Thread: Speed of <queue> and <vector>

Originally Posted by scwizzo

Another question, though. I get a warning upon compiling for these functions. Is there a better/more correct way to do this so there is no warning or so it follows better standards?

The warning is pretty important: you are trying to return a pointer to a local variable, which means that the caller of the function would get a pointer that points to an object that no longer exists.

Unfortunately, changing your implementation to have three separate variables makes a solution more difficult. I suggest that you re-consider your decision to provide these functions in the first place. Instead of trying to provide accessors to an array, perhaps you should provide accessors to the individual coordinate values.

The optimal solution is to us a plain old array of 3 values. In this case a vector would use the same number of bytes on the stack just to track an even larger amount of space used fom the heap (considering minimum heap allocation size of 16 bytes on Windows).

You could improve your code efficiency by passing instances of Vec3 by const-reference to function like operator + for example.

The way you're using new, one can pretty much guarantee that your code has, or will have, memory leaks.