My vector works sometimes and othertimes it doesn't - c++

I'm trying to make my own vector, but i've got the following problem: When I push_back 100 times there's no problem. When I push_back 1000 the program does not work
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <conio.h>
struct Exception {
static const char* out_of_range;
};
const char* Exception::out_of_range = "[Error]: Out of range";
template < typename T >
struct vector {
typedef T myType;
public:
vector() {
m_vector = (myType*) malloc ( sizeof( myType ) );
m_position = 0;
}
template < typename ... Ts >
vector(myType head, Ts ... tail) {
m_position = 0;
m_vector = (myType*) malloc( (sizeof ...( tail ) + 1) * sizeof( myType ) );
this->push_back(head);
(this->push_back(tail),...);
}
~vector() {
free(m_vector);
m_vector = NULL;
}
void push_back( myType value ) {
m_vector[ m_position ] = value;
++m_position;
m_vector = (myType*) realloc(m_vector, m_position * sizeof(myType));
}
void pop_back() {
--m_position;
m_vector = (myType*)realloc( m_vector, m_position * sizeof (myType) );
}
myType at( size_t pos ) {
try {
if (pos < m_position)
return m_vector[ pos ];
else throw Exception::out_of_range;
} catch (const char* e) {
printf("%s", e);
return (myType){};
}
}
inline myType& front() { return *m_vector; }
inline myType& back() { return *(m_vector + size() -1); }
inline myType* data() { return m_vector; }
inline myType* begin() { return m_vector; }
inline myType* end() { return (m_vector + size()); }
inline myType operator[](size_t pos) { return m_vector[ pos ]; }
inline size_t size() { return m_position; }
inline bool empty () { return (begin() == end()? true:false); }
private:
myType* m_vector;
size_t m_position;
};
Here is my main that use push_back by 100 times:
int main() {
vector<int> v;
for(int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) v.push_back(i);
for(int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) std::cout << v[i];
}
And here the hunted code ahah:
int main() {
vector<int> v;
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) v.push_back(i);
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) std::cout << v[i];
}
With "doesn't work" I'm trying to say that when I have 100 values inserted by push_back the program show me all the values from 0 to 99... but when I've got 1000 values (I don't know why) the program show only a black screen and nothing more

Consider the first call of
void push_back(myType value) {
m_vector[m_position] = value; // Store into 0
++m_position; // set `m_position` to 1
m_vector = (myType*)realloc(m_vector, m_position * sizeof(myType)); // Allocate more space.
}
How much more space is allocated on that last line? m_position * sizeof(myType). This resolves to 1 * sizeof(myType). Enough space for 1 myType. In other words the same amount of space the program already had. This is not useful.
Let's look at the next push_back
void push_back(myType value) {
m_vector[m_position] = value; // Store into 1. There is no 1. Program now broken
++m_position; // set `m_position` to 2
m_vector = (myType*)realloc(m_vector, m_position * sizeof(myType)); // Allocate more space.
}
The next push_back writes into invalid storage. Program now officially broken and no further point debugging.
How do we fix this?
Let's ignore the fact that malloc and family don't handle complex data structures and vector does not observe the Rules of Three and Five. Those are best handled in other questions. How do we fix this with realloc?
m_vector = (myType*) realloc(m_vector, (m_position +1) * sizeof(myType));
smooths over the immediate rough spot. But this is inefficient as hell. Every addition triggers a realloc. This really, really hurts performance. Aggregate O(1) goes right out the window replaced by O(n), copy every time, plus a potentially very expensive memory allocation.1
Worse, what happens when you remove an item? You lose track of how much was in the vector and may find yourself reallocing smaller buffers. Yuck.
To do this right, first add a m_capacity member to track how much data can be stored so that we don't have to reallocate if the amount needed is less than the amount required.
Then we test for amount of space and possibly reallocate before trying to store.
void push_back( myType value ) {
if (m_position >= m_capacity)
{ // need to reallocate
m_capacity *= 2;
myType * temp = (myType*) realloc(m_vector, m_capacity *sizeof(myType));
// ask for more than is needed. Reduce number of reallocations needed
// do not overwrite m_vector. realloc can fail to allocate and then where are you?
if (temp != NULL)
{
m_vector = temp;
}
else
{
// handle error. Probably throw exception. Definitely exit function
// before trying to add new element
}
}
m_vector[ m_position ] = value; // now guarantied to have space.
++m_position;
}
1This isn't strictly true. One of the things you'll find is that memory provided often isn't as granular as what you asked for. When the program asks for X bytes, it might get a convenient block of free memory larger than X bytes. You ever noticed that sometimes you can run off the end of a buffer and the program doesn't notice and immediately crash? This extra space is one of the reasons. Quite often realloc can take advantage of this and keep using the same allocation over and over, allowing the program to legally see more of it. You can't count on this, though.

I assume the idea behind your code is that m_vector should always be able to hold one more value than it currently does. Your push_back funtion is wrong then, it should realloc for m_position + 1.

Related

Segfault with std::vector =-operation to uninitialized space

I get segmentation faults when I use the =-operator to copy a struct that contains a std::vector to uninitialized memory.
The critical code looks like that:
template<typename T>
ComponentContainer
{
T* buffer;
size_t capacity;
size_t m_size;
public:
ComponentContainer();
~ComponentContainer();
size_t size();
void resize(size_t size);
T & operator[](size_t index);
};
template<typename T>
void ComponentContainer<T>::resize(size_t newSize)
{
if(this->m_size >= newSize)
{
this->m_size = newSize;
}
else
{
if(this->capacity < newSize)
{
const size_t newCapacity = capacity*2;
T* newBuffer = (T*)malloc(newCapacity*sizeof(T));
for(size_t i = 0; i<m_size; i++)
{
// checks if this->buffer[i] is valid intialized memory
if(pseudo_checkIfElementIsInitialized(i))
{
// when this is uncommented no segfault happens
//new (&newBuffer[i]) T();
newBuffer[i] = this->buffer[i]; // <- segfault happens here
}
}
this->capacity = newCapacity;
free(this->buffer);
this->buffer = newBuffer;
}
this->m_size = newSize;
}
}
The T-type is a struct with a std::vector of structs when I get the segfault.
I suspect that the std::vector =-operator uses somehow the left side variable newBuffer[i] and the segmentation fault happens since newBuffer[i] is not initialized.
Objects will be created only with in-placement new with the function T & operator[](size_t index). The malloc should only allocate the memory without initializing anything.
I tried to write a simple example but that hasn't worked out so well:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct Hello
{
Hello()
{
std::cout << "constructor" << std::endl;
}
~Hello()
{
std::cout << "destructor" << std::endl;
}
std::vector<double> v = std::vector<double>(1);
};
int main()
{
Hello* buffer = (Hello*)malloc(1*sizeof(Hello));
char* noise = (char*)buffer;
for(size_t i = 0; i<sizeof(Hello); i++)
{
noise[i] = 100;
}
auto tmp = Hello();
tmp.v[0] = 6.6;
//new (&buffer[0]) Hello();
buffer[0] = tmp;
std::cout << buffer[0].v[0] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It works fine without segfault. I assume that is because the uninitialized memory was just by chance ok for the std::vector =-operation.
So
a) is that theory correct
and if yes
b) how to solve this problem without using a default constructor (T()) for every class that i use as T for my ComponentContainer
Well, yeah. You can't assign to an object that doesn't exist.
Uncomment the line that fixes it!
If you can't default construct, then copy construct:
new (&newBuffer[i]) T(this->buffer[i]);
And if you can't do that, then, well, you know the rest.
The malloc should only allocate the memory without initializing anything.
Is it possible that you've underestimated the weight of this statement? You don't just get memory then decide whether or not to initialise it with some values. You have to actually create objects before using them; this is not optional. You're programming C++, not manipulating bits and bytes on a tape :)

Memory leak because of new() or malloc

I'm trying to implement an alternative to usual contiguous dynamic arrays, where I am using a vector of pointers, each is pointing to a constant size array, referring to it as XVector.
It works fine for a certain limit of inputs - say 150 elements -, but beyond that it starts throwing exceptions.
I tried to use "new and delete" instead of "malloc and free", it did increased the limit - say about 1200 elements -, but still exists the same problem.
I'm using C++.
Here's my main program:
XVector<int> xv;
for(int i=0;i<1210;i++){
int temp = rand()%100;
xv.pushBack(temp);
}
for(int i=0;i<xv.size();i++){
cout<<xv.getValue(i)<<" ";
}
cout<<"\n\n"<<xv.capacity();
return 0;
And here's is the XVector (The class of theD header file:
private:
const int b = 10;
vector<T*> arr;
int currentIndex;
int maxSize;
protected:
void expand(){
T* temp = new T[b];
arr.push_back(temp);
maxSize+=(b);
}
void shrink(){
delete[] arr[arr.size()-1];
arr[arr.size()-1] = NULL;
arr.pop_back();
maxSize-=(b);
}
int ceil(float num) {
int inum = (int)num;
if (num == (float)inum) {
return inum;
}
return inum + 1;
}
pair<int,int> position(int index){
pair<int,int> pos;
float result = ((float)index/b);
pos.first = result; //Row #
pos.second = ceil((result - pos.first)*b); //Exact cell in the row
return pos;
}
public:
XVector(){
currentIndex=0;
maxSize=b;
arr.reserve(120);
arr.push_back(new T[b]);
}
void pushBack(T value){
if(currentIndex>=maxSize-1){expand();}
pair<int,int> indeces = position(currentIndex);
arr[indeces.first][indeces.second]=value;
currentIndex++;
}
void popBack(){
currentIndex--;
if(maxSize>=currentIndex+(2*b)){shrink();}
}
T getValue(int index){
pair<int,int> indeces = position(index);
return arr[indeces.first][indeces.second];
}
void setValue(int index,T value){
pair<int,int> indeces = position(index);
arr[indeces.first][indeces.second] = value;
}
int capacity(){
return maxSize;
}
int size(){
return currentIndex;
}
bool empty(){
return currentIndex==0?true:false;
}
PS: I tried to use Valgrind, but failed to identify the exact problem.
Your program leaks memory because you never free the pointers in a destructor. You must implement a destructor to solve your memory leak (in addition to a move constructor, copy constructor, assignment copy, and assignment move).
In addition to valgrind, you can use ASAN which has better output and also runs faster.
The main problem of your code that leads your code to crash isn't memory leak. Totally memory leak doesn't leads to crash in short term. in memory leak case your application works until there is enough space on your RAM and then if your RAM being full , crash occurs. you make a mistake in position() method in finding second dimension index.
For example when you call position(index:29) because of implementation of float and float precision result of (result - pos.first)*b is 9.00000095. It means its result has a little difference with real result(9). and then you call ceil(9.00000095) and it return 10 for result. It means you access index 10 for your second dimension whereas you can use index from 0 to 9 and you have index out of range access that leads you to crash after some period of time and your program may have undefined behavior.
the correct sample for position method is :
pair<int, int> position(int index){
pair<int, int> pos;
float result = ((float)index / b);
pos.first = result; //Row #
pos.second = index%b; // changed line
return pos;
}
Finally you should define destructor and delete all memories you allocated by new operator. All of vector element(arrays) need to be deleted.

C++ Memory Leak With STL Vector

I am building a templated Max Heap class in C++ for a datastructures class. The implementation demonstrates a Max Heap with a vector under the hood. There is an online submission associated with the assignment and when I submit mine, all the tests (push, pop, top, and size) pass and work (for the online unknown unit tests as well as all the ones I wrote) and I have no memory leaks with any of my tests, however I am failing the memory leak section with the online submission, indicating to me that my Bubble Up (Reheap Up) or Bubble Down (Reheap Down) algorithms are doing something funny with vector indices.
I noticed that I used the bracket operator a lot to mess with the vector, so I went through and changed all the brackets to .at() so I could see any suppressed out of bounds errors. Flying colors again, except for the memory leaks allegedly. I then figured well maybe one of the unit tests is adding sooo many values the vector fails to clear them all for some unknown reason...wasn't the case because I added so many values to a vector in my max heap class in my unit tests it took 90 seconds to finish and after all 52K allocations were made 52K deallocations were made as well and valgrind reported no errors.
Below is some of the main code for the class, if anyone could decide where some code is written that in some situation may warrant a memory leak that would be great!
template <class T>
class MaxHeap {
public:
MaxHeap(){
// TODO: Fill me in
}
~MaxHeap() {
data.clear();
}
void push(T value){
data.push_back(value);
bubbleUp(data.size()-1, value);
}
void pop(){
if(!size()) {
return;
}
T val = data.at(size()-1);
data.pop_back();
if(!size()) {
return;
}
data.at(0) = val;
bubbleDown(0, val);
}
T top(){
if(!data.size()) throw logic_error("Empty Heap");
return data.at(0);
}
unsigned int size(){
return data.size();
}
void print_vec() {
for (int i = 0; i < size(); ++i) {
cout << data.at(i) << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
vector<T> getVec() {
return data;
}
private:
vector<T> data;
void bubbleUp(int idx, T value) {
int position = idx;
int parent_idx = parent(position);
while (data.at(parent_idx) < value) {
data.at(position) = data.at(parent_idx);
data.at(parent_idx) = value;
position = parent_idx;
parent_idx = parent(position);
}
}
void bubbleDown(int idx, T value) {
int left_child_idx = left_child(idx);
int right_child_idx = right_child(idx);
int max_child_idx;
if(left_child_idx <= size()-1) { // left child (consequently right child) in bounds of vector
if(left_child_idx == size()-1) { // no right child, left is maxchild
max_child_idx = left_child_idx;
} else {
max_child_idx = (data.at(left_child_idx) <= data.at(right_child_idx)) ? right_child_idx : left_child_idx;
}
if(data.at(idx) < data.at(max_child_idx)) {
data.at(idx) = data.at(max_child_idx);
data.at(max_child_idx) = value;
bubbleDown(max_child_idx, value);
}
}
}
int left_child(int idx) {return (idx*2+1);}
int right_child(int idx) {return (idx*2+2);}
int parent(int idx) {return ((idx-1)/2);}
};
Warning: this is only a theory, since it is improbable that the source of leak is in the code shown here.
If T is a malformed type, that does not release it's memory when using the assignment operator, then this might be the part that trigger this bad behvior:
T swap; // initialized to something. perhaps using new
while (data.at(parent_idx) < value) {
swap = data.at(parent_idx); //assume no delete in T.operator=()
data.at(parent_idx) = value;
data.at(position) = swap;
position = parent_idx;
parent_idx = parent(position);
}
This is not a problem in this code. However, you might still be able to patch it here. Why is T defined outside the loop?
while (data.at(parent_idx) < value) {
T swap = data.at(parent_idx); // no assignment here
data.at(parent_idx) = value;
data.at(position) = swap;
position = parent_idx;
parent_idx = parent(position);
}
===
Unrelated but better - don't use the unnecessary intermediate variable, and mix in move semantics:
while (data.at(parent_idx) < value) {
data.at(position) = std::move(data.at(parent_idx));
data.at(parent_idx) = value;
position = parent_idx;
parent_idx = parent(position);
}

No Appropriate Default Constructor Available despite default constructor made?

Trying to make my own Map struct to store my own-created 'Strings,' and after 8 hours or so finally got it down to only a few compiler errors (six of them). I've spent the last hour and forty minutes searching the web for answers, only to find people forgot default constructors, and tried mixing things up in my own program. Since I'm not really sure where the problem is in advance, I apologize for posting all this code...I put what I thought were the most relevant files first; I think only the first 3 are necessary. The error is
"SubdomainPart' : No appropriate default constructor available" for lines 12 and 20 of the Map.h file.
Map.h
// Map.h - Map template class declaration
// Written by -----
#pragma once
template<typename KEY_TYPE, typename VALUE_TYPE>
struct Map
{
public:
// Default / initial constructor hybrid
Map(int initialCapacity = 10)
{
Size = 0;
Capacity = initialCapacity;
Key;
MappedValue;
//Allocate the C-Array elements using HEAP
Data = new VALUE_TYPE[Capacity];
}
struct iterator
{
KEY_TYPE * current;
KEY_TYPE * prev;
KEY_TYPE * next;
iterator operator ++ ()
{
iterator it = this;
iterator itNext = it.next;
it.next = itNext.next; // pushes iterator forward.
it.prev = it.current;
it.current = it.next;
}
iterator operator -- ()
{
iterator it = this;
iterator itPrev = it.prev;
it.prev = itPrev.prev; // pushes iterator backward.
it.next = it.current;
it.current = it.prev;
}
};
Map(const Map& copyFrom)
{
// Necessary to prevent the delete[] Data; statement in the assignment operator from
// freezing because Data has some garbage address in it.
Data = NULL;
*this = copyFrom; //'this' points to the current instance of the object. (in this case, 'Map')
}
// Destructor: MUST HAVE because we allocate memory
~Map()
{
delete[] Data;
}
Map& operator = (const Map& copyFrom)
{
// 0) delete the old one!
delete[] Data;
// 1) copy Size and Capacity
Size = copyFrom.Size;
Capacity = copyFrom.Capacity;
// 2) Allocate Memory
Map* Data = new Map[Capacity];
// 3) Copy the Map Elements
for(int i = 0; i<Size; i++)
Data[i] = copyFrom.Data[i];
return *this;
}
// Index Operator
VALUE_TYPE& operator[] (KEY_TYPE key) const
{
return Data[key];
}
// Accessor functions: read-only access to Size and Capacity
int GetSize() const //const does not modify ANY data members of the class (size, capacity, or data)
{
return Size;
}
int GetCapacity() const
{
return Capacity;
}
void PushBack(const VALUE_TYPE& newElement) //adds value to end of Map as default
{
if(Size >= Capacity)
increaseCapacity(2 * Capacity);
Data[Size] = newElement;
Size++; // increases size of the array so it can be used later.
}
// Overloaded Add function, inserts a value at specified index, calls in "Insert" to do so.
void Add(const VALUE_TYPE& newElement, int index)
{
if( (index<0) || (index > Size))
{
throw ("Index to insert is out of range");
}
//Make sure there's space!
if (Size >= Capacity)
increaseCapacity(2*Capacity); //increase size of array if too small!
Insert(index, newElement);
}
void Remove(int index) // index = index to be removed.
{
// Make sure it's inside the bounds
if( (index<0) || (index > Size))
{
throw ("Index to Remove is out of range.");
}
// it's going to remove the unneeded space by having its capacity one above the Size.
Map* new_Data = new Map[Size];
//Copy data onto new pointer section.
for(int x = 0; x<Size; x++)
new_Data[x] = Data[x];
delete[] Data; //deallocates old memory and uneeded capacity slots.
for(int x = index; x < (Size - 1); x++) //removes the value at index 'index.' Now Data has a capacity of the amount of slots used and one more for a NULL value.
new_Data[x] = new_Data[x+1];
Data = new_Data;
Data[Size-1] = NULL;
Size--;
}
void increaseCapacity(int new_capacity)
{
if(new_capacity>Capacity)
{
if(new_capacity> 2* Capacity)
Capacity = new_capacity;
else
Capacity *= 2;
//create Map with a new capacity!
Map* new_Map = new Map[Capacity];
for(int x = 0; x<Size; x++)
{
new_Map[x] = Data[x];
}
//clear out old memory
delete[] Data;
//set data pointer to the new Map
Data = new_Map;
}
}
KEY_TYPE * Key; // Used to identify mapped values.
VALUE_TYPE MappedValue; // The value actually contained.
private:
int Size; // The count of actual C-Array elements used
int Capacity; // The count of C-array elements allocated
// The encapsulated C-array
VALUE_TYPE * Data; // pointer of type 'DATA_TYPE' called data (will be name of our array).
void Insert(const int index, const VALUE_TYPE& insertValue)
{
if( (index<0) || (index > Size))
{
throw out_of_range ("Index to insert is out of range");
}
//Time to shuffle the array down!
for(int x = Size; x>index; x--)
{
Data[x] = Data[x-1];
}
//Insert the new item at index 'Index!'
Data[index] = insertValue;
Size++;
}
};
SubdomainPart.h
// SubdomainPart.h - SubdomainPart validation class declaration
// Written by -------
#pragma once
#include "String.h"
using namespace std;
class SubdomainPart
{
public:
// Takes the address and stores into the Address data member
SubdomainPart(const String& address);
// Returns true when the Address is valid or false otherwise
virtual bool IsValid();
private:
String Address;
};
SubdomainPart.cpp
// SubdomainPart.cpp - Subdomain validation class implementation
// Written by ---------
#pragma once
#include "SubdomainPart.h"
// Takes the address and stores into the Address data member
SubdomainPart::SubdomainPart(const String& address)
{
Address = address;
}
// Returns true when the Address is valid or false otherwise
bool SubdomainPart::IsValid()
{
int currentDotIndex = 0;
int nextDotIndex = 0;
int found = 0; // first index of a found invalid character
int hyphenIndex = 0; // used to check hyphen rule
// 1. Check the size, 255 total characters
if(Address.GetLength() < 1 || Address.GetLength() > 255)
return false;
// Checks for valid amount of 1-63 characters between dots
currentDotIndex = Address.FindFirstOf('.');
if(currentDotIndex == 0 || currentDotIndex == Address.GetLength()-1)
return false;
else if(currentDotIndex!=(-1))
nextDotIndex = Address.Find('.', currentDotIndex+1);
else
nextDotIndex = (-1); // if no '.' is found, ensures the following loop doesn't run.
while(nextDotIndex!=(-1))
{
if((nextDotIndex-currentDotIndex) == 1 || (nextDotIndex-currentDotIndex) > 63)
return false;
currentDotIndex = nextDotIndex;
nextDotIndex = Address.Find('.', currentDotIndex+1);
}
// 2. Check for valid characters
found = Address.FindFirstNotOf("ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890-.");
if(found!=(-1)) // if a character not listed above is found.
return false;
// 3. Check for dash rule
// Making sure hyphens aren't located at the first or last index of a subdomain.
hyphenIndex = Address.FindFirstOf('-');
if(hyphenIndex == 0)
return false;
hyphenIndex = Address.FindLastOf('-');
if(hyphenIndex == Address.GetLength()-1)
return false;
// Makes sure two hyphens aren't in a row.
for(int x = 1; x<Address.GetLength(); x++)
if(Address[x] == '-' && Address[x] == Address[x-1])
return false;
return true;
}
I don't see a default constructor in this class:
class SubdomainPart
{
public:
// Takes the address and stores into the Address data member
SubdomainPart(const String& address);
// Returns true when the Address is valid or false otherwise
virtual bool IsValid();
private:
String Address;
};
Keep in mind that this map constructor is default-constructing every member rather than initializing them:
Map(int initialCapacity = 10)
{
Size = 0;
Capacity = initialCapacity;
Key;
MappedValue;
//Allocate the C-Array elements using HEAP
Data = new VALUE_TYPE[Capacity];
}
You don't have a default constructor for SubdomainPart you have only provided a copy constructor. A default constructor takes no argument.
The compiler is complaining that SubdomainPart doesn't have a default constructor, and indeed it doesn't. It's required because your Map contains an object of type VALUE_TYPE:
VALUE_TYPE MappedValue;
Also, your Map constructor contains very weird code. I assume you actually wanted to use an initialiser list:
Map(int initialCapacity = 10)
: Key()
, MappedValue()
, Size(0)
, Capacity(initialCapacity)
, Data(new VALUE_TYPE[Capacity])
{}
The problem is with Data = new VALUE_TYPE[Capacity]; part.
The compiler generates code to allocate the array and instantiate each element by calling the parameterless constructor for VALUE_TYPE. As SubdomainPart doesn't have one (since you have defined a custom one), the compiler throws an error.
The reason that compiler reports error in map.h is that it is exactly the place where the constructor is called from. It is not used in SubdomainPart code, it is just defined there.

dynamic memory allocation with arrays in c++

I am trying to insert an int into an array that is in a class object, and I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong. The current state of my code never inserts the int into the array.
Basically what I am trying to do is when i call insert(int) it will check to to see if there is any room left in the array, and if there is it will add it, otherwise it would reallocate with 8 more spaces in the array.
here is some relevant class info
private:
unsigned Cap; // Current capacity of the set
unsigned Num; // Current count of items in the set
int * Pool; // Pointer to array holding the items
public:
// Return information about the set
//
bool is_empty() const { return Num == 0; }
unsigned size() const { return Num; }
unsigned capacity() const { return Cap; }
// Initialize the set to empty
//
Set()
{
Cap = Num = 0;
Pool = NULL;
}
here is the code i am working on
bool Set::insert(int X)
{
bool Flag = false;
if (Num == Cap)
{
//reallocate
const unsigned Inc = 8;
int * Temp = new int[Cap+Inc];
for (unsigned J=0;J<Num;J++)
{
Temp[J] = Pool[J];
}
delete [] Pool;
Pool = Temp;
Cap = Cap+Inc;
}
if(Num < Cap)
{
Pool[Num+1] = X;
Flag = true;
}
return Flag;
}
Your insert function never updates Num. Try Pool[Num++] = X; or something like that.
You probably want to increment the number of element but only after copying the new element in: the first element should have index 0. Basically, your insert() function should look something like this:
bool Set::insert(int X)
{
if (Num == Cap)
{
const unsigned Inc(std::max(8, 2 * Cap));
std::unique_ptr<int[]> Temp(new int[Cap+Inc]);
std::copy(Pool.get(), Pool.get() + Num, Temp.get());
Pool.swap(Temp);
Cap += Inc;
}
Pool[Num] = X;
++Num;
return true;
}
Of course, this assumes that Pool is reasonably declared as std::unique_ptr<int[]> (or something with similar functionality which is easy to write if necessary). The reason to use std::unique_ptr<int[]> rather than raw pointers is that they automatically clean up resources when they are destroyed. Copying a sequence of ints won't throw an exception but if int get's replaced by a std::string or a template parameters there is potential to throw exceptions.