Vectors in vectors - pointers and iterators

Hi,

Perhaps you can help me with a problem I have, and which I can't solve...

First of all , I have two classes Pad and Trigger. Pad contains a vector of pointers to Trigger objects declared like:

Code:

vector<Trigger*> triggers

The program also has a vector of pointers to Pad objects, declared like

Code:

vector<Pad*> pads

This seams to work well in most situations and I can access variables in a trigger in a pad.

But I need to iterate through every pad in the vector and every trigger in the vector in pad.

I do it like this:

Code:

vector<Pad*>::iterator padIt;
for (padIt = pads.begin(); padIt != pads.end(); padIt++)
{

vector<Trigger*>::iterator triggIt = (*padIt)->triggers.begin();
for(  ; triggIt != (*padIt)->triggers.end(); triggIt++ )
{

cout << (*triggIt)->getName().c_str();
}

Everything works fine until the line

Code:

cout << (*triggIt)->getName().c_str();

where I get a segmentation fault.

I don't know what is wrong. I can access member methods of triggers when not using iterators like this, but not when I use it like this. The thing that got me thinking is that (*padIt) works fine but I can't access (*triggIt) above!

Is there any obvious wrong with my code here or do you want more of it?

Thanks

Fisherking

Could it be that some of those pointers are null pointers, or perhaps even invalid pointers?

Originally Posted by laserlight

Could it be that some of those pointers are null pointers, or perhaps even invalid pointers?

I'm with laserlight's thinking: at least one pointer pointer being NULL or invalid (eg uninitialised, a dangling pointer) is the most likely explanation.

It is also possible that some other code has molested an unrelated NULL or invalid pointer, and happened to overwrite part of one of the vectors or (since the vectors contain pointers) one of the associated objects.

yes, thanks! It was a invalid pointer... of some sort. I added a new element to the vector like this (the pads vector, not the Trigger vector)

Code:

Pad* pad = newPad;
delete newPad;
pads.push_back(pad);

Didn't work that well ;-)

Changed to

Code:

pads.push_back(newPad);

and it worked!

Thanks!

Yep. You added a dangling pointer. After deleting newPad, the object no longer exists.

The preceding line "pad = newPad;" does not, in any way, contribute to keeping the object alive. It only copies the address of the object, which you then immediately destroy.

How about you actually do

Code:

std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Pad>> Pads;
Pads.push_back( std::make_shared(new Pad) );

?

@Elysia:
Won't that cause the container to always have a reference to the shared_ptr? In other words the shared_ptr will never go out of scope so the container forces them to stay in scope for the life of the program.

If the pointers do go out of scope then the vector will maintain pointers to invalid memory which is equally not good.

I don't know the scope of the vector. Unbeknowingst this, I simply suggested the use of a smart pointer in the container.
The whole point is that they should stay alive until the container goes out of scope or until they're erased from the vector.

The whole point is that they should stay alive until the container goes out of scope or until they're erased from the vector.

Makes sense.