C++ memory loss (particularly lists of structs)

[foolish]

Hello.

I have been developing a piece of software in which I am trying to use lists of structs, and structs containing these lists. What I am finding is that I am losing memory somewhere along the lines. I will give somewhat of an example (I do not wish to post the exact code due to IP issues, but this is exactly what the problem section of the code does):

struct s1{
    string a1;
    string a2;
    void print() { stuff here}
};
 
struct s2{
    string a1;
    string a2;
    list<s1> b1;
    list<s1> b2;
    list<s1> b3;
    void print() { 
        list<s1>::iterator Lis = b1.begin();
        while(Lis!=b1.end()){
            s1 an = *Lis;
            Lis++;
            an.print();     //and similarly for b2 and b3
        }
    }
};
....
....
s2 getdata(){
s2 s;
if(condition){
    s.a1="a1";
    s.a2="a2";
    list<s1> x = get1();
        list<s1>::iterator Lis = x.begin();
        while(Lis!=x.end()){
            s1 an = *Lis;
            Lis++;
            an.print();     //these print correctly
        }
    s.b1=x;
    list<s1> y = get2();
        Lis = y.begin();
        while(Lis!=y.end()){
            s1 an = *Lis;
            Lis++;
            an.print();
        }
    s.b2=y;
    list<s1> z = get3();
        Lis = z.begin();
        while(Lis!=z.end()){
            s1 an = *Lis;
            Lis++;
            an.print();
        }
    s.b3=z;
 
}
s.print();              //this gives a different (and incorrect) result
return s;
}
 

I get two different results from the two different sets of printing (in particular, during the s.print we get essentially x z z instead of x y z printed out, so to me it appears that the memory is getting lost). If this was vanilla C I would probably work it out with memcpy(), but I cannot convince memcpy() to work on lists etc.

It may be of importance that get1(), get2() and get3() all call the same function with slightly different parameters.

Any advice anyone can give would be greatly appreciated.

[weaknessforcats]

Based on a cursory look I suspect:

//and similarly for b2 and b3
 

in S2::print() isn't true. Are you sure it's doing x y z and not a typo where it's doing x z z???

I can't see the code so I'm just guessing.

[AdrianH]

I would hazard that lines like this:

            s1 an = *Lis;
            // ...
            list<s1> x = get1();
 

are what are causing grief.

Try using references:

            s1& an = *Lis;
            // ...
            list<s1>& x = get1();
 

and passing references unless this is not resonable for your application.


Adrian

[foolish]

thanks, I will try that.

I would hazard that lines like this:

            s1 an = *Lis;
            // ...
            list<s1> x = get1();
 

are what are causing grief.

Try using references:

            s1& an = *Lis;
            // ...
            list<s1>& x = get1();
 

and passing references unless this is not resonable for your application.


Adrian