For this assignment, we are not allowed to use std::string.
I have a constructor that takes in a C-string modeled after a DNA strand.
DNAStrand::DNAStrand(const char* startingString) {
length = strlen(startingString);
bases = new char[length + 1] {'A','C','G','T',0};
}
I then attempted to overload a boolean operator that would check the strand I created against another one.
bool DNAStrand::operator==(const DNAStrand& other) const {
if (length != other.length)
return false; //can't be the same if we don't have same # items
//Same size, walk through items looking for mismatch
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if (bases[i] != other.bases[i])
return false;
}
return true; //Must be identical
}
When I attempt to test it using the line of code below, however, isMatch3 returns true.
DNAStrand str2("AACC");
bool isMatch3 = (str2 == DNAStrand("AAGC"));
I'm pretty sure that there's an issue with the for loop where it's supposed to iterate over each char in the C-string, but I can't figure out what the issue is. In my mind, it's either that or my original constructor is wrong.
When you create a DNAStrand object you are not storing startingString anywhere (you only keep its length). Even more, you are setting the same base "ACGT" to all you objects:
DNAStrand::DNAStrand(const char* startingString) {
length = strlen(startingString);
bases = new char[length + 1] {'A','C','G','T',0};
}
When you compare bases in your loop you are comparing "ACGT" in both left and right objects, and always returns true.
Solve it storing startstring:
DNAStrand::DNAStrand(const char* startingString) {
length = strlen(startingString);
bases = new char[length + 1] {startingString};
}
Related
I'm trying to write a class in c++ that creates a dynamic array and I'm encountering this problem
malloc: Incorrect checksum for freed object 0x7f9ff3c05aa8: probably modified after being freed.
Corrupt value: 0x2000000000000
I implemented three constructors (default, parametrized and copy) and I think this is the one causing problem because the code breaks here
CTable::CTable(string sName, int iTableLen)
{
s_name = sName;
cout<<"parametr: "<<s_name<<endl;
c_table = new int[iTableLen];
i_table_lenghth=iTableLen;
}
I also have to write a method changing the size of the array and returning true in case of the success and false in case of the failure. Maybe this method is causing the problem so this is how I implemented it.
bool CTable :: bSetNewSize(int iTableLen)
{
int size;
if(iTableLen < 0)
return false;
else if(iTableLen>=i_table_length)
size = i_table_length;
if(iTableLen < i_table_length)
size = iTableLen;
int *cTable;
cTable = new int[iTableLen];
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ii++)
{
cTable[ii] = c_table[ii];
}
delete [] c_table;
c_table = cTable;
return true;
}
edit: The problem wasn't in any of those parts of the code. The method that was supposed to clone the object was causing the error. It happened because I allocated the object statically instead of dynamically. Here is the fixed method:
CTable* CTable::pcClone()
{
CTable *obj_clone;
obj_clone = new CTable(*this);
return obj_clone;
}
The problem is that you deleted c_table in bSetNewSize() and didn't set a new value to it, but used it in a later call. I Think you meant to put a c_table = cTable; to the end of bSetNewSize() function, as 500 - Internal Server Erro commented.
Also it is faster if you take the string parameter as a const string& to the constructor.
Edit: are you sure abaut
if(iTableLen >= 0)
return false;
This means that you actually resize only if iTableLen is negative.
Didn't you mean
if(iTableLen < 0)
return false;
I am currently experimenting with a very simple Boyer-Moore variant.
In general my implementation works, but if I try to utilize it in a loop the character pointer containing the haystack gets messed up. And I mean that characters in it are altered, or mixed.
The result is consistent, i.e. running the same test multiple times yields the same screw up.
This is the looping code:
string src("This haystack contains a needle! needless to say that only 2 matches need to be found!");
string pat("needle");
const char* res = src.c_str();
while((res = boyerMoore(res, pat)))
++res;
This is my implementation of the string search algorithm (the above code calls a convenience wrapper which pulls the character pointer and length of the string):
unsigned char*
boyerMoore(const unsigned char* src, size_t srcLgth, const unsigned char* pat, size_t patLgth)
{
if(srcLgth < patLgth || !src || !pat)
return nullptr;
size_t skip[UCHAR_MAX]; //this is the skip table
for(int i = 0; i < UCHAR_MAX; ++i)
skip[i] = patLgth; //initialize it with default value
for(size_t i = 0; i < patLgth; ++i)
skip[(int)pat[i]] = patLgth - i - 1; //set skip value of chars in pattern
std::cout<<src<<"\n"; //just to see what's going on here!
size_t srcI = patLgth - 1; //our first character to check
while(srcI < srcLgth)
{
size_t j = 0; //char match ct
while(j < patLgth)
{
if(src[srcI - j] == pat[patLgth - j - 1])
++j;
else
{
//since the number of characters to skip may be negative, I just increment in that case
size_t t = skip[(int)src[srcI - j]];
if(t > j)
srcI = srcI + t - j;
else
++srcI;
break;
}
}
if(j == patLgth)
return (unsigned char*)&src[srcI + 1 - j];
}
return nullptr;
}
The loop produced this output (i.e. these are the haystacks the algorithm received):
This haystack contains a needle! needless to say that only 2 matches need to be found!
eedle! needless to say that only 2 matches need to be found!
eedless to say that eed 2 meed to beed to be found!
As you can see the input is completely messed up after the second run. What am I missing? I thought the contents could not be modified, since I'm passing const pointers.
Is the way of setting the pointer in the loop wrong, or is my string search screwing up?
Btw: This is the complete code, except for includes and the main function around the looping code.
EDIT:
The missing nullptr of the first return was due to a copy/paste error, in the source it is actually there.
For clarification, this is my wrapper function:
inline char* boyerMoore(const string &src, const string &pat)
{
return (const char*) boyerMoore((const unsigned char*) src.c_str(), src.size(),
(const unsigned char*) pat.c_str(), pat.size());
}
In your boyerMoore() function, the first return isn't returning a value (you have just return; rather than return nullptr;) GCC doesn't always warn about missing return values, and not returning anything is undefined behavior. That means that when you store the return value in res and call the function again, there's no telling what will print out. You can see a related discussion here.
Also, you have omitted your convenience function that calculates the length of the strings that you are passing in. I would recommend double checking that logic to make sure the sizes are correct - I'm assuming you are using strlen or similar.
I am writing a class called Word, that handles a c string and overloads the
<, >, <=, >= operators.
word.h:
friend bool operator<(const Word &a, const Word &b);
word.cc:
bool operator<(const Word &a, const Word &b) {
if(a == NULL && b == NULL)
return false;
if(a == NULL)
return true;
if(b == NULL)
return false;
return strcmp(a.wd, b.wd) < 0; //wd is a valid c string, EDIT: changed to strcmp
}
main:
char* temp = NULL; //EDIT: i was mistaken, temp is a char pointer
Word a("blah"); //a.wd = [b,l,a,h]
cout << (temp<a);
I get a segmentation error before the first line of the operator< method
after the last line in the main. I can correct the problem by writing
cout << (a>temp);
where the operator> is similarly defined and I get no errors but my
assignment requires (temp < a) to work so this is where I ask for help.
EDIT: I made a mistake the first time and i said temp was of type Word,
but it is actually of type char*. So I assume that the compiler converts
temp to a Word using one of my constructors. I dont know which one it would
use and why this would work since the first parameter is not Word.
here is the constructor I think is being used to make the Word using temp:
Word::Word(char* c, char* delimeters="\n") {
char *temporary = "\0";
if(c == NULL)
c = temporary;
check(stoppers!=NULL, "(Word(char*,char*))NULL pointer"); // exits the program if the expression is false
if(strlen(c) == 0)
size = DEFAULT_SIZE; //10
else
size = strlen(c) + 1 + DEFAULT_SIZE;
wd = new char[size];
check(wd!=NULL, "Word(char*,char*))heap overflow");
delimiters = new char[strlen(stoppers) + 1]; // EDIT: changed to []
check(delimiters!=NULL,"Word(char*,char*))heap overflow");
strcpy(wd,c);
strcpy(delimiters,stoppers);
count = strlen(wd);
}
wd is of type char*
thanks for looking at this big question and trying to help. let me know if you
need more code to look at
I'm almost positive you did not mean to construct a char on the heap with an initial value of some integer based on the size of stoppers:
delimiters = new char(strlen(stoppers) + 1); // Should use [] not ()
Also you are using C++ and I would never tell you what to do, but please, unless you know exactly that there is no danger, do not use strcpy. For exactly this reason.
It is a blind copy of strings, and when the destination does not have enough space (as is the case from your typo-ed allocation), things go BAD.
EDIT:
I also see in your overload of operator< that you use
a.wd < b.wd
and claim that .wds are valid C strings. If that is the case, you cannot apply a simple < operator to them and must use strcmp, strncmp or some other full compare function
Cutting out the other bits of the constructor:
Word::Word(char* c, char* delimeters=NULL) {
check(stoppers!=NULL, "(Word(char*,char*))NULL pointer"); //exits the program if the expression is false
delimiters = new char[strlen(stoppers) + 1];
check(delimiters!=NULL,"Word(char*,char*))heap overflow");
strcpy(delimiters,stoppers);
}
You are allocating and copying to the input parameter (delimiters) not the member variable (stoppers). Therefore, when you call:
delimiters = new char[strlen(stoppers) + 1];
Here, stoppers == NULL (infered from the check call) so strlen(NULL) crashes.
Also, in:
bool operator<(const Word &a, const Word &b)
You check things like a == NULL. This is not needed as a and b are references, so the objects are non-null.
If wd can be null, you will need to change these to check a.wd and b.wd.
I need some assistance with a C++ project. What I have to do is remove the given element from an array of pointers. The technique taught to me is to create a new array with one less element and copy everything from the old array into the new one except for the specified element. After that I have to point the old array towards the new one.
Here's some code of what I have already:
I'm working with custom structs by the way...
Data **values = null; // values is initialized in my insert function so it is
// populated
int count; // this keeps track of values' length
bool remove(Data * x) {
Data **newArray = new Data *[count - 1];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
while (x != values[i]) {
newArray[i] = values[i];
}
count -= 1;
return true;
}
values = newArray;
return false;
}
So far the insert function works and outputs the populated array, but when I run remove all it does is make the array smaller, but doesn't remove the desired element. I'm using the 0th element every time as a control.
This is the output I've been getting:
count=3 values=[5,6,7] // initial insertion of 5, 6, 7
five is a member of collection? 0
count=3 values=[5,6] // removal of 0th element aka 5, but doesn't work
five is a member of collection? 0
count=4 values=[5,6,5] // re-insertion of 0th element (which is stored in
five is a member of collection? 0 // my v0 variable)
Could anyone nudge me in the right direction towards completing this?
First of all, your code is leaking memory like no good! Next you only copy the first element and not even that if the first element happens to be the one you want to remove. Also, when you return from your function, you haven't changed your internal state at all. You definitely want to do something along the lines of
Data** it = std::find(values, values + count, x);
if (it != values + count) {
std::copy(it + 1, values + count, it);
--count;
return true;
}
return false;
That said, if anybody taught you to implement something like std::vector<T> involving reallocations on every operation, it is time to change schools! Memory allocations are relatively expensive and you want to avoid them. That is, when implementing something like a std::vector<T> you, indeed, want to implement it like a std::vector<T>! That is you keep an internal buffer of potentially more element than there are and remember how many elements you are using. When inserting a new element, you only allocate a new array if there is no space in the current array (not doing so would easily result in quadratic complexity even when always adding elements at the end). When removing an element, you just move all the trailing objects one up and remember that there is one less object in the array.
Try this:
bool remove(Data * x)
{
bool found = false;
// See if x is in the array.
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
if (x != values[i]) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found)
{
return false;
}
// Only need to create the array if the item to be removed is present
Data **newArray = new Data *[count - 1];
// Copy the content to the new array
int newIndex = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
if (x != values[i])
newArray[newIndex++] = values[i];
}
// Now change the pointers.
delete[] values;
count--;
values = newArray;
return true;
}
Note that there's an underlying assumption that if x is present in the array then it's there only once! The code will not work for multiple occurrences, that's left to you, seeing as how this is a school exercise.
I just took an exam where I was asked the following:
Write the function body of each of the methods GenStrLen, InsertChar and StrReverse for the given code below. You must take into consideration the following;
How strings are constructed in C++
The string must not overflow
Insertion of character increases its length by 1
An empty string is indicated by StrLen = 0
class Strings {
private:
char str[80];
int StrLen;
public:
// Constructor
Strings() {
StrLen=0;
};
// A function for returning the length of the string 'str'
int GetStrLen(void) {
};
// A function to inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'str'
void InsertChar(char ch) {
};
// A function to reverse the content of the string 'str'
void StrReverse(void) {
};
};
The answer I gave was something like this (see bellow). My one of problem is that used many extra variables and that makes me believe am not doing it the best possible way, and the other thing is that is not working....
class Strings {
private:
char str[80];
int StrLen;
int index; // *** Had to add this ***
public:
Strings(){
StrLen=0;
}
int GetStrLen(void){
for (int i=0 ; str[i]!='\0' ; i++)
index++;
return index; // *** Here am getting a weird value, something like 1829584505306 ***
}
void InsertChar(char ch){
str[index] = ch; // *** Not sure if this is correct cuz I was not given int index ***
}
void StrRevrse(void){
GetStrLen();
char revStr[index+1];
for (int i=0 ; str[i]!='\0' ; i++){
for (int r=index ; r>0 ; r--)
revStr[r] = str[i];
}
}
};
I would appreciate if anyone could explain me roughly what is the best way to have answered the question and why. Also how come my professor closes each class function like " }; ", I thought that was only used for ending classes and constructors only.
Thanks a lot for your help.
First, the trivial }; question is just a matter of style. I do that too when I put function bodies inside class declarations. In that case the ; is just an empty statement and doesn't change the meaning of the program. It can be left out of the end of the functions (but not the end of the class).
Here's some major problems with what you wrote:
You never initialize the contents of str. It's not guaranteed to start out with \0 bytes.
You never initialize index, you only set it within GetStrLen. It could have value -19281281 when the program starts. What if someone calls InsertChar before they call GetStrLen?
You never update index in InsertChar. What if someone calls InsertChar twice in a row?
In StrReverse, you create a reversed string called revStr, but then you never do anything with it. The string in str stays the same afterwords.
The confusing part to me is why you created a new variable called index, presumably to track the index of one-past-the-last character the string, when there was already a variable called StrLen for this purpose, which you totally ignored. The index of of one-past-the-last character is the length of the string, so you should just have kept the length of the string up to date, and used that, e.g.
int GetStrLen(void){
return StrLen;
}
void InsertChar(char ch){
if (StrLen < 80) {
str[StrLen] = ch;
StrLen = StrLen + 1; // Update the length of the string
} else {
// Do not allow the string to overflow. Normally, you would throw an exception here
// but if you don't know what that is, you instructor was probably just expecting
// you to return without trying to insert the character.
throw std::overflow_error();
}
}
Your algorithm for string reversal, however, is just completely wrong. Think through what that code says (assuming index is initialized and updated correctly elsewhere). It says "for every character in str, overwrite the entirety of revStr, backwards, with this character". If str started out as "Hello World", revStr would end up as "ddddddddddd", since d is the last character in str.
What you should do is something like this:
void StrReverse() {
char revStr[80];
for (int i = 0; i < StrLen; ++i) {
revStr[(StrLen - 1) - i] = str[i];
}
}
Take note of how that works. Say that StrLen = 10. Then we're copying position 0 of str into position 9 of revStr, and then position 1 of str into position 9 of revStr, etc, etc, until we copy position StrLen - 1 of str into position 0 of revStr.
But then you've got a reversed string in revStr and you're still missing the part where you put that back into str, so the complete method would look like
void StrReverse() {
char revStr[80];
for (int i = 0; i < StrLen; ++i) {
revStr[(StrLen - 1) - i] = str[i];
}
for (int i = 0; i < StrLen; ++i) {
str[i] = revStr[i];
}
}
And there are cleverer ways to do this where you don't have to have a temporary string revStr, but the above is perfectly functional and would be a correct answer to the problem.
By the way, you really don't need to worry about NULL bytes (\0s) at all in this code. The fact that you are (or at least you should be) tracking the length of the string with the StrLen variable makes the end sentinel unnecessary since using StrLen you already know the point beyond which the contents of str should be ignored.
int GetStrLen(void){
for (int i=0 ; str[i]!='\0' ; i++)
index++;
return index; // *** Here am getting a weird value, something like 1829584505306 ***
}
You are getting a weird value because you never initialized index, you just started incrementing it.
Your GetStrLen() function doesn't work because the str array is uninitialized. It probably doesn't contain any zero elements.
You don't need the index member. Just use StrLen to keep track of the current string length.
There are lots of interesting lessons to learn by this exam question. Firstly the examiner is does not appear to a fluent C++ programmer themselves! You might want to look at the style of the code, including whether the variables and method names are meaningful as well as some of the other comments you've been given about usage of (void), const, etc... Do the method names really need "Str" in them? We are operating with a "Strings" class, after all!
For "How strings are constructed in C++", well (like in C) these are null-terminated and don't store the length with them, like Pascal (and this class) does. [#Gustavo, strlen() will not work here, since the string is not a null-terminated one.] In the "real world" we'd use the std::string class.
"The string must not overflow", but how does the user of the class know if they try to overflow the string. #Tyler's suggestion of throwing a std::overflow_exception (perhaps with a message) would work, but if you are writing your own string class (purely as an exercise, you're very unlikely to need to do so in real life) then you should probably provide your own exception class.
"Insertion of character increases its length by 1", this implies that GetStrLen() doesn't calculate the length of the string, but purely returns the value of StrLen initialised at construction and updated with insertion.
You might also want to think about how you're going to test your class. For illustrative purposes, I added a Print() method so that you can look at the contents of the class, but you should probably take a look at something like Cpp Unit Lite.
For what it's worth, I'm including my own implementation. Unlike the other implementations so far, I have chosen to use raw-pointers in the reverse function and its swap helper. I have presumed that using things like std::swap and std::reverse are outside the scope of this examination, but you will want to familiarise yourself with the Standard Library so that you can get on and program without re-inventing wheels.
#include <iostream>
void swap_chars(char* left, char* right) {
char temp = *left;
*left = *right;
*right = temp;
}
class Strings {
private:
char m_buffer[80];
int m_length;
public:
// Constructor
Strings()
:m_length(0)
{
}
// A function for returning the length of the string 'm_buffer'
int GetLength() const {
return m_length;
}
// A function to inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'm_buffer'
void InsertChar(char ch) {
if (m_length < sizeof m_buffer) {
m_buffer[m_length++] = ch;
}
}
// A function to reverse the content of the string 'm_buffer'
void Reverse() {
char* left = &m_buffer[0];
char* right = &m_buffer[m_length - 1];
for (; left < right; ++left, --right) {
swap_chars(left, right);
}
}
void Print() const {
for (int index = 0; index < m_length; ++index) {
std::cout << m_buffer[index];
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
};
int main(int, char**) {
Strings test_string;
char test[] = "This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test string!\000";
for (char* c = test; *c; ++c) {
test_string.InsertChar(*c);
}
test_string.Print();
test_string.Reverse();
test_string.Print();
// The output of this program should look like this...
// This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test
// tset a si sihT!gnirts tset a si sihT!gnirts tset a si sihT!gnirts tset a si sihT
return 0;
}
Good luck with the rest of your studies!
void InsertChar(char ch){
str[index] = ch; // *** Not sure if this is correct cuz I was not given int index ***
}
This should be something more like
str[strlen-1]=ch; //overwrite the null with ch
str[strlen]='\0'; //re-add the null
strlen++;
Your teacher gave you very good hints on the question, read it again and try answering yourself. Here's my untested solution:
class Strings {
private:
char str[80];
int StrLen;
public:
// Constructor
Strings() {
StrLen=0;
str[0]=0;
};
// A function for returning the length of the string 'str'
int GetStrLen(void) {
return StrLen;
};
// A function to inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'str'
void InsertChar(char ch) {
if(StrLen < 80)
str[StrLen++]=ch;
};
// A function to reverse the content of the string 'str'
void StrReverse(void) {
for(int i=0; i<StrLen / 2; ++i) {
char aux = str[i];
str[i] = str[StrLen - i - 1];
str[StrLen - i - 1] = aux;
}
};
};
When you init the char array, you should set its first element to 0, and the same for index. Thus you get a weird length in GetStrLen since it is up to the gods when you find the 0 you are looking for.
[Update] In C/C++ if you do not explicitly initialize your variables, you usually get them filled with random garbage (the content of the raw memory allocated to them). There are some exceptions to this rule, but the best practice is to always initialize your variables explicitly. [/Update]
In InsertChar, you should (after checking for overflow) use StrLen to index the array (as the comment specifies "inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'str'"), then set the new terminating 0 character and increment StrLen.
You don't need index as a member data. You can have it a local variable if you so please in GetStrLen(): just declare it there rather than in the class body. The reason you get a weird value when you return index is because you never initialized it. To fix that, initialize index to zero in GetStrLen().
But there's a better way to do things: when you insert a character via InsertChar() increment the value of StrLen, so that GetStrLen() need only return that value. This will make GetStrLen() much faster: it will run in constant time (the same performance regardless of the length of string).
In InsertChar() you can use StrLen as you index rather than index, which we already determined is redundant. But remember that you must make sure the string terminates with a '\0' value. Also remember to maintain StrLen by incrementing it to make GetStrLen()'s life easier. In addition, you must take the extra step in InsertChar() to avoid a buffer overflow. This happens when the user inserts a character to the string when the length of the string is alreay 79 characters. (Yes, 79: you must spend one character on the terminating null).
I don't see an instruction as to how to behave when that happens, so it must be up to your good judgment call. If the user tries to add the 80th character you might ignore the request and return, or you might set an error flag -- it's up to you.
In your StrReverse() function you have a few mistakes. First, you call GetStrLen() but ignore its return value. Then why call it? Second, you're creating a temporary string and work on that, rather than on the string member of the class. So your function doesn't change the string member, when it should in fact reverse it. And last, you could reverse the string faster by iterating through half of it only.
Work on the member data string. To reverse a string you can swap the first element (character) of the string with its last (not the terminating null, the character just before that!), the second element with the second-to-last and so on. You're done when you arrive at the middle of the string. Don't forget that the string must terminate with a '\0' character.
While you were solving the exam it would also be a good opportunity to teach your instructor a think or two about C++: we don't say f(void) because that belongs to the old days of C89. In C++ we say f(). We also strive in C++ to use class initializer lists whenever we can. Also remind your instructor how important const-correctness is: when a function shouldn't change the object is should be marked as such. int GetStrLen(void) should be int GetStrLen() const.
You don't need to figure out the length. You already know it it is strLen. Also there was nothing in the original question to indicate that the buffer should contain a null terminated string.
int GetStrLen(void){
return strLen;
}
Just using an assertion here but another option is to throw an exception.
void InsertChar(char ch){
assert(strLen < 80);
str[strLen++] = ch;
}
Reversing the string is just a matter of swapping the elements in the str buffer.
void StrRevrse(void){
int n = strLen >> 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
char c = str[i];
str[i] = str[strLen - i];
str[strLen - i] = c;
}
}
I would use StrLen to track the length of the string. Since the length also indicates the end of the string, we can use that for inserting:
int GetStrLen(void) {
return StrLen;
}
int InsertChar(char ch)
{
if (strLen < sizeof(str))
{
str[StrLen] = ch;
++strLen;
}
}
void StrReverse(void) {
for (int n = 0; n < StrLen / 2; ++n)
{
char tmp = str[n];
str[n] = str[StrLen - n - 1];
str[StrLen - n - 1] = tmp;
}
}
first of all why on you use String.h for the string length?
strlen(char[] array) returns the Lenght or any char array to a int.
Your function return a werid value because you never initialize index, and the array has zero values, first initilize then execute your method.