I have a do-while loop which copies a vector before it clears it, to make room for the for loop to run again. I have tried the following (with declaring the vector as a global one):
std::vector<int> z;
// bunch of code
do {
// bunch of code
double v_size = v.size();
for (int i = 0; i < v_size; i++) {
z.push_back(v[i]);
}
} while (true);
This does work, but my understanding is that its bad programming practise and may get some bizarre results on different compilers. I also get an error message (on the line where the push_back is):
Implicit conversion changes signedness: 'int' to
'std::__1::vector<int, std::__1::allocator<int> >::size_type' (aka
'unsigned long')
I am really new to C++ and coding in general. So, if there are any veterans here, willing to help or figure this out, it would be highly appreciated.
Here is some additional code in more context to clarify:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main(){
std::vector<int> v;
std::vector<int> z;
int option;
std::cout << "Enter option";
std::cin >> option;
do {
double v_size = v.size();
for (int i = 0; i < v_size; i++) {
z.push_back(v[i]);
}
// Clearing vector v to let the loop run again, and the vector
// need to be empty for the real code to work.
v.clear();
} while (option != 1);
// Use the vector Z for all the total values that
// circled through vector v.
}
The error you are getting is because you are trying to compare int and double;
if you are trying to copy the contents of one vector into another. What you are doing is not the best way.
There are a few methods
Source: Ways to copy a vector into another in C++
Using the = operator
std::vector<int> vec1{1,2,3,4,5};
std::vector<int> vec2 = vec1;
Passing vector by a constructor
std::vector<int> vec1{1,2,3,4,5};
std::vector<int> vec2(vec1);
Using std::copy
std::vector<int> vec1{1,2,3,4,5};
std::vector<int> vec2;
std::copy(vec1.begin(), vec1.end(), back_inserter(vec2));
assign
std::vector<int> vec1{1,2,3,4,5};
std::vector<int> vec2;
vec2.assign(vec1.begin(), vec1.end());
Iterating through a vector
Just some extra knowledge I believe can help you
Maybe you already know this, maybe you don't. But iterating through a vector the way you have mentioned is also not the best and there is a better way.
C++11 Introduced Range-based loops. A nicer and cleaner way to iterate over a range of values.
Syntax
It goes like this
for ( range_declaration : range_expression )
in context to our example
std::vector<int> vec{4,62,36,54};
for (auto i:vec){
std::cout << i;
}
If you don't want to modify the values, it is a good practice to use
const auto i:vec rather than auto i:vec. Check this out for more information
I'm trying to get to know c++ better and came across this confusion.
int simpleArraySum(const vector<int> ar) {
int n=sizeof(ar)/sizeof(ar[0]);
int sum=0;
for (int i=0; i<n; i++){
sum+=ar[i];
}
return sum;
}
When I passed a vector of 10 elements the result was lower than expected. I checked that n=6 unlike when I use size() which gives n=10. My confusion comes since the way the code is written works normally in main with sizeof(ar)/sizeof(ar[0]).
Using the "sizeof trick" have never worked on a std::vector.
The size of a std::vector object is the size of the std::vector object itself, not the possible data handled by the vector.
If you want to get the number of elements from a std::vector object, use the size member function.
The "sizeof trick" only works on actual arrays, like e.g.
int array[10];
std::cout << sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]) << '\n'; // Will print 10
As for the problem you try to solve with your function, there are much better ways to handle it.
First you could iterate using the size (like you do now)
for (size_t i = 0; i < ar.size(); ++i)
sum += ar[i];
Then you could iterate using iterators
for (auto i = ar.begin(); i != ar.end(); ++i)
sum += *i;
Then you have range-based for loops
for (auto value : ar)
sum += value;
Lastly you can use a standard algorithm function like std::accumulate
int simpleArraySum(std::vector<int> const& ar)
{
return std::accumulate(begin(ar), end(ar), 0);
}
Why does sizeof(ar)/ sizeof(ar[0]) not work properly on a vector ...
sizeof(ar)/ sizeof(ar[0]) is an expression that gives you the length of an array, and only an array. std::vector is not an array. std::vector is a class (template).sizeof(std::vector) is entirely unrelated to the number of elements it has i.e. its length.
The size of all types is compile time constant. std::vector's can contain a variable number of elements that is not compile time constant. Therefore the size of vector type cannot depend on the number of elements.
... when passed to a function?
It won't work when not passing into a function either.
I have a function myfun which will return a vector.
vector<double> myfun(const size_t k, const size_t i){
vector<double> v(k);
// do some computation with remaining arguments
return v;
}
Then, I will use it in the loop to update v and use v to get some result.
int main(){
size_t N = 100; // iteration size
size_t n = 10; // size of v
vector<double> result(N);
vector<double> v(n);
for(size_t i = 0; i<N; i++){
v = myfun(n,i); // compute for each iteration
result[i] = compute_some_value(v);
}
}
So, my question is:
Does v actually allocated inside of myfun every time it is called?
If it does, what happens to old v?
Also, is it better to use just use address like void myfun(some_args, vector<double> &v) for output argument v?
Does v actually allocated inside of myfun every time it is called?
Yes
If it does, what happens to old v?
It gets overwritten.
Also, is it better to use just use address like void myfun(some_args, vector &v) for output argument v?
Yes, it's better to pass vector by reference depending on your operations.
You could do it this way
double compute_some_value(vector<double> & v, const size_t i) {
v.clear(); // use if required
// do some computation with remaining arguments and return
}
int main() {
size_t N = 100; // iteration size
size_t n = 10; // size of v
vector<double> result(N), v(n);
for (size_t i = 0; i < N; i++) {
result[i] = compute_some_value(v, i);
}
}
Does v actually allocated inside of myfun every time it is called?
Yes
If it does, what happens to old v?
When v gets out of scope the destructor is called and the object gets destruct. This is why you don't really have to call destructor of a class explicitly.
Also, is it better to use just use address like void myfun(some_args,
vector &v) for output argument v?
It really depends on your use case. If it concerns with memory issues, its better to pass the reference.
I've a small code snippet which produces an error on running. The following code stores data of mystruct and creates a vector of pointers which store the addresses of the corresponding data.
struct mystruct{
std::vector < int > someinfo;
int somenumbers;
double *somepointer;
double someparm;
void Print(){....}
};
void DoSomething(mystruct &_somestruct, std::vector< mystruct > &_somevec,
std::vector<mystruct *> &_ptr){
_somevec.push_back(_somestruct);
_ptr.push_back(&(_somevec.back()));
}
void ReadStruct(){
std::vector<mystruct > _vec;
std::vector<mystruct *> _ptr;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++){
mystruct _struct;
_struct.somenumbers = 3;
_struct.someinfo.push_back(0);
_struct.someinfo.push_back(1);
_struct.someinfo.push_back(2);
DoSomething(_struct, _vec, _ptr);
}
_vec[0].Print(); //Prints correctly
_ptr[0]->Print();//Prints garbage info
}
If I first create the vector and then create the vector of pointers then the code works perfectly i.e.
void DoSomething(mystruct &_somestruct, std::vector< mystruct > &_somevec){
_somevec.push_back(_somestruct);
//_ptr.push_back(&(_somevec.back()));
}
void DoSomething1(std::vector< mystruct > &_somevec, std::vector<mystruct *> &_ptr){
for(int i=0;i<_somevec.size();i++)
_ptr.push_back(&(_somevec[i]));
}
I do not know what mistake I am doing. Your help/inputs is greatly appreciated!!
This does not look very safe to me.
In _ptr.push_back(&(_somevec.back())); you are taking the address of an element in _somevec. But when _somevec is changed by e.g. a push_back the address will be invalid!
For example this will not work:
std::vector<int> v;
v.push_back(17);
int* p = &v.back(); // pointer is valid
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) v.push_back(0);
*p = 42; // ERROR: p is no longer valid!
You can make this a bit better by using reserve prior to using push_back.
std::vector<int> v;
v.reserve(100); // v will now have enough room to not reallocate memory
v.push_back(17);
int* p = &v.back(); // pointer is valid
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) v.push_back(0);
*p = 42; // (probably) OK: p is still valid
But I would not recommend to do this.
It looks as if you are inserting elements into one vector and reference them with pointers from another vector. However, there doesn't seem to be any precaution against the vector of objects running out of capacity and relocating the objects, invalidating all the pointer.
The easiest approach to verify this hypothesis is to see if the capacity() of the vector of objects ever changes. The easiest fix is probably to use a std::deque<mystruct> as a std::deque<T> doesn't relocate its objects when adding/removing objects at either end.
Will the array be deallocated and if so, what is a workaround?
double * GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m, char ** names, int count )
{
if(!names) return 0;
std::vector<double> vec(m.size());
for (int i=0; i<count; ++i)
{
if(!names[i]) return 0;
std::map<std::string, double>::iterator iter=m.find(name[i]);
if(iter!=m.end())
vec.push_back(iter->second);
else
return 0;
}
return &vec[0];
}
Thanks a lot
Divide your function on two.
Make your functions make just one action:
1. fill vector from map.
2. create array from vector.
Don't forget to pass map by const reference.
Main note: caller of the GetArrayFromVector is responsible for memory deallocation.
void FillVector( const std::map<std::string, double>& m,
std::vector< double >& v,
char ** names,
int count )
{
.......
}
double* createArray( const std::vector< double >& v )
{
double* result = new double [v.size()];
memcpy( result, &v.front(), v.size() * sizeof( double ) );
return result;
}
// and finally your function
double* GetArrayFromVector( const std::map<std::string, double>& m,
char ** names,
int count )
{
std::vector< double > v;
FillVector( m, v, names, count );
return CreateArray( v );
}
Yes -- it's deallocated as soon as your return from the function, because vec is declared on the stack. The std::vector destructor takes care of freeing the memory. Since you're returning the address of a deallocated array, you're going to start messing around with deallocated memory, which is a big no-no. At best, you'll crash immediately. At worst, you'll silently succeed with a big gaping security hole.
There are two ways to fix this: (1) return the entire vector by-value, which makes a copy of the entire vector, or (2) return the vector via a reference parameter.
Solution 1:
std::vector<double> GetArrayFromVector(...)
{
...
return vec; // make copy of entire vec, probably not a good idea
}
Solution 2:
void GetArrayFromVector(..., std::vector<double> & vec)
{
// compute result, store it in vec
}
Yes the array will be deallocated.
Change the function to:
double * GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m, vector<double> &vec, char ** names, int count )
{
vec.clear();
vec.reserve(m.size());
for (int i=0; i<count; ++i)
{
if(!names[i]) return 0;
std::map<std::string, double>::iterator iter=m.find(name[i]);
if(iter!=m.end())
vec.push_back(iter->second);
else
return 0;
}
return &vec[0];
}
Or else use boost::shared_array (also, look at boost::scoped_array)
boost::shared_array<double> GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m, char ** names, int count )
{
boost::shared_array<double> vec(new double[m.size()]);
for (int i=0; i<count; ++i)
{
if(!names[i]) return boost::shared_array<double>();
std::map<std::string, double>::iterator iter=m.find(name[i]);
if(iter!=m.end())
vec[i] = iter->second;
else
return boost::shared_array<double>();
}
return vec;
}
vec is a local variable. Its scope is limited to the GetArrayFromVector() function only. Never return the address of a local variable. Either return the array by value:
std::vector<double> GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m,
char ** names, int count )
or, pass a reference to the vector as an output parameter:
void GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m,
char ** names, int count,
std::vector<double>& vec)
or, pass an output iterator:
void GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m,
char ** names, int count,
std::vector<double>::iterator vecIter)
The last two will require some careful implementation of the function definition and calling though.
Additionally, if you are game for a bit more adventure try this:
// you'd need to change the value to use when an element is not
// found in the map to something that suits your needs
double pred(std::map<char*, double> haystick, char* const needle) {
std::map<char*, double>::iterator i = haystick.find(needle);
return i != haystick.end() ? i->second : 0;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
std::map<char *, double> m;
std::vector<char *> names;
std::vector<double> dv;
m[ "Sasha" ] = 729.0;
m[ "josh" ] = 8154.0;
names.push_back("Sasha");
names.push_back("JonSkeet");
names.push_back("josh");
// transform is part of STL's <algorithm> header
// it takes a container (actually a range -- [begin(), end())
// note it is a half-open range -----------^
// as is customary for all STL algorithms, applies the function
// or functor specified as the last parameter to each element of
// the sequence and writes the result back to another container
// specified via the output iterator -- the third argument
//
// since I have not reserved enough elements for the vector dv
// i cannot blindly use it -- i need a back_inserter to coax
// transform to push_back() instead of do an insert operation
// of course, for vectors, this is costly since reallocations
// may happen, but let's leave the performance aside for a while!
//
// ok, so what about the last parameter, you ask? it has to be an
// unary_operation. well, mostly so. but what is it that we want?
// we want to take an iterator from the original char* (string)
// array and see if there's an entry in the map. if there is one
// we retrieve the associated double value and put it in dv; else,
// we set a default value of 0 -- change it to whatever pleases you
// maybe a std::numeric_limit<double> if it works for you.
//
// you can create a functor inheriting std::unary_function and pass
// it on. that's the easy way out. but what if you already have a
// comparator, a C-style find() function? will it work? yes, it will.
// but we have to wrap it using the function adaptor std::ptr_fun
// to make the compiler happy (after all it wants a unary_function, right?)
//
// this simple scheme of things works very well, save for a last little
// glitch. the comparator actually takes two parameters -- a what to search
// and a where to search. and guess what -- the where to search is always
// fixed. so that gives us a good oppertunity to fix the first parameter to
// our map<char*, double> which is exactly what std::bind1st() does.
// surprisingly, now that you've fixed one function, you no longer have a
// binary function (one taking two arguments) but an unary one -- which is
// just what you'd pass to transform. voila!
std::transform(names.begin(), names.end(), std::back_inserter(dv),
std::bind1st(std::ptr_fun(pred), m));
std::copy(dv.begin(), dv.end(),
std::ostream_iterator<double>(std::cout, "\n"));
return 0;
}
Some interesting links:
transform [actually, comes in two flavors]
bind1st or binder1st [there's a binder2nd too!]
back_inserter
ptr_fun [check out mem_fun also]
unary_function [and there's binary_function]
Also check out Boost. They have done some magic with bind()!
You can pass it by reference or new/delete it, but as posted your vector will be destructed after the function returns.
Yes, the vector (and the data store it holds) will be deallocated when the function ends.
Why are you creating a vector? If you want an array, just create & fill one of those..
double * GetArrayFromVector( std::map<std::string, double> m, char * names[], int count )
{
if(!names) return 0;
double* vec = new double[m.size()];
int j = 0;
for (int i=0; i<count; ++i)
{
if(!names[i]) return 0;
std::map<std::string, double>::iterator iter=m.find(name[i]);
if(iter!=m.end())
vec[j++] =iter->second;
else
return 0;
}
return vec;
}
Yes the vector will be deallocated when the function exits (and the 'vec' variable goes out of scope). The pointer you return will therefore be invalid.
An alternative is to allocate the array on the heap (using the 'new' operator) and return that pointer instead, but it will be the caller's responsibility to 'delete' the pointer, which is usually frown upon.
A better alternative is to return a shared_ptr to your array.
Since you know count up front, there's no benefit to using an stl vector. You could simply do this:
double* GetArrayFromVector(std::map<char*, double> m, char** names, int count)
{
double* result = new double[count];
for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i)
{
if(!names[i])
{
delete[] result;
return 0;
}
map<std::string, double>::iterator iter = m.find(name[i]);
if(iter != m.end())
{
result[i] = iter->second;
}
else
{
delete[] result;
return 0;
}
}
return result;
}
Note that you are passing ownership of the allocated array to the caller. Personally, I'd try to write the code in a way that observes the RAII principle; either pass in a vector to be populated, or use a managed/shared pointer, etc. (both of these options have been suggested in other answers).
There is a concept call move constructors that would allow you to transfer the ownership of a resource held by a (stack-based) object to a new object. I have heard that STLport has a move_source template to accomplish this
This will be coming to C++0x.
In this case, you would be returning std::vector<double> instead of double*.
Kinda surprised no one has mentioned vector::swap. Have the caller pass in a reference to a vector which will have its contents replaced by the function:
void GetArrayFromVector( std::vector<double>& output, ... )
{
std::vector<double> vec(m.size());
// construct vec here...
output.swap(vec);
}
BTW: "GetArrayFromVector" and you pass in a map?
You could use std::auto_ptr smart pointer (but passing vector reference to your function is better solution).
Example of std::auto_ptr:
std::auto_ptr< std::vector<int> > getArray(int& count){
std::auto_ptr< std::vector<int> > vec(new std::vector<int>());
vec->push_back(10);
vec->push_back(12);
vec->push_back(14);
vec->push_back(16);
count = vec->size();
return vec;
}
int main(){
int size = 0;
std::auto_ptr< std::vector<int> > autoPtrVec = getArray(size);
int* ptr = &(*autoPtrVec)[0];
std::cout << "Size: " << size << std::endl;
for(int i=0; i<size; i++){
std::cout << "[" << i << "]=" << ptr[i] << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
C++ vectors have a data() method which returns a pointer to the underlying array.
// vector::data
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main ()
{
std::vector<int> myvector (5);
int* p = myvector.data();
*p = 10;
++p;
*p = 20;
p[2] = 100;
std::cout << "myvector contains:";
for (unsigned i=0; i<myvector.size(); ++i)
std::cout << ' ' << myvector[i];
std::cout << '\n';
return 0;
}
which outputs
myvector contains: 10 20 0 100 0