Why am I getting a SEGV?

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to erase an array of pointers, but I get a segmentation fault.. any ideas what is happening :\

Code:

---

  vector<employee*> arrayEmployees; // PostfixArray of functors that will be processed.

        for (uint32_t k = 0; k < repeat; ++k) {
                while (in) {
                ...
                }
        ...
        }

        for (vector<employee*>::iterator i = arrayEmployees.begin(); i != arrayEmployees.end(); ++i) {
                delete *i; 
        }
        return 0;

---

That depends entirely on what the pointers are that you are trying to free. Did they all come from new?

Let's see the hidden code. Better yet, post the smallest and simplest compilable code that demonstrates the problem.

Oh.. I am using new to create the object and then push them in an array. However I do this in a sepparate function, could that be a problem.

like this:

Code:

---

        Employee employee = NULL;
        for (uint32_t i = 0; i < MAX; ++i) {
                        employee = new employee(false, post[i]);
                        arrayEmployees.push_back(employee);
        }

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afflictedd2

Oh.. I am using new to create the object and then push them in an array. However I do this in a sepparate function, could that be a problem.

like this:

Code:

---

        Employee employee = NULL;
        for (uint32_t i = 0; i < MAX; ++i) {
                        employee = new employee(false, post[i]);
                        arrayEmployees.push_back(employee);
        }

---

---

Well, I don't see how that compiles. You can try again, with real code, but better still would be to follow Laserlight's suggestion and create a small, compilable, self-contained example that demonstrates your difficulty.

I can't post the code for the app though. Where I am working they don't want any code exposed, I'm not sure how much is too much but I don't like to risk it. Most of the time I do if it's an example of my own code, though. Well anyway, I figured out the problem.

I basically followed this example:

Code:

---

#include <vector>
using namespace std;

class Object
{
};

int main()
{
    vector<Object*> vpObject;
    Object* pObject;

    for (int i=0; i<5; i++)
    {
        pObject= new Object;
        vpObject.push_back(pObject);
    }

    // delete all pointers in the vector
    while (!vpObject.empty())
    {
        // get first 'element'
        pObject = vpObject.front();
       
        // remove it from the list
        vpObject.erase(vpObject.begin());

        // delete the pointer
        delete pObject;
    }

return 0;
}

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afflictedd2

I basically followed this example:

---

And you couldn't do it this way?

Code:

---

#include <vector>

class Object
{
};

int main()
{
    using namespace std;

    vector<Object*> vpObject;

    for (int i=0; i<5; i++)
    {
        vpObject.push_back(new Object);
    }

    // delete all pointers in the vector
    for (vector<Object*>::iterator iter = vpObject.begin(), end = vpObject.end();
        iter != end; ++iter)
    {
        delete *iter;
    }

    return 0;
}

---

Note that the code is not exception safe: if std::bad_alloc is thrown the objects already dynamically created would never be destroyed. On the other hand, the OS would probably do clean up, but this is just a toy program so we can accept that. Also, if you really want destruction to occur in reverse order of construction then we should write:

Code:

---

    // delete all pointers in the vector
    for (vector<Object*>::reverse_iterator iter = vpObject.rbegin(), end = vpObject.rend();
        iter != end; ++iter)
    {
        delete *iter;
    }

---