Trie Tree. Unable to access memory - c++

Question

I am a beginner at C++ and am have some issues with 2 separate errors. Unable to access memory and stack overflow.
This is my implementation for a Trie Tree, using pointers, of words containing characters a-z. When running tests, I can successfully add several hundred, or even thousands of nodes without issue, until it eventually crashes. Error: Unable to access memory. I more often get this error when I am trying to run a query and use the "isAWord" function. I also get a stack overflow when I try to run the deconstructor. Any help is appreciate, as I've spent 2 days trying to debug with little success.
#include "Trie.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <sstream>
using namespace std;
//sets up tree
Trie::Trie()
{
for (int i = 0; i < ALPH; i++)
this->childs[i] = nullptr;
endNode = false;
}
//add 'userInput' string to trie
void Trie::addAWord(std::string userInput)
{
Trie* start = this;
for (int i = 0; i < userInput.length(); i++)
{
int index = userInput[i] - 'a';
if (start->childs[index] == nullptr)
start->childs[index] = new Trie();
start = start->childs[index];
}
start->endNode = true;
}
//returns true if 'wordFind' is in tree
bool Trie::isAWord(std::string wordFind)
{
if (this == nullptr)
return false;
Trie* start = this;
for (int i = 0; i < wordFind.length(); i++)
{
int index = wordFind[i] - 'a';
start = start->childs[index];
if (start == nullptr)
return false;
}
return start->endNode;
}
//returns a vector containing the words in tree with prefix 'prefFind'
vector<std::string> Trie::allWordsStartingWithPrefix(std::string prefFind)
{
string pres = PrefixRec(prefFind,*this);
stringstream preStream(pres);
istream_iterator<std::string> begin(preStream), end;
vector<std::string> stringSet(begin, end);
copy(stringSet.begin(), stringSet.end(), std::ostream_iterator<std::string>(std::cout, "\n"));
return stringSet;
}
//helper method for AllWordsStartingWithPrefix
std::string Trie::PrefixRec(std::string& key, Trie const temp)
{
if (temp.endNode)
return(key + " ");
for (char index = 0; index < ALPH; ++index)
{
index = key[index] - 'a';
Trie const* curChild = temp.childs[index];
if (curChild)
{
key.push_back(index);
PrefixRec(key, *curChild);
key.pop_back();
}
}
}
//copy cons and assignment op
Trie& Trie::operator=(const Trie& other)
{
Trie* newPtr = new Trie(other);
other.~Trie();
return *newPtr;
}
//deconstructor
Trie::~Trie()
{
if (this == nullptr)
return;
for (int i = 0; i < ALPH; i++)
{
if (childs[i] != nullptr)
childs[i]->~Trie();
}
delete this;
return;
}
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
#define ALPH 26
class Trie
{
public:
bool endNode;
Trie* childs[ALPH];
Trie();
void addAWord(std::string key);
bool isAWord(std::string key);
std::vector<std::string> allWordsStartingWithPrefix(std::string key);
Trie& operator=(const Trie& other);
std::vector<std::string> wordsWithWildcardPrefix(std::string);
std::string PrefixRec(std::string& key, Trie const temp);
~Trie();
};

Answer 1

I also get a stack overflow when I try to run the deconstructor.
This is because of this line:
delete this;
This is what a delete does
The delete expression invokes the destructor (if any) for the object
that's being destroyed,
You can imagine why calling delete from within the destructor would be problematic. (Hint: Infinite recursion)
You don't want any delete this in your code.
Once you get rid of this, there are other issues.(Although you may live just by fixing this). For instance calling the destructor explicitly as you are doing in this line(and several other lines)
other.~Trie();
From iso cpp:
Should I explicitly call a destructor on a local variable?
No!
The destructor will get called again at the close } of the block in which the local was created. This is a guarantee of the language; it happens automagically; there’s no way to stop it from happening. But you can get really bad results from calling a destructor on the same object a second time! Bang! You’re dead!
Replace the explicit destructor calls with delete and let it call the destructor correctly.
I would recommend replace any raw pointers and new and delete with smart pointer. Start with shared_ptr to begin with. (raw_pointers are so 2010 ;))
Footnote: Get rid of these checks. They are non-idiomatic. It's ok and desirable for the caller to burn when calling a member function on a nullptr
if (this == nullptr)
return false;