Say I have a vector of pointers, but I want to print out the value that the first pointer points to. What syntax would I use? I'm learning to work with pointers and I can't find this specific case anywhere on google myself.
Ex:
vector<int*> vec;
//fill the vector however it needs to be
cout << vec[0];
//This prints an address but I want the value that address points to
You can get the value of what a pointer is pointing at by dereferencing the pointer with *, so you'd get *(vec[0]), this would require the vector to at least have one element in the first place and point to something valid of course.
That being said, please reconsider if you actually need to use pointers at all, a lot of the time I see pointers being used without a good reason. Use normal ints if you don't have a good reason to justify using pointers.
You just have to dereference the pointer you obtain with vec[0], i.e. you'd have to write
cout << *(vec[0]) << endl;
Note, however, that you did not reserve memory for the pointer; probably you even want to manage plain arrays of ints.
A working (even if one still may discuss how meaningful it is to have a vector maintaining pointers to ints) example could look as follows:
int main() {
int a[] = { 1,2,3 };
std::vector<int*> vec;
vec.push_back(a);
cout << *(vec[0]) << endl;
cout << vec[0][1] << endl;
}
Output:
1
2
Related
I'm trying to make a vector of pointers whose elements are pointing to vector of int elements. (I'm solving a competitive programming-like problem, that's why it sounds kinda nonsense).
but here's the code:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int ct = 0;
vector<int> vec;
vector<int*> rf;
void addRef(int n){
vec.push_back(n);
rf.push_back(&vec[ct]);
ct++;
}
int main(){
addRef(1);
addRef(2);
addRef(5);
for(int i = 0; i < ct; i++){
cout << *rf[i] << ' ';
}
cout << endl;
for(int i = 0; i < ct; i++){
cout << vec[i] << ' ';
}
}
When I execute the code, it's showing weird behaviour that I don't understand. The first element of rf (vector<int*>) seems not pointing to the vec's (vector<int>) element, where the rest of the elements are pointing to it.
here's the output when I run it on Dev-C++:
1579600 2 5
1 2 5
When I tried to run the code here, the output is even weirder:
1197743856 0 5
1 2 5
The code is intended to have same output between the first line and the second.
Can you guys explain why it happens? Is there any mistake in my implementation?
thanks
Adding elements to a std::vector with push_back or similar may invalidate all iterators and references to its elements. See https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/push_back.
The idea is that in order to grow the vector, it may not have enough free memory to expand into, and thus may have to move the whole array to some other location in memory, freeing the old block. That means in particular that your pointers now point to memory that has been freed, or reused for something else.
If you want to keep this approach, you will need to resize() or reserve() a sufficient number of elements in vec before starting. Which of course defeats the whole purpose of a std::vector, and you might as well use an array instead.
The vector is changing sizes and the addresses you are saving might not be those you want. You can preallocate memory using reserve() and the vector will not resize.
vec.reserve(3);
addRef(1);
addRef(2);
addRef(5);
The problem occurs when you call vec.push_back(n) and vec’s internal array is already full. When that happens, the std::vector::push_back() method allocates a larger array, copies the contents of the full array over to the new array, then frees the old/full array and keeps the new one.
Usually that’s all you need, but your program is keeping pointers to elements of the old array inside (rf), and these pointers all become dangling/invalid when the reallocation occurs, hence the funny (undefined) behavior.
An easy fix would be to call vec.reserve(100) (or similar) at the top of your program (so that no further reallocations are necessary). Or alternatively you could postpone the adding of pointers to (rf) until after you’ve finished adding all the values to (vec).
Just do not take pointer from a vector that may change soon. vector will copy the elements to a new space when it enlarges its capacity.
Use an array to store the ints instead.
I have a function that performs some magic on the array that I am passing. But the original array should be intact. Unfortunately it is changing its content based on what is happening in the array.
Can you help me, please?
Function:
void test(int* array) {
array[0] = 1; // EDIT: Added missing line
std::cout << "Inside: " << array[0] << endl;
}
int main() {
int *testArray = new int[1];
testArray[0] = 0;
std::cout<<testArray[0]<<endl;
test(testArray);
std::cout << "Outside: " << testArray[0] << endl;
}
Current result is:
0
Inside: 1
Outside: 1
Result I would want to have:
0
Inside: 1
Outside: 0
Is this possible?
It sounds like you want to pass array by value not by reference. You are passing pointer to a first element here. So, any changes which you perform to that array inside that function will be reflected to original array.
The other problem is you haven't posted fair amount of code regarding the problem you want to solve. I am assuming you want functionality like this.
See live demo here.
#include <iostream>
void test(const int* array) {
array[0]=1;
std::cout << "Inside: " << array[0] << std::endl;
}
int main() {
int *testArray = new int[1];
testArray[0] = 0;
std::cout<<testArray[0]<<std::endl;
test(testArray);
std::cout << "Outside: " << testArray[0] << std::endl;
delete[] testArray;
}
Compiler will give you following errors:
Error(s):
source_file.cpp:4:13: error: read-only variable is not assignable
array[0]=1;
~~~~~~~~^
1 error generated.
You should not use new[] to allocate dynamic arrays in C++. 99% of the time you should be using std::vector If you want dynamic array in C++.
Avoid using C compatibility features...
void test( std::array<int, 1> a )
{
a[0] = 1; // fine
std::cout << "Inside: " << a[0] << endl;
};
int main()
{
std::array<int, 1> testArray;
testArray[0] = 0;
std::cout<<testArray[0]<<endl;
test(testArray);
std::cout << "Outside: " << testArray[0] << endl;
}
If you need the size determined at runtime, use std::vector instead of std::array.
EDIT: As others have pointed out, it seems like you want to either pass the array by value instead of by reference, thus copying the elements of the array and modifying only the copy, or you want to avoid modifying any part of the array altogether. I'll elaborate on both parts a bit more:
In C++, there is near to no distinction between arrays and pointers. Note that both your variable testArray and your parameter array are pointers to the beginning of an array. If you use array to modify any part of the underlying array, what you actually do is modify the memory are that is described by both testArray and array. If you don't want to modify any part of the array at all, it would be helpful to use the const qualifier, as Destructor already wrote in his answer. If you however want to keep the original array but still want to make some modifications inside the function, the following still applies:
To keep the array from being modified, the only general way that works is to copy all of its elements by creating a new array of the same size, copying all elements from the input array to the copy and then working only on the copy, which should be deleted after the function has finished.
My personal answer:
I would recommend that you look into some of C++'s data structures, especially std::vector. If you pass it by value (not by reference), vector takes care of all the necessary copy operations I just described and in all cases, you can use it in the same way as an array, while it provides lots of additional features (i.e. dynamic size, deletion and insertion of elements, simplified iteration, ...).
I am writing a program and there was a very subtle error that was hard to recognize.
I examined the program for hours and it looks like it's from my misuse of resize() in allocating a new vector in 2D vector, from my misuse of back() in vector, or from updating a reference variable.
I wrote a simpler code that contains similar problem in my original program for demonstration:
int main() {
vector<vector<int>> A(1);
vector<int> &recent = A.back();
recent.emplace_back(50);
cout << A.back()[0] << endl; //prints 50
A.resize(2);
A[1] = vector<int>();
cout << A.size() << endl; //prints 2
recent = A.back();
cout << A[1].size() << endl; //prints 0
recent.emplace_back(20); //Segmentation fault occurs!!
cout << A[1][0] << endl;
}
Segmentation fault occurs when I tried to emplace_back(20), although in my original program it doesn't throw any error and doesn't emplace the element either.
Possible cause of problem, in my opinion is:
I used resize() to allocate a new vector after the current last position of the 2D vector A, because I didn't know how to emplace_back() an empty vector.
2, 3. In recent = A.back();, I'm not sure if I am updating the reference variable(defined as vector<int> &recent) correctly, and if back() gives the correct reference to the newly allocated vector at the end of the 2D vector A.
The logic looked perfectly fine, but obviously I am doing something wrong.
What am I doing wrong, and what can I do instead?
References in C++ cannot be "updated". The call to resize may (and likely will) invalidate any reference to the original content of the vector. Thus recent is a dangling reference after A.resize(2);.
When creating the initial A here
std::vector<std::vector<int>> A(1);
the outer vector is required to be able to store one single vector.
If you add another std::vector<int> to A the first element of A is likely to move to another memory location. Since recent will always refer to the old memory location you see the segfault.
See 'c++ Vector, what happens whenever it expands/reallocate on stack?' for how vectors work.
On the question how to circumvent this:
If you know the size of the vector in advance you could use reserve to prevent the vector A from reallocating its contents. You'd nevertheless face the problem that references cannot be "reassigned". You can always use A.back() to refer to the last element.
You can use a function taking a reference argument which will be bound upon calling the function:
void do_stuff(std::vector<int> & recent)
{
// do stuff with recent
}
std::vector<std::vector<int>> A;
while (condition)
{
// add whatever to A
A.emplace_back(std::vector<int>{});
// do stuff with last element
do_stuff(A.back());
}
Another way to do it is with scope:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> A(1);
{
std::vector<int> &recent = A.back();
recent.emplace_back(50);
std::cout << A.back()[0] << std::endl; //prints 50
A.resize(2);
} // recent goes out of scope here
std::cout << A.size() << std::endl; //prints 2
{
std::vector<int> &recent = A.back(); // another recent indepedant of first one
std::cout << A[1].size() << std::endl; //prints 0
recent.emplace_back(20);
std::cout << A[1][0] << std::endl; // prints 20
}
Let's step through the code line by line.
vector<vector<int>> A(1);
vector<int> &recent = A.back();
Here we create a vector with one default-constructed vector<int> as its contents. We then bind a reference to the last and only element.
recent.emplace_back(50);
cout << A.back()[0] << endl; //prints 50
We now emplace 50 into the sole vector and print it.
A.resize(2);
Now we resize the vector. If space needs to be reallocated, all iterators, pointers and references to the contents are now invalid.
A[1] = vector<int>();
cout << A.size() << endl; //prints 2
This is fine, as there is enough space in A.
recent = A.back();
BANG
This assignment doesn't rebind recent, it tries to assign A.back() to the referencee. If space was reallocated for A, recent is no longer a valid reference, so we run off into the realm of undefined behaviour.
Quite honestly, using A.back() directly rather than maintaining a reference to it is probably your best bet. If you absolutely want to hold some kind of reference to the end, this is a reasonable use of a non-owning pointer.
From the discussion in the comments, it appears that your original problem was:
vector<vector<int>> very_long_name_that_cannot_be_changed;
and that you want a shorthand notation to access the last element of this:
auto& short_name = very_long_name_that_cannot_be_changed;
short_name.resize(100); // will expand the vector, but not change the reference
short_name.back().emplace_back(20); // presto, quick accesss to the last element.
This is proof against resizing, because the reference just tracks the vector, not its last element.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int *p=new int [10];
}
After creating the array, I am confused and want to know if it's possible to do the following:
read an array of integers without builtin arrays such as vector.
print out this array.
Is there any built-in command that we can use in cpp to get the actual size of the array, which means we don't have to use sizeof(*p)/size(p[0]).
And what do you think will be the easiest way of doing this task, on the condition that we still use the pointer of an array.
Thanks for helping me out!
I think you could use std::for_each. Together with c++ lambda functions it is a very comprehensive tool:
for_each(p, p+10, []->(int element){ cout << element; })
sry, I didn't compile the code above, so it might contain errors. But the pattern is clear, I hope.
If your compiler does not support lambdas, you can use functors or function pointers (just google for it). I really like this approach and I don't like loops either.
But, of course as mentioned above, internally the for_each loops.
This does not create an array, but it gives you a pointer to a single integer.
int *p=new int;
change this for example to:
const unsigned size = 10;
int * p = new int[size]; /*dont forget to call delete[] on p when you are ready.*/
Now p points to 10 ints, you know the size since you've put size to 10.
Sure you can print the values of p without a loop
/*Assuming you initialize the values.*/
cout << p[0];
cout << p[1];
/*etc*/
cout << p[9];
That said I think the easiest way to solve your problem is to use vector<int> ( but this doesn't satisfy you first point ). You'll always get the proper size of a vector with vector<TYPE>::size() and a intance of vector makes it easy to iterate ( which is also looping ) over the items to print them.
You would have to print the array manually one item by one... accessing every value, like:
cout << "index 5:" << p[5] << endl;
I think that the loop is a way to go. I would avoid a loop only if the array had few items, and fixed length like 3 to 5 items or so and desperately needed to optimize the code for speed, but not with console output which will be slow anyway. But the compilers usualy support loop unrolling optimalisations.
#nio, but dude, I think I still have trouble of doing this. for example, is there any way that I can input in this simple way "1 2 3 4" with space and then it reads the array? or I have to do it with enter? (Now, I don't care if we use loop or not any more :P) – Cancan
This code will read 4 items separated by combination of spaces and newlines:
int *p=new int[10];
int i;
for(i=0;i<4;i++)
{
cin >> p[i];
}
for(i=0;i<4;i++)
{
cout << "index " << i << " :" << p[i] << endl;
}
1. read an array of integers without using loops nor some builtin arrays such as vector.
Recursion. Everything that can be done using loops can be done recursively.
2. print out this array without using loop.
Recursion too.
3. Is there any built-in command that we can use in cpp to get the actual size of the array, which means we don't have to use sizeof(*p)/size(p[0]).
No, when you're using arrays in c++ you need to remember the length of an arrays by yourself. sizeof(*p)/size(p[0]) won't help you too
As i understand if i dont store pointers, everything in c++ gets copied, which can lead to bad performance (ignore the simplicity of my example). So i thought i store my objects as pointers instead of string object inside my vector, thats better for performance right? (assumining i have very long strings and lots of them).
The problem when i try to iterate over my vector of string pointers is i cant extract the actual value from them
string test = "my-name";
vector<string*> names(20);
names.push_back(&test);
vector<string*>::iterator iterator = names.begin();
while (iterator != names.end())
{
std::cout << (*iterator) << ":" << std::endl;
// std::cout << *(*iterator); // fails
iterator++;
}
See the commented line, i have no problem in receiving the string pointer. But when i try to get the string pointers value i get an error (i couldnt find what excatly the error is but the program just fails).
I also tried storing (iterator) in a new string variable and but it didnt help?
You've created the vector and initialized it to contain 20 items. Those items are being default initialized, which in the case of a pointer is a null pointer. The program is having trouble dereferencing those null pointers.
One piece of advice is to not worry about what's most efficient until you have a demonstrated problem. This code would certainly work much better with a vector<string> versus a vector<string*>.
No, no, a thousand times no.
Don't prematurely optimize. If the program is fast, there's no need to worry about performance. In this instance, the pointers clearly reduce performance by consuming memory and time, since each object is only the target of a single pointer!
Not to mention that manual pointer programming tends to introduce errors, especially for novices. Sacrificing correctness and stability for performance is a huge step backwards.
The advantage of C++ is that it simplifies the optimization process by providing encapsulated data structures and algorithms. So when you decide to optimize, you can usually do so by swapping in standard parts.
If you want to learn about optimizing data structures, read up on smart pointers.
This is probably the program you want:
vector<string> names(20, "my-name");
for ( vector<string>::iterator iterator = names.begin();
iterator != names.end();
++ iterator )
{
std::cout << *iterator << '\n';
}
Your code looks like you're storing a pointer to a stack-based variable into a vector. As soon as the function where your string is declared returns, that string becomes garbage and the pointer is invalid. If you're going to store pointers into a vector, you probably need to allocate your strings dynamically (using new).
Have a look at your initialization:
string test = "my-name";
vector<string*> names(20);
names.push_back(&test);
You first create a std::vector with 20 elements.
Then you use push_back to append a 21st element, which points to a valid string. That's fine, but this element is never reached in the loop: the first iteration crashes already since the first 20 pointers stored in the vector don't point to valid strings.
Dereferencing an invalid pointer causes a crash. If you make sure that you have a valid pointers in your vector, **iterator is just fine to access an element.
Try
if (*iterator)
{
std::cout << *(*iterator) << ":" << std::endl;
}
Mark Ransom explains why some of the pointers are now
string test = "my-name";
vector<string*> names(20);
The size of vector is 20, meaning it can hold 20 string pointers.
names.push_back(&test);
With the push_back operation, you are leaving out the first 20 elements and adding a new element to the vector which holds the address of test. First 20 elements of vector are uninitialized and might be pointing to garbage. And the while loop runs till the end of vector whose size is 21 and dereferencing uninitialized pointers is what causing the problem. Since the size of vector can be dynamically increased with a push_back operation, there is no need to explicitly mention the size.
vector<string*> names; // Not explicitly mentioning the size and the rest of
// the program should work as expected.