Just some thoughts:
I wanted to erase x elements from the beginning of a std::vector with size n > x. Since a vector uses an array internally, this could be as easy as setting the pointer for vector.begin() to the index of the first element which is kept. But instead, erase shifts all elements in the array to that the first element actually starts at index 0, making the erase operation take much more time than it could.
Furthermore, if the valid 'zone' of the internal array was really controlled by just some start and end indices / pointers of the vector structure, then there would be also the option to reserve space in front of the first element. E.g., a vector is initialized and 20 spaces are reserved at the end and 10 at the beginning. Internally, then an array of space 30 (or 32) is created, where the start index/pointer points to the 11th value of the internal array, allowing to include new elements to the front of the 'vector' in constant speed.
Well, my point is, I think such a data structure would be somewhat useful, at least for my purposes. I'm pretty sure someone already thought of this and already implemented it. So I want to ask: How is the data structure called that I'm describing? If it exists, I'd love to use it. I think this is not a double-linked list, since there, every element is kind of a struct containing the element value and additional pointers to the neighbors (to my knowledge).
EDIT: And yes, such a structure would probably use more memory than necessary, especially when erasing some elements from the beginning, because then, the internal array still has the initial size. But well, memory isn't a big issue anymore for most problems, and there could be a (time-expensive) 'memory-optimize' operation to create a new, smaller array, copying over all old values and deleting the old internal array to use the smallest possible size.
Expanding on #Kerrek SB's comment, boost::circular_buffer<> does I think what you need, for example:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/circular_buffer.hpp>
int main()
{
boost::circular_buffer<int> cb(3);
cb.push_back(1);
cb.push_back(2);
cb.push_back(3);
for( auto i : cb) {
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
// Increase to hold two more items
cb.set_capacity(5);
cb.push_back(4);
cb.push_back(5);
for( auto i : cb) {
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
// Increase to hold two more items
cb.rset_capacity(7);
cb.push_front(0);
cb.push_front(-1);
for( auto i : cb) {
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
}
TBH - I have not looked at the implementation, so cannot comment on whether it moves data around (I'd be highly surprised.) but if you pull down the source, take a quick peek to satisfy if performance is a concern...
EDIT: Quick look at the code reveals that the push_xxx operations does not indeed move data around, however the xxx_capacity operations do result in a move/copy - to avoid that, ensure the ring has enough capacity at the start and it will work as you wish...
Related
I wanted to ask you about the vector::shrink_to_fit() function.
Lets say i've got a vector of pointers to objects (or unique_ptr in my case)
and i want to resize it to the amount of objects that it stores.
At some point i remove some of the objects from the vector by choice using the release() function of unique_ptr
so there is a null pointer in that specific place in the vector as far as i know.
So i want to resize it and remove that null pointer in between the elements of the vector and i'm asking if i could do that with shrink_to_fit() function?
No, shrink_to_fit does not change the contents or size of the vector. All it might do is release some of its internal memory back to a lower level library or the OS, etc. behind the scenes. It may invalidate iterators, pointers, and references, but the only other change you might see would be a reduction of capacity(). It's also valid for shrink_to_fit to do absolutely nothing at all.
It sounds like you want the "Erase-remove" idiom:
vec.erase(std::remove(vec.begin(), vec.end(), nullptr), vec.end());
The std::remove shifts all the elements which don't compare equal to nullptr left, filling the "gaps". But it doesn't change the vector's size; instead it returns an iterator to the position in the vector just after the sequence of shifted elements; the rest of the elements still exist but have been moved from. Then the erase member function gets rid of those unnecessary end elements, reducing the vector's size.
Or as #chris notes, C++20 adds an erase overload to std::vector and a related erase_if, which makes things easier. They may already be supported in MSVC 2019. Using the new erase could just look like:
vec.erase(nullptr);
This quick test show that u can't do like this.
int x = 1;
vector<int*> a;
cout << a.capacity() << endl;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
a.push_back(&x);
}
cout << a.capacity() << endl;
a[9] = nullptr;
a.shrink_to_fit();
cout << a.capacity() << endl;
Result:
0
16
10
m_gates[index].release(); m_gates.shrink_to_fit();
Based on your comment, what you're looking for is simply to erase this single element from your vector right then and there. Replace both of these statements with:
m_gates.erase(m_gates.begin() + index);
Or a more generic version if swapping containers in the future is a possibility:
using std::begin;
m_gates.erase(std::next(begin(m_gates), index));
erase supports iterators rather than indices, so there's a conversion in there. This will remove the pointer from the vector while calling its destructor, which causes unique_ptr to properly clean up its memory.
Now erasing elements one by one could potentially be a performance concern. If it does end up being a concern, you can do what you were getting at in the question and null them out, then remove them all in one go later on:
m_gates[index].reset();
// At some point in the program's future:
std::erase(m_gates, nullptr);
What you have right now is highly likely to be a memory leak. release releases ownership of the managed memory, meaning you're now responsible for cleaning it up, which isn't what you were looking for. Both erase and reset (or equivalently, = {} or = nullptr) will actually call the destructor of unique_ptr while it still has ownership and properly clean up the memory. shrink_to_fit is for vector capacity, not size, and is unrelated.
at the end the solution that i found was simple:
void Controller::delete_allocated_memory(int index)
{
m_vec.erase(m_vec.begin() + index);
m_vec.shrink_to_fit();
}
it works fine even if the vector is made of unique_ptrs, as far as i know it doesn't even create the null pointer that i was talking about and it shifts left all existing objects in the vector.
what do you think?
I read that std::vector should be contiguous. My understanding is, that its elements should be stored together, not spread out across the memory. I have simply accepted the fact and used this knowledge when for example using its data() method to get the underlying contiguous piece of memory.
However, I came across a situation, where the vector's memory behaves in a strange way:
std::vector<int> numbers;
std::vector<int*> ptr_numbers;
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
numbers.push_back(i);
ptr_numbers.push_back(&numbers.back());
}
I expected this to give me a vector of some numbers and a vector of pointers to these numbers. However, when listing the contents of the ptr_numbers pointers, there are different and seemingly random numbers, as though I am accessing wrong parts of memory.
I have tried to check the contents every step:
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
numbers.push_back(i);
ptr_numbers.push_back(&numbers.back());
for (auto ptr_number : ptr_numbers)
std::cout << *ptr_number << std::endl;
std::cout << std::endl;
}
The result looks roughly like this:
1
some random number
2
some random number
some random number
3
So it seems as though when I push_back() to the numbers vector, its older elements change their location.
So what does it exactly mean, that std::vector is a contiguous container and why do its elements move? Does it maybe store them together, but moves them all together, when more space is needed?
Edit: Is std::vector contiguous only since C++17? (Just to keep the comments on my previous claim relevant to future readers.)
It roughly looks like this (excuse my MS Paint masterpiece):
The std::vector instance you have on the stack is a small object containing a pointer to a heap-allocated buffer, plus some extra variables to keep track of the size and and capacity of the vector.
So it seems as though when I push_back() to the numbers vector, its older elements change their location.
The heap-allocated buffer has a fixed capacity. When you reach the end of the buffer, a new buffer will be allocated somewhere else on the heap and all the previous elements will be moved into the new one. Their addresses will therefore change.
Does it maybe store them together, but moves them all together, when more space is needed?
Roughly, yes. Iterator and address stability of elements is guaranteed with std::vector only if no reallocation takes place.
I am aware, that std::vector is a contiguous container only since C++17
The memory layout of std::vector hasn't changed since its first appearance in the Standard. ContiguousContainer is just a "concept" that was added to differentiate contiguous containers from others at compile-time.
The Answer
It's a single contiguous storage (a 1d array).
Each time it runs out of capacity it gets reallocated and stored objects are moved to the new larger place — this is why you observe addresses of the stored objects changing.
It has always been this way, not since C++17.
TL; DR
The storage is growing geometrically to ensure the requirement of the amortized O(1) push_back(). The growth factor is 2 (Capn+1 = Capn + Capn) in most implementations of the C++ Standard Library (GCC, Clang, STLPort) and 1.5 (Capn+1 = Capn + Capn / 2) in the MSVC variant.
If you pre-allocate it with vector::reserve(N) and sufficiently large N, then addresses of the stored objects won't be changing when you add new ones.
In most practical applications is usually worth pre-allocating it to at least 32 elements to skip the first few reallocations shortly following one other (0→1→2→4→8→16).
It is also sometimes practical to slow it down, switch to the arithmetic growth policy (Capn+1 = Capn + Const), or stop entirely after some reasonably large size to ensure the application does not waste or grow out of memory.
Lastly, in some practical applications, like column-based object storages, it may be worth giving up the idea of contiguous storage completely in favor of a segmented one (same as what std::deque does but with much larger chunks). This way the data may be stored reasonably well localized for both per-column and per-row queries (though this may need some help from the memory allocator as well).
std::vector being a contiguous container means exactly what you think it means.
However, many operations on a vector can re-locate that entire piece of memory.
One common case is when you add element to it, the vector must grow, it can re-allocate and copy all elements to another contiguous piece of memory.
So what does it exactly mean, that std::vector is a contiguous container and why do its elements move? Does it maybe store them together, but moves them all together, when more space is needed?
That's exactly how it works and why appending elements does indeed invalidate all iterators as well as memory locations when a reallocation takes place¹. This is not only valid since C++17, it has been the case ever since.
There are a couple of benefits from this approach:
It is very cache-friendly and hence efficient.
The data() method can be used to pass the underlying raw memory to APIs that work with raw pointers.
The cost of allocating new memory upon push_back, reserve or resize boil down to constant time, as the geometric growth amortizes over time (each time push_back is called the capacity is doubled in libc++ and libstdc++, and approx. growths by a factor of 1.5 in MSVC).
It allows for the most restricted iterator category, i.e., random access iterators, because classical pointer arithmetic works out well when the data is contiguously stored.
Move construction of a vector instance from another one is very cheap.
These implications can be considered the downside of such a memory layout:
All iterators and pointers to elements are invalidate upon modifications of the vector that imply a reallocation. This can lead to subtle bugs when e.g. erasing elements while iterating over the elements of a vector.
Operations like push_front (as std::list or std::deque provide) aren't provided (insert(vec.begin(), element) works, but is possibly expensive¹), as well as efficient merging/splicing of multiple vector instances.
¹ Thanks to #FrançoisAndrieux for pointing that out.
In terms of the actual structure, an std::vector looks something like this in memory:
struct vector { // Simple C struct as example (T is the type supplied by the template)
T *begin; // vector::begin() probably returns this value
T *end; // vector::end() probably returns this value
T *end_capacity; // First non-valid address
// Allocator state might be stored here (most allocators are stateless)
};
Relevant code snippet from the libc++ implementation as used by LLVM
Printing the raw memory contents of an std::vector:
(Don't do this if you don't know what you're doing!)
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct vector {
int *begin;
int *end;
int *end_capacity;
};
int main() {
union vecunion {
std::vector<int> stdvec;
vector myvec;
~vecunion() { /* do nothing */ }
} vec = { std::vector<int>() };
union veciterator {
std::vector<int>::iterator stditer;
int *myiter;
~veciterator() { /* do nothing */ }
};
vec.stdvec.push_back(1); // Add something so we don't have an empty vector
std::cout
<< "vec.begin = " << vec.myvec.begin << "\n"
<< "vec.end = " << vec.myvec.end << "\n"
<< "vec.end_capacity = " << vec.myvec.end_capacity << "\n"
<< "vec's size = " << vec.myvec.end - vec.myvec.begin << "\n"
<< "vec's capacity = " << vec.myvec.end_capacity - vec.myvec.begin << "\n"
<< "vector::begin() = " << (veciterator { vec.stdvec.begin() }).myiter << "\n"
<< "vector::end() = " << (veciterator { vec.stdvec.end() }).myiter << "\n"
<< "vector::size() = " << vec.stdvec.size() << "\n"
<< "vector::capacity() = " << vec.stdvec.capacity() << "\n"
;
}
I am making a game engine and need to use the std::vector container for all of the components and entities in the game.
In a script the user might need to hold a pointer to an entity or component, perhaps to continuously check some kind of state. If something is added to the vector that the pointer points to and the capacity is exceeded, it is my understanding that the vector will allocate new memory and every pointer that points to any element in the vector will become invalid.
Considering this issue i have a couple of possible solutions. After each push_back to the vector, would it be a viable to check if a current capacity variable is exceeded by the actual capacity of the vector? And if so, fetch and overwrite the old pointers to the new ones? Would this guarantee to "catch" every case that invalidates pointers when performing a push_back?
Another solution that i've found is to instead save an index to the element and access it that way, but i suspect that is bad for performance when you need to continuously check the state of that element (every 1/60 second).
I am aware that other containers do not have this issue but i'd really like to make it work with a vector. Also it might be worth noting that i do not know in advance how many entities / components there will be.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
You shouldn't worry about performance of std::vector when you access its element only 60 times per second. By the way, in Release compilation mode std::vector::operator[] is being converted to a single lea opcode. In Debug mode it is decorated by some runtime range checks though.
If the user is going to store pointers to the objects, why even contain them in a vector?
I don't feel like it is a good idea to (poor wording)->store pointers to objects in a vector. (what I meant is to create pointers that point to vector elements, i.e. my_ptr = &my_vec[n];) The whole point of a container is to reference the contents in the normal ways that the container supports, not to create outside pointers to elements of the container.
To answer your question about whether you can detect the allocations, yes you could, but it is still probably a bad idea to reference the contents of a vector by pointers to elements.
You could also reserve space in the vector when you create it, if you have some idea of what the maximum size might grow to. Then it would never resize.
edit:
After reading other responses, and thinking about what you asked, another thought occurred. If your vector is a vector of pointers to objects, and you pass out the pointers to the objects to your clients, resizing the vector does not invalidate the pointers that the vector hold. The issue becomes keeping track of the life of the object (who owns it), which is why using shared_ptr would be useful.
For example:
vector<shared_ptr> my_vec;
my_vec.push_back(stuff);
if you pass out the pointers contained in the vector to clients...
client_ptr = my_vec[3];
There will be no problem when the vector resizes. The contents of the vector will be preserved, and whatever was at my_vec[3] will still be there. The object pointed to by my_vec[3] will still be at the same address, and my_vec[3] will still contain that address. Whomever got a copy of the pointer at my_vec[3] will still have a valid pointer.
However, if you did this:
client_ptr = &my_vec[3];
And the client is dereferencing like this:
*client_ptr->whatever();
You have a problem. Now when my_vec resized, &my_vec[3] is probably no longer valid, thus client_ptr points to nowhere.
If something is added to the vector that the pointer points to and the
capacity is exceeded, it is my understanding that the vector will
allocate new memory and every pointer that points to any element in
the vector will become invalid.
I once wrote some code to analyze what happens when a vector's capacity is exceeded. (Have you done this, yet?) What that code demonstrated on my Ubuntu with g++v5 system was that std::vector code simply a) doubles the capacity, b) moves all the elements from old to the new storage, then c) cleans up the old. Perhaps your implementation is similar. I think the details of capacity expansion is implementation dependent.
And yes, any pointer into the vector would be invalidated when push_back() causes capacity to be exceeded.
1) I simply don't use pointers-into-the-vector (and neither should you). In this way the issue is completely eliminated, as it simply can not occur. (see also, dangling pointers) The proper way to access a std::vector (or a std::array) element is to use an index (via the operator[]() method).
After any capacity-expansion, the index of all elements at indexes less than the previous capacity limit are still valid, as the push_back() installed the new element at the 'end' (I think highest memory addressed.) The elements memory location may have changed, but the element index is still the same.
2) It is my practice that I simply don't exceed the capacity. Yes, by that I mean that I have been able to formulate all my problems such that I know the required maximum-capacity. I have never found this approach to be a problem.
3) If the vector contents can not be contained in system memory (my system's best upper limit capacity is roughly 3.5 GBytes), then perhaps a vector container (or any ram based container) is inappropriate. You will have to accomplish your goal using disk storage, perhaps with vector containers acting as a cache.
update 2017-July-31
Some code to consider from my latest Game of Life.
Each Cell_t (on the 2-d gameboard) has 8 neighbors.
In my implementation, each Cell_t has a neighbor 'list,' (either std::array or std::vector, I've tried both), and after the gameboard has fully constructed, each Cell_t's init() method is run, filling it's neighbor 'list'.
// see Cell_t data attributes
std::array<int, 8> m_neighbors;
// ...
void Cell_t::void init()
{
int i = 0;
m_neighbors[i] = validCellIndx(m_row-1, m_col-1); // 1 - up left
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row-1, m_col); // 2 - up
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row-1, m_col+1); // 3 - up right
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row, m_col+1); // 4 - right
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row+1, m_col+1); // 5 - down right
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row+1, m_col); // 6 - down
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row+1, m_col-1); // 7 - down left
m_neighbors[++i] = validCellIndx(m_row, m_col-1); // 8 - left
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^- returns info to quickly find cell
}
The int value in m_neighbors[i] is the index into the gameboard vector. To determine the next state of the cell, the code 'counts the neighbor's states.'
Note - Some cells are at the edge of the gameboard ... in this implementation, validCellIndx() can return a value indicating 'no-neighbor', (above top row, left of left edge, etc.)
// multiplier: for 100x200 cells,20,000 * m_generation => ~20,000,000 ops
void countNeighbors(int& aliveNeighbors, int& totalNeighbors)
{
{ /* ... initialize m_count[]s to 0 */ }
for(auto neighborIndx : m_neighbors ) { // each of 8 neighbors // 123
if(no_neighbor != neighborIndx) // 8-4
m_count[ gBoard[neighborIndx].m_state ] += 1; // 765
}
aliveNeighbors = m_count[ CellALIVE ]; // CellDEAD = 1, CellALIVE
totalNeighbors = aliveNeighbors + m_count [ CellDEAD ];
} // Cell_Arr_t::countNeighbors
init() pre-computes the index to this cells neighbors. The m_neighbors array holds index integers, not pointers. It is trivial to have NO pointers-into-the-gameboard vector.
I have an array int *playerNum which stores the list of all the numbers of the players in the team. Each slot e.g playerNum[1]; represents a position on the team, if I wanted to add a new player for a new position on the team. That is, inserting a new element into the array somewhere near the middle, how would I go about doing this?
At the moment, I was thinking you memcpy up to the position you want to insert the player into a new array and then insert the new player and copy over the rest of it?
(I have to use an array)
If you're using C++, I would suggest not using memcpy or memmove but instead using the copy or copy_backward algorithms. These will work on any data type, not just plain old integers, and most implementations are optimized enough that they will compile down to memmove anyway. More importantly, they will work even if you change the underlying type of the elements in the array to something that needs a custom copy constructor or assignment operator.
If you have to use an array, after having made sure you have enough storage (using realloc if necessary), use memmove to shift the items from the insertion point to the end by one position, then save your new player at the desired location.
You can't use memcpy if the source and target areas overlap.
This will fail as soon as the objects in your array have non-trivial copy-constructors, and it's not idiomatic C++. Using one of the container classes is much safer (std::vector or std::list for instance).
Your solution using memcpy is correct (under few assumptions mentionned by other).
However, and since you are programming in C++. It is probably a better choice to use std::vector and its insert method.
vector<int> myvector (3,100);
myvector.insert ( 10 , 42 );
An array takes a contiguous block of memory, there is no function for you to insert an element in the middle. you can create a new one of size larger than the origin's by one then copy the original array into the new one plus the new member
for(int i=0;i<arSize/2;i++)
{
newarray[i]<-ar[i];
}
newarray[i+1]<-newelemant;
for(int j=i+1<newSize;j++,i++)
{
newarray[i]<-ar[i];
}
if you use STL, ting becomes easier, use list.
As you're talking about an array and "insert" I assume that it is a sorted array. You don't necessarily need a second array provided that the capacity N of your existing array is large enough to store more entries (N>n, where n is the number of current entries). You can move the entries from k to n-1 (zero-indexed) to k+1 to n, where k is the desired insert position. Insert the new element at index position k and increase n by one. If the array is not large enough in the beginning, you can follow your proposed approach or just reallocate a new array of larger capacity N' and copy the existing data before applying the actual insert operation described above.
BTW: As you're using C++, you could easily use std::vector.
While it is possible to use arrays for this, C++ has a better solutions to offer. For starters, try std::vector, which is a decent enough general-purpose container, based on a dynamically-allocated array. It behaves exactly like an array in many cases.
Looking at your problem, however, there are two downsides to arrays or vectors:
Indices have to be 0-based and contiguous; you cannot remove elements from the middle without losing key/value associations for everything after the removed element; so if you remove the player on position 4, then the player from position 9 will move to position 8
Random insertion and deletion (that is, anywhere except the end) is expensive - O(n), that is, execution time grows linearly with array size. This is because every time you insert or delete, a part of the array needs to be moved.
If the key/value thing isn't important to you, and insertion/deletion isn't time critical, and your container is never going to be really large, then by all means, use a vector. If you need random insertion/deletion performance, but the key/value thing isn't important, look at std::list (although you won't get random access then, that is, the [] operator isn't defined, as implementing it would be very inefficient for linked lists; linked lists are also very memory hungry, with an overhead of two pointers per element). If you want to maintain key/value associations, std::map is your friend.
Losting the tail:
#include <stdio.h>
#define s 10
int L[s];
void insert(int v, int p, int *a)
{
memmove(a+p+1,a+p,(s-p+1)*4);
*(a+p) = v;
}
int main()
{
for(int i=0;i<s;i++) L[i] = i;
insert(11,6, L);
for(int i=0;i<s;i++) printf("%d %d\n", L[i], &L[i]);
return 0;
}
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.