# Issues using comparator on std::map

c++

7 replies to this topic

### #1hellhound_01

New Member

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 12:58 PM

I try to implement my own comparator for a std::map to use a complex object as key value. I kow i could overwrite the less operator in my complex object, but I've decided to be more flexible, to use a comparator struct object instead. So I could perform different comparsions if required. I followed the instructions at this link: http://stackoverflow...map-with-struct

Here is my comparator, which is a protected member of my class, which holds the map:

struct Comparator : public std::binary_function<brCore::brConfigSet, brCore::brConfigSet, bool>
{
bool operator()(brCore::brConfigSet const & left, brCore::brConfigSet const& right) const
{
// comparison logic goes here
return true;
}
};


And here is my map declaration:

 typedef std::map<brCore::brConfigSet, boost::shared_ptr<brFont>, Comparator> Fonts_t;

The code compiles, but when I perform a find operation after I've added the first element to map, the find execution crashes with the hint that the less operator is missed.
But why? If I understand this article correctly the less operator isn't required to be more flexible ... Thanks for any help.
"There is only one god and his name is death. And there is only one thing we have to say to Death: Not today!" -- Syrio Forel (from Game of Thrones)

### #2.oisyn

DevMaster Staff

• Moderators
• 1842 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:41 PM

Quote

the find execution crashes with the hint that the less operator is missed
Please be more specific. What gave you the idea that it "hints" the less operator is missing?

Are you sure it is not an assert because your comparator is wrongly implemented? If you really always return true, there might be some debug code in the std::map implementation you're using (which compiler?) that checks whether your implementation is consistent. If you always return true, it's not consistent: a<b and b<a can't be both true at the same time.
-
Currently working on: the 3D engine for Tomb Raider.

### #3hellhound_01

New Member

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:07 AM

Solved. Thanks Oysin for the hint with the true value, this was the failure. As you have supposed the inconsistent return value throws an assert. I've not implemented the comparsion yet, but changing the return value to false, the check with the empty trunk passes succesfully.
"There is only one god and his name is death. And there is only one thing we have to say to Death: Not today!" -- Syrio Forel (from Game of Thrones)

### #4.oisyn

DevMaster Staff

• Moderators
• 1842 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:47 AM

Yes, always returning false means that all keys are equal (because for any two items neither one is less than the other)
-
Currently working on: the 3D engine for Tomb Raider.

### #5hellhound_01

New Member

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:15 PM

Here we are again ... I've implemented my comparsion function:

class Comparator {
public:
bool operator( )(const brCore::brConfigSet& set1, const brCore::brConfigSet& set2) const
{
// check if number of registered config is less
if(set1.getNumberOfConfigs()< set2.getNumberOfConfigs()){
return true;
}

// only check if numbers are equals
else if(set1.getNumberOfConfigs() == set2.getNumberOfConfigs())
{
// check if any given config value is less
for(unsigned int i = 0; i< set1.getNumberOfConfigs(); i++)
{
brCore::brConfig conf1 = set1.getConfig(i);
brCore::brConfig conf2 = set2.getConfig(i);

// first check key values
if(conf1.getKey() < conf2.getKey()){
return true;
}

// finally check config value
if(conf1.asString() < conf2.asString()){
return true;
}
}
}

// return result is equal or grater
return false;
}
};


This comparator checks if the values (each is a string) are less. This works successfully using MSYS
and MinGW, but same code crashes using MSVC 2010 compiler when find operation is performed:

typedef std::map<brCore::brConfigSet, std::string, Comparator> TestMap_t;
TestMap_t map;

brCore::brConfigSet set1("Testset1");
brCore::brConfigSet set2("Testset2");

brCore::brConfig conf1(std::string("value1"), "value1");
brCore::brConfig conf2(std::string("value2"), "value2");

map.insert(std::pair<brCore::brConfigSet, std::string>(set1, "hallo"));
map.insert(std::pair<brCore::brConfigSet, std::string>(set2, "buuuu"));

for(TestMap_t::const_iterator p = map.begin( ); p != map.end( ); ++p) {
cout << "Entry: " << " " << p->second << endl;
}

// create test search values
brCore::brConfigSet set3("Testset2");
brCore::brConfig conf31(std::string("value1"), "value1");
brCore::brConfig conf32(std::string("value2"), "value1");   // value change at key results in crash

TestMap_t::iterator iter = map.find(set3); // here crash (assert) happends on value change
if(iter!=map.end()){
cout << "Search successfull: " << iter->second << endl;
}
else{
cout << "Search failed for: " << set3.getName() << endl;
}



On MSVC I got an debug assertion as before with an invalid < operator.
The crash occures only if I change the the key of the second config object
to a less value than first A>B , i.e:

brCore::brConfig conf32(std::string("value"), "value1");


But only when I change the key value, if I change the value representation
no crash occurs, i.e.:

brCore::brConfig conf32(std::string("value2"), "value");


I'm running out of ideas why, and why only on MSVC with this
condition
"There is only one god and his name is death. And there is only one thing we have to say to Death: Not today!" -- Syrio Forel (from Game of Thrones)

### #6.oisyn

DevMaster Staff

• Moderators
• 1842 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:37 PM

The problem lies in the fact that you check for conf1.getKey() < conf2.getKey() (and similar for asString()) in the inner loop, but not for >. You probably only want to actually continue the koop when both keys and strings compare equal. You should return false when conf1.getKey() > conf2.getKey().
-
Currently working on: the 3D engine for Tomb Raider.

### #7hellhound_01

New Member

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:08 AM

You are right, indeed I only want to continue the inner loop if the values are equals. I've completly
forgotten that I've got an inner loop! Thanks again Oisyn for the beat to the back of the head
"There is only one god and his name is death. And there is only one thing we have to say to Death: Not today!" -- Syrio Forel (from Game of Thrones)

### #8hellhound_01

New Member

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:23 PM

I would report that your hint solves the issue now it is working! Thanks again ...
"There is only one god and his name is death. And there is only one thing we have to say to Death: Not today!" -- Syrio Forel (from Game of Thrones)

#### 1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users