Taking the memory address of vector elements - c++

I need a cache of allocated objects that I could reuse like a free list of objects. Is anything wrong with my approach using a vector?
template <class T>
class Cache
{
private:
vector<T> objects;
vector<T *> freelist;
public:
Cache(int max_size) : objects(max_size)
{
for (int i = 0; i < objects.size(); ++i)
{
freelist.push_back(&objects[i]);
}
}
public
T *GetFree()
{
T *retval = nullptr;
if (freelist.size() > 0)
{
retval = freelist[freelist.size() - 1];
freelist.pop_back();
}
return retval;
}
public
void Release(T *ptr)
{
freelist.push_back(ptr);
}
};
Does this work?

Related

How to convert template T to a class pointer

I am trying to implement a template Array class that can hold pointers as well as primitive data types.
But when calling the destructor, the pointers in that array are not properly deleting.
So I am trying to convert each item in that array to its corresponding class and call delete. But I met with an issue. I'm not able to convert T type to my class pointer.
My intention is to delete items in that array. Can someone please help in this?
template <class T>
class LIBRARY_EXPORT MyArrayT
{
public:
MyArrayT()
{
this->count = 0;
}
~MyArrayT()
{
if ((this->count) > 0)
{
//std::cout << "Deleting Array values" << std::endl;
delete[] this->values;
//free(this->values);
/*for (int i = 0; i < this->count; i++)
{
delete this->values[i];
}*/
this->count = 0;
}
}
void SetValue(std::vector< T > items)
{
//Delete existing memory
delete[] this->values;
this->count = items.size();
if (this->count > 0)
{
this->values = new T[this->count];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
this->values[i] = items[i];
}
}
}
void SetValue(T items, int index)
{
if (this->count > index)
{
this->values[index] = items;
}
}
T GetValue(int index)
{
if (this->count > index)
{
return this->values[index];
}
return NULL;
}
T* GetValue()
{
return this->values;
}
_int64 GetCount()
{
return this->count;
}
private:
_int64 count;
T* values;
};
class LIBRARY_EXPORT MyString
{
public:
MyString();
~MyString();
void SetValue(std::string str);
std::string GetValue();
_int64 GetCount();
private:
_int64 count;
char* value;
};
int main()
{
MyArrayT<MyString*>* MyArrayValue = new MyArrayT<MyString*>() ;
vector<MyString*> value9;
MyString* opt1 = new MyString();
opt1->SetValue("Option: 1");
value9.push_back(opt1);
MyArrayValue->SetValue(value9);
MyArrayT<int>* MyArrayValueInt = new MyArrayT<int>() ;
vector<int> value1;
value1.push_back(1);
value1.push_back(2);
MyArrayValueInt->SetValue(value1);
delete MyArrayValue; //Calling this delete doesn't calling the ~MyString() destructor
delete MyArrayValueInt;
}

List Class filled with pointers losing adresses on return

I have a class called DiGraph, that contains an array to Node pointers:
DiGraph::DiGraph(int Size) : count(0){
nodes = new Node *[Size];
}
Now I want to define the function getNodes() which is essentially supposed to return the array in list form:
Liste<Node*> DiGraph::getNodes() {
Liste<Node*> nlist(count+1);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
nlist.append(nodes[i]);
}
return nlist;
}
At the end of the function the nlist is filled correctly but somehow the resulting copy at the function call does not contain the correct pointers but all other variables.
DiGraph a(6);
a.addNode(new Node("A", 50, 50));
Liste<Node*> gN = a.getNodes(); //gN does not contain the same pointers that were returned
The class 'Liste' is basically a dynamic array with templates and some fancy functions.
Now I think the answer is probably gonna be that nlist gets destroyed after the function ends but the pointers still remain valid in the nodes variable so why does the copy contain invalid ones?
EDIT
This is the list class:
#ifndef _LISTE_H
#define _LISTE_H
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
class Liste {
private:
T *_values;
int _last;
int _size;
bool isFull();
int find(T value);
void increase();
void decrease();
public:
Liste(int size = 8);
Liste(Liste &list);
~Liste();
void append(T value);
void remove(T value);
T getValueAt(int pos);
int size();
T operator[](int pos);
};
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
Liste<T>::Liste(int size) {
_size = size;
_last = 0;
_values = new T[size];
}
template <typename T>
Liste<T>::Liste(Liste &list) {
_size = list._size;
_last = list._last;
_values = list._values;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
Liste<T>::~Liste() {
delete[] _values;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
void Liste<T>::increase() {
T *tmp = new T[_size * 2];
for (int i = 0; i < _size; i++)
tmp[i] = _values[i];
delete[] _values;
_values = tmp;
_size *= 2;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
void Liste<T>::decrease() {
_size /= 2;
T *tmp = new T[_size];
for (int i = 0; i < _size; i++)
tmp[i] = _values[i];
delete[] _values;
_values = tmp;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
bool Liste<T>::isFull() {
return _last == _size;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
int Liste<T>::find(T val) {
int pos;
for (pos = 0; pos < _last; pos++)
if (_values[pos] == val)
return pos;
return -1;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
T Liste<T>::getValueAt(int pos) {
if (pos < 0 || pos >= _last)
throw "OutOfBoundsException";
return _values[pos];
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
void Liste<T>::append(T val) {
if (isFull())
increase();
_values[_last] = val;
_last += 1;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
void Liste<T>::remove(T val) {
int pos = find(val);
if (pos == -1)
throw "ValueNotFoundException";
for (; pos < _last - 1; pos++)
_values[pos] = _values[pos + 1];
_last -= 1;
if (_last < _size / 4)
decrease();
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
int Liste<T>::size() {
return _last;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
template <typename T>
T Liste<T>::operator[](int pos) {
return getValueAt(pos);
}
#endif
template <typename T>
Liste<T>::Liste(Liste &list) {
_size = list._size;
_last = list._last;
_values = list._values;
}
What this code does is make the new Liste object (constructed from the copy constructor) point to the memory address of an existing Liste object. But this object will be destroyed so you get a dangling pointer. You need to perform a hard copy of the values.
template <typename T>
Liste<T>::Liste(const Liste &list) { // <--- const
_size = list._size;
_last = list._last;
_values = new T[_size];
for( std::size_t iter = 0 ; iter < _size ; ++iter )
{
_values[iter] = list._values[iter];
}
}
It is good modern practice to wrap pointer members to a smart pointer (eg unique_ptr<>). This way you will never forget to delete everything and object hold is guaranteed to be cleaned up even in a case of an incomplete constructor (exception thrown).
If you plan to return-by-value you should research into how to make your Liste class move-aware
Your T operator[](int pos); could also return a contained item by reference to allow immediate modification of the object ( T& operator[](int pos); ) cause, as it is, it returns a copy of the object that lies at _values[pos] and is most likely not what you want. Similarly for your T getValueAt(int pos); public method.

HEAP CORRUPTION DETECTED : after normal block ()

So, I've defined template class and then i tried to overload some operators.
template <typename T> class Set
{
public:
Set(void);
Set(Set&);
~Set(void);
bool contains(T elem);
bool add(T elem);
bool remove(T elem);
bool add(T* tab, int size);
T* getSet();
int size();
Set<T> &operator+(Set<T> &snd);
Set<T> &operator-(Set<T> &snd);
private:
T *elements;
int numOfElem;
};
When I try to add element to the Set by add method everything works fine.
template<typename T>
bool Set<T>::add(T elem)
{
bool found = false;
for(int i =0; !found && i<numOfElem; i++){
if(elem == elements[i]) found = true;
}
if( !found ){
numOfElem++;
T* tmp = new T[numOfElem];
for(int i =0; i<numOfElem-1; i++){
tmp[i] = elements[i];
}
tmp[numOfElem-1] = elem;
delete[] elements;
elements = tmp;
}
return !found;
}
template<typename T>
bool Set<T>::add(T* myArray, int size)
{
bool result = false;
for(int i =0; i<size; i++){
add(myArray[i]);
}
return result;
}
template<typename T>
Set<T>& Set<T>::operator+(Set<T> &snd)
{
Set *temp = new Set(*this);
temp->add(snd.getSet(), snd.size());
return *temp;
}
template<typename T>
void Set<T>::operator=(Set<T> &snd)
{
numOfElem = snd.numOfElem;
elements = new T[numOfElem];
for(int i =0; i < numOfElem; i++){
elements[i] = snd.elements[i];
}
}
template<typename T>
int Set<T>::size()
{
return numOfElem;
}
template<typename T>
T* Set<T>::getSet()
{
return elements;
}
template<typename T>
Set<T>::Set()
{
numOfElem = 0;
elements = nullptr;
}
template<typename T>
Set<T>::Set(Set& old)
{
numOfElem = old.numOfElem;
elements = new T(numOfElem);
for(int i = 0; i< numOfElem; i++){
elements[i] = old.elements[i];
}
}
template<typename T>
Set<T>::~Set()
{
numOfElem = 0;
delete[] elements;
elements = nullptr;
}
But if I use + operator instead (adding two separate sets) the error occurs while trying to delete the array (15 Line). Any ideas?
int main(){
Set <char> set1, set2, set3;
char tab[] = {'a','d','f','g'} ;
set1.add(tab, 4);
char tab2[] = {'a','d','x','y','z'} ;
set2.add(tab2,5);
set3= set1+set2;
}
You have a mistake in your copy constructor:
elements = new T(numOfElem);
It should be
elements = new T[numOfElem];
By writing new T(numOfElem); you allocate only one variable with its value initialized to numOfEllem.
Use a std::vector instead of the array and you will avoid such problems.
Your code is also leaking a memory in the addition operator:
template<typename T>
Set<T>& Set<T>::operator+(Set<T> &snd)
{
Set *temp = new Set(*this);
temp->add(snd.getSet(), snd.size());
return *temp;
}
You are allocating a memory and you never delete it so if you call that function too often you program may run out of its virtual memory and will crash with the uncaught std::bad_alloc exception. Change the function to this:
template<typename T>
Set<T> Set<T>::operator+(Set<T> &snd)
{
Set temp(*this);
temp.add(snd.getSet(), snd.size());
return temp;
}

Minimal C++ STL Vector Implementation Problems

I have a technical problem and it's really confusing me. I apologise in advance because I may not be giving the relevant details; I don't yet why it's going wrong and it would be excessive to include all the code I'm working with.
I'm working with a large program that uses the C++ STL. I'm moving this code to a very sensitive environment without a standard clib nor STL implementaton; it will redefine malloc/free/new/delete etc... For that, I need to replace the std:: parts with my own simplified implementations. I've started with std::vector. Right now it's running in the standard ecosystem so it's the GNU libc and STL. The only thing that's changed is this vector class.
When I execute the program with the replaced class, it segfaults. I've put this through GDB and found that the program will request an object from the vector using the subscript operator. When the object reference is returned, a method is invoked and the program segfaults. It seems it can't find this method and ends up in main_arena() in GDB. The type of the object is an inherited class.
I'm really not sure at all what the problem is here. I would love to provide additional details, but I'm not sure what more I can give. I can only assume something is wrong with my vector implementation because nothing else in the program has been changed. Maybe there's something obvious that I'm doing wrong here that I'm not seeing at all.
I'm using: g++ (GCC) 4.4.5 20110214 (Red Hat 4.4.5-6)
I'd really appreciate any feedback/advice!
#ifndef _MYSTL_VECTOR_H_
#define _MYSTL_VECTOR_H_
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <assert.h>
typedef unsigned int uint;
namespace mystl
{
/******************
VECTOR
********************/
template <typename T>
class vector
{
private:
uint _size;
uint _reserved;
T *storage;
void init_vector(uint reserve)
{
if (reserve == 0)
{
_reserved = 0;
return;
}
storage = (T*)malloc(sizeof(T)*reserve);
assert(storage);
_reserved = reserve;
}
public:
vector()
{
// std::cerr << "default constructor " << this << std::endl;
storage = NULL;
_size = 0;
_reserved = 0;
}
vector(const vector<T> &other)
{
// std::cerr << "copy constructor " << this << std::endl;
storage = NULL;
_size = 0;
_reserved = 0;
init_vector(other.size());
_size = other.size();
for (uint i=0; i<other.size(); i++)
{
storage[i] = T(other[i]);
}
}
vector(uint init_num, const T& init_value)
{
// std::cerr << "special constructor1 " << this << std::endl;
storage = NULL;
_size = 0;
_reserved = 0;
init_vector(init_num);
for (size_t i=0; i<init_num; i++)
{
push_back(init_value);
}
}
vector(uint init_num)
{
// std::cerr << "special constructor2 " << this << std::endl;
storage = NULL;
_size = 0;
_reserved = 0;
init_vector(init_num);
}
void reserve(uint new_size)
{
if (new_size > _reserved)
{
storage = (T*)realloc(storage, sizeof(T)*new_size);
assert(storage);
_reserved = new_size;
}
}
void push_back(const T &item)
{
if (_size >= _reserved)
{
if (_reserved == 0) _reserved=1;
reserve(_reserved*2);
}
storage[_size] = T(item);
_size++;
}
uint size() const
{
return _size;
}
~vector()
{
if (_reserved)
{
free(storage);
storage = NULL;
_reserved = 0;
_size = 0;
}
}
// this is for read only
const T& operator[] (unsigned i) const
{
// do bounds check...
if (i >= _size || i < 0)
{
assert(false);
}
return storage[i];
}
T& operator[] (unsigned i)
{
// do bounds check...
if (i >= _size || i < 0)
{
assert(false);
}
return storage[i];
}
// overload = operator
const vector<T>& operator= (const vector<T>& x)
{
// check for self
if (this != &x)
{
_reserved = 0;
_size = 0;
storage = NULL;
init_vector( x.size() );
for(uint i=0; i<x.size(); i++)
{
storage[i] = T(x[i]);
}
_size = x.size();
}
return *this;
}
uint begin() const
{
return 0;
}
void insert(uint pos, const T& value)
{
push_back(value);
if (size() == 1)
{
return;
}
for (size_t i=size()-2; i>=pos&& i>=0 ; i--)
{
storage[i+1] = storage[i];
}
storage[pos] = value;
}
void erase(uint erase_index)
{
if (erase_index >= _size)
{
return;
}
//scoot everyone down by one
for (uint i=erase_index; i<_size; i++)
{
storage[i] = storage[i+1];
}
_size--;
}
void erase(uint start, uint end)
{
if (start > end)
{
assert(false);
}
if (end > _size)
end = _size;
for (uint i=start; i<end; i++)
{
erase(start);
}
assert(false);
}
void clear()
{
erase(0,_size);
}
bool empty() const
{
return _size == 0;
}
}; //class vector
}
#endif // _MYSTL_VECTOR_H_
Wow!
Your assignment operator also leaks memory.
Becuause you are using malloc/release the constructor to your type T will will not be called and thus you can not use your vector for anything except the most trivial of objects.
Edit:
I am bit bored this morning: Try this
#include <stdlib.h> // For NULL
#include <new> // Because you need placement new
// Because you are avoiding std::
// An implementation of swap
template<typename T>
void swap(T& lhs,T& rhs)
{
T tmp = lhs;
lhs = rhs;
rhs = tmp;
}
template <typename T>
class vector
{
private:
unsigned int dataSize;
unsigned int reserved;
T* data;
public:
~vector()
{
for(unsigned int loop = 0; loop < dataSize; ++loop)
{
// Because we use placement new we must explicitly destroy all members.
data[loop].~T();
}
free(data);
}
vector()
: dataSize(0)
, reserved(10)
, data(NULL)
{
reserve(reserved);
}
vector(const vector<T> &other)
: dataSize(0)
, reserved(other.dataSize)
, data(NULL)
{
reserve(reserved);
dataSize = reserved;
for(unsigned int loop;loop < dataSize;++loop)
{
// Because we are using malloc/free
// We need to use placement new to add items to the data
// This way they are constructed in place
new (&data[loop]) T(other.data[loop]);
}
}
vector(unsigned int init_num)
: dataSize(0)
, reserved(init_num)
, data(NULL)
{
reserve(reserved);
dataSize = reserved;
for(unsigned int loop;loop < dataSize;++loop)
{
// See above
new (&data[loop]) T();
}
}
const vector<T>& operator= (vector<T> x)
{
// use copy and swap idiom.
// Note the pass by value to initiate the copy
swap(dataSize, x.dataSize);
swap(reserved, x.rserved);
swap(data, x.data);
return *this;
}
void reserve(unsigned int new_size)
{
if (new_size < reserved)
{ return;
}
T* newData = (T*)malloc(sizeof(T) * new_size);
if (!newData)
{ throw int(2);
}
for(unsigned int loop = 0; loop < dataSize; ++loop)
{
// Use placement new to copy the data
new (&newData[loop]) T(data[loop]);
}
swap(data, newData);
reserved = new_size;
for(unsigned int loop = 0; loop < dataSize; ++loop)
{
// Call the destructor on old data before freeing the container.
// Remember we just did a swap.
newData[loop].~T();
}
free(newData);
}
void push_back(const T &item)
{
if (dataSize == reserved)
{
reserve(reserved * 2);
}
// Place the item in the container
new (&data[dataSize++]) T(item);
}
unsigned int size() const {return dataSize;}
bool empty() const {return dataSize == 0;}
// Operator[] should NOT check the value of i
// Add a method called at() that does check i
const T& operator[] (unsigned i) const {return data[i];}
T& operator[] (unsigned i) {return data[i];}
void insert(unsigned int pos, const T& value)
{
if (pos >= dataSize) { throw int(1);}
if (dataSize == reserved)
{
reserve(reserved * 2);
}
// Move the last item (which needs to be constructed correctly)
if (dataSize != 0)
{
new (&data[dataSize]) T(data[dataSize-1]);
}
for(unsigned int loop = dataSize - 1; loop > pos; --loop)
{
data[loop] = data[loop-1];
}
++dataSize;
// All items have been moved up.
// Put value in its place
data[pos] = value;
}
void clear() { erase(0, dataSize);}
void erase(unsigned int erase_index) { erase(erase_index,erase_index+1);}
void erase(unsigned int start, unsigned int end) /* end NOT inclusive so => [start, end) */
{
if (end > dataSize)
{ end = dataSize;
}
if (start > end)
{ start = end;
}
unsigned int dst = start;
unsigned int src = end;
for(;(src < dataSize) && (dst < end);++dst, ++src)
{
// Move Elements down;
data[dst] = data[src];
}
unsigned int count = start - end;
for(;count != 0; --count)
{
// Remove old Elements
--dataSize;
// Remember we need to manually call the destructor
data[dataSize].~T();
}
}
unsigned int begin() const {return 0;}
}; //class vector
With your current memory handling, this vector would only work with plain old data types.
To handle all types, it must ensure that objects
are actually created (malloc doesn't do that),
destroyed (free doesn't do that),
and you can't reallocate memory with realloc, because complex objects are not guaranteed to remain valid if they are byte-wise copied to another location.
Looks like the answer can be found in your question: "When the object reference is returned, a method is invoked and the program segfaults. It seems it can't find this method and ends up in main_arena() in GDB. The type of the object is an inherited class."
You probably store base class instance T in the vector, but make push_back for the instance of the class inherited from T. In push_back {storage[_size] = T(item);} you cast (actually make copy constructor T:T(const T&)) item to T (this probably named 'type cut'), then get reference to T and invoke a method of the class inherited from T using virtual table of T where the method is not defined yet/abstract. Am I right?
To make it properly work you should put T* in the vector or shared_ptr/unique_ptr depending on the ownership terms you apply to vector elements.
Generally in vector you can store only POD (Plain Old Data) types.

C++ Custom "List" implementation doesn't work

I tried to create a list container with similar access of elements in c++ as in C#
I'm totally lost now because my main method first printed weird numbers.
The RList class should be like:
RList<ClassName or Primitive> VariableName;
VariableName.AddData(Class or Primitive);
VariableName[IndexOfElement] get the element
VariableName.RemoveAt(IndexOfElement) remove element
Can you tell me where I went totally wrong?
int main()
{
RList<int> Numbers;
Numbers.AddData(5);
Numbers.AddData(100);
Numbers.AddData(1500);
for (unsigned int x = 0; x < Numbers.GetLength(); x++)
{
cout << Numbers[0] << endl;
}
cin.get();
return 0;
}
Here is the Header file. I read that you have to put everything in header if you work with template.
#ifndef RList_H
#define RList_H
#include <new>
template <class T> class RList
{
private:
unsigned int m_Length;
T* ListObject;
void AllocateNew(T obj);
void RemoveIndex(unsigned int N);
public:
RList();
~RList();
void AddData(T obj);
void RemoveAt(unsigned int N);
unsigned int GetLength() { return m_Length; }
T operator[](unsigned int N){if (N < m_Length && N >= 0) {return (ListObject[N]);} return NULL; }
};
template <class T>
RList<T>::RList()
{
this->m_Length = 0;
}
template <class T>
RList<T>::~RList()
{
delete[] this->ListObject;
}
template <class T>
void RList<T>::AddData(T obj)
{
this->AllocateNew(obj);
this->m_Length++;
}
template <class T>
void RList<T>::RemoveAt(unsigned int N)
{
if( N < this->m_Length && N >= 0)
{
if ((this->m_Length - 1) > 0)
{
this->RemoveIndex(N);
this->m_Length--;
}
else
{
throw "Can't erase last index!";
}
}
}
template <class T>
void RList<T>::AllocateNew(T obj)
{
if (this->m_Length == 0)
{
this->ListObject[0] = obj;
}
else
{
T* NewListObject = new T [this->m_Length + 1];
for (unsigned int x = 0; x < this->m_Length; x++)
{
NewListObject[x] = this->ListObject[x];
}
NewListObject[this->m_Length] = obj;
delete [] ListObject;
this->ListObject = NewListObject;
delete [] NewListObject;
}
}
template <class T>
void RList<T>::RemoveIndex(unsigned int N)
{
T* NewListObject = new T [this->m_Length - 1];
for (int x = 0; x < this->m_Length -1; x++)
{
if (x != N)
{
NewListObject[x] = this->ListObject[x];
}
}
delete [] ListObject;
this->ListObject = NewListObject;
}
#endif // RList_H
Lots of problems:
Constructors should initialize all members
Rule of three not implemented (on owned pointers).
Horrible spacing (you need to format that code better).
All your array memory allocation is wrong.
Allocate:
template <class T>
void RList<T>::AllocateNew(T obj)
{
if (this->m_Length == 0)
{
// This will not work as you have not allocated the area for ListObjects.
// I don't think this is a special case. You should have allocated a zero
// length array in the constructor then then else part would have worked
// like normal when adding the first element.
this->ListObject[0] = obj;
}
else
{
// OK good start
T* NewListObject = new T [this->m_Length + 1];
// Rather than do this manually there is std::copy
for (unsigned int x = 0; x < this->m_Length; x++)
{
NewListObject[x] = this->ListObject[x];
}
NewListObject[this->m_Length] = obj;
// Though unlikely there is a posability of an exception from a destructor.
// So rather than call delete on a member you should swap the member and the
// temporary. Then when the object is a good state you can delete the old one.
delete [] ListObject;
this->ListObject = NewListObject;
// Definately do NOT do this.
// as you have just stored this pointer into ListObject.
// ListObject is now pointing at free'ed memory.
delete [] NewListObject;
// So I would have done (for the last section
// std::swap(this->ListObject, NewListObject);
// ++this->m_Length;
// // now we delete the old data
// delete [] NewListObject; // (remember we swapped above)
}
}
RemoveIndex
template <class T>
void RList<T>::RemoveIndex(unsigned int N)
{
T* NewListObject = new T [this->m_Length - 1];
for (int x = 0; x < this->m_Length -1; x++)
{
if (x != N)
{
// You need to compensate for the fact that you removed one
// element (otherwise you have a hole in your new array).
NewListObject[x] = this->ListObject[x];
}
}
// Same comment as above.
// Do not call delete on a member.
// Make sure the object is a good state before doing dangerous stuff.
delete [] ListObject;
this->ListObject = NewListObject;
}
if (this->m_Length == 0)
{
this->ListObject[0] = obj;
}
You have to allocate ListObject before you can do this.
Note: there are many problems with your implementation, you should post it to codereview, or check a book to see how to implement a proper vector.
You've got a lot of problems, but this one will surely crash your program:
(at the end of AllocateNew):
this->ListObject = NewListObject;
delete [] NewListObject;
Now, this->ListObject is pointing to memory that's been freed.
Can you tell me where I went totally wrong?
You're reinventing the STL vector class. You can write a thin-wrapper around it to provide the API you want, but it's probably easier to use the the class as-is. Your example would look like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int main( )
{
vector< int > Numbers;
Numbers.push_back( 5 );
Numbers.push_back( 100 );
Numbers.push_back( 1500 );
for ( unsigned int x = 0; x < Numbers.size( ); x++ )
{
cout << Numbers[x] << endl;
}
cin.get();
return 0;
}