c++ counting sort - c++

Question

I tried to write a countingsort, but there's some problem with it.
here's the code:
int *countSort(int* start, int* end, int maxvalue)
{
int *B = new int[(int)(end-start)];
int *C = new int[maxvalue];
for (int i = 0; i < maxvalue; i++)
{
*(C+i) = 0;
}
for (int *i = start; i < end; i++)
{
*(C+*i) += 1;
}
for (int i = 1; i < maxvalue-1 ; i++)
{
*(C+i) += *(C+i-1);
}
for (int *i = end-1; i > start-1; i--)
{
*(B+*(C+(*i))) = *i;
*(C+(*i)) -= 1;
}
return B;
}
In the last loop it throws an exception "Acces violation writing at location: -some ram address-"
Where did I go wrong?

Answer 1

for (int i = 1; i < maxvalue-1 ; i++)
That's the incorrect upper bound. You want to go from 1 to maxvalue.
for (int *i = end-1; i > start-1; i--)
{
*(B+*(C+(*i))) = *i;
*(C+(*i)) -= 1;
}
This loop is also completely incorrect. I don't know what it does, but a brief mental test shows that the first iteration sets the element of B at the index of the value of the last element in the array to the number of times it shows. I guarantee that that is not correct. The last loop should be something like:
int* out = B;
int j=0;
for (int i = 0; i < maxvalue; i++) { //for each value
for(j<C[i]; j++) { //for the number of times its in the source
*out = i; //add it to the output
++out; //in the next open slot
}
}
As a final note, why are you playing with pointers like that?
*(B + i) //is the same as
B[i] //and people will hate you less
*(B+*(C+(*i))) //is the same as
B[C[*i]]

Answer 2

Since you're using C++ anyway, why not simplify the code (dramatically) by using std::vector instead of dynamically allocated arrays (and leaking one in the process)?
std::vector<int>countSort(int* start, int* end, int maxvalue)
{
std::vector<int> B(end-start);
std::vector<int> C(maxvalue);
for (int *i = start; i < end; i++)
++C[*i];
// etc.
Other than that, the logic you're using doesn't make sense to me. I think to get a working result, you're probably best off sitting down with a sheet of paper and working out the steps you need to use. I've left the counting part in place above, because I believe that much is correct. I don't think the rest really is. I'll even give a rather simple hint: once you've done the counting, you can generate B (your result) based only on what you have in C -- you do not need to refer back to the original array at all. The easiest way to do it will normally use a nested loop. Also note that it's probably easier to reserve the space in B and use push_back to put the data in it, rather than setting its initial size.