Im trying to make first game sth simillar to Tanks. But my game crashes when i try to delete the enemy tank (sometimes works, sometimes not) and i have no any idea what is wrong with my code. Will you help me?
void Game::update(sf::Time elapsedTime){
if (enemies.size() < 6){
eTank1 = new EnemyTank(150, 130);
enemies.push_back(eTank1);
}
tank->move(elapsedTime);
for (vector<EnemyTank*>::const_iterator it = enemies.begin(); it != enemies.end();)
{
if (collision->checkCollisionWithEnemyTankAndTank(tank, *it)){
(*it)->move(elapsedTime);
}
collision->checkShoot(tank->getBulletsVector(), tank, *it);
//probably there is a problem
if ((*it)->getlife() <= 0){
delete *it;
enemies.erase(it);
cout << "TANGO DOWN" << endl;
}
++it;
}
checkShoot looks like this:
void Collision::checkShoot(vector <Bullet*> &bullet, Tank *tank, EnemyTank* enemyTank){
distance = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < bullet.size(); i++){
distance = abs(bullet[i]->getPosition().x - enemyTank->getPosition().x) + abs(bullet[i]->getPosition().y - enemyTank->getPosition().y);
if (distance < 45){
cout << "act life: " << enemyTank->getlife() << endl;
enemyTank->setLife(); // -0.5 from actual life
tank->setVector(i); // delete bullet from vector
}
}
}
And the code of destructor
cout << "DESTRU";
delete tank_bullet;
for (auto &it : bullets){ delete it; } bullets.clear();
cout << "DESTRU T - END\n";
Finally the setVector(i);
void setVector(int index){
if (!bullets.empty()){
delete (bullets.at(index));
bullets.erase(bullets.begin() + index);
}
}
The answer really is in the comments, but in case they feel too terse, I'm writing a slightly longer explanation.
Here's a minimal example similar in style to your code:
int main() {
auto v = std::vector<int> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
for(auto it = v.cbegin(); it != v.cend(); ) {
if(*it == 5)
v.erase(it);
++it;
}
}
This segfaults (doesn't if you compare to something that is not the last element of the vector, e.g. *it == 3, but this behaviour is probably compiler-dependent). Why? v.erase(it) invalidates the iterator it, so you can't be using it after that line. Instead, you should be using what erase returns, it = v.erase(it), which is the iterator following the deleted one. Now if that happens to be v.cend() and on the next line you increment it, ++it, you're out of bounds and out of luck.
I am not encouraging you to use the following, but if you want to keep with the style of your code, what should work is
if(*it == 5)
it = v.erase(it);
else
++it;
What the else does is it avoids the double incrementation on erase.
Related
I am learning c++ and I am working my way double linked lists, but I noticed something very peculiar when I was trying to delete elements from my list.
Problem: I am inserting an element before the value of 2 in my list , numbers, and then I am trying to delete any element that has the value 1.
Expected: After I call erase() in my conditional statement in my first loop my list, numbers, should get adjusted. The only values that numbers should should contain 0,1234,2,3.
Observed: My list numbers contains the values 0,1,1234,2,3. It is as if nothing was erased.
Code Example:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
list<int> numbers;
numbers.push_back(1);
numbers.push_back(2);
numbers.push_back(3);
numbers.push_front(0);
list<int>::iterator it = numbers.begin();
it++;
numbers.insert(it, 100);
cout << "Element: " << *it << endl;
list<int>::iterator eraseIt = numbers.begin();
eraseIt++;
eraseIt = numbers.erase(eraseIt);
cout << "Element: " << *eraseIt << endl;
for (list<int>::iterator it = numbers.begin(); it != numbers.end(); it++)
{
if (*it == 2)
{
numbers.insert(it, 1234);
}
if (*it == 1)
{
it = numbers.erase(it);
}
else
{
it++;
}
}
for (list<int>::iterator it = numbers.begin(); it != numbers.end(); it++)
{
cout << *it << endl;
}
return 0;
}
I would greatly appreciate any assistance with this problem. Thank you for your time.
You should remove the it++ at the end of the for loop declaration, because it might be increased inside the for loop too; when it gets inscreased twice some elements will be skipped. i.e.
for (list<int>::iterator it = numbers.begin(); it != numbers.end(); )
LIVE
It's quite enough to remember the next iterator value before doing any deletion/insertion at the current position. This will help you to keep yourself careless about what and when are your modifications concretely doing.
list<int>::iterator it = numbers.begin();
while (it != numbers.end()) {
{
list<int>::iterator next_it = it;
++next_it;
// Do your insertion or deletion here
it = next_it;
}
Here i am trying to print the frequency of each word in the sentence, which is stored in the vector of string
void display_by_word (vector<string> vs) //pass by value is necessary because we need to delete the elements.
{
vector<string> :: size_type vec_size, i;
string to_cmp = vs[0];
int occ = 0;
for ( i = 0; i < vs.size(); ++i){
vector <string> :: iterator it = vs.begin() + 1;
occ = 1;
for ( it ; it != vs.end(); ++it){
if ( vs[i] == *it){
vs.erase(it);
occ++;
}
}
cout << vs[i] << " " << occ << endl;
}
}
Sometimes it works fine but sometimes it crashes.what is wrong?
See http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/erase
Invalidates iterators and references at or after the point of the erase [...]
After the erase has happened, you cannot reuse it because it has been invalidated. It's undefined behaviour, which can include random crashes.
However, erase returns an iterator to the element following the erased one, or to end() if it was the last element, which is why the solution with it = vs.erase(it); works.
Alternatively, consider using std::remove_if, followed by the two-argument erase, which is known as the Erase-Remove Idiom. It may turn out to be more elegant and more readable than a hand-written loop. Or just rewrite the whole function to use std::count_if.
You may want to rewrite the loop as something like this
while(it != vs.end())
{
if ( vs[i] == *it){
it = vs.erase(it);
occ++;
}
else
it++;
}
You may should do as below:
`
for ( it ; it != vs.end(); ){
if ( vs[i] == *it){
it = vs.erase(it);
occ++;
}
else{
++it;
}
}
`
I am currently programming a little game for the console with an 2D map. 2 Elements of my game are: destroying fields and an enemy, which spreads in a random direction (its getting bigger). These two "entities" are saved in a structure which contains two vectors (X and Y). I am now trying to erase an element of "_Enemy"(<-private instance of the structure in a class, same as "_DestroyedFields") if you destroy the field where the enemy is.
I tried a lot of different variations to do so and whats giving me the error least is this method (I already searched the internet for a while now an couldn't find a answer to my question):
for (std::vector<int>::iterator itEX = _Enemys.X.begin(), itEY = _Enemys.Y.begin();
itEX != _Enemys.X.end() && itEY != _Enemys.Y.end();
++itEX, ++itEY) {
for (std::vector<int>::iterator itX = _DestroyedFields.X.begin(),
itY = _DestroyedFields.Y.begin();
itX != _DestroyedFields.X.end() && itY != _DestroyedFields.Y.end();
++itX, ++itY) {
if (*itY == *itEY && *itX == *itEX){
itEY = _Enemys.Y.erase(itEY);
itEX = _Enemys.X.erase(itEX);
}
}
}
PS: sorry if my english isn't the best, im german ^^
PSS: if you wanna watch over my whole code, you can find it on Github: https://github.com/Aemmel/ConsoleGame1
After erasing using iterator it, you cannot use it further as it is invalidated. You should use a result of a call to erase which is new, valid iterator.
for( it = v.begin(); it != v.end();)
{
//...
if(...)
{
it = v.erase( it);
}
else
{
++it;
}
...
}
I fixed the bug with first: making a "simple structure"(struct Entity{int X; intY} and then std::vector [insert name here]) and then with adding an break; if the condition is true.
for (Uint itE = 0; itE < _Enemys.size(); ++itE){
for (Uint it = 0; it<_DestroyedFields.size(); ++it){
if (_Enemys.at(itE).Y == _DestroyedFields.at(it).Y
&& _Enemys.at(itE).X == _DestroyedFields.at(it).X){
_Enemys.erase(_Enemys.begin()+itE);
break;
}
}
}
With struct Position {int x; int y;}; and some utility operators,
you may do one of the following: (https://ideone.com/0aiih0)
void filter(std::vector<Position>& positions, const std::vector<Position>& destroyedFields)
{
for (std::vector<Position>::iterator it = positions.begin(); it != positions.end(); ) {
if (std::find(destroyedFields.begin(), destroyedFields.end(), *it) != destroyedFields.end()) {
it = positions.erase(it);
} else {
++it;
}
}
}
Or, if input are sorted, you may use a 'difference':
std::vector<Position> filter2(const std::vector<Position>& positions, const std::vector<Position>& destroyedFields)
{
std::vector<Position> res;
std::set_difference(positions.begin(), positions.end(),
destroyedFields.begin(), destroyedFields.end(),
std::back_inserter(res));
return res;
}
If i iterate over a STL container i sometimes need to know if the current item is the last one in the sequence. Is there a better way, then doing something like this? Can i somehow convert rbegin()?
std::vector<int> myList;
// ....
std::vector<int>::iterator lastit = myList.end();
lastit--;
for(std::vector<int>::iterator it = myList.begin(); it != myList.end(); it++) {
if(it == lastit)
{
// Do something with last element
}
else
{
// Do something with all other elements
}
Try the following
std::vector<int>::iterator it2 = (++it);
if ( it2 == myList.end() ) {
...
}
The following should work as well
if ( it+1 == myList.end() ) {
// it is last
...
}
Maybe you can iterate backwards (use rbegin/rend) and put your special task before the loop or replace the end check with it != lastit and put the special handling after the loop
I would have some doubts about my design if some elements need to be treated differntly, but this suggestion is a bit cleaner for me (don't forget to test for empty containers)
std::vector<int>::iterator lastit = myList.end();
if (lastit != myList.begin())
{
lastit--;
for(std::vector<int>::iterator it = myList.begin(); it != lastit; ++it)
{
// Do
}
// Do with last
}
Use reversed iteration, this way you will have only one end()-1-like computation (notice the rbegin()+1) and no comparsions:
for(vector<int>::iterator it = myValues.rbegin()+1; it != myValues.rend(); it++) {
cout << *it << endl;
}
cout << "Process last one: " << *myValues.rbegin() << endl;
Also, for the vector<>, computing end()-1 is probably fast, so you can also do it like following:
for(vector<int>::iterator it = myValues.begin(); it != myValues.end()-1; it++) {
cout << *it << endl;
}
cout << "Process last one: " << *myValues.rbegin() << endl;
If you don't want to process the element after the loop, you can:
for(vector<int>::iterator it = myValues.rbegin(); it != myValues.rend(); it++) {
if(it == myValues.rbegin())
cout << "Process last one: " << *it << endl;
else
cout << *it << endl;
}
For a random access iterator like that for vector, you don't need the temporarary. You can say:
if ( it + 1 == v.end() ) {
// at one before end
}
Edit: And even for non-random access types one could use std:;distance:
if ( distance( it, v.end() ) == 1 ) {
// at one before end
}
An important question is: why create a loop if you do something special for 1 element. Why not do something special to the 3rd element? To every 4rth? ...
Just iterate over the elements to be treated the same, write separate code to treat the others.
Have a look at answers to this question, too.
Why not:
if(!myList.empty())
last_it = myList.begin() + myList.size()-1;
else
last_it = myList.end();
//or
last_it = myList.empty() ? myList.end() : myList.begin() + myList.size() - 1;
If you're using a vector, it's actually much simpler to use an integer index to iterate:
std::vector<int> myList;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < myList.size(); i++)
{
if (i == (myList.size() - 1))
{
processDifferently (myList[i])
}
else
{
process (myList[i])
}
}
Minimizing the number of calls to myList.size() is left as an exercise for the OP :)
I've got code that looks like this:
for (std::list<item*>::iterator i=items.begin();i!=items.end();i++)
{
bool isActive = (*i)->update();
//if (!isActive)
// items.remove(*i);
//else
other_code_involving(*i);
}
items.remove_if(CheckItemNotActive);
I'd like remove inactive items immediately after update them, inorder to avoid walking the list again. But if I add the commented-out lines, I get an error when I get to i++: "List iterator not incrementable". I tried some alternates which didn't increment in the for statement, but I couldn't get anything to work.
What's the best way to remove items as you are walking a std::list?
You have to increment the iterator first (with i++) and then remove the previous element (e.g., by using the returned value from i++). You can change the code to a while loop like so:
std::list<item*>::iterator i = items.begin();
while (i != items.end())
{
bool isActive = (*i)->update();
if (!isActive)
{
items.erase(i++); // alternatively, i = items.erase(i);
}
else
{
other_code_involving(*i);
++i;
}
}
You want to do:
i= items.erase(i);
That will correctly update the iterator to point to the location after the iterator you removed.
You need to do the combination of Kristo's answer and MSN's:
// Note: Using the pre-increment operator is preferred for iterators because
// there can be a performance gain.
//
// Note: As long as you are iterating from beginning to end, without inserting
// along the way you can safely save end once; otherwise get it at the
// top of each loop.
std::list< item * >::iterator iter = items.begin();
std::list< item * >::iterator end = items.end();
while (iter != end)
{
item * pItem = *iter;
if (pItem->update() == true)
{
other_code_involving(pItem);
++iter;
}
else
{
// BTW, who is deleting pItem, a.k.a. (*iter)?
iter = items.erase(iter);
}
}
Of course, the most efficient and SuperCool® STL savy thing would be something like this:
// This implementation of update executes other_code_involving(Item *) if
// this instance needs updating.
//
// This method returns true if this still needs future updates.
//
bool Item::update(void)
{
if (m_needsUpdates == true)
{
m_needsUpdates = other_code_involving(this);
}
return (m_needsUpdates);
}
// This call does everything the previous loop did!!! (Including the fact
// that it isn't deleting the items that are erased!)
items.remove_if(std::not1(std::mem_fun(&Item::update)));
I have sumup it, here is the three method with example:
1. using while loop
list<int> lst{4, 1, 2, 3, 5};
auto it = lst.begin();
while (it != lst.end()){
if((*it % 2) == 1){
it = lst.erase(it);// erase and go to next
} else{
++it; // go to next
}
}
for(auto it:lst)cout<<it<<" ";
cout<<endl; //4 2
2. using remove_if member funtion in list:
list<int> lst{4, 1, 2, 3, 5};
lst.remove_if([](int a){return a % 2 == 1;});
for(auto it:lst)cout<<it<<" ";
cout<<endl; //4 2
3. using std::remove_if funtion combining with erase member function:
list<int> lst{4, 1, 2, 3, 5};
lst.erase(std::remove_if(lst.begin(), lst.end(), [](int a){
return a % 2 == 1;
}), lst.end());
for(auto it:lst)cout<<it<<" ";
cout<<endl; //4 2
4. using for loop , should note update the iterator:
list<int> lst{4, 1, 2, 3, 5};
for(auto it = lst.begin(); it != lst.end();++it){
if ((*it % 2) == 1){
it = lst.erase(it); erase and go to next(erase will return the next iterator)
--it; // as it will be add again in for, so we go back one step
}
}
for(auto it:lst)cout<<it<<" ";
cout<<endl; //4 2
Use std::remove_if algorithm.
Edit:
Work with collections should be like:
prepare collection.
process collection.
Life will be easier if you won't mix this steps.
std::remove_if. or list::remove_if ( if you know that you work with list and not with the TCollection )
std::for_each
The alternative for loop version to Kristo's answer.
You lose some efficiency, you go backwards and then forward again when deleting but in exchange for the extra iterator increment you can have the iterator declared in the loop scope and the code looking a bit cleaner. What to choose depends on priorities of the moment.
The answer was totally out of time, I know...
typedef std::list<item*>::iterator item_iterator;
for(item_iterator i = items.begin(); i != items.end(); ++i)
{
bool isActive = (*i)->update();
if (!isActive)
{
items.erase(i--);
}
else
{
other_code_involving(*i);
}
}
Here's an example using a for loop that iterates the list and increments or revalidates the iterator in the event of an item being removed during traversal of the list.
for(auto i = items.begin(); i != items.end();)
{
if(bool isActive = (*i)->update())
{
other_code_involving(*i);
++i;
}
else
{
i = items.erase(i);
}
}
items.remove_if(CheckItemNotActive);
Removal invalidates only the iterators that point to the elements that are removed.
So in this case after removing *i , i is invalidated and you cannot do increment on it.
What you can do is first save the iterator of element that is to be removed , then increment the iterator and then remove the saved one.
If you think of the std::list like a queue, then you can dequeue and enqueue all the items that you want to keep, but only dequeue (and not enqueue) the item you want to remove. Here's an example where I want to remove 5 from a list containing the numbers 1-10...
std::list<int> myList;
int size = myList.size(); // The size needs to be saved to iterate through the whole thing
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
int val = myList.back()
myList.pop_back() // dequeue
if (val != 5)
{
myList.push_front(val) // enqueue if not 5
}
}
myList will now only have numbers 1-4 and 6-10.
Iterating backwards avoids the effect of erasing an element on the remaining elements to be traversed:
typedef list<item*> list_t;
for ( list_t::iterator it = items.end() ; it != items.begin() ; ) {
--it;
bool remove = <determine whether to remove>
if ( remove ) {
items.erase( it );
}
}
PS: see this, e.g., regarding backward iteration.
PS2: I did not thoroughly tested if it handles well erasing elements at the ends.
You can write
std::list<item*>::iterator i = items.begin();
while (i != items.end())
{
bool isActive = (*i)->update();
if (!isActive) {
i = items.erase(i);
} else {
other_code_involving(*i);
i++;
}
}
You can write equivalent code with std::list::remove_if, which is less verbose and more explicit
items.remove_if([] (item*i) {
bool isActive = (*i)->update();
if (!isActive)
return true;
other_code_involving(*i);
return false;
});
The std::vector::erase std::remove_if idiom should be used when items is a vector instead of a list to keep compexity at O(n) - or in case you write generic code and items might be a container with no effective way to erase single items (like a vector)
items.erase(std::remove_if(begin(items), end(items), [] (item*i) {
bool isActive = (*i)->update();
if (!isActive)
return true;
other_code_involving(*i);
return false;
}));
do while loop, it's flexable and fast and easy to read and write.
auto textRegion = m_pdfTextRegions.begin();
while(textRegion != m_pdfTextRegions.end())
{
if ((*textRegion)->glyphs.empty())
{
m_pdfTextRegions.erase(textRegion);
textRegion = m_pdfTextRegions.begin();
}
else
textRegion++;
}
I'd like to share my method. This method also allows the insertion of the element to the back of the list during iteration
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
std::list<int> d;
for (int i = 0; i < 12; ++i) {
d.push_back(i);
}
auto it = d.begin();
int nelem = d.size(); // number of current elements
for (int ielem = 0; ielem < nelem; ++ielem) {
auto &i = *it;
if (i % 2 == 0) {
it = d.erase(it);
} else {
if (i % 3 == 0) {
d.push_back(3*i);
}
++it;
}
}
for (auto i : d) {
std::cout << i << ", ";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
// result should be: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 9, 27,
return 0;
}
I think you have a bug there, I code this way:
for (std::list<CAudioChannel *>::iterator itAudioChannel = audioChannels.begin();
itAudioChannel != audioChannels.end(); )
{
CAudioChannel *audioChannel = *itAudioChannel;
std::list<CAudioChannel *>::iterator itCurrentAudioChannel = itAudioChannel;
itAudioChannel++;
if (audioChannel->destroyMe)
{
audioChannels.erase(itCurrentAudioChannel);
delete audioChannel;
continue;
}
audioChannel->Mix(outBuffer, numSamples);
}