Can someone explain the following please?
Stack or Heap? In general, a QObject without a parent should be created on the stack or defined as an subobject of another class. A QObject with a parent should not be on the stack because then it might get deleted twice accidentally. All QObjects created on the heap should either have a parent, or be managed somehow by another object.
Source: LINK
Sorry, downvoting the accepted answer. Both versions as currently explained are wrong, and especially the conclusion is very wrong.
Amongst other things, Qt uses the parent/child concept to manage memory. When an object is parented to another one, then
operator delete) all of its children. Of course, this works recursively;deleteLater is not required for this to work -- any deletion will un-parent it.This allows you to build a tree of QObjects via repeated dynamic allocations through operator new, and not having the problem of having to manually delete all the allocated objects. Just give them parents, and you'll only have to delete the root of the tree. You can also delete a child (i.e. a subtree) at any time, and that will do the right thing™.
In the end, you will have no leaks and no double deletions.
This is why in constructors you'll see things like:
class MyWidget : public QWidget // a QObject subclass
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
MyWidget(QWidget *parent = nullptr);
// default destructor is fine!
private:
// raw pointers:
// we won't own these objects through these pointers.
// we just need them to access the pointees
QTimer *m_timer;
QPushButton *m_button;
};
void MyWidget::MyWidget(QWidget *parent) : QWidget(parent)
{
// don't need to save the pointer to this child. because reasons
auto lineEdit = new QLineEdit(this);
auto validator = new QIntValidator(lineEdit); // a grandchild
// but let's save the pointers to these children
m_timer = new QTimer(this);
m_button = new QPushButton(this);
// ...
}
The default destructor will properly delete the entire tree, although we allocated the children objects through calls to operator new, and we didn't even bother to save in members the pointers to some children.
You are allowed (and in certain contexts it's actually a good idea) to give parents to objects allocated on the stack.
The typical example is of QDialog subclasses:
void MyWidget::showOptionsDialog()
{
// OptionsDialog is a QDialog subclass;
// create an instance as a child of "this" object
OptionsDialog d(this);
// exec the dialog (i.e. show it as a modal dialog)
conts auto result = d.exec();
if (result == QDialog::Accept) {
// apply the options
}
// d gets destroyed here
// => it will remove itself as a child of this
}
The purpose of passing this as the dialog's parent is to allow the dialog to be centered upon the parent's widget, share the task tray entry, and be modal against it. This is explained in QDialog docs. Also, ultimately, d does only need to live in that function, so it's a good idea to declare it as an automatic variable (i.e. allocated on the stack).
There you go: you've got a QObject, allocated on the stack, with a parent.
So what's the danger of QObjects on the stack? Consider this code:
QObject *parent = new QObject;
QObject child(parent);
delete parent;
As explained before, parent here will attempt to call operator delete on child, an object which was not allocated using new (it's on the stack). That's illegal (and a likely crash).
Obviously, nobody writes code like this, but consider the dialog example above again. What if, during the call d.exec(), we manage somehow to delete this, that is, the dialog's parent? That could happen for a variety of reasons very, very difficult to track down -- for instance, data arrives on a socket which causes widgets in your UI to change, creating some and destroying others. Ultimately, you would delete a stack variable, crashing (and having an extremely hard time trying to reproduce the crash).
Hence the suggestion to avoid creating code like that in the first place. It's not illegal, it may work, but it may also not work, and nobody likes fragile code.