Can someone explain why the sort below causes seg faults? Is this a known bug with g++ (sorting vector of pointers)? I am compiling with g++ 4.5.2.
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
typedef vector<int> A;
bool face_cmp(const A *x, const A *y) {
return x != y;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
vector<A *> vec;
for (int i=0; i<100; i++) {
vec.push_back( new vector<int>(i%100, i*i) );
}
vector<A *>::iterator it;
sort(vec.begin(), vec.end(), face_cmp);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Compiling on codepad gives:
/usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../include/c++/4.1.2/debug/safe_iterator.h:240:
error: attempt to decrement a dereferenceable (start-of-sequence)
iterator.
Objects involved in the operation:
iterator "this" @ 0x0xbf4b0844 {
type = N11__gnu_debug14_Safe_iteratorIN9__gnu_cxx17__normal_iteratorIPPN15__gnu_debug_def6vectorIiSaIiEEEN10__gnu_norm6vectorIS7_SaIS7_EEEEENS4_IS7_SB_EEEE (mutable iterator);
state = dereferenceable (start-of-sequence);
references sequence with type `N15__gnu_debug_def6vectorIPNS0_IiSaIiEEESaIS3_EEE' @ 0x0xbf4b0844
}
Thank you for the all the quick replies. The original comp function was:
if (x == y) return false;
if (x->size() < y->size()) return true;
else if (x->size() > y->size()) return false;
else {
for (register int i=0; i<x->size(); i++) {
if ((*x)[i] < (*y)[i]) return true;
}
return false;
}
I just changed the first line and removed the rest. But it turns out it also suffers from not being a strict weak ordering (I forgot the case if (*x)[i] > (*y)[i]). I should probably have posted the entire function to begin with. Nevertheless, thanks again!!
A segfault occurs when a reference to a variable falls outside the segment where that variable resides, or when a write is attempted to a location that is in a read-only segment.
A segmentation fault occurs when a program attempts to access a memory location that it is not allowed to access, or attempts to access a memory location in a way that is not allowed (for example, attempting to write to a read-only location, or to overwrite part of the operating system).
See if your compiler or library can be set to check bounds on [i] , at least in debug mode. Segmentation faults can be caused by buffer overruns that write garbage over perfectly good pointers. Doing those things will considerably reduce the likelihood of segmentation faults and other memory problems.
A segmentation fault occurs when your program attempts to access an area of memory that it is not allowed to access. In other words, when your program tries to access memory that is beyond the limits that the operating system allocated for your program.
The comparison function must define a strict weak ordering which means that a < b
and b < a
cannot be both true. Your comparison function does not have this property.
It does not define any "before-after" relationship, so it's no wonder that the algorithm relying on this property does not function properly.
Third argument of std::sort
should be a function (or functional object) such that if compare(a, b)
is true
then compare(b, a)
should be false
, but your one isn't such. So your program is UB and can give any result.
No your code is wrong. Comparison functions for std::sort must use < or it's equivalent, using != is not correct. Probably you want this
bool face_cmp(const A *x, const A *y) {
return *x < *y;
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With