so I'm currently trying to migrate my Java experience to C++ by implementing various Data Structures for the sake of having them implemented at least once.
Would you mind giving me some advise? The problem I am having is mainly concentrated around the pointers in push(int value) and especially pop(). As push seems to be working correctly I found myself struggling to get the correct value back when pop'ing things. What's the matter?
PS: I also think, that since I allocate my array space manually I'd need to delete it aswell. How do I do that?
#ifndef STACK_H
#define STACK_H
class Stack
{
private:
int *stackArray;
int elementsInArray;
int allocatedArraySize;
int alpha;
int beta;
public:
Stack();
void push(int aValue);
int pop();
bool isEmpty();
int size() const;
};
#endif
and the implementation:
#include <iostream>
#include "Stack.h"
Stack::Stack()
{
alpha = 4;
beta = 2;
elementsInArray = 0;
allocatedArraySize = 1;
stackArray = new int[1];
}
void Stack::push(int aValue)
{
if (elementsInArray == allocatedArraySize)
{
int temporaryArray[allocatedArraySize*beta];
for (int i = 0; i < elementsInArray; i++)
temporaryArray[i] = stackArray[i];
stackArray = temporaryArray;
allocatedArraySize *= beta;
}
elementsInArray++;
stackArray[elementsInArray] = aValue;
}
int Stack::pop()
{
int result = -INT_MAX;
if (elementsInArray == 0)
return result;
if (elementsInArray > 0)
{
result = stackArray[elementsInArray-1];
elementsInArray--;
if (elementsInArray <= allocatedArraySize/alpha)
{
int temporaryArray[allocatedArraySize/alpha];
for (int i = 0; i < elementsInArray; i++)
temporaryArray[i] = stackArray[i];
stackArray = temporaryArray;
allocatedArraySize /= beta;
}
}
return result;
}
bool Stack::isEmpty()
{
if (elementsInArray == 0)
return true;
return false;
}
int Stack::size() const
{
return allocatedArraySize;
}
For starters, you should be post incrementing the index on the array, so change:
elementsInArray++;
stackArray[elementsInArray] = aValue;
to:
stackArray[elementsInArray++] = aValue;
or:
stackArray[elementsInArray] = aValue;
elementsInArray++;
Second, when you create the new temp array you are doing it inside the if statement... therefore it is a local variable and placed on the system stack and lost after you exit the if statement. So change
int temporaryArray[allocatedArraySize*beta];
to:
int *temporaryArray = new int[allocatedArraySize*beta];
Third, add in the delete you were talking about by saving the original pointer from stackArray before copying the location of tempArray and then perform the delete after you've made the pointer copy.
Finally, you'll have to make similar changes to your pop function...
You are using an array on the stack (not your stack - the program execution stack). It's the one called temporaryArray in your push function. The address of that array will be invalid when you return from that function (because other functions will use the stack to hold other data).
what you want to do is allocate that array on the heap. This is memory that stays around for your program as long as you need it. To do this, you would allocate your temporaryArray like
int * temporaryArray(new int[allocatedArraySize*beta]);
Then, after copying the elements from your old array, you would delete it by using:
delete [] stackArray;
Do this before assigning the stackArray with the temporaryArray.
There may be other issues with your data structure, but you are doing the basic indexing correctly and incrementing / decrementing the current index appropriately (though I would suggest preferring to use the preincrement / decrement forms when not using the temporary as a good habit to get in - ie. ++elementsInArray / --elementsInArray).
well, i'm sure you already know that you have stack as a generic (c++ call it templates) in the STD library. Assuming you are doing this as a code kata, i would start writing it as a template, so it can't take object types others than integers.
Also, if you are going to write more of these low-level structures (as part of your kata), write a thin class where you delegate all allocation, reallocation and allocated size tracking, and use that instead of using arrays directly.
Related
I am having issues working with Templates within C++. In this case, I am trying to create a dynamic array that works with Templates. Disclaimer: This is a school assignment. I have tried working on it for several days now. I didn't get stuck on this part until Friday night, and my professor and the tutoring lab are not available during weekends.
We're learning about Vectors by creating a vector abstract data type and coding some of the methods. I can't use any directives besides iostream.
I'd appreciate if you could also explain the issue I am having and/or point me to resources regarding this topic. I've looked at a few videos on YouTube and Udemy, and I have also checked posts on this website or similar forums, but I have not been able to figure it out.
I've reduced the code a bit to keep the relevant sections without clutter.
Edit: Sorry, I added all of that writing and realized I forgot to add the actual issue I'm having. The dynamic array in the resize function (VectorADTcpp.h) throws errors when I try to initialize the tempArray. It also does not let me copy the contents of the dataArray to the new array - it throws the error "Cannot convert T to Class". Also, I know using std::vector is the better method, but as I stated, this is a homework problem I am having an issue with. Most of the code was given to us and we have to fill in the functions, so I am limited to the changes I can make.
VectorADT.h (Given)
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
template <class T>
class VectorADT {
int SIZE = 2;
private:
T ** dataArray = nullptr;
int count;
public:
// default constructor
VectorADT();
// double the size of the database by
// creating another database twice the size and copying
// the existing database into it. The existing one is then deleted
void resizeADT();
// returns true if database is empty, false otherwise
bool empty();
// returns the number of items in the database
int size() const;
// inserts at the proper position, no sorting necessary
// element is inserted at index =pos
int insert(T * v, int pos);
// deletes the item at index position =pos
int remove(int pos);
};
VectorADTcpp.h
#include <iostream>
#include "VectorADT.h"
template <class T>
VectorADT<T>::VectorADT() {
dataArray= new T*[SIZE];
count=0;
}
template <class T> // Not Given
void VectorADT<T>::resizeADT(){
this->SIZE *= 2;
T tempArray = new T[this->SIZE];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
tempArray[i] = this->dataArray[i];
}
tempArray = this->dataArray;
delete []this->dataArray;
this->dataArray = new T * [this->SIZE];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
this->dataArray[i] = tempArray[i];
}
delete []tempArray;
}
remove method within VectorADTcpp.h that I had to code
template <class T> // Not Given
int VectorADT<T>::remove(int pos){
int adjustSteps=0;
if (pos < SIZE) {
for (int i = pos; i < count; i++)
{
dataArray[pos] = dataArray[pos + 1];
adjustSteps++;
}
}
else {
throw new std::string("Index out of bounds");
exit(-1);
}
return adjustSteps;
}
This question already has answers here:
How to resize array in C++?
(5 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I am sorry if this has already been covered before. I know how to do this is C and Java but not C++. Without using a pre-existing class which includes the use of Vector, how would you increase the size of an array given the code below?
The array expansion and assignment to the array takes place in push() noted with the all caps comment.
EDIT: As I have mentioned in comments below this is a question regarding manually reallocating arrays rather than using std::vector or "Dynamic Arrays."
Line.h
#include <iostream>
#include "Point.h"
using namespace std;
class Line {
public:
Line();
virtual ~Line();
// TAKE IN NEW POINT, INCREASE THE ARRAY SIZE AND ADD NEW POINT TO THE END OF THE ARRAY
void push(const Point& p);
private:
unsigned int index; // size of "points" array
Point* points;
};
Main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "Point.h"
#include "Line.h"
using namespace std;
int main() {
int x, y;
int size; // Some user defined size for the array
Line line;
Point a[size]; // Some points that are already filled
// Push the data in a[] to the variable "line"
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
// Increase array size of Point* points in variable line and add a[i] to the end of the array
line.push(points[i]);
}
return 0;
}
The simple answer is you should always use std::vector in this case. However it might be useful to explain just why that is. So lets consider how you would implement this without std::vector so you might see just why you would want to use std::vector:
// Naive approach
Line::push(const Point& p)
{
Point* new_points = new Points[index + 1];
std::copy(std::make_move_iterator(points), std::make_move_iterator(points+index), new_points);
new_points[index] = p;
delete[] points;
points = new_points;
index += 1;
}
This approach has many problems. We are forced to reallocate and move the entire array every time an entry is inserted. However a vector will pre-allocate a reserve and use space out of the reserve for each insert, only re-allocating space once the reserve limit is surpassed. This mean vector will far out perform your code in terms of performance as less time will be spent allocating and moving data unnecessarily. Next is the issue of exceptions, this implementation has no exception guarantees, where as the std::vector provides you with a strong exception guarantee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_safety. Implementing a strong exception guarantee for your class is none trivial, however you would have automatically got this had you implemented this in terms of std::vector as such
Line::push(const Point& p)
{
points.push_back(p);
}
There are also other more subtle problems with your approach, your class does not define copy or assignment operators and so gets compiler generated shallow copy versions generated which means if someone copies your class then allocated members will get deleted twice. To resolve this you need to follow the rule of 3 paradigm pre C++11 and the rule of 5 for C++ 11 onwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(C%2B%2B_programming). However had you used a vector none of this would be needed as you would benefit from the rule of zero and be able to rely on the compiler generated defaults: https://blog.rmf.io/cxx11/rule-of-zero
Essentially the only way is to use a dynamic array (one created using new[]) and to create an entirely new dynamic array and copy (or move) the objects from the old array to the new one.
Something like this:
class Line {
public:
Line(): index(0), points(nullptr) {} // initialize
virtual ~Line() { delete[] points; } // Clean up!
void push(const Point& p)
{
// create new array one element larger than before
auto new_points = new Point[index + 1];
// copy old elements to new array (if any)
for(unsigned int p = 0; p < index; ++p)
new_points[p] = points[p];
new_points[index] = p; // then add our new Point to the end
++index; // increase the recorded number of elements
delete[] points; // out with the old
points = new_points; // in with the new
}
private:
unsigned int index; // size of "points" array
Point* points;
};
But this approach is very inefficient. To do this well is quite complex. The main problems with doing things this way are:
Exception safety - avoiding a memory leak if an exception is thrown.
Allocation - avoiding having to reallocate (and re-copy) every single time.
Move semantics - taking advantage of some objects ability to be moved much more efficiently than they are copied.
A (slightly) better version:
class Line {
public:
Line(): index(0) {} // initialize
virtual ~Line() { } // No need to clean up because of `std::unique_ptr`
void push(const Point& p)
{
// create new array one element larger than before
auto new_points = std::unique_ptr<Point[]>(new Point[index + 1]);
// first add our new Point to the end (in case of an exception)
new_points[index] = p;
// then copy/move old elements to new array (if any)
for(unsigned int p = 0; p < index; ++p)
new_points[p] = std::move(points[p]); // try to move else copy
++index; // increase the recorded number of elements
std::swap(points, new_points); // swap the pointers
}
private:
unsigned int index; // size of "points" array
std::unique_ptr<Point[]> points; // Exception safer
};
That takes care of exception safety and (to some degree - but not entirely) move semantics. However it must be pointed out that exception safety is only going to be complete if the elements stored in the array (type Point) are themselves exception safe when being copied or moved.
But this does not deal with efficient allocation. A std::vector will over allocate so it doesn't have to do it with every new element. This code also misses a few other tricks that a std::vector would employ (like allocating uninitialized memory and constructing/destructing the elements manually as and when they are needed/discarded).
You basically have no way but to allocate a new array, copy existing values inside and delete [] the old one. That's why vector is doing the reallocation by a multiplicative factor (say each reallocation doubles the size). This is one of the reasons you want to use the standard library structures instead of reimplementing.
Keep It Simple
In my opinion, in this case, it's better to use a Linked-List of CPoint in CLine:
struct CPoint
{
int x = 0, y = 0;
CPoint * m_next = nullptr;
};
class CLine
{
public:
CLine() {};
virtual ~CLine()
{
// Free Linked-List:
while (m_points != nullptr) {
m_current = m_points->m_next;
delete m_points;
m_points = m_current;
}
};
// TAKE IN NEW POINT, INCREASE THE ARRAY SIZE AND ADD NEW POINT TO THE END OF THE ARRAY
void push(const CPoint& p)
{
m_current = (((m_points == nullptr) ? (m_points) : (m_current->m_next)) = new CPoint);
m_current->m_x = p.m_x;
m_current->m_y = p.m_y;
m_index++;
};
private:
unsigned int m_index = 0; // size of "points" array
CPoint * m_points = nullptr, * m_current = nullptr;
};
.
Or, even better with smart pointers:
#include <memory>
struct CPoint
{
int m_x = 0, m_y = 0;
std::shared_ptr<CPoint> m_next;
};
class CLine
{
public:
CLine() {};
virtual ~CLine() {}
// TAKE IN NEW POINT, INCREASE THE ARRAY SIZE AND ADD NEW POINT TO THE END OF THE ARRAY
void push(const CPoint& p)
{
m_current = (((m_points == nullptr) ? (m_points) : (m_current->m_next)) = std::make_shared<CPoint>());
m_current->m_x = p.m_x;
m_current->m_y = p.m_y;
m_index++;
};
private:
unsigned int m_index = 0; // size of "points" array
std::shared_ptr<CPoint> m_points, m_current;
};
I have a class representing an array, holding pointers to my other class objects.
#include "Edge.h"
class Array
{
private:
Edge** _headPtr;
int arraySize;
public:
Array(int);
void pushBack(Edge*);
// other functions...
};
Array::Array(int arraySize)
{
this->arraySize = arraySize;
this->_headPtr = new Edge*[arraySize];
}
Program always returns memory allocation errors after calling
// inserts an element on the end of the array
void Array::pushBack(Edge* element)
{
if (arraySize == 0) {
_headPtr = new Edge*[1];
_headPtr[0] = element;
arraySize++;
}
else {
Edge** _tempPtr = new Edge*[arraySize + 1]; // crashing here
memcpy(_tempPtr, _headPtr, arraySize * sizeof(Edge*));
//for (int i = 0; i < arraySize; i++) delete _headPtr[i];
delete[] _headPtr;
_tempPtr[arraySize] = element;
_headPtr = _tempPtr;
arraySize++;
}
}
I have commented out the for (int i = 0; i < arraySize; i++) delete _headPtr[i];
part because it was causing _free_dbg(block, _UNKNOWN_BLOCK); error.
From what I've found in other questions here I guess there must be a flaw in my understanding of dynamic array of pointers to class objects, but after spending much time trying to fix this I've run out of ideas.
The general idea of my program is to perform time efficiency measurements for some graph algorithms, this being part of Prim's algorithm implementation.
Call stack leading to this situation looks like this:
BinaryHeap queue = BinaryHeap();
queue.addNewElement(new Edge(v, v2, edgeWeight));
which looks like this
void BinaryHeap::addNewElement(Edge* element)
{
heapElements->pushBack(element);
heapFix_UP(heapElements->getSize()-1);
}
And finally pushBack method.
heapElements is Array* heapElements inside the BinaryHeap class, initialized with
heapElements = new Array(); in BinaryHeap constructor.
Edge is a very simple class holding only three integer values.
Please do not suggest using std::vector, the whole idea is not to use STL.
OK, I have found the solution. All of the code above works good, the bug was in a completely different place in my code.
What was so wrong that it was causing the whole program to crash many lines later?
This:
int** graphMatrix;
graphMatrix = new int*[vertex];
for (i = 0; i < edges; i++) graphMatrix[i] = new int[edges];
So simple, yet so harmful.
It is a part of my incidence matrix implementation. Now the reason for all crashes is pretty obvious - trying to write/read unallocated memory and causing heap corruptions.
I am writing code for a backtracking approach to a Traveling Salesman type of problem. So at each point i will recurse for rest of the un-visited points.
I could not use any library/functions other than cout, cin, new and delete (so no vector). So for the problem i want to keep a track of what all points i have visited till now. I am using a dynamic boolean array for this. So i want to pass the dynamic array to a function as value to keep track of this.
This is what i have tried till now.
I tried to wrap the array in a struct, but the memory dealocation (delete) is giving error (Segmentation fault)
typedef struct Barray{
bool* a;
int size;
Barray(int size) { a = new bool[size]; this->size = size; }
Barray(const Barray& in) {
if(a) delete[] a; // error
a = new bool[in.size];
this->size = in.size;
for (int i = 0; i < in.size; i++)
a[i] = in.a[i];
}
~Barray() { delete[] a; } // error
}barray;
This is my recursive function call
void find_mindist(barray visited, int dist_now, int cur_p) {
if (base condition)
{return ;}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (visited.a[i]) continue;
barray tdist = visited;
tdist.a[i] = true;
int ndist = dist_now + dist(points[cur_p], points[i]);
find_mindist(tdist, ndist, i);
}
return ;
}
So my questions are -
how can i pass a dynamic array to a function as value?
Why is the delete above giving error?
First of all, the recommended approach for a local visited information is not the endless copying of the whole visited collection, but a mark->recurse->unmark approach. So whatever you do, please keep a single boolean array for the visited information and update its content to your needs.
The other problems occur because you try to delete an uninitialized pointer in the copy constructor. Also, the assignment operator should be overloaded as well to avoid unpleasent surprises. But non of this really matters if you don't copy your visited information anymore.
The problem this is a copy constructor. As such, on entry, a is uninitialized (so contains garbage), so the delete is invalid.
Barray(const Barray& in) {
if(a) delete[] a; // error
a = new bool[in.size];
this->size = in.size;
for (int i = 0; i < in.size; i++)
a[i] = in.a[i];
}
Just remove the delete line. Also, prefer to initialize members, rather
than assign them, so:
Barray(const Barray& in)
: a(new bool[in.size])
, size(in.size) {
for (int i = 0; i < in.size; i++)
a[i] = in.a[i];
}
Also, remember the Rule of Three. You need an copy assignment operator. The simplest is:
Barry& operator=(const Barray& in) = delete;
which just forces a compilation error if you try to use it! Better is:
Barry& operator=(const Barray in) { // **NOTE** pass by value!
std::swap(this.a, in.a);
std::swap(this.size, in.size);
}
This version provides the strong exception guarantee. You aren't allowed to use std::swap, so you'll either have to write your own, or write it out by hand (you choose).
Finally, if you ever find yourself returning a Barray, you should write a move constructor:
Barray(Barray &&in)
: a(in.a)
, size(in.size) {
in.a = nullptr;
}
This can save a lot of copying!
So I have been trying to implement an arrayStack but I seem to have issues popping more than 100 elements. My program just stops working when it hits hundred. It seems that there is an issue with the push and pop but don't quite understand what my problem is.
#ifndef _ARRAYSTACK_1_HPP_
#define _ARRAYSTACK_1_HPP_
#include <stddef.h>
#include "StackADT.h"
#define DEFAULT_SIZE 50
template<class T>
class ArrayStack_1 : public StackADT<T> {
private:
T *arrayStack;
int index;
int maxSize;
public:
// a constructor for the arrayStack that creates and arrayStack of a given size
ArrayStack_1(int size = DEFAULT_SIZE) {
maxSize = size;
index = 0;
arrayStack = new T[size];
}
public:
// a constructor for the arrayStack that creates and arrayStack of a given size
ArrayStack_1(int size = DEFAULT_SIZE) {
maxSize = size;
index = 0;
arrayStack = new T[size];
}
//a destructor that deletes the arrayStack
~ArrayStack_1() {
delete[] arrayStack;
}
bool Empty() {
return index==0;
}
void Push(T& item = 0) {
if (index<maxSize) {
arrayStack[index]= item;
index+=1;
}else {
T* tempArrayStack = arrayStack; //making a copy of the array stack
maxSize+=1;
arrayStack = new T[maxSize];
for (int i=0; i<maxSize; i++){
arrayStack[i]=tempArrayStack[i];
}
arrayStack[index]=item;
index+=1;
delete[] tempArrayStack;
}
}
T Pop() {
if(arrayStack[index]==0){
return 0;
}else {
T element = arrayStack[index];
index--;
return element;
}
}
}
Likely all you should do is change arrayStack[index]==0 to index == 0 in your Pop function. Otherwise you risk accessing arrayStack with negative index which is undefined behaviour (likely a cause of your crash).
Also, when you are reallocating the stack, you should increase the stack size before the reallocation. I.e. swap these lines:
T* arrayStack = new T[maxSize];
maxSize+=1;
Furthermore, you don't assign the new value of arrayStack to your member variable - you define a new local variable in this code. Overall these lines should read:
this->arrayStack = new T[++maxSize];
(Note, you don't have to write this->arrayStack, simple arrayStack = ... will do the job - it's just there for clarity of intent)
And don't forget to delete tempArrayStack, otherwise you leak memory.
Edit
These lines should also be swapped:
index+=1;
arrayStack[index]=item;
and again, you could use ++ - in this case the postfix version:
arrayStack[index++] = item;
Learn about the difference for example here versus here
You really should step through this code to see what it's doing. I'm not sure how you would successfully make it to 100 iterations.
You need to pay more attention to when you are incrementing/decrementing. Sometimes you increment before you set the item, and other times you increment after you set the item.
You're pushing a reference instead of a pointer (and your arrayStack should be a pointer list).
You should double the size when you hit an overflow condition to ensure you don't have to recreate the array on every push.
You have a substantial memory leak because you never delete arrayStack when you increase its size.
You are allocating a local variable and doing nothing with it.