++ STL, ;
-, :
std::vector<int> tmp;
std::cout << sizeof(tmp) << " " << tmp.size() << " " << tmp.capacity << std::endl;
:
12 0 0
for(int i = 0; i != 10; ++i) tmp.push_back(i);
std::cout << sizeof(tmp) << " " << tmp.size() << " " << tmp.capacity << std::endl;
12 10 16
then we can conclude that the vector just holds the pointer, so the result of sizeof () has not changed. So, the answer to your question: the child vector push_back will not lead to the redistribution of the parent vector (I do not know how to express the role of these two vectors). There are some simple codes:
std::vector<int> v1(10);
std::vector<int> v2(10);
int i;
for(i = 0; i != 10; ++i)
v1[i] = i;
for(i = 0; i != 10; ++i)
v2[i] = i;
vv.push_back(v1);
vv.push_back(v2);
std::cout << "v1 capacity: " << v1.capacity() << " v1 size: " << v1.size() << std::endl;
std::cout << "v2 capacity: " << v2.capacity() << " v2 size: " << v2.size() << std::endl;
std::cout << "vv capacity: " << vv.capacity() << " vv size: " << vv.size() << std::endl;
for(i = 10; i != 20; ++i)
v1.push_back(i);
for(i = 10; i != 20; ++i)
v2.push_back(i);
std::cout << "v1 capacity: " << v1.capacity() << " v1 size: " << v1.size() << std::endl;
std::cout << "v2 capacity: " << v2.capacity() << " v2 size: " << v2.size() << std::endl;
std::cout << "vv capacity: " << vv.capacity() << " vv size: " << vv.size() << std::endl;
exit:
v1 capacity: 10 v1 size: 10
v2 capacity: 10 v2 size: 10
vv capacity: 2 vv size: 2
v1 capacity: 20 v1 size: 20
v2 capacity: 20 v2 size: 20
vv capacity: 2 vv size: 2
Yinuo source
share