Pointer to a vector
What is wrong with the following code
vector < double >* a;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
cout << a->at(2) << endl;
It should print 15, but it prints nothing
c++ c++14
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
add a comment |
What is wrong with the following code
vector < double >* a;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
cout << a->at(2) << endl;
It should print 15, but it prints nothing
c++ c++14
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
2
noa = new std::vector<double>somewhere?
– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:21
yeah, that was the problem. Thank you so much :)
– mpelia
Nov 28 '18 at 2:26
1
and don't forget the correspondingdelete a
– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:54
Obligatory: you should wrap a pointer like that asstd::unique_ptr. In general, if you havenewanddeletein modern C++ application code, you'd better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, use smart pointers!
– hyde
Nov 28 '18 at 20:17
3
Obligatory - there are almost no reasons to use dynamic storage to store a vector.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:19
add a comment |
What is wrong with the following code
vector < double >* a;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
cout << a->at(2) << endl;
It should print 15, but it prints nothing
c++ c++14
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
What is wrong with the following code
vector < double >* a;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
cout << a->at(2) << endl;
It should print 15, but it prints nothing
c++ c++14
c++ c++14
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
33.9k113965
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
asked Nov 28 '18 at 2:17
mpeliampelia
233
233
2
noa = new std::vector<double>somewhere?
– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:21
yeah, that was the problem. Thank you so much :)
– mpelia
Nov 28 '18 at 2:26
1
and don't forget the correspondingdelete a
– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:54
Obligatory: you should wrap a pointer like that asstd::unique_ptr. In general, if you havenewanddeletein modern C++ application code, you'd better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, use smart pointers!
– hyde
Nov 28 '18 at 20:17
3
Obligatory - there are almost no reasons to use dynamic storage to store a vector.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:19
add a comment |
2
noa = new std::vector<double>somewhere?
– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:21
yeah, that was the problem. Thank you so much :)
– mpelia
Nov 28 '18 at 2:26
1
and don't forget the correspondingdelete a
– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:54
Obligatory: you should wrap a pointer like that asstd::unique_ptr. In general, if you havenewanddeletein modern C++ application code, you'd better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, use smart pointers!
– hyde
Nov 28 '18 at 20:17
3
Obligatory - there are almost no reasons to use dynamic storage to store a vector.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:19
2
2
no
a = new std::vector<double> somewhere?– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:21
no
a = new std::vector<double> somewhere?– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:21
yeah, that was the problem. Thank you so much :)
– mpelia
Nov 28 '18 at 2:26
yeah, that was the problem. Thank you so much :)
– mpelia
Nov 28 '18 at 2:26
1
1
and don't forget the corresponding
delete a– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:54
and don't forget the corresponding
delete a– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:54
Obligatory: you should wrap a pointer like that as
std::unique_ptr. In general, if you have new and delete in modern C++ application code, you'd better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, use smart pointers!– hyde
Nov 28 '18 at 20:17
Obligatory: you should wrap a pointer like that as
std::unique_ptr. In general, if you have new and delete in modern C++ application code, you'd better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, use smart pointers!– hyde
Nov 28 '18 at 20:17
3
3
Obligatory - there are almost no reasons to use dynamic storage to store a vector.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:19
Obligatory - there are almost no reasons to use dynamic storage to store a vector.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:19
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
a is a pointer but is not properly initialized... it must be like:
int main()
{
std::vector<double>* a = new std::vector<double>;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
std::cout << a->at(2) << std::endl;
delete a;
return 0;
}
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
add a comment |
What is wrong ...?
You are using a pointer where an automatic duration value is more appropriate.
std::vector < double > a;
a.push_back(25);
a.push_back(30);
a.push_back(15);
a.push_back(40);
std::cout << a.at(2) << std::endl;
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
add a comment |
Your pointer wasn't initialized. Additionally, based on the answer by ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ, make sure when you are working with pointers to use new/delete correctly. For every new keyword, there should be a delete. It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL (as of C++11, it's recommended to use nullptr: NULL vs nullptr (Why was it replaced?) and What exactly is nullptr? questions offer some good explanations) when you are done.
However, in this case, I agree with Acorn. You shouldn't have to point to a vectorobject because of how it allocates memory. It should be sufficient to just use a vector for your solution.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL- nothing good about this anti-pattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
Please clarify? I specifically stated thatnullptris better than usingNULL. What is not good here?
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
1
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53511138%2fpointer-to-a-vector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
a is a pointer but is not properly initialized... it must be like:
int main()
{
std::vector<double>* a = new std::vector<double>;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
std::cout << a->at(2) << std::endl;
delete a;
return 0;
}
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
add a comment |
a is a pointer but is not properly initialized... it must be like:
int main()
{
std::vector<double>* a = new std::vector<double>;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
std::cout << a->at(2) << std::endl;
delete a;
return 0;
}
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
add a comment |
a is a pointer but is not properly initialized... it must be like:
int main()
{
std::vector<double>* a = new std::vector<double>;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
std::cout << a->at(2) << std::endl;
delete a;
return 0;
}
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
a is a pointer but is not properly initialized... it must be like:
int main()
{
std::vector<double>* a = new std::vector<double>;
a->push_back(25);
a->push_back(30);
a->push_back(15);
a->push_back(40);
std::cout << a->at(2) << std::endl;
delete a;
return 0;
}
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
edited Nov 28 '18 at 20:19
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:14
ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ
33.9k113965
33.9k113965
add a comment |
add a comment |
What is wrong ...?
You are using a pointer where an automatic duration value is more appropriate.
std::vector < double > a;
a.push_back(25);
a.push_back(30);
a.push_back(15);
a.push_back(40);
std::cout << a.at(2) << std::endl;
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
add a comment |
What is wrong ...?
You are using a pointer where an automatic duration value is more appropriate.
std::vector < double > a;
a.push_back(25);
a.push_back(30);
a.push_back(15);
a.push_back(40);
std::cout << a.at(2) << std::endl;
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
add a comment |
What is wrong ...?
You are using a pointer where an automatic duration value is more appropriate.
std::vector < double > a;
a.push_back(25);
a.push_back(30);
a.push_back(15);
a.push_back(40);
std::cout << a.at(2) << std::endl;
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
What is wrong ...?
You are using a pointer where an automatic duration value is more appropriate.
std::vector < double > a;
a.push_back(25);
a.push_back(30);
a.push_back(15);
a.push_back(40);
std::cout << a.at(2) << std::endl;
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:22
CalethCaleth
18k22141
18k22141
add a comment |
add a comment |
Your pointer wasn't initialized. Additionally, based on the answer by ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ, make sure when you are working with pointers to use new/delete correctly. For every new keyword, there should be a delete. It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL (as of C++11, it's recommended to use nullptr: NULL vs nullptr (Why was it replaced?) and What exactly is nullptr? questions offer some good explanations) when you are done.
However, in this case, I agree with Acorn. You shouldn't have to point to a vectorobject because of how it allocates memory. It should be sufficient to just use a vector for your solution.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL- nothing good about this anti-pattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
Please clarify? I specifically stated thatnullptris better than usingNULL. What is not good here?
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
1
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
Your pointer wasn't initialized. Additionally, based on the answer by ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ, make sure when you are working with pointers to use new/delete correctly. For every new keyword, there should be a delete. It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL (as of C++11, it's recommended to use nullptr: NULL vs nullptr (Why was it replaced?) and What exactly is nullptr? questions offer some good explanations) when you are done.
However, in this case, I agree with Acorn. You shouldn't have to point to a vectorobject because of how it allocates memory. It should be sufficient to just use a vector for your solution.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL- nothing good about this anti-pattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
Please clarify? I specifically stated thatnullptris better than usingNULL. What is not good here?
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
1
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
Your pointer wasn't initialized. Additionally, based on the answer by ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ, make sure when you are working with pointers to use new/delete correctly. For every new keyword, there should be a delete. It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL (as of C++11, it's recommended to use nullptr: NULL vs nullptr (Why was it replaced?) and What exactly is nullptr? questions offer some good explanations) when you are done.
However, in this case, I agree with Acorn. You shouldn't have to point to a vectorobject because of how it allocates memory. It should be sufficient to just use a vector for your solution.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
Your pointer wasn't initialized. Additionally, based on the answer by ΦXocę 웃 Пepeúpa ツ, make sure when you are working with pointers to use new/delete correctly. For every new keyword, there should be a delete. It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL (as of C++11, it's recommended to use nullptr: NULL vs nullptr (Why was it replaced?) and What exactly is nullptr? questions offer some good explanations) when you are done.
However, in this case, I agree with Acorn. You shouldn't have to point to a vectorobject because of how it allocates memory. It should be sufficient to just use a vector for your solution.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:33
jameybjameyb
146
146
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL- nothing good about this anti-pattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
Please clarify? I specifically stated thatnullptris better than usingNULL. What is not good here?
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
1
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL- nothing good about this anti-pattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
Please clarify? I specifically stated thatnullptris better than usingNULL. What is not good here?
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
1
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL - nothing good about this anti-pattern.– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
It is also good practice to avoid dangling pointers (pointers that do not reference anything) by setting them to NULL - nothing good about this anti-pattern.– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:35
Please clarify? I specifically stated that
nullptr is better than using NULL. What is not good here?– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
Please clarify? I specifically stated that
nullptr is better than using NULL. What is not good here?– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:39
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
It is not about nullptr vs null. It is about that setting pointer to nullptr after deleting is is a false safety and antipattern.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:42
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
Well, it depends doesn't it? Perhaps if you want to discuss this later it'd be more appropriate to talk in the chat or something. I am confused as to exactly how you can claim it is false. Reading through the question and answers below, it seems that it really does depend: stackoverflow.com/questions/1931126/…
– jameyb
Nov 28 '18 at 20:48
1
1
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
See stackoverflow.com/questions/704466/… (some answers after the top one). The main problem with that is false sense of safety. Even on your own link, it is mentioned that it is a bandaid over fundamental problem. WHY your application deletes the pointer twice? It could be argued that it is better to let it crash rather than mask the problem, until it pops somewhere else.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53511138%2fpointer-to-a-vector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
no
a = new std::vector<double>somewhere?– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:21
yeah, that was the problem. Thank you so much :)
– mpelia
Nov 28 '18 at 2:26
1
and don't forget the corresponding
delete a– max66
Nov 28 '18 at 2:54
Obligatory: you should wrap a pointer like that as
std::unique_ptr. In general, if you havenewanddeletein modern C++ application code, you'd better have a good reason for it. Otherwise, use smart pointers!– hyde
Nov 28 '18 at 20:17
3
Obligatory - there are almost no reasons to use dynamic storage to store a vector.
– SergeyA
Nov 28 '18 at 20:19