allocation failures. You'll have to keep track of the function to call when operator new can't allocate enough memory for an object of type X, so you'll declare a static member of type new_handler to point to the new-handler function for the class. Your class X will look something like this: class X { public: static new_handler set_new_handler(new_handler p); static void * operator new(size_t size); private: static new_handler currentHandler; }; Static class members must be defined outside the class definition. Because you'll want to use the default initialization of static objects to 0, you'll define X::currentHandler without initializing it: new_handler X::currentHandler; // sets currentHandler // to 0 (i.e., null) by // default The set_new_handler function in class X will save whatever pointer is passed to it. It will return whatever pointer had been saved prior to the call. This is exactly what the standard version of set_new_handler does: new_handler X::set_new_handler(new_handler p) { new_handler oldHandler = currentHandler; currentHandler = p; return oldHandler; } Finally, X's operator new will do the following: Call the standard set_new_handler with X's error-handling function. This will install X's new-handler as the global new- handler. In the code below, notice how you explicitly reference the std scope (where the standard set_new_handler resides) by using the "::" notation. Call the global operator new to actually allocate the requested memory. If the initial attempt at allocation fails, the global operator new will invoke X's new-handler, because that function was just installed as the global new-handler. If the global operator new is ultimately unable to find a way to allocate the requested memory, it will throw a std::bad_alloc exception, which X's operator new will catch. X's operator new will then restore the global new-handler that was originally in place, and it will return by propagating the exception. Assuming the global operator new was able to successfully allocate enough memory for an object of type X, X's operator new will again call the standard set_new_handler to restore the global error-handling function to what it was originally. It will then return a pointer to the allocated memory. Here's how you say all that in C++: void * X::operator new(size_t size) { new_handler globalHandler = // install X's std::set_new_handler(currentHandler); // handler void *memory; try { // attempt memory = ::operator new(size); // allocation } catch (std::bad_alloc&) { // restore std::set_new_handler(globalHandler); // handler; throw; // propagate } // exception std::set_new_handler(globalHandler); // restore // handler return memory; } If the duplicated calls to std::set_new_handler caught your eye, turn to Item M9 for information on how to eliminate them. Clients of class X use its new-handling capabilities like this: void noMoreMemory(); // decl. of function to // call if memory allocation // for X objects fails X::set_new_handler(noMoreMemory); // set noMoreMemory as X's // new-handling function X *px1 = new X; // if memory allocation // fails, call noMoreMemory string *ps = new string; // if memory allocation // fails, call the global // new-handling function // (if there is one) X::set_new_handler(0); // set the X-specific // new-handling function // to nothing (i.e., null) X *px2 = new X; // if memory allocation // fails, throw an exception // immediately. (There is // no new-handling function // for class X.) You may note that the code for implementing this scheme is the same regardless of the class, so a reasonable inclination would be to reuse it in other places. As Item 41 explains, both inheritance and templates can be used to create reusable code. However, in this case, it's a combination of the two that gives you what you need. All you have to do is create a "mixin-style" base class, i.e., a base class that's designed to allow derived classes to inherit a single specific capability in this case, the ability to set a class-specific new-handler. Then you turn the base class into a template. The base class part of the design lets derived classes inherit the set_new_handler and operator new functions they all need, while the template part of the design ensures that each inheriting class gets a different currentHandler data member. The result may sound a little complicated, but you'll find that the code looks reassuringly familiar. In fact, about the only real difference is that it's now reusable by any class that wants it: template // "mixin-style" base class class NewHandlerSupport { // for class-specific public: // set_new_handler support static new_handler set_new_handler(new_handler p); static void * operator new(size_t size); private: static new_handler currentHandler; }; template new_handler NewHandlerSupport::set_new_handler(new_handler p) { new_handler oldHandler = currentHandler; currentHandler = p; return oldHandler; } template void * NewHandlerSupport::operator new(size_t size) { new_handler globalHandler = std::set_new_handler(currentHandler); void *memory; try { memory = ::operator new(size); } catch (std::bad_alloc&) { std::set_new_handler(globalHandler); throw; } std::set_new_handler(globalHandler); return memory; } // this sets each currentHandler to 0 template new_handler NewHandlerSupport::currentHandler; With this class template, adding set_new_handler support to class X is easy: X just inherits from newHandlerSupport: // note inheritance from mixin base class template. (See // my article on counting objects for information on why // private inheritance might be preferable here.) class X: public NewHandlerSupport { ... // as before, but no declarations for }; // set_new_handler or operator new Clients of X remain oblivious to all the behind-the-scenes action; their old code continues to work. This is good, because one thing you can usually rely on your clients being is oblivious. Using set_new_handler is a convenient, easy way to cope with the possibility of out-of-memory conditions. Certainly it's a lot more attractive than wrapping every use of new inside a try block. Furthermore, templates like NewHandlerSupport make it simple to add a class-specific new-handler to any class that wants one. Mixin-style inheritance, however, invariably leads to the topic of multiple inheritance, and before starting down that slippery slope, you'll definitely want to read Item 43. Until 1993, C++ required that operator new return 0 when it was unable to satisfy a memory request. The current behavior is for operator new to throw a std::bad_alloc exception, but a lot of C++ was written before compilers began supporting the revised specification. The C++ standardization committee didn't want to abandon the established test-for-0 code base, so they provided alternative forms of operator new (and operator new[] see Item 8) that continue to offer the traditional failure-yields-0 behavior. These forms are called "nothrow" forms because, well, they never do a throw, and they employ nothrow objects (defined in the standard header ) at the point where new is used: class Widget { ... }; Widget *pw1 = new Widget; // throws std::bad_alloc if // allocation fails if (pw1 == 0) ... // this test must fail Widget *pw2 = new (nothrow) Widget; // returns 0 if allocation // fails if (pw2 == 0) ... // this test may succeed Regardless of whether you use "normal" (i.e., exception-throwing) new or "nothrow" new, it's important that you be prepared to handle memory allocation failures. The easiest way to do that is to take advantage of set_new_handler, because it works with both forms. Back to Item 6: Use delete on pointer members in destructors. Continue to Item 8: Adhere to convention when writing operator new and operator delete.