Creating array of structs in C++ - c++

I'm having a newbie problem in C++.
I have a struct Edge defined as following:
struct Edge {
int position[4];
int average;
};
Now I need to create a lot of these structs and I created a helper-method for that, that creates an array of these structs based on some parameters:
Edge* createEdges(int some_parameters){
Edge *edges = new Edge[8];
for(int i = 0 ; i < 8; i++){
Edge edge;
edge.position[0] = 1; //fill the rest of the edge array in the same manner
edge.average = 10;
edges[i] = edge;
}
return edges;
}
However when I now call: Edge *edges = createEdges(int some_parameters) there is no sensible data in the Edge array (out of scope?).
I think I'm mixing up some things here but I would prefer if I can make this work without resorting to the vector datastructures. Is this the normal way of handling this or should I declare the edge array myself and pass it to the helper method to fill it up?
Edit:
First of all, I want to thank everyone for there comments/hints/tips/advice/... they have helped me to find the problem that I overlooked so easily.
After I seen the replies that the code should work, I tested the simplified code aswell (something I should have done in the 1st place) and surprisingly, it worked! So then I checked to see why my real code didn't work and the simplified version did.
My real code looked like this:
Edge* createEdges(int some_parameters){
Edge* edges = new Edge[8];
if(some_parameter != 0){
//create the edges as in my 1st snippet
return NULL; //doh, should return edges here !
} else {
return NULL;
}
}
The reason why I had not seen that I simply returned the wrong value (NULL) was because the debugger showed me some 0xf6f6f6 addressess with some negative values for edge.position (something I don't quite understand, it should've just show me 0x000000, perhaps I was just imagining things).
All in all, this was an important lesson in why to never code after 3am, nothing good will come of it!

It's C++ use std::vector:
std::vector<Edge> createEdges(int some_parameters){
std::vector<Edge> edges;
for(int i = 0 ; i < 8; i++){
Edge edge;
edge.position[0] = 1;
edge.average = 10;
edges.push_back(edge);
}
return edges;
}

What you have here works fine. What I feel you are forgetting, is that when you call
Edge *edges = createEdges(int some_parameters)
that edges variable is a pointer to the first element in your list. If you were to then do:
edges[0]
or:
edges[1]
you would see that these are different values, and you need to now loop through to access the array. Just keep in mind that you do not go passed the end of your array during a loop. This is why most people say to use vectors, because you can use more of the safety features with an iterator.

Welcome to C++! The helper-method for creating instances of a class (a struct in C++ is a class where all the fields are public) is called a constructor.
Here is how I would create instances of the edge class, using a constructor.
class Edge {
public:
int position[4];
int average;
Edge();
};
Edge::Edge() //constructor
{
position[0] = 1;//fill the rest of the edge array in the same manner
average = 10;
}
int main()
{
Edge* myEdge = new Edge(); //constructor called
Edge* myEdges[8];
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
{
myEdges[i] = new Edge();
}
return 0;
}

Here is a bit modified version that creates edges in the function, and returns a vector containing all created edges.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct Edge {
int position[4];
int average;
};
std::vector< Edge > createEdges(int some_parameters){
std::vector< Edge > edges( 8 );
for(int i = 0 ; i < 8; i++){
const Edge edge{ { 1, 0, 0, 0 }, 10 };
edges[i] = edge;
}
return edges;
}
int main()
{
auto e( createEdges(5));
std::cout<<e[0].average<<std::endl;
}
There are few modifications :
Instead of allocating an array of edges, and returning pointer, I return vector
the way edge objects are created, and initialized (I think this is what is asked)

Related

Why i Get Access Violation When i tried to access Lambda Local Variable Via Address [duplicate]

I need to create several objects and put them in a list (for which I am using std::vector). Also, I need the list items to point to the addresses of the objects so that the changes I make to the objects are reflected in the list too.
But the thing is, every item in the list is pointing to the last object created in the loop.
for(int i=0;i<50;i++){
for(int j=0;j<50;j++){
Grass g1;
g1.position.x = i;
g1.position.y = j;
grassList.push_back(&g1);
}
}
The the attributes of grass objects in the list should be..
[0,0]
[0,1]
[0,2]
.
.
.
.
[49,49]
But it's coming out to be..
[49,49]
[49,49]
[49,49]
[49,49]
.
.
.
[49,49]
(Modern-C++ update at the end)
If you're accustomed to other languages that use ref-counting of variables, you might have expected that
Grass g1;
was creating a new "Grass" object every iteration of the loop. It's not, C++ isn't a ref-counted language.
Instead, it creates a scoped local variable on the stack.
Because you're doing this in a loop, it's probably going to be at the same location in memory every time.
You will either need to:
Instead of pointers, just make your container a container of Grass objects: let the container handle allocation for you.
Use C++11's unique_ptr and C++14's make_unique to create an instance of Grass dynamically for each iteration of the loop. When the vector containing the unique_ptrs goes out of scope, they will be automatically freed.
Use the new and delete keywords to manually allocate and release Grass objects to point to.
Option 1:
#include <vector>
struct Grass {
struct {
int x, y;
} position;
};
int main() {
std::vector<Grass> grassList;
for(int i=0;i<50;i++){
for(int j=0;j<50;j++){
Grass g1;
g1.position.x = i;
g1.position.y = j;
grassList.push_back(g1);
}
}
}
Live demo: http://ideone.com/DQs3VA
Option 2:
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
struct Grass {
struct {
int x, y;
} position;
};
int main() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Grass>> grassList;
for(int i=0;i<50;i++){
for(int j=0;j<50;j++){
auto g1 = std::make_unique<Grass>();
g1->position.x = i;
g1->position.y = j;
grassList.push_back(std::move(g1));
}
}
}
Live demo: http://ideone.com/hJUdwR
Option 3:
#include <vector>
struct Grass {
struct {
int x, y;
} position;
};
int main() {
std::vector<Grass*> grassList;
for(int i=0;i<50;i++){
for(int j=0;j<50;j++){
Grass* g1 = new Grass;
g1->position.x = i;
g1->position.y = j;
grassList.push_back(g1);
}
}
// ...
for (auto& g1: grassList) {
delete g1;
}
grassList.clear();
}
Live demo: http://ideone.com/GTk7ON
C++11 introduced emplace_back which lets you allocate and construct the entry in the container in one go.
#include <vector>
struct Grass {
struct {
int x, y;
} position;
// because x and y are inside a private sub-struct,
// we'll need a constructor to pass the values in.
Grass(int x, int y) : position{x, y} {}
};
int main() {
std::vector<Grass> grassList{}; // default initialized.
static constexpr size_t dim = 10; // name the constant (DIMension)
grassList.reserve(dim); // allocate memory in advance
for (auto i = 0; i < dim; i++) {
for(auto j = 0; j < dim; j++) {
grassList.emplace_back(i, j);
}
}
// no cleanup required
}
live demo: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/G1YsW7hMs
You're pushing pointers to local variables to the vector. Local variables get destroyed at the end of their scope (the second-to-last } in this case). Therefore, dereferencing any of those pointers after the } is undefined behavior. The output you're seeing is a completely valid result of undefined behavior.
Using pointers here just doesn't make sense. Use them (including new) only when absolutely necessary. For more info, see Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?
This is the right way:
std::vector<Grass> grassList;
// ^^^^^ not pointers!
for(int i=0; i<50; ++i) {
for(int j=0; j<50; ++j) {
Grass g1;
g1.position.x = i;
g1.position.y = j;
grassList.push_back(g1);
}
}
If for whatever (unspecified) reason you need to store the pointers to the locations of the objects, you need this
std::vector<Grass*> grassList; // Assumed you already have something like this
for(int i=0;i<50;i++){
for(int j=0;j<50;j++){
Grass* gp1 = new Grass;
gp1->position.x = i;
gp1->position.y = j;
grassList.push_back(gp1);
}
}
This avoids the destruction of the objects pointed at by the pointers you are storing. See, e.g., Creating an object: with or without `new`
You will have to take care of suitably deleting objects with delete to free memory.
But depending on your needs, you may also use an array of objects instead of an array of pointers, as suggested by tuple_cat.

A star algorithm finding shortest path but not computing it correctly

Using the following A star visualization as a way to compare path accuracy, I found a large variation between my implementation and this one.
https://qiao.github.io/PathFinding.js/visual/
Path I'm comparing to:
(source: imgsafe.org)
My test paths:
(source: imgsafe.org)
There are times when it seems like the algorithm is checking too few nodes (i.e Test#6). Is this to be expected, or is it not correct?
Important variables in algorithm:
TileMap* m_tileMap;
vector<Tile*> m_openList;
vector<Tile*> m_path;
// Direct mapping of 2D tile map.
// Stores the list type for the same-indexed tile
vector<vector<int>> m_listMap;
Comparator for sorting open list:
struct CompareNodes
{
// sorts lowest F cost to end of vector
bool operator() (Tile* lhs, Tile* rhs)
{
return lhs->getFCost() > rhs->getFCost();
}
};
High level implementation:
vector<Tile*> PathGenerator::generatePath(Tile* startNode, Tile* endNode)
{
setUpListMap();
startNode->setGCost(0);
startNode->setHCost(calculateHCost(startNode, endNode)); // Manhattan (no diagonal). { abs(y2 - y1) + abs(x2 - x1) }
startNode->calculateFCost(); // calculates G+H internally
m_openList.push_back(startNode);
Vector2D startNodePos = startNode->getMapPos();
m_listMap[startNodePos.x][startNodePos.y] = LIST_TYPES::OPEN;
Tile* currentNode;
while (m_openList.empty() == false)
{
currNode = m_openList[m_openList.size() - 1];
m_openList.pop_back();
Vector2D currNodePos = currNode->getMapPos();
m_listMap[currNodePos.x][currNodePos.y] = LIST_TYPES::CLOSED;
if (currNode != endNode)
{
vector<Tile*> neighbours = findNeighbours(currNode);
removeUnnecessaryNodes(&neighbours); // remove walls and closed nodes
computeCosts(&neighbours, currNode, endNode);
addUniqueNodesToOpenList(&neighbours); // ignores duplicates and then sorts open list
}
else
{
m_path = getPath(currNode);
resetLists(); // erases all vectors
}
}
return m_path;
}
void PathGenerator::computeCosts(vector<Tile*>* nodes, Tile* current, Tile* end)
{
int newGCost = current->getGCost() + 1;
for (int i = 0; i < nodes->size(); i++)
{
Tile* node = nodes->at(i);
unsigned int nodeGCost = node->getGCost(); // G cost defaults to max int limit
if (newG < nodeGCost)
{
// set up node costs like above
node->setParentNode(current);
}
}
}
I've added the most important code. If the high level functions don't help to find the source of the issue, let me know and I'll add the implementation for them also.
Help appreciated.
The sorting part seems correct, but since it's a vector this should be very easy for you to verify.
Instead, try using a for-loop as a test-case to make sure you're really get the lowest f-cost node:
Tile* currnode = m_openlist[0];
for (int i = 0; i < m_openList.size() i++)
{
if (m_openList[i]->getFCost() < currnode->getFCost())
currnode = m_openList[i];
}
See if that fixes it. If it does, there's an issue in your sort, but i'm not sure what the issue would be.
Also, in your computeCosts function, you do:
for (int i = 0; i < nodes->size(); i++)
{
Tile* node = nodes->at(i);
//.. other code
}
Since you're using an std::vector, why not make use of its functionality, and use iterators or a range based loop:
// Iterators
for (auto it = nodes->begin(); it != nodes->end(); it++)
{
Tile* node = *it;
//.. other code
}
// Range based loop
for (auto node : *nodes)
{
//.. other code
}

segmentation fault with big array size [duplicate]

so I've been running into a problem where somehow my code is causing segmentation faults before any of my main actually runs. I've never had this happen before and I hardly have a quarter's worth of coding experience so I'm not sure if there's something I'm doing wrong. Everything compiles, at least on my computer, but upon running it my main is never reached.
Context: I'm trying to connect Vertices and Edges in an adjacency matrix and then use Prim's algorithm to build an MST, but that's for later. I built a header file, which originally contained only typdef calls for the structures and the functions. However, I switched the structure definitions to the header file because I was getting memory errors; hence why I think there's an issue with the structs.
graph.h:
//Leland Wong 00000897031
//graph header file
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<math.h>
#ifndef GRAPH_H
#define GRAPH_H
typedef struct vertex
{
double longitude;
double latitude;
char city[30];
int index;
int visited; //0: not visited, 1: visited, 2: visited
struct edge* nexte;
struct vertex* nextv;
double projected;
}VERTEX;
typedef struct edge
{
struct vertex* start;
struct vertex* destination;
double distance;
struct edge* nexte;
}EDGE;
typedef struct graph
{
struct vertex* list[756];
struct edge* matrix[756][756];
}GRAPH;
/*
typedef struct vertex VERTEX;
typedef struct edge EDGE;
typedef struct graph GRAPH;
*/
double findDistance(VERTEX* v1, VERTEX* v2); //compute the distance between two locations
EDGE* connect(VERTEX* v1, VERTEX* v2); //connects two vertices and returns the connecting EDGE
GRAPH primMatrix(GRAPH *g); //connects all vertices using Prim's Algorithm in an adjacency matrix
//void lPrimConnect(VERTEX v); //connects all vertices using Prim's Algorithm in an adjacency list
EDGE* findSmallestEdge(VERTEX v, GRAPH *g); //finds the smallest EDGE connected to v
#endif
graph.c: contains the implementations of all my functions
//functions
//computes the distance between v1 and v2
double findDistance(VERTEX* v1, VERTEX* v2)
{
printf("findDistance");
double long1 = v1->longitude;
double long2 = v2->longitude;
double lat1 = v1->latitude;
double lat2 = v2->latitude;
double distance = 0;
if(long1 < 0)
long1 += 360;
if(long2 < 0)
long2 += 360;
distance = powf((long1-long2), 2) + powf((lat1 - lat2), 2);
distance = sqrt(distance);
return distance;
}
//creates and returns an edge that connects v1 and v2
EDGE* connect(VERTEX* v1, VERTEX* v2)
{
printf("connect");
EDGE *new;
new->start = v1;
new->destination = v2;
new->distance = findDistance(v1, v2);
return new;
}
//finds smallest edge connected to v in GRAPH g
EDGE* findSmallestEdge(VERTEX v, GRAPH *g)
{
printf("findSmallestEdge");
EDGE *tempe;
int i, index;
index = v.index;
//set tempe equal to the first edge connected to v
tempe = g->matrix[index][0];
//find smallest edge connected to v
for(i = 0; i < 756; i++)
{
if(g->matrix[index][i] -> distance < tempe->distance && g->list[index]->visited == 0)
{
tempe = g->matrix[index][i];
}
}
return tempe;
}
//creates an MST out of GRAPH g using Prim's algorithm
GRAPH primMatrix(GRAPH *g)
{
printf("primMatrix");
GRAPH new; // = malloc(sizeof(GRAPH));
EDGE *smallest;
EDGE *tempe;
int i, x;
i = 1;
x = 0;
new.list[0] = g->list[0]; //add root node to MST
g->list[0]->visited = 2;
smallest = findSmallestEdge(*new.list[0], g);
new.matrix[0][smallest->destination->index] = smallest;
//MST will contain all 756 nodes, so run this 755 times to ensure all nodes are reached
while(i < 756)
{
x = 0;
smallest = findSmallestEdge(*new.list[i], g);
//i = number of vertices already reached
while(x < i)
{
tempe = findSmallestEdge(*new.list[x], g);
if(tempe -> distance < smallest -> distance)
{
smallest = tempe;
}
x++;
}
new.list[i] = smallest -> destination;
smallest -> destination -> visited = 2;
new.matrix[smallest->start->index][smallest->destination->index] = smallest;
i++;
}
return new;
}
graphmatrixmain.c: my main function which builds the graphs
#include "graph.h"
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
FILE *fp;
static GRAPH g;
char buffer[200];
int i, j;
char city[30];
char *long1;
char *lat1;
if(argc == 1)
{
printf("could not open file\n");
return 0;
}
else
fp = fopen(argv[1], "r");
//read in line of data from txt file, build a new vertex, and insert into list
while(fgets(buffer, 200, fp) != NULL)
{
VERTEX *new = malloc(sizeof(VERTEX));
printf("%s", buffer);
sscanf(buffer, "%s %s %s", city, long1, lat1);
//sscanf(buffer, "%[^\t]\t%[^\t]\t%s", city, long1, lat1);
printf("scanned in data\n");
new->longitude = atof(long1);
new->latitude = atof(lat1);
new->index = i;
g.list[i] = new;
printf("%s: (%lf, %lf)", new->city, new->longitude, new->latitude);
i++;
}
//create EDGE and make connects between every VERTEX in list
for(i = 0; i < 756; i++)
{
for(j = 0; j < 756; j++)
{
g.matrix[i][j] = connect(g.list[i], g.list[j]);
if(j == 0)
{
g.list[i]->nexte = g.matrix[i][j];
}
}
}
return 0;
}
In case its necessary, this is the file i'm reading in from: cities.txt
it contains 756 entries total but as far as the code is concerned size shouldn't be relevant
Shanghai 121.47 31.23
Bombay 72.82 18.96
Karachi 67.01 24.86
Buenos Aires -58.37 -34.61
Delhi 77.21 28.67
Istanbul 29 41.1
Manila 120.97 14.62
Sao Paulo -46.63 -23.53
Moscow 37.62 55.75
I've been running into a problem where somehow my code is causing segmentation faults before any of my main actually runs.
Usually, this means that the data structures that your main tries to place in the automatic storage area overflow the stack. In your situation, it looks like the GRAPH is a suitable suspect to do just that: it has a 2D array with 571536 pointers, which could very well overflow the stack before your main gets a chance to start.
One solution to this problem would be moving the GRAPH into the static area: since you allocate it in the main, it's going to be only one instance of it anyway, so declaring it static should fix the problem:
static GRAPH g;
You might also want to allocate it in the dynamic area using malloc, but in this case it probably does not matter.
Your problem is not "before main" as you state, but in the first few lines of your program. You are not initializing fp, so it could go anywhere. You also have memory errors in your loop with new. You need to copy the value into newly allocated memory.
You cannot see the printfs in your code because the output is buffered and your code crashes before the buffer is flushed. If you put exit(0) just after your printf("error");, you'll see that it works.
I had faced "Segmentation fault occurs before main() execution begins" issue in my C++ code.
Let me try to explain what my issue was and how I could solve it.
A global/static class instance is present in code.
Its constructor is invoked before main() begins.
Inside constructor,in an error handling part, std::cerr is used to display error.
std:cerr was not initialized when constructor was executed.
Even though it says, if #include iostream is there before object is defined then std::cerr is initialized, it was not.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/cerr
If object of std::ios_base::Init is created before constructor, it ensures proper init and deinit of default c++ streams.
why std::cerr was not initialized,
In c++11 objects in iostream are init before other global objects.
But in c++03, it is unspecified.
Use std::ios_base::Init as a private member of class to ensure it is init before stream functions are executed.
Is std::cout guaranteed to be initialized?
One possible reason for segmentation fault before main is the program was mistakenly linked with -shared option. I wasted a lot of time trying to debug it.

Segmentation Fault C++

The input is in the following format
5
1 2 9.0
1 3 12.0
2 4 18.0
2 3 6.0
2 5 20.0
3 5 15.0
0
1 5
The first number is the number of vertexes in the graph. Then next lines up to 0 are the edges of the graph. With the first and second numbers being the vertexes and the third being how far the edge is between them. Trying to read in the data and store the edges into there locations in the List adjacency for that vertex. This example would make a graph with five vertexes with edges from 1 to 2&3. 2 to 4&3&1 etc.
I am getting a Segmentation fault after entering four numbers. The fault is happening on line myGraph.vertexInfo[p1].adjacency -> vertex=p2; where is starts trying to store the information. Why am I getting this fault?
#include <cstdio>
using namespace std;
struct ListCell
{
ListCell* next;
int vertex;
double weight;
ListCell(int v, double w, ListCell* nxt)
{
vertex = v;
weight = w;
next = nxt;
}
};
typedef ListCell* List;
struct Vertex
{
bool signaled;
long distance;
List adjacency;
};
struct Graph
{
int numVertices;
Vertex* vertexInfo;
Graph(int n)
{
numVertices = n;
vertexInfo = new Vertex[n+1];
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
vertexInfo[i].signaled = false;
}
}
};
//==============================================================
// readIn
//==============================================================
//
//==============================================================
void readIn()
{
int g;
int p1;
int p2;
float edge;
scanf("%i ", &g);
Graph myGraph(g);
scanf("%i", &p1);
while(p1 != 0)
{
scanf("%i", &p2);
scanf("%f", &edge);
myGraph.vertexInfo[p1].adjacency -> vertex=p2;
myGraph.vertexInfo[p2].adjacency -> vertex=p1;
myGraph.vertexInfo[p1].adjacency -> weight=edge;
myGraph.vertexInfo[p2].adjacency -> weight=edge;
scanf("%i", &p1);
}
}
//==============================================================
// main
//==============================================================
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
readIn();
return 0;
}
You are not following some of the fundamental principles of object construction and intialization for Vertex.
When you construct an instance of Vertex, there is nothing predictable about the values of the member data. I would suggest adding a default constructor that initializes the member data to something sane.
struct Vertex
{
Vertex() : signaled(false), distance(0), adjacency(NULL) {}
bool signaled;
long distance;
List adjacency;
};
Once you do that, the constructor for Graph can be simplified to:
Graph(int n) : numVertices(n)
{
vertexInfo = new Vertex[n+1];
}
Let's look at what adjacency is:
struct Vertex
{
bool signaled;
long distance;
List adjacency;
};
And now let's look at what List is:
typedef ListCell* List;
So, adjacency is actually a pointer to a ListCell. That's fine, we can work with that. But before we can, we must make sure that adjacency actually points to something. The question then becomes what does adjacency point to in your code?
The answer is: who knows? You never make it point to anything, so it's pointing somewhere randomly. And what happens when you try to write to some random area of memory? Well, if you're lucky, you crash.
So, how do you solve this problem? Simple: initialize and manipulate adjacency correctly. You may wish to look into dynamic memory allocation in C++ and the standard library which provides a rather nifty and working implementation of a linked list.
Sidenote: you seem to treat adjacency as a linked list. However, you ought to note that adjacency is a pointer to a node in a linked list. Again, now would a great time to learn about std::list.
The adjacency pointer is uninitialized, so you run into problems when dereferencing it.
You have to initialize your adjacency member:
Graph(int n)
{
numVertices = n;
vertexInfo = new Vertex[n+1];
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
vertexInfo[i].signaled = false;
vertexInfo[i].adjacency = new ListCell(i, 0.0, 0);
}
}

A C++ implementation of topological ordering

This morning I was doing my C++ class assignment, an implementation of topological ordering. There's no error while compiling, but simply can't run. Since I'm not quite familiar with pointers or STL, nor the VS debugger...I just can't figure out where went wrong. It would help me a lot if someone can point out my errors. Tons of thanks!
Here's my code:
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
#include<queue>
using namespace std;
typedef struct Vertex{
int index;
int indegree; // indegree of vertex v is the total num of edges like(u,v)
vector<Vertex>adjacent;
int topoNum; // topological order of this vertex.
}Vertex;
typedef struct Edge{
Vertex start;
Vertex in;
}Edge;
Vertex*InDegrees(int numVertex,int numEdge,Edge*edges) // calculate indegrees of all vertices.
{
Vertex*vertices=new Vertex[numVertex];
for(int i=0;i<numVertex;i++){ vertices[i].index=i; vertices[i].indegree=0;}
for(int i=0;i<numEdge;i++)
{
int j=edges[i].in.index;
vertices[j].indegree++;
vertices[j].adjacent.push_back(edges[i].start);
}
return vertices;
}
int*topoSort(int numVertex,int numEdge,Edge*edges)
{
edges=new Edge[numEdge];
Vertex*Vertices=new Vertex[numVertex];
Vertices=InDegrees(numVertex,numEdge,edges);
queue<Vertex>q;
for(int i=0;i<numVertex;i++)
{
if(Vertices[i].indegree==0)
q.push(Vertices[i]);
}
int count=0;
while(!q.empty()) // Ordering completed when queue is empty.
{
Vertex v=q.front(); // get the vertex whose indegree==0
q.pop();
v.topoNum=++count;
vector<Vertex>::iterator iter;
for(iter=v.adjacent.begin();iter!=v.adjacent.end();iter++)
{
Vertex w=*iter;
if(--w.indegree==0)
q.push(w);
}
}
int*topoOrder=new int[numVertex];
for(int i=0;i<numVertex;i++)
{
int j=Vertices[i].topoNum;
topoOrder[j]=-1; // initial value, in case cycle existed.
topoOrder[j]=Vertices[i].index;
}
delete[]Vertices;
delete[]edges;
return topoOrder;
}
int main()
{
int numVertex,numEdge;
cin>>numVertex>>numEdge;
Edge*Edges=new Edge[numEdge];
int indexStart,indexIn;
for(int i=0;i<numEdge;i++)
{
cin>>indexStart>>indexIn;
Edges[i].in.index=--indexIn;
Edges[i].start.index=--indexStart;
}
int*topoOrder=new int[numVertex];
topoOrder=topoSort(numVertex,numEdge,Edges);
for(int i=0;i<numVertex-1;i++)
{
if(topoOrder[i]==-1)
{
cout<<"Cycle exists, not a DAG!";
return 0;
}
cout<<topoOrder[i]<<",";
}
cout<<topoOrder[numVertex-1]<<endl;
delete[]Edges;
return 0;
}
An obvious starting point for your problems is the allocation for Edges: the allocation uses the uninitialized value numEdge which is likely to be zero. That is, you'll get a pointer to no elements. You probably want to allocate Edges only after having read numEdge. I didn't really had a look at what happens in the actual algorithm.
I also strongly recommend that you verify that the input operations were successful:
if (std::cin >> numVertex >> numEdge) {
use_successfully_read(numVertex, numEdge);
}
If inputs fail the variable remain unchanged and the values will also lead to interesting behavior.