I am having trouble figuring out how the whole pointer push and pop works. On my program the user is supposed to create a stack which is empty (NULL) and with that the user can select to either push a number on the stack or pop the number which was pushed on, off. Also it is supposed to count the number of stacks and what is stored but I'm assuming i could figure that out if i understand how push and pop is supposed to be written. I understand the concept behind those i just don't know how its supposed to be written. Someone please help me understand this. I went to a tutor but he needed to refresh his memory and told me to come back another day. Which I will, but i cannot rely on that.
Here is my implementation of pop. It should be obvious from this example what would need to be done for push. I can't say this is the most cost efficient way.
template <class T>
T SimpleStack<T>::popOff()
{
T popped = *(aptr + --arraySize); //aptr points to the existing stack
int tSize = arraySize; //arraySize is a member holding the size
T *temp = new T[tSize]; //Temp holder for the elements that stay
//on the stack
for(int i = 0; i < tSize; ++i)
{
*(temp+i) = *(aptr+i); //Fill the temp holder with the original
//stack - popped
}
delete [] aptr; //Get rid of the old stack
aptr = new T [tSize]; //Create a new stack with the new size
for(int i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i)
{
*(aptr+i) = *(temp+i); //Fill the new stack with the kept values
}
delete [] temp; //Get rid of the temp holder
return popped; //Send the popped number back
}
The fact still remains that without reading up on what a stack, or any custom container you're trying to emulate, is and how it's used and where it's best suited you'll probably struggle.
Related
I tried to write a function that gets an object ("Stone") and deletes the stone from a given array. code:
void Pile::del_stone(Stone &s)
{
Stone *temp = new Stone[size - 1];//allocate new array
for (int i = 0;i <size;++i)
{
if (s != Pile_arr[i])//if the given object to delete is different from the current
{
temp[i] = Pile_arr[i];//copy to the new array
}
else
{
i--;
}
}
Pile_arr = temp;
set_size(this->size - 1);
temp = NULL;
delete[] temp;
}
Pile_arr is a member of Pile class.
The problem is that i get an infinite loop, because i decrease i. I cant figure out how to solve this issue. Any ideas?
Use two indexes: i and j. Use i to know which element of the original array you are looking and j to know where to put the element in temp.
You need to use a separate counter to track where new elements should be placed.
I have used n below:
Stone *temp = new Stone[size - 1];
int n = 0; // Stores the current size of temp array
for (int i = 0;i <size;++i) {
if (s != Pile_arr[i]) {
temp[n++] = Pile_arr[i];
}
}
It's also worth considering the case where s is not found in the array, as this would cause a runtime error (Attempting to add size elements to an array of size size - 1).
Using a STL container would be a far better option here.
This function will:
Allocate a new array of length size-1
Search for the intended object
If you find it, copy it to the same exact position in the array
If you don't --i
Finally, ++i
First of all, this function is bad for 3 reasons:
It only copies one item over--the given item. You have an array with only 1 object.
It copies the item from index to index. Since the final array is one smaller, if the object is at the max original index, it will be out of bounds for the new array.
If the object is not immediately found, the array will get stuck, as you decrease the index, and then increase it using the loop--you'll never move again.
Stone *temp = new Stone[size - 1];//allocate new array
for (int i = 0;i
Instead:
Cache the found object, then delete it from the original array or mark it. temp = found object
Copy the array, one by one, without copying empty spaces and closing the gap. Copy temp_array[i] and increment i if and only if temp_array[j] is not marked/deleted. Increment j
Decide where to put the found object.
Once again, you can decide to use separate indexes--one for parsing the original array, and one for filling the new array.
I've run into this error before, but the circumstances baffle me as I have run nearly this exact set of functions without having this issue.
Let me break it down:
The error is being caused by the resize() private member function of a custom priority queue I am working on. It is all centered around de-allocating the pointer to the old queue array. Before I explain any further, let me list the handful of relatively small functions I've isolated the problem to.
void unfairQ::enqueue(int val)
{
if (isFull())
resize();
numElements++;
ageCount++;
heapArr[numElements].data = val;
heapArr[numElements].age = 1;
heapArr[numElements].priority = heapArr[numElements].data;
heapifyUp(numElements);
if (ageCount == 100) {
heapSort();
ageCount = 0;
}
return;
}
bool unfairQ::isFull()
{
return (numElements == capacity);
}
void unfairQ::resize()
{
int newCap = (capacity * 1.5);
queueNode *tempHeap = new queueNode[newCap];
for (int i = 1; i <= numElements; i++) {
tempHeap[i].data = heapArr[i].data;
tempHeap[i].age = heapArr[i].age;
tempHeap[i].priority = heapArr[i].priority;
}
// delete [] heapArr;
capacity = newCap;
heapArr = tempHeap;
return;
}
The commented out line in the resize function is the one causing problems. If I do delete the pointer to the array I get the "double free" error, however if I remove that line I get a "free(): invalid next size (normal):" if I enqueue enough values to require a second resize().
Please let me know if you need any more information or if I need to clarify anything.
You seem to be using your array with indexes starting from 1, c++ uses indexes starting from 0. This can cause a buffer overflow.
For example:
If capacity is currently 5 (so heapArray can have 5 entries) andnumElementsis currently 4, yourisFullwill returnfalse(correctly), however yourenqueuecode then incrementsnumElements(from 4 to 5) and attempts to write toheapArray[5]` which is out of bounds and may overwrite some other memory.
Solution: start your indexes from 0, e.g. in the enqueue function, increment numElements after you write the data heapArray[numElements]
I found the problem, while I was referencing/incrementing/decrementing all the indices correctly and calling the appropriate functions at the appropriate times, I was operating under the notion that I was working with indices 1-size, but in the constructor (something I hadn't glanced at for a while) I'd initialized numElements as 0 which broke the whole gosh darned thing.
Fixed that and now everything is hunky dory!
Thanks for the help guys.
I am trying to insert data into a leaf node (an array) of a B-Tree. Here is the code I have so far:
void LeafNode::insertCorrectPosLeaf(int num)
{
for (int pos=count; pos>=0; pos--) // goes through values in leaf node
{
if (num < values[pos-1]) // if inserting num < previous value in leaf node
{continue;} // conitnue searching for correct place
else // if inserting num >= previous value in leaf node
{
values[pos] = num; // inserts in position
break;
}
}
count++;
} // insertCorrectPos()
Before the line values[pos] = num, I think need to write some code that shifts the existing data instead of overwriting it. I am trying to use memmove but have a question about it. Its third parameter is the number of bytes to copy. If I am moving a single int on a 64 bit machine, does this mean I would put a "4" here? If I am going about this completely wrong any any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
The easiest way (and probably the most efficient) would be to use one of the standard libraries predefined structures to implement "values". I suggest either list or vector. This is because both list and vector has an insert function that does it for you. I suggest the vector class specifically is because it has the same kind of interface that an array has. However, if you want to optimize for speed of this action specifically, then I would suggest the list class because of the way it is implemented.
If you would rather to it the hard way, then here goes...
First, you need to make sure that you have the space to work in. You can either allocate dynamically:
int *values = new int[size];
or statically
int values[MAX_SIZE];
If you allocate statically, then you need to make sure that MAX_SIZE is some gigantic value that you will never ever exceed. Furthermore, you need to check the actual size of the array against the amount of allocated space every time you add an element.
if (size < MAX_SIZE-1)
{
// add an element
size++;
}
If you allocate dynamically, then you need to reallocate the whole array every time you add an element.
int *temp = new int[size+1];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
temp[i] = values[i];
delete [] values;
values = temp;
temp = NULL;
// add the element
size++;
When you insert a new value, you need to shift every value over.
int temp = 0;
for (i = 0; i < size+1; i++)
{
if (values[i] > num || i == size)
{
temp = values[i];
values[i] = num;
num = temp;
}
}
Keep in mind that this is not at all optimized. A truly magical implementation would combine the two allocation strategies by dynamically allocating more space than you need, then growing the array by blocks when you run out of space. This is exactly what the vector implementation does.
The list implementation uses a linked list which has O(1) time for inserting a value because of it's structure. However, it is much less space inefficient and has O(n) time for accessing an element at location n.
Also, this code was written on the fly... be careful when using it. There might be a weird edge case that I am missing in the last code segment.
Cheers!
Ned
I am working on a lab dealing with queues, which I don't think is entirely relevant. My task is to create a "priority queue" and the best way I could think of to do it is as follows
void IntQueue::enqueue(int num,int priorityOfEntry)
{
if (isFull())
cout << "The queue is full.\n";
else
{
// Calculate the new rear position
//insert correct lab code here haha
if (priorityOfEntry == 1)
{
rear = (rear + 1) % queueSize;
queueArray[rear] = num;
queueSize++;
}
else if (priorityOfEntry == 2)
{
queueSize++;
int* newArray = new int[queueSize];
newArray[0] = num;
for(int counter = 0;counter< queueSize; counter++)
{
newArray[counter+1] = queueArray[counter];
}
queueArray = newArray;
delete [] newArray;
}
else cout << "invalid priority" << endl;
// Insert new item
// Update item count
numItems++;
}
}
I only have 2 priority levels, 1 and 2, that I explain in the main program. when they all have equal priority it of course works fine, but when I bump on up in priority it throws an error at my destructor.
I really don't think this is the right way to approach this lab, but It seems to work.. at least if I can actually get this memory error fixed.
I figure the only problem could be in that I change the address of what the destructor thinks it will delete.. but I thought pointers would already kind of account for that.
I understand I need to learn to debug my own programs. I really do. but sometimes I just stare at code and there is nothing but a brick wall there. Guess that's what a nudge in the right direction is for.
queueArray is a dangling pointer after this:
queueArray = newArray; // Both 'queueArray' and 'newArray' point to
// the same memory after this assignment.
delete [] newArray;
as the memory that queueArray is pointing to has been deleted. Any attempt to access or destroy queueArray is accessing memory that has already been destroyed. The correct order is:
delete[] queueArray;
queueArray = newArray;
Additionally, there is a potential out-of-bounds access in the for loop that performs the copying:
for(int counter = 0;counter< queueSize; counter++)
{
// When 'counter == queueSize - 1'
// 'newArray[counter + 1]' is one past the end.
newArray[counter+1] = queueArray[counter];
}
Here:
queueArray = newArray; // queueArray and newArray point to the same place
delete [] newArray; // that place gets delete[]ed
you are making queueArray point to the same place as newArray, but then you are deleting the array that lies in that location. So queueArray is left pointing to memory you have given back to the OS, i.e it is now a dangling pointer.
You need to delete queueArray[] first, then assign newArray to it.
Okay, I got it, I don't know why I thought I needed to add another member of the array when the priority switched, I think i'm just tired.
So that was the extra array member
and i think that was the only other problem
I am working on a query processor that reads in long lists of document id's from memory and looks for matching id's. When it finds one, it creates a DOC struct containing the docid (an int) and the document's rank (a double) and pushes it on to a priority queue. My problem is that when the word(s) searched for has a long list, when I try to push the DOC on to the queue, I get the following exception:
Unhandled exception at 0x7c812afb in QueryProcessor.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: std::bad_alloc at memory location 0x0012ee88..
When the word has a short list, it works fine. I tried pushing DOC's onto the queue in several places in my code, and they all work until a certain line; after that, I get the above error. I am completely at a loss as to what is wrong because the longest list read in is less than 1 MB and I free all memory that I allocate. Why should there suddenly be a bad_alloc exception when I try to push a DOC onto a queue that has a capacity to hold it (I used a vector with enough space reserved as the underlying data structure for the priority queue)?
I know that questions like this are almost impossible to answer without seeing all the code, but it's too long to post here. I'm putting as much as I can and am anxiously hoping that someone can give me an answer, because I am at my wits' end.
The NextGEQ function reads a list of compressed blocks of docids block by block. That is, if it sees that the lastdocid in the block (in a separate list) is larger than the docid passed in, it decompresses the block and searches until it finds the right one. Each list starts with metadata about the list with the lengths of each compressed chunk and the last docid in the chunk. data.iquery points to the beginning of the metadata; data.metapointer points to wherever in the metadata the function currently is; and data.blockpointer points to the beginning of the block of uncompressed docids, if there is one. If it sees that it was already decompressed, it just searches. Below, when I call the function the first time, it decompresses a block and finds the docid; the push onto the queue after that works. The second time, it doesn't even need to decompress; that is, no new memory is allocated, but after that time, pushing on to the queue gives a bad_alloc error.
Edit: I cleaned up my code some more so that it should compile. I also added in the OpenList() and NextGEQ functions, although the latter is long, because I think the problem is caused by a heap corruption somewhere in it. Thanks a lot!
struct DOC{
long int docid;
long double rank;
public:
DOC()
{
docid = 0;
rank = 0.0;
}
DOC(int num, double ranking)
{
docid = num;
rank = ranking;
}
bool operator>( const DOC & d ) const {
return rank > d.rank;
}
bool operator<( const DOC & d ) const {
return rank < d.rank;
}
};
struct listnode{
int* metapointer;
int* blockpointer;
int docposition;
int frequency;
int numberdocs;
int* iquery;
listnode* nextnode;
};
void QUERYMANAGER::SubmitQuery(char *query){
listnode* startlist;
vector<DOC> docvec;
docvec.reserve(20);
DOC doct;
//create a priority queue to use as a min-heap to store the documents and rankings;
priority_queue<DOC, vector<DOC>,std::greater<DOC>> q(docvec.begin(), docvec.end());
q.push(doct);
//do some processing here; startlist is a pointer to a listnode struct that starts the //linked list
//point the linked list start pointer to the node returned by the OpenList method
startlist = &OpenList(value);
listnode* minpointer;
q.push(doct);
//start by finding the first docid in the shortest list
int i = 0;
q.push(doct);
num = NextGEQ(0, *startlist);
q.push(doct);
while(num != -1)
{
q.push(doct);
//the is where the problem starts - every previous q.push(doct) works; the one after
//NextGEQ(num +1, *startlist) gives the bad_alloc error
num = NextGEQ(num + 1, *startlist);
//this is where the exception is thrown
q.push(doct);
}
}
//takes a word and returns a listnode struct with a pointer to the beginning of the list
//and metadata about the list
listnode QUERYMANAGER::OpenList(char* word)
{
long int numdocs;
//create a new node in the linked list and initialize its variables
listnode n;
n.iquery = cache -> GetiList(word, &numdocs);
n.docposition = 0;
n.frequency = 0;
n.numberdocs = numdocs;
//an int pointer to point to where in the metadata you are
n.metapointer = n.iquery;
n.nextnode = NULL;
//an int pointer to point to the uncompressed block of data, if there is one
n.blockpointer = NULL;
return n;
}
int QUERYMANAGER::NextGEQ(int value, listnode& data)
{
int lengthdocids;
int lengthfreqs;
int lengthpos;
int* temp;
int lastdocid;
lastdocid = *(data.metapointer + 2);
while(true)
{
//if it's not the first chunk in the list, the blockpointer will be pointing to the
//most recently opened block and docpos to the current position in the block
if( data.blockpointer && lastdocid >= value)
{
//if the last docid in the chunk is >= the docid we're looking for,
//go through the chunk to look for a match
//the last docid in the block is in lastdocid; keep going until you hit it
while(*(data.blockpointer + data.docposition) <= lastdocid)
{
//compare each docid with the docid passed in; if it's greater than or equal to it, return a pointer to the docid
if(*(data.blockpointer + data.docposition ) >= value)
{
//return the next greater than or equal docid
return *(data.blockpointer + data.docposition);
}
else
{
++data.docposition;
}
}
//read through the whole block; couldn't find matching docid; increment metapointer to the next block;
//free the block's memory
data.metapointer += 3;
lastdocid = *(data.metapointer + 3);
free(data.blockpointer);
data.blockpointer = NULL;
}
//reached the end of a block; check the metadata to find where the next block begins and ends and whether
//the last docid in the block is smaller or larger than the value being searched for
//first make sure that you haven't reached the end of the list
//if the last docid in the chunk is still smaller than the value passed in, move the metadata pointer
//to the beginning of the next chunk's metadata; read in the new metadata
while(true)
// while(*(metapointers[index]) != 0 )
{
if(lastdocid < value && *(data.metapointer) !=0)
{
data.metapointer += 3;
lastdocid = *(data.metapointer + 2);
}
else if(*(data.metapointer) == 0)
{
return -1;
}
else
//we must have hit a chunk whose lastdocid is >= value; read it in
{
//read in the metadata
//the length of the chunk of docid's is cumulative, so subtract the end of the last chunk
//from the end of this chunk to get the length
//find the end of the metadata
temp = data.metapointer;
while(*temp != 0)
{
temp += 3;
}
temp += 2;
//temp is now pointing to the beginning of the list of compressed data; use the location of metapointer
//to calculate where to start reading and how much to read
//if it's the first chunk in the list,the corresponding metapointer is pointing to the beginning of the query
//so the number of bytes of docid's is just the first integer in the metadata
if( data.metapointer == data.iquery)
{
lengthdocids = *data.metapointer;
}
else
{
//start reading from the offset of the end of the last chunk (saved in metapointers[index] - 3)
//plus 1 = the beginning of this chunk
lengthdocids = *(data.metapointer) - (*(data.metapointer - 3));
temp += (*(data.metapointer - 3)) / sizeof(int);
}
//allocate memory for an array of integers - the block of docid's uncompressed
int* docblock = (int*)malloc(lengthdocids * 5 );
//decompress docid's into the block of memory allocated
s9decompress((int*)temp, lengthdocids /4, (int*) docblock, true);
//set the blockpointer to point to the beginning of the block
//and docpositions[index] to 0
data.blockpointer = docblock;
data.docposition = 0;
break;
}
}
}
}
Thank you very much, bsg.
QUERYMANAGER::OpenList returns a listnode by value. In startlist = &OpenList(value); you then proceed to take the address of the temporary object that's returned. When the temporary goes away, you may be able to access the data for a time and then it's overwritten. Could you just declare a non-pointer listnode startlist on the stack and assign it the return value directly? Then remove the * in front of other uses and see if that fixes the problem.
Another thing you can try is replacing all pointers with smart pointers, specifically something like boost::shared_ptr<>, depending on how much code this really is and how much you're comfortable automating the task. Smart pointers aren't the answer to everything, but they're at least safer than raw pointers.
Assuming you have heap corruption and are not in fact exhausting memory, the commonest way a heap can get corrupted is by deleting (or freeing) the same pointer twice. You can quite easily find out if this is the issue by simply commenting out all your calls to delete (or free). This will cause your program to leak like a sieve, but if it doesn't actually crash you have probably identified the problem.
The other common cause cause of a corrupt heap is deleting (or freeing) a pointer that wasn't ever allocated on the heap. Differentiating between the two causes of corruption is not always easy, but your first priority should be to find out if corruption is actually the problem.
Note this approach won't work too well if the things you are deleting have destructors which if not called break the semantics of your program.
Thanks for all your help. You were right, Neil - I must have managed to corrupt my heap. I'm still not sure what was causing it, but when I changed the malloc(numdocids * 5) to malloc(256) it magically stopped crashing. I suppose I should have checked whether or not my mallocs were actually succeeding! Thanks again!
Bsg