Using an iterator to Divide an Array into Parts with Unequal Size

by

The segfault you are seeing is coming from next checking the range for you is an assertion in your Debug implementation to check against undefined behavior. The behavior of iterators and pointers is not defined beyond the their allocated range, and the “one past-the-end” element: Are iterators past the “one past-the-end” iterator undefined behavior?

This means that incrementing past the “one past-the-end” element is undefined behavior independent of the iterator’s subsequent use. In order to have defined behavior you must use a solution like your Integer Modulo algorithm or similar, but you will have to change auto it = next(bar, 3) to something that conditionalizes based on the availability of at least the size of your sub-array, so something like: auto it = size(foo) <= 3 ? finish : next(bar, 3).

Where available the best solution here is going to cause the least redundant iteration is to track the size remaining in the container as an integer which does not suffer from undefined behavior when it falls outside the range and “one past-the-end”. This can be accomplished by:

auto bar = cbegin(foo);

for (auto i = size(foo); i > STEP; i -= STEP) {
    for(auto j = 0; j < STEP; ++j, ++bar) cout << *bar << '\t';
    cout << endl;
}

for(auto i = 0; j < STEP; ++j, ++bar) cout << *bar << '\t';
cout << endl;

EDIT: I had previously suggested using pointers which are not Debug conditioned, this is undefined behavior.

The problem is that next is checking the range for you. We use pointers outside of allocated memory all the time, for example nullptr and end, and that’s all it here is. If you just use C-style pointer arithmetic here you’ll be fine:

auto bar = cbegin(foo);

for (auto it = bar + 3; it < cend(foo); bar = it, it = bar + 3) {
    for_each(bar, it, [](const auto& i) { cout << i << endl; });
}

for_each(bar, cend(foo), [](const auto& i) { cout << '\t' << i << endl; });

Live Example

Alternatively, if you run in Release configuration the range checks should be removed, so you will be able to use the first version of your code.

More Related Contents:

  1. C++ – Find numbers between first and last negative numbers in Array
  2. c++ removing whitespace fails by using iterators
  3. Why do people say there is modulo bias when using a random number generator?
  4. Why use iterators instead of array indices?
  5. Can’t use modulus on doubles?
  6. Deleting elements from std::set while iterating
  7. What’s the best way to iterate over two or more containers simultaneously
  8. How to code a modulo (%) operator in C/C++/Obj-C that handles negative numbers
  9. iterate vector, remove certain items as I go
  10. comparing iterators from different containers
  11. How do I get the index of an iterator of an std::vector?
  12. How are iterators and pointers related?
  13. What’s faster, iterating an STL vector with vector::iterator or with at()?
  14. Can I convert a reverse iterator to a forward iterator?
  15. Does moving a vector invalidate iterators?
  16. What is an iterator’s default value?
  17. Why is “!=” used with iterators instead of “
  18. Problem with std::map::iterator after calling erase()
  19. How does std::copy work with stream iterators
  20. What is an iterator in general?
  21. Modular Exponentiation for high numbers in C++
  22. How might I wrap the FindXFile-style APIs to the STL-style Iterator Pattern in C++?
  23. How to avoid code duplication implementing const and non-const iterators?
  24. Are const_iterators faster?
  25. Is an iterator in C++ a pointer?
  26. How to check that the passed Iterator is a random access iterator?
  27. iterator adapter to iterate just the values in a map?
  28. How to increment an iterator by 2?
  29. How to erase & delete pointers to objects stored in a vector?
  30. C++ operator % guarantees

Leave a Comment