When a new line is entered for processing via cin.getline, the values of variables not related to this line at all change. Why might this be happening?
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (i == 0) {
std::cin.getline(command, maxLen);
}
---> std::cin.getline(command, maxLen);
processCommand(command);
}
Heap.MinHeap.elem[1]->value = 7 -----changes into----> Heap.MinHeap.elem[1]->value = 2067606717
UPD.
A char string is entered, for example "extract_min", which should output the minimum from the heap. But it has not yet reached the place where it should be performed. At that time, the values of the variables in the heap change. And this does not depend on the size of the string or the size of the heap (in my case, I store pointers to elements), I tried to change, but still the same problem.
Related
I have an array of values e.g. 1, 4, 7, 2.
I also have another array of values and I want to add its values to this first array, but only when they all are different from all values that are already in this array. How can I check it? I've tried many types of loops, but I always ended with an iteration problem.
Could you please tell me how to solve this problem? I code in c++.
int array1[7] = {2,3,7,1,0};
int val1 = rand() % 10;
int val2 = rand() % 10;
int array2[2] = {val1, val2};
and I am trying to put every value from array2 into array1. I tried loop
for (int x:array2)
{
while((val1 && val2) == x)
{
val1 = rand() % 10;
val2 = rand() % 10;
}
}
and many more, but still cannot figure it out. I have this problem because I may have various number of elements for array2. So it makes this "&&" solution infinite.
It is just a sample to show it more clearly, my code has much more lines.
Okay, you have a few problems here. If I understand the problem, here's what you want:
A. You have array1 already populated with several values but with space at the end.
1. How do you identify the number of entries in the array already versus the extras?
B. You have a second array you made from two random values. No problem.
You want to append the values from B to A.
2. If initial length of A plus initial length of B is greater than total space allocated for A, you have a new problem.
Now, other people will tell you to use the standard template library, but if you're having problems at this level, you should know how to do this yourself without the extra help from a confusing library. So this is one solution.
class MyArray {
public:
int * data;
int count;
int allocated;
MyArray() : data(nullptr), count(0), allocated(0) {}
~MyArray() { if (data != nullptr) free(data); }
// Appends value to the list, making more space if necessary
void add(int value) {
if (count >= allocated) {
// Not enough space, so make some.
allocated += 10;
data = (data == nullptr) malloc(allocated * sizeof(int))
: realloc)data, allocated * sizeof(int));
}
data[count++] = value;
}
// Adds value only if not already present.
void addUnique(int value) {
if (indexOf(value) < 0) {
add(value);
}
}
// Returns the index of the value, if found, else -1
int indexOf(int value) {
for (int index = 0; index < count; ++index) {
if (data[index] == value) {
return index;
}
}
return -1;
}
}
This class provides you a dynamic array of integers. It's REALLY basic, but it teaches you the basics. It helps you understand about allocation / reallocating space using old-style C-style malloc/realloc/free. It's the sort of code I was writing back in the 80s.
Now, your main code:
MyArray array;
array.add(2);
array.add(3);
array.add(7);
// etc. Yes, you could write a better initializer, but this is easy to understand
MyArray newValues;
newValues.add(rand() % 10);
newValues.add(rand() % 10);
for (int index = 0; index < newValues.count; ++index) {
array.addUnique(newValues.data[index]);
}
Done.
The key part of this is the addUnique function, which simply checks first whether the value you're adding already is in the array. If not, it appends the value to the array and keeps track of the new count.
Ultimately, when using integer arrays like this instead of the fancier classes available in C++, you HAVE TO keep track of the size of the array yourself. There is no magic .length method on int[]. You can use some magic value that indicates the end of the list, if you want. Or you can do what I did and keep two values, one that holds the current length and one that holds the amount of space you've allocated.
With programming, there are always multiple ways to do this.
Now, this is a lot of code. Using standard libraries, you can reduce all of this to about 4 or 5 lines of code. But you're not ready for that, and you need to understand what's going on under the hood. Don't use the fancy libraries until you can do it manually. That's my belief.
The two structures used in my code, one is nested
struct Class
{
std::string name;
int units;
char grade;
};
struct Student
{
std::string name;
int id;
int num;
double gpa;
Class classes[20];
};
I am trying to figure out a way to sort the structures within the all_students[100] array in order of their ID's in ascending order. My thought was, to start counting at position 1 and then compare that to the previous element. If it was smaller than the previous element then I would have a temporary array of type Student to equate it to, then it would be a simple matter of switching them places within the all_students array. However, when I print the results, one of the elements ends up being garbage numbers, and not in order. This is for an intermediate C++ class in University and we are not allowed to use pointers or vectors since he has not taught us this yet. Anything not clear feel free to ask me.
The function to sort the structures based on ID
void sort_id(Student all_students[100], const int SIZE)
{
Student temporary[1];
int counter = 1;
while (counter < SIZE + 1)
{
if (all_students[counter].id < all_students[counter - 1].id)
{
temporary[0] = all_students[counter];
all_students[counter] = all_students[counter - 1];
all_students[counter - 1] = temporary[0];
counter = 1;
}
counter++;
}
display(all_students, SIZE);
}
There are a few things wrong with your code:
You don't need to create an array of size 1 to use as a temporary variable.
Your counter will range from 1 to 100, you will go out of bounds: the indices of an array of size 100 range from 0 to 99.
The following solution uses insertion sort to sort the array of students, it provides a faster alternative to your sorting algorithm. Note that insertion sort is only good for sufficiently small or nearly sorted arrays.
void sort_id(Student* all_students, int size)
{
Student temporary;
int i = 1;
while(i < size) // Read my note below.
{
temporary = all_students[i];
int j = i - 1;
while(j >= 0 && temporary.id < all_students[j].id)
{
all_students[j+1] = all_students[j]
j--;
}
all_students[j+1] = temporary;
i++;
}
display(all_students, size);
}
Note: the outer while-loop can also be done with a for-loop like this:
for(int i = 1; i < size; i++)
{
// rest of the code ...
}
Usually, a for-loop is used when you know beforehand how many iterations will be done. In this case, we know the outer loop will iterate from 0 to size - 1. The inner loop is a while-loop because we don't know when it will stop.
Your array of Students ranges from 0, 99. Counter is allowed to go from 1 to 100.
I'm assuming SIZE is 100 (in which case, you probably should have the array count also be SIZE instead of hard-coding in 100, if that wasn't just an artifact of typing the example for us).
You can do the while loop either way, either
while(counter < SIZE)
and start counter on 0, or
while (counter < SIZE+1)
and start counter on 1, but if you do the latter, you need to subtract 1 from your array subscripts. I believe that's why the norm (based on my observations) is to start at 0.
EDIT: I wasn't the downvoter! Also, just another quick comment, there's really no reason to have your temporary be an array. Just have
Student temporary;
I overlooked the fact that I was allowing the loop to access one more element than the array actually held. That's why I was getting garbage because the loop was accessing data that didn't exist.
I fixed this by changing while (counter < SIZE + 1)
to: while (counter < SIZE )
Then to fix the second problem which was about sorting, I needed to make sure that the loop started again from the beginning after a switch, in case it needed to switch again with a lower element. So I wrote continue; after counter = 1
I am trying to make an own simple string implementation in C++. My implementation is not \0 delimited, but uses the first element in my character array (the data structure I have chosen to implement the string) as the length of the string.
In essence, I have this as my data structure: typedef char * arrayString; and I have got the following as the implementation of some primal string manipulating routines:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include "new_string.h"
// Our string implementation will store the
// length of the string in the first byte of
// the string.
int getLength(const arrayString &s1) {
return s1[0] - '0';
}
void append_str(arrayString &s, char c) {
int length = getLength(s); // get the length of our current string
length++; // account for the new character
arrayString newString = new char[length]; // create a new heap allocated string
newString[0] = length;
// fill the string with the old contents
for (int counter = 1; counter < length; counter++) {
newString[counter] = s[counter];
}
// append the new character
newString[length - 1] = c;
delete[] s; // prevent a memory leak
s = newString;
}
void display(const arrayString &s1) {
int max = getLength(s1);
for (int counter = 1; counter <= max; counter++) {
std::cout << s1[counter];
}
}
void appendTest() {
arrayString a = new char[5];
a[0] = '5'; a[1] = 'f'; a[2] = 'o'; a[3] = 't'; a[4] = 'i';
append_str(a, 's');
display(a);
}
My issue is with the implementation of my function getLength(). I have tried to debug my program inside Visual Studio, and all seems nice and well in the beginning.
The first time getLength() is called, inside the append_str() function, it returns the correct value for the string length (5). When it get's called inside the display(), my own custom string displaying function (to prevent a bug with std::cout), it reads the value (6) correctly, but returns -42? What's going on?
NOTES
Ignore my comments in the code. It's purely educational and it's just me trying to see what level of commenting improves the code and what level reduces its quality.
In get_length(), I had to do first_element - '0' because otherwise, the function would return the ascii value of the arithmetic value inside. For instance, for decimal 6, it returned 54.
This is an educational endeavour, so if you see anything else worth commenting on, or fixing, by all means, let me know.
Since you are getting the length as return s1[0] - '0'; in getLength() you should set then length as newString[0] = length + '0'; instead of newString[0] = length;
As a side why are you storing the size of the string in the array? why not have some sort of integer member that you store the size in. A couple of bytes really isn't going to hurt and now you have a string that can be more than 256 characters long.
You are accessing your array out of bounds at couple of places.
In append_str
for (int counter = 1; counter < length; counter++) {
newString[counter] = s[counter];
}
In the example you presented, the starting string is "5foti" -- without the terminating null character. The maximum valid index is 4. In the above function, length has already been set to 6 and you are accessing s[5].
This can be fixed by changing the conditional in the for statement to counter < length-1;
And in display.
int max = getLength(s1);
for (int counter = 1; counter <= max; counter++) {
std::cout << s1[counter];
}
Here again, you are accessing the array out of bounds by using counter <= max in the loop.
This can be fixed by changing the conditional in the for statement to counter < max;
Here are some improvements, that should also cover your question:
Instead of a typedef, define a class for your string. The class should have an int for the length and a char* for the string data itself.
Use operator overloads in your class "string" so you can append them with + etc.
The - '0' gives me pain. You subtract the ASCII value of 42 from the length, but you do not add it as a character. Also, the length can be 127 at maximum, because char goes from -128 to +127. See point #1.
append_str changes the pointer of your object. That's very bad practice!
Ok, thank you everyone for helping me out.
The problem appeared to be inside the appendTest() function, where I was storing in the first element of the array the character code for the value I wanted to have as a size (i.e storing '5' instead of just 5). It seems that I didn't edit previous code that I had correctly, and that's what caused me the issues.
As an aside to what many of you are asking, why am I not using classes or better design, it's because I want to implement a basic string structure having many constraints, such as no classes, etc. I basically want to use only arrays, and the most I am affording myself is to make them dynamically allocated, i.e resizable.
I'm making a C++ game which requires me to initialize 36 numbers into a vector. You can't initialize a vector with an initializer list, so I've created a while loop to initialize it faster. I want to make it push back 4 of each number from 2 to 10, so I'm using an int named fourth to check if the number of the loop is a multiple of 4. If it is, it changes the number pushed back to the next number up. When I run it, though, I get SIGABRT. It must be a problem with fourth, though, because when I took it out, it didn't give the signal.
Here's the program:
for (int i; i < 36;) {
int fourth = 0;
fourth++;
fourth%=4;
vec.push_back(i);
if (fourth == 0) {
i++;
}
}
Please help!
You do not initialize i. Use for (int i = 0; i<36;). Also, a new variable forth is allocated on each iteration of the loop body. Thus the test fourth==0 will always yield false.
I want to make it push back 4 of each number from 2 to 10
I would use the most straight forward approach:
for (int value = 2; value <= 10; ++value)
{
for (int count = 0; count < 4; ++count)
{
vec.push_back(value);
}
}
The only optimization I would do is making sure that the capacity of the vector is sufficient before entering the loop. I would leave other optimizations to the compiler. My guess is, what you gain by omitting the inner loop, you lose by frequent modulo division.
You did not initialize i, and you are resetting fourth in every iteration. Also, with your for loop condition, I do not think it will do what you want.
I think this should work:
int fourth = 0;
for (int i = 2; i<=10;) {
fourth++;
fourth%=4;
vec.push_back(i);
if (fourth==0) {
i++;
}
}
I've been able to create a static array declaration and pass that array into the vector at initialization without issue. Pretty clean too:
const int initialValues[36] = {0,1,2...,35};
std::vector foo(initialValues);
Works with constants, but haven't tried it with non const arrays.
I'm running CodeBlocks on the MingW compiler in an XP virtual machine. I wrote in some simple code, accessible at cl1p , which answers the algorithm question at CodeChef (Well it only answers it partly, as I have not yet included the loop for multiple test cases.
However, my problem is, that while running it in debug mode, it gives the correct output of 5, for the input:
3
1
2 1
1 2 3
However, when I build and run it, it gives the absurd, huge output 131078, what seems like garbage to me. I do not understand how the hell this is happening, but am guessing it's something to do with the dynamic memory allocation. What's the problem here, and how can I fix it? I even ran it through the online compiler at BotSkool, and it worked fine. After adding the loop for test cases, the code even worked correctly on CodeChef!
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
// Take In number of rows
int numofrows;
cin >> numofrows;
// Input Only item in first row
int * prevrow;
prevrow = new int[1];
cin >> prevrow[0];
// For every other row
for (int currownum = 1; currownum < numofrows; currownum++)
{
// Declare an array for that row's max values
int * currow;
currow = new int[currownum+1];
int curnum;
cin >> curnum;
// If its the first element, max is prevmax + current input
currow[0] = prevrow[0] + curnum;
// for every element
int i = 1;
for (; i <= currownum; i++)
{
cin >> curnum;
// if its not the first element, check whether prevmax or prev-1max is greater. Add to current input
int max = (prevrow[i] > prevrow[i-1]) ? prevrow[i] : prevrow[i-1];
// save as currmax.
currow[i] = max + curnum;
}
// save entire array in prev
prevrow = new int[i+1];
prevrow = currow;
}
// get highest element of array
int ans = 0;
for (int j=0; j<numofrows; j++)
{
if (prevrow[j] > ans)
{
ans = prevrow[j];
}
}
cout << ans;
}
Run the code through Valgrind on a Linux machine and you'll be amazed at how many places your code is leaking memory.
If you are taking the hard road of managing your memory, do it well and 'delete' all the new-allocated memory before allocating more.
If, on the other hand, you prefer the easy road, use a std::vector and forget about memory management.
For one thing, this:
//save entire array in prev
prevrow = new int [i+1];
prevrow = currow;
copies the pointer, not the whole array.
In your loop, you have this line
int max = (prevrow[i]>prevrow[i-1])?prevrow[i]:prevrow[i-1];
On the first iteration of the main loop, when currownum == 1, the loop containing this line will be entered, as i is initialized to 1. But on the first iteration, prevrow only has one element and this line tries to access prevrow[1]. In a debug build, the memory simply gets initialized to zero, but in a normal build, you get some garbage value that just happened to be in the memory, leading to the result you see.
Pretty much always, when you get garbage values in a normal build, but everything is fine in a debug build, you are accessing some uninitialized memory.
Also, your program is leaking memory like crazy. For instance, you don't need to assign any result of new inside the loop to prevrow because right after that you change prevrow to point to another block of allocated memory. Also, you should call delete for any memory that you are no longer using.