I think this is probably a trivial problem to solve but I have been struggling with this for past few days.
I have the following vector: v = [7,3,16,4,2,1]. I was able to implement with some help from google simple minheap algorithm to get the smallest element in each iteration. After extraction of the minimum element, I need to decrease the values of some of the elements and then bubble them up.
The issue I am having is that I want find the elements whose value has to be reduced in the heap in constant time, then reduce that value and then bubble it up.
After the heapify operation, the heap_vector v_h looks like this: v_h = [1,2,7,4,3,16]. When I remove the min element 1, then the heap vector becomes, [2,3,7,4,16]. But before we do the swap and bubble up, say I want to change the values of 7 to 4, 16 to 4 and 4 to 3.5 . But I am not sure where they will be in the heap. The indices of values of the elements that have to be decreased will be given with respect to the original vector v. I figured out that I need to have an auxiliary data structure that can keep track of the heap indices in relation to the original order of the elements (the heap index vector should look like h_iv = [2,4,5,3,1,0] after all the elements have been inserted into the minheap. And whenever an element is deleted from the minheap, the heap_index should be -1. I created a vector to try to update the heap indices whenever there is a change but I am unable to do it.
I am pasting my work here and also at https://onlinegdb.com/SJR4LqQO4
Some of the work I had tried is commented out. I am unable to map the heap indices when there is a swap in the bubble up or bubble down operations. I will be very grateful to anyone who can lead me in a direction to solve my problem. Please also let me know if I have to rethink some of my logic.
The .hpp file
#ifndef minheap_hpp
#define minheap_hpp
#include <stdio.h>
// #include "helper.h"
#include <vector>
class minheap
{
public:
std::vector<int> vect;
std::vector<int> heap_index;
void bubble_down(int index);
void bubble_up(int index);
void Heapify();
public:
minheap(const std::vector<int>& input_vector);
minheap();
void insert(int value);
int get_min();
void delete_min();
void print_heap_vector();
};
#endif /* minheap_hpp */
The .cpp file
#include "minheap.hpp"
minheap::minheap(const std::vector<int>& input_vector) : vect(input_vector)
{
Heapify();
}
void minheap::Heapify()
{
int length = static_cast<int>(vect.size());
// auto start = 0;
// for (auto i = 0; i < vect.size(); i++){
// heap_index.push_back(start);
// start++;
// }
for(int i=length/2-1; i>=0; --i)
{
bubble_down(i);
}
}
void minheap::bubble_down(int index)
{
int length = static_cast<int>(vect.size());
int leftChildIndex = 2*index + 1;
int rightChildIndex = 2*index + 2;
if(leftChildIndex >= length){
return;
}
int minIndex = index;
if(vect[index] > vect[leftChildIndex])
{
minIndex = leftChildIndex;
}
if((rightChildIndex < length) && (vect[minIndex] > vect[rightChildIndex]))
{
minIndex = rightChildIndex;
}
if(minIndex != index)
{
std::swap(vect[index], vect[minIndex]);
// std::cout << "swap " << index << " - " << minIndex << "\n";
// auto a = heap_index[heap_index[index]];
// auto b = heap_index[heap_index[minIndex]];
// heap_index[a] = b;
// heap_index[b] = a;
// print_vector(heap_index);
bubble_down(minIndex);
}
}
void minheap::bubble_up(int index)
{
if(index == 0)
return;
int par_index = (index-1)/2;
if(vect[par_index] > vect[index])
{
std::swap(vect[index], vect[par_index]);
bubble_up(par_index);
}
}
void minheap::insert(int value)
{
int length = static_cast<int>(vect.size());
vect.push_back(value);
bubble_up(length);
}
int minheap::get_min()
{
return vect[0];
}
void minheap::delete_min()
{
int length = static_cast<int>(vect.size());
if(length == 0)
{
return;
}
vect[0] = vect[length-1];
vect.pop_back();
bubble_down(0);
}
void minheap::print_heap_vector(){
// print_vector(vect);
}
and the main file
#include <iostream>
#include <iostream>
#include "minheap.hpp"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
std::vector<int> vec {7, 3, 16, 4, 2, 1};
minheap mh(vec);
// mh.print_heap_vector();
for(int i=0; i<3; ++i)
{
auto a = mh.get_min();
mh.delete_min();
// mh.print_heap_vector();
std::cout << a << "\n";
}
// std::cout << "\n";
return 0;
}
"I want to change the values of 7 to 4, 16 to 4 and 4 to 3.5 . But I am not sure where they will be in the heap. The indices of values of the elements that have to be decreased will be given with respect to the original vector v. ... Please also let me know if I have to rethink some of my logic."
Rather than manipulate the values inside the heap, I would suggest keeping the values that need changing inside a vector (possibly v itself). The heap could be based on elements that are a struct (or class) that holds an index into the corresponding position in the vector with the values, rather than hold the (changing) value itself.
The struct (or class) would implement an operator< function that compares the values retrieved from the two vector locations for the respective index values. So, instead of storing the comparison value in the heap elements and comparing a < b, you would store index positions i and j and so on and compare v[i] < v[j] for the purpose of heap ordering.
In this way, the positions of the numerical values you need to update will never change from their original positions. The position information will never go stale (as I understand it from your description).
Of course, when you make changes to those stored values in the vector, that could easily invalidate any ordering that might have existed in the heap itself. As I understand your description, that much was necessarily true in any case. Therefore, depending on how you change the values, you might need to do a fresh make_heap to restore proper heap ordering. (That isn't clear, since it depends on whether your intended changes violate heap assumptions, but it would be a safe thing to assume unless there are strong assurances otherwise.)
I think the rest is pretty straight forward. You can still operate the heap as you intended before. For ease you might even give the struct (or class) a lookup function to return the current value at it's corresponding position in the vector, if you need that (rather than the index) as you pop out minimum values.
p.s. Here is a variation on the same idea.
In the original version above, one would likely need to also store a pointer to the location of the vector that held the vector of values, possibly as a shared static pointer of that struct (or class) so that all the members could dereference the pointer to that vector in combination with the index values to look up the particular member associated with that element.
If you prefer, instead of storing that shared vector pointer and an index in each member, each struct (or class) instance could more simply store a pointer (or iterator) directly to the corresponding value's location. If the values are integers, the heap element struct's member value could be int pointer. While each pointer might be larger than an index value, this does have the advantage that it eliminates any assumption about the data structure that holds the compared values and it is even simpler/faster to dereference vs. lookup with an index into the vector. (Both are constant time.)
One caution: In this alternate approach, the pointer values would be invalidated if you were to cause the vector's storage positions to change, e.g. by pushing in new values and expanding it in a way that forces it to reallocate it's space. I'm assuming you only need to change values, not expand the number of values after you've begun to use the heap. But if you did need to do that, that would be one reason to prefer index values, since they remain valid after expanding the vector (unlike pointers).
p.p.s. This technique is also valuable when the objects that you want to compare in the heap are large. Rather than have the heap perform many copy operations on large objects as it reorders the positions of the heap elements, by storing only pointers (or index values) the copying is much more efficient. In fact, this makes it possible to use heaps on objects that you might not want to copy at all.
Here is a quick idea of one version of the comparison function (with some class context now added).
class YourHeapElementClassName
{
public:
// constructor
explicit YourHeapElementClassName(theTypeOfYourComparableValueOrObject & val)
: m_valPointer(&val)
{
}
bool operator<(const YourHeapElementClassName & other) const
{
return *m_valPointer < *(other.m_valPointer);
}
...
private:
theTypeOfYourComparableValueOrObject * m_valPointer;
}; // YourHeapElementClassName
// and later instead of making a heap of int or double,
// you make a heap of YourHeapElementClassName objects
// that you initialize so each points to a value in v
// by using the constructor above with each v member.
// If you (probably) don't need to change the v values
// through these heap objects, the member value could be
// a pointer to a const value and the constructor could
// have a const reference argument for the original value.
If you had need to do this with different types of values or objects, the pointer approach could be implemented with a template that generalizes on the type of value or object and holds a pointer to that general type.
Related
Need to implement a function
int* linearSearch(int* array, int num);
That gets a fixed size array of integers with a number and return an array with indices to the occurrences of the searched number.
For example array={3,4,5,3,6,8,7,8,3,5} & num=5 will return occArray={2,9}.
I've implemented it in c++ with a main function to check the output
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int* linearSearch(int* array, int num);
int main()
{
int array[] = {3,4,5,3,6,8,7,8,3,5}, num=5;
int* occArray = linearSearch(array, num);
int i = sizeof(occArray)/sizeof(occArray[0]);
while (i>0) {
std::cout<<occArray[i]<<" ";
i--;
}
}
int* linearSearch(int* array, int num)
{
int *occArray= new int[];
for (int i = 0,j = 0; i < sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]); i++) {
if (array[i] == num) {
occArray[j] = i;
j++;
}
}
return occArray;
}
I think the logic is fine but I have a syntax problems with creating a dynamic cell for occArray
Also a neater implantation with std::vector will be welcomed
Thank You
At very first I join in the std::vector recommendation in the question's comments (pass it as const reference to avoid unnecessary copy!), that solves all of your issues:
std::vector<size_t> linearSearch(std::vector<int> const& array, int value)
{
std::vector<size_t> occurrences;
// to prevent unnecessary re-allocations, which are expensive,
// one should reserve sufficient space in advance
occurrences.reserve(array.size());
// if you expect only few occurrences you might reserve a bit less,
// maybe half or quarter of array's size, then in general you use
// less memory but in few cases you still re-allocate
for(auto i = array.begin(); i != array.end(); ++i)
{
if(*i == value)
{
// as using iterators, need to calculate the distance:
occurrences.push_back(i - array.begin());
}
}
return occurences;
}
Alternatively you could iterate with a size_t i variable from 0 to array.size(), compare array[i] == value and push_back(i); – that's equivalent, so select whichever you like better...
If you cannot use std::vector for whatever reason you need to be aware of a few issues:
You indeed can get the length of an array by sizeof(array)/sizeof(*array) – but that only works as long as you have direct access to that array. In most other cases (including passing them to functions) arrays decay to pointers and these do not retain any size information, thus this trick won't work any more, you'd always get sizeOfPointer/sizeOfUnderlyingType, on typical modern 64-bit hardware that would be 8/4 = 2 for int* – no matter how long the array originally was.
So you need to pass the size of the array in an additional parameter, e.g.:
size_t* linearSearch
(
int* array,
size_t number, // of elements in the array
int value // to search for
);
Similarly you need to return the number of occurrences of the searched value by some means. There are several options for:
Turn num into a reference (size_t& num), then you can modify it inside the function and the change gets visible outside. Usage of the function get's a bit inconvenient, though, as you need to explicitly define a variable for:
size_t num = sizeof(array)/sizeof(*array);
auto occurrences = linearSearch(array, num, 7);
Append a sentinel value to the array, which might be the array size or probably better maximum value for size_t – with all the disadvantages you have with C strings as well (mainly having to iterate over the result array to detect the number of occurences).
Prepend the number of occurrences to the array – somehow ugly as well as you mix different kind of information into one and the same array.
Return result pointer and size in a custom struct of yours or in e.g. a std::pair<size_t, size_t*>. You could even use that in a structured binding expression when calling the function:
auto [num, occurences] = linearSearch(array, sizeof(array)/sizeof(*array), 7);
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// here the trick yet works provided the array is declared above the call, too,
// as is in your example
Option 4 would be my personal recommendation out of these.
Side note: I switched to size_t for return values as negative indices into an array are meaningless anyway (unless you intend to use these as sentinel values, e. g. -1 for end of occurrences in option 2).
The scope of the program is to create a Container object which stores in a vector Class objects. Then I want to print, starting from a precise Class object of the vector all its predecessors.
class Class{
public:
Class(){
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
Class c;
c.setName(i);
if (i > 0) {
c.setNext(_vec,i-1);
}
_vec.push_back(c);
}
}
};
~Class();
void setName(const int& n);
void setNext( vector<Class>& vec, const int& pos);
Class* getNext();
string getName();
void printAllNext(){ //print all next Class objects including himself
cout << _name <<endl;
if (_next != nullptr) {
(*_next).printAllNext();
}
}
private:
Class* _next;
string _name;
};
class Container{
public:
Container(){
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
Class c;
c.setName(i);
if (i > 0) {
c.setNext(_vec,i-1);
}
_vec.push_back(c);
};
~Container();
void printFromVec(const int& n){//print all objects of _vec starting from n;
_vec[n].printAllNext();
};
private:
vector<Class> _vec;
};
int main() {
Container c;
c.printFromVec(5);
}
The problem is that all _next pointers of Class objects are undefined or random.
I think the problem is with this part of code:
class Container{
public:
Container(){
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
Class c;
c.setName(i);
if (i > 0) {
c.setNext(_vec,i-1);
}
_vec.push_back(c);
};
Debugging I noticed that pointers of already created objects change their values.
What is the problem? How can I make it work?
Although there is really error in the code (likely wrong copypaste), the problem is really following: std::vector maintains inside dynamically allocated array of objects. It starts with certain initial size. When you push to vector, it fills entries of array. When all entries are filled but you attempt pushing more elements, vector allocates bigger chunk of memory and moves or copies (whichever you element data type supports) objects to a new memory location. That's why address of object changes.
Now some words on what to do.
Solution 1. Use std::list instead of std::vector. std::list is double linked list, and element, once added to list, will be part of list item and will not change its address, there is no reallocation.
Solution 2. Use vector of shared pointers. In this case you will need to allocate each object dynamically and put address into shared pointer object, you can do both at once by using function std::make_shared(). Then you push shared pointer to vector, and store std::weak_ptr as pointer to previous/next one.
Solution 3. If you know maximum number of elements in vector you may ever have, you can leave all as is, but do one extra thing before pushing very first time - call reserve() on vector with max number of elements as parameters. Vector will allocate array of that size and keep it until it is filled and more space needed. But since you allocated maximum possible size you expect to ever have, reallocation should never happen, and so addresses of objects will remain same.
Choose whichever solution you think fits most for your needs.
#ivan.ukr Offered a number of solutions for keeping the pointers stable. However, I believe that is the wrong problem to solve.
Why do we need stable pointers? So that Class objects can point to the previous object in a container.
Why do we need the pointers to previous? So we can iterate backwards.
That’s the real problem: iterating backwards from a point in the container. The _next pointer is an incomplete solution to the real problem which is iteration.
If you want to iterate a vector, use iterators. You can read about them on the cppreference page for std::vector. I don’t want to write the code for you but I’ll give you some hints.
To get an iterator referring to the ith element, use auto iter = _vec.begin() + i;.
To print the object that this iterator refers to, use iter->print() (you’ll have to rename printAllNext to print and have it just print this object).
To move an iterator backwards, use --iter.
To check if an iterator refers to the first element, use iter == _vec.begin().
You could improve this further by using reverse iterators but I’ll leave that up to you.
I'm still quite inexperienced in C++ and i'm trying to write sum code to add numbers precisely. This is a dll plugin for some finite difference software and the code is called several million times during a run. I want to write a function where any number of arguments can be passed in and the sum will be returned. My code looks like:
#include <cstdarg>
double SumFunction(int numArgs, ...){ // this allows me to pass any number
// of arguments to my function.
va_list args;
va_start(args,numArgs); //necessary prerequisites for using cstdarg
double myarray[10];
for (int i = 0; i < numArgs; i++) {
myarray[i] = va_arg(args,double);
} // I imagine this is sloppy code; however i cannot create
// myarray{numArgs] because numArgs is not a const int.
sum(myarray); // The actual method of addition is not relevant here, but
//for more complicated methods, I need to put the summation
// terms in a list.
vector<double> vec(numArgs); // instead, place all values in a vector
for (int i = 0; i < numArgs; i++) {
vec.at(i) = va_arg(args,double);
}
sum(vec); //This would be passed by reference, of course. The function sum
// doesn't actually exist, it would all be contained within the
// current function. This is method is twice as slow as placing
//all the values in the static array.
double *vec;
vec = new double[numArgs];
for (int i = 0; i < (numArgs); i++) {
vec[i] = va_arg(args,double);
}
sum(vec); // Again half of the speed of using a standard array and
// increasing in magnitude for every extra dynamic array!
delete[] vec;
va_end(args);
}
So the problem I have is that using an oversized static array is sloppy programming, but using either a vector or a dynamic array slows the program down considerably. So I really don't know what to do. Can anyone help, please?
One way to speed the code up (at the cost of making it more complicated) is to reuse a dynamic array or vector between calls, then you will avoid incurring the overhead of memory allocation and deallocation each time you call the function.
For example declare these variables outside your function either as global variables or as member variables inside some class. I'll just make them globals for ease of explanation:
double* sumArray = NULL;
int sumArraySize = 0;
In your SumFunction, check if the array exists and if not allocate it, and resize if necessary:
double SumFunction(int numArgs, ...){ // this allows me to pass any number
// of arguments to my function.
va_list args;
va_start(args,numArgs); //necessary prerequisites for using cstdarg
// if the array has already been allocated, check if it is large enough and delete if not:
if((sumArray != NULL) && (numArgs > sumArraySize))
{
delete[] sumArray;
sumArray = NULL;
}
// allocate the array, but only if necessary:
if(sumArray == NULL)
{
sumArray = new double[numArgs];
sumArraySize = numArgs;
}
double *vec = sumArray; // set to your array, reusable between calls
for (int i = 0; i < (numArgs); i++) {
vec[i] = va_arg(args,double);
}
sum(vec, numArgs); // you will need to pass the array size
va_end(args);
// note no array deallocation
}
The catch is that you need to remember to deallocate the array at some point by calling a function similar to this (like I said, you pay for speed with extra complexity):
void freeSumArray()
{
if(sumArray != NULL)
{
delete[] sumArray;
sumArray = NULL;
sumArraySize = 0;
}
}
You can take a similar (and simpler/cleaner) approach with a vector, allocate it the first time if it doesn't already exist, or call resize() on it with numArgs if it does.
When using a std::vector the optimizer must consider that relocation is possible and this introduces an extra indirection.
In other words the code for
v[index] += value;
where v is for example a std::vector<int> is expanded to
int *p = v._begin + index;
*p += value;
i.e. from vector you need first to get the field _begin (that contains where the content starts in memory), then apply the index, and then dereference to get the value and mutate it.
If the code performing the computation on the elements of the vector in a loop calls any unknown non-inlined code, the optimizer is forced to assume that unknown code may mutate the _begin field of the vector and this will require doing the two-steps indirection for each element.
(NOTE: that the vector is passed with a cost std::vector<T>& reference is totally irrelevant: a const reference doesn't mean that the vector is const but simply puts a limitation on what operations are permitted using that reference; external code could have a non-const reference to access the vector and constness can also be legally casted away... constness of references is basically ignored by the optimizer).
One way to remove this extra lookup (if you know that the vector is not being resized during the computation) is to cache this address in a local and use that instead of the vector operator [] to access the element:
int *p = &v[0];
for (int i=0,n=v.size(); i<n; i++) {
/// use p[i] instead of v[i]
}
This will generate code that is almost as efficient as a static array because, given that the address of p is not published, nothing in the body of the loop can change it and the value p can be assumed constant (something that cannot be done for v._begin as the optimizer cannot know if someone else knows the address of _begin).
I'm saying "almost" because a static array only requires indexing, while using a dynamically allocated area requires "base + indexing" access; most CPUs however provide this kind of memory access at no extra cost. Moreover if you're processing elements in sequence the indexing addressing becomes just a sequential memory access but only if you can assume the start address constant (i.e. not in the case of std::vector<T>::operator[]).
Assuming that the "max storage ever needed" is in the order of 10-50, I'd say using a local array is perfectly fine.
Using vector<T> will use 3 * sizeof(*T) (at least) to track the contents of the vector. So if we compare that to an array of double arr[10];, then that's 7 elements more on the stack of equal size (or 8.5 in 32-bit build). But you also need a call to new, which takes a size argument. So that takes up AT LEAST one, more likely 2-3 elements of stackspace, and the implementation of new is quite possibly not straightforward, so further calls are needed, which take up further stack-space.
If you "don't know" the number of elements, and need to cope with quite large numbers of elements, then using a hybrid solution, where you have a small stack-based local array, and if numargs > small_size use vector, and then pass vec.data() to the function sum.
I'm creating a custom vector class as part of a homework assignment. What I am currently trying to do is implement a function called erase, which will take an integer as an argument, decrease my array length by 1, remove the element at the position specified by the argument, and finally shift all the elements down to fill in the gap left by "erased" element.
What I am not completely understanding, due to my lack of experience with this language, is how you can delete a single element from an array of pointers.
Currently, I have the following implemented:
void myvector::erase(int i)
{
if(i != max_size)
{
for(int x = i; x < max_size; x++)
{
vec_array[x] = vec_array[x+1];
}
vec_size --;
//delete element from vector;
}
else
//delete element from vector
}
The class declaration and constructors look like this:
template <typename T>
class myvector
{
private:
T *vec_array;
int vec_size;
int max_size;
bool is_empty;
public:
myvector::myvector(int max_size_input)
{
max_size = max_size_input;
vec_array = new T[max_size];
vec_size = 0;
}
I have tried the following:
Using delete to try and delete an element
delete vec_size[max_size];
vec_size[max_size] = NULL;
Setting the value of the element to NULL or 0
vec_size[max_size] = NULL
or
vec_size[max_size] = 0
None of which are working for me due to either operator "=" being ambiguous or specified type not being able to be cast to void *.
I'm probably missing something simple, but I just can't seem to get passed this. Any help would be much appreciated. Again, sorry for the lack of experience if this is something silly.
If your custom vector class is supposed to work like std::vector, then don't concern yourself with object destruction. If you need to erase an element, you simply copy all elements following it by one position to the left:
void myvector::erase(int i)
{
for (int x = i + 1; x < vec_size; x++) {
vec_array[x - 1] = vec_array[x];
}
vec_size--;
}
That's all the basic work your erase() function has to do.
If the elements happen to be pointers, you shouldn't care; the user of your vector class is responsible for deleting those pointers if that's needed. You cannot determine if they can actually be deleted (the pointers might point to automatic stack variables, which are not deletable.)
So, do not ever call delete on an element of your vector.
If your vector class has a clear() function, and you want to make sure the elements are destructed, simply:
delete[] vec_array;
vec_array = new T[max_size];
vec_size = 0;
And this is how std::vector works, actually. (Well, the basic logic of it; of course you can optimize a hell of a lot of stuff in a vector implementation.)
Since this is homework i wont give you a definitive solution, but here is one method of erasing a value:
loop through and find value specified in erase function
mark values position in the array
starting from that position, move all elements values to the previous element(overlapping 'erased' value)
for i starting at position, i less than size minus one, i plus plus
element equals next element
reduce size of vector by 1
see if this is a big enough hint.
I am attempting to write a template/class that has a few functions, but I'm running into what seems like a rather newbie problem. I have a simple insert function and a display values function, however whenever I attempt to display the value, I always receive what looks like a memory address(but I have no idea), but I would like to receive the value stored (in this particular example, the int 2). I'm not sure how to dereference that to a value, or if I'm just completely messing up. I know that vectors are a better alternative, however I need to use an array in this implementation - and honestly I would like to gain a more thorough understanding of the code and what's going on. Any help as to how to accomplish this task would be greatly appreciated.
Example Output (running the program in the same way every time):
003358C0
001A58C0
007158C0
Code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template <typename Comparable>
class Collection
{
public: Collection() {
currentSize = 0;
count = 0;
}
Comparable * values;
int currentSize; // internal counter for the number of elements stored
void insert(Comparable value) {
currentSize++;
// temparray below is used as a way to increase the size of the
// values array each time the insert function is called
Comparable * temparray = new Comparable[currentSize];
memcpy(temparray,values,sizeof values);
// Not sure if the commented section below is necessary,
// but either way it doesn't run the way I intended
temparray[currentSize/* * (sizeof Comparable) */] = value;
values = temparray;
}
void displayValues() {
for (int i = 0; i < currentSize; i++) {
cout << values[i] << endl;
}
}
};
int main()
{
Collection<int> test;
int inserter = 2;
test.insert(inserter);
test.displayValues();
cin.get();
return 0;
}
Well, if you insist, you can write and debug your own limited version of std::vector.
First, don't memcpy from an uninitialized pointer. Set values to new Comparable[0] in the constructor.
Second, memcpy the right number of bytes: (currentSize-1)*sizeof(Comparable).
Third, don't memcpy at all. That assumes that Comparable types can all be copied byte-by-byte, which is a severe limitation in C++. Instead:
EDIT: changed uninitialized_copy to copy:
std::copy(values, values + currentSize - 1, temparray);
Fourth, delete the old array when it's no longer in use:
delete [] values;
Fifth, unless the code is going to make very few insertions, expand the array by more than one. std::vector typically increases its size by a factor of 1.5.
Sixth, don't increment currentSize until the size changes. That will change all those currentSize-1s into currentSize, which is much less annoying. <g>
Seventh, an array of size N has indices from 0 to N-1, so the top element of the new array is at currentSize - 1, not currentSize.
Eighth, did I mention, you really should use std::vector.
This line is wrong:
memcpy(temparray,values,sizeof values);
The first time this line is run, the values pointer is uninitialized, so it will cause undefined behavior. Additionally, using sizeof values is wrong since that will always give the size of a pointer.
Another issue:
temparray[currentSize] = value;
This will also cause undefined bahavior because you have only allocated currentSize items in temparray, so you can only access indices 0 to currentSize-1.
There is also an error in your array access.
temparray[currentSize/* * (sizeof Comparable) */] = value;
Remember that arrays start at index zero. So for an array of length 1, you would set temparray[0] = value. Since you increment currentSize at the top of the insert function, you will need to do this instead:
temparray[currentSize-1] = value;