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.
Related
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.
When I run this program sr1, sr2, sr3, sr4 objects are created and values are assigned to corresponding variables. But in sr5 object, the name remains blank while the roll_no percentage shows the correct value.
When change the value of
int MAX = 5;
to
int MAX = 6;
everything works fine.
Here is my code:
const int MAX = 5;
const int FREE = 0;
const int OCCUPIED = 1;
int flag = 0;
using namespace std;
void warning()
{
cout<<"\n------All memory occupied------"<<endl;
exit(1);
}
class student_rec
{
private:
char name[25];
int roll_no;
float percentage;
public:
student_rec(char *n, int r, float per)
{
strcpy(name, n);
roll_no = r;
percentage = per;
}
student_rec()
{
}
void set_rec(char *n, int r, float per)
{
strcpy(name, n);
roll_no = r;
percentage = per;
}
void show_rec()
{
cout<<"\n-------------------\n";
cout<<"Name= "<<name<<endl;
cout<<"Roll number= "<<roll_no<<endl;
cout<<"Percentage= "<<percentage<<endl;
}
void *operator new (size_t sz);
void operator delete (void *d);
};
struct memory_store
{
student_rec obj;
int status;
};
memory_store *m = NULL;
void *student_rec::operator new (size_t sz)
{
int i;
if(flag == 0)
{
m = (memory_store *) malloc(sz * MAX);
if(m == NULL)
warning();
for(i=0; i<MAX; i++)
m[i].status = FREE;
flag = 1;
m[0].status = OCCUPIED;
return &m[0].obj;
}
else
{
for(i=0; i<MAX; i++)
{
if(m[i].status == FREE)
{
m[i].status = OCCUPIED;
return &m[i].obj;
}
}
warning();
}
}
void student_rec::operator delete (void *d)
{
if(d == NULL)
return;
for(int i=0; i<MAX; i++)
{
if(d == &m[i].obj)
{
m[i].status = FREE;
strcpy(m[i].obj.name, "");
m[i].obj.roll_no = 0;
m[i].obj.percentage = 0.0;
}
}
}
int main()
{
student_rec *sr1, *sr2, *sr3, *sr4, *sr5, *sr6, *sr7;
sr1 = new student_rec("sandeep", 21, 78);
sr1->show_rec();
sr2 = new student_rec("sachin", 21, 78);
sr2->show_rec();
sr3 = new student_rec("sapna", 21, 78);
sr3->show_rec();
sr4 = new student_rec("vipin", 21, 78);
sr4->show_rec();
sr5 = new student_rec("niraj", 21, 78);
sr5->show_rec();
sr6 = new student_rec; // error all memory occupied.
return 0;
}
I run this code on linux machine.
This is terrible code. It is totally unaware of the C++ object model. Forget it and start with a good introductory book, that explains the object lifecycle, and how to properly create new objects.
More explanations about what goes wrong: flaw 1
The problem is in student_rec::operator new (). This line:
m = (memory_store *) malloc(sz * MAX);
let you think that m points to some valid array of memory_store objects. Unfortunately, the C malloc() is used to allocate raw memory. There are thus no valid objects in that memory. Otherwise said, the objects pointed to by m are in an unknown dirty state.
Later, the line
m[i].status = FREE;
handles the objects pointed by m as if they were already valid. This is undefined behavior. If you don't allocate objects the C++ way (e.g. new instead of malloc() ) you would first need to create them with a placement new.
Now for your simple object trivial object this will not cause too many damages. There's yet another flaw.
Even more explanations about what goes wrong: fatal flaw 2
There is a second serious problem: malloc only allocates sz * MAX bytes. As the operator is overloaded for student_rec, it will be called with sz being sizeof(student_rec). But your code assumes that it is sizeof(memory_store), so that the allocated memory is at least sizeof(int)*n bytes too short !!
This is why increasing MAX (and thus allocating more memory than needed for your 5 objects) seems to work.
Other remarks
Using global variables as you did, exposing m to the outside world, is very dangerous and error prone. Suppose that in some other functions you'd like to use a local variable m, but forget to declare it; you could corrupt your data structure much faster than you'd expect ! You'd better make it a private static member of student_rec.
Forget about fixed char arrays for storing C strings. If a name would be longer than expected, you'd get another serious problem that is difficult to spot (strcpy could result in memory corruption in such case). If you code in C++, take advantage of string in order not to worry about such details :-)
Stylistic remark: why not make flag a boolean and use true & false instead of 0 and 1 ?
Stylistic remark: The warning() function has a misleading name: warning() suggests that you issue a warning and continue. Why not giving it a self-documenting name like for example fatal_error() or warning_and_exit()
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);
}
I have a recursive function that requires me to create a new array every time the function is called. The function also requires the array that was previously created:
void myFunc(int* prevArray)
{
int newSize;
//do some calculations to find newSize
int* newArray;
newArray = new int[newSize];
//do some calculations to fill newArray
//check some stopping condition
myFunc(newArray);
}
This function leaks memory, but I can't avoid that by adding
delete[] newArray;
since I can only add that after calling the function again. How can I solve this?
You can solve this by making use of dynamic memory allocation.
// allocate initial size
const int INITIAL_SIZE = 5;
int *myArray = malloc(sizeof(int) * INITIAL_SIZE));
int myFunc(int *aArray, int numAllocated) {
int numElements = calculateNewSize();
if (numElements != numAllocated) {
// allocate new size
realloc(aArray, (numElements * sizeof(int));
}
return numElements;
}
Now you can call myFunc like this:
int numElements;
numElements = myFunc(myArray, numElements);
When your done using myFunc don't forget to free the memory
free(myArray);
Try something like
void myFunc(int* prevArray)
{
int newSize;
...newArray = new int[newSize];
myFunc(newArray);
delete[] newArray;
}
or better yet use std::unique_ptr to control the newArray memory. In this way you will follow the rule of thumb regarding dynamic memory - that it should have one owner, responsible for both allocating and freeing it.
You might just use a vector and swap the new result into the final result.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct X { ~X() { std::cout << "Destruction\n"; } };
void recursive(unsigned n, std::vector<X>& result) {
// Put new_result in a scope for destruction
{
std::vector<X> new_result(1);
// Do something
// The previous result is no longer needed
std::swap(result, new_result);
}
// Next recursion
if(n) {
std::cout << "Call\n";
recursive(--n, result);
}
}
int main() {
std::vector<X> result(1);
std::cout << "Call\n";
recursive(3, result);
return 0;
}
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.