Arrays in C are actually constant pointers. The pointer to the first element of an array is a constant. Therefore it seems impossible to assign an address value to the array pointer pointer pointing the firs element of the array.
But in some situations it might be useful to have two arrays point to the same location in memory.
So how can I make two arrays point to the same location in such fashion :
int a[10];
int b[10];
a = b; // Not possible
What is below seems to be a valid solution. But, are there alternatives?
int *a;
int *b;
int c[10];
a = c; // If you change the value "a" points to
b = c; // it will be observed on "b"
a[2] = 5;
printf("Output is %d", b[2]);
>> Output is 5
Arrays behave like pointers to their first element, but you can't reassign them:
int a[] = { 1, 2 };
int b[] = { 3, 4 };
b = a; // compilation error: b is constant
The reason is their address, being known at compile time, is stored in a read-only segment of the program, and writing in a read-only segment would be a segmentation fault.
A pointer is a type which contains an address, it can be assigned at runtime.
If you don't know at compile-time how much memory you need, you can ask some to your system with dynamic allocation:
int * integers = malloc(sizeof(int) * 3); // dynamic array of size 3
// or
int * integers = malloc(sizeof(* integers) * 3);
If you want 2 arrays to point to the same memory:
char * interval1 = malloc(sizeof(char) * 2); // sizeof() useless here, char is defined as 1 byte
interval1[0] = 'A'; // equivalent to *(p + 0) = 'A'
interval1[1] = 'Z'; // equivalent to *(p + 1) = 'Z'
char * interval2 = interval1;
But the interest is rather limited if both variables are in the same function.
I didn't add checks, but you should always check for NULL after allocation, and free() when you don't need the memory anymore.
TDLR: if you need to reassign an address, don't use array-type, but pointer-type, it's made to be dynamic.
Related
I'm trying to understand this code:
struct mys {
double d[128];
};
void my_func(int iters) {
int i;
struct mys *ptr = malloc(iters *sizeof(struct mys));
for(i = 0; i < iters; i++) {
ptr[i].d[0] = (double)i;
}
free(ptr);
}
What I know:
mys is of size 8 * 128 (size of double is 8, it's an array of 128 doubles)
*ptr is of size iters * (8 * 128)
What is going on here:
ptr[i].d[0] = (double)i;
?
What I know:
// ptr->d is the address of the first part of d
// same as (*ptr).d
// BECAUSE d IS A STRUCT
// ptr->d[i] is the actual value. so, 0.0000
// same as (*ptr).d[i]
Thanks in advance.
ptr[i] is the value at index i, so starts at 0.0000.
d is not initialized, it is just the name of the member of a struct. How can we just d here?
What I think:
*ptr is multiple (iters) structs.
So, ptr[0] is the first struct, ptr[1] is the second struct, etc.
ptr[i].d access the ith struct's d array.
ptr[i].d[0] accesses the first index of the d array. So the line above sets that number to double(i).
So this really only sets the first element of each struct to be 0. Am I right?
But when iters is 2, and I try:
for(int i = 0; i < iters; i++) {
printf("%p\n", ptr[200].d);
}
it still prints an address. Why is that?
What is going on here: ptr[i].d[0] = (double)i;?
This:
struct mys *ptr = malloc(iters *sizeof(struct mys));
allocates memory for an array of structs, called ptr.
This line of code:
ptr[i].d[0] = (double)i;
assigns i to the first cell of the array d, of the i-th struct, in the array ptr.
i is casted to double, because d is an array of doubles, and i is declared as int.
when iters is 2, and I try: for(int i = 0; i < iters; i++) { printf("%p\n", ptr[200].d); } it still prints an address. Why is that? Shouldn't it be out of range since ptr is only 2 structs?
This is definitely out of range, since arrays are 0-indexed.
However, that attempt invokes Undefined Behavior (UB), which means that you don't know how the code is going to behave. For example, in your computer it prints an address, in my computer it might cause a segmentation fault, and so on...
So this really only sets the first element of each struct to be 0. Am I right?
It copies the index i, converted to type double, into the first element of each struct. Otherwise you are right.
Regarding the expression ptr[200].d, this is the same as &(ptr[200]) because the array d[] is the sole element of a mys object. Because a double is eight bytes wide, each mys object occupies (8 bytes)(128) = 1 kiB. Therefore, &(ptr[200]) == ptr + 200*1024. The last is an address 200 kiB past the beginning of *ptr. Whether the address has meaning depends on whether anything meaningful is stored there.
I have currently trouble understanding the following scenario:
I have a multidimensional array of Strings and I want to address it by using pointers only but I always get a Segmentation Fault when using the array annotation on the pointer. This is just an example code I want to use the 3D array in a pthread so I want to pass it in via a structure as a pointer but it just doesn't work and I would like to know why? I thought pointers and arrays are functionally equivalent? Here is the sample code:
#include <stdio.h>
void func(unsigned char ***ptr);
int main() {
// Image of dimension 10 times 10
unsigned char image[10][10][3];
unsigned char ***ptr = image;
memcpy(image[0][0], "\120\200\12", 3);
// This works as expected
printf("Test: %s", image[0][0]);
func(image);
return 0;
}
void func(unsigned char ***ptr) {
// But here I get a Segmentation Fault but why??
printf("Ptr: %s", ptr[0][0]);
}
Thanks in advance for your help :)
I think maybe strdup confuses the issue. Pointers and arrays are not always equivalent. Let me try to demonstrate. I always avoid actual multi-dimension arrays, so I may make a mistake here, but:
int main()
{
char d3Array[10][10][4]; //creates a 400-byte contiguous memory area
char ***d3Pointer; //a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a char.
int i,j;
d3Pointer = malloc(sizeof(char**) * 10);
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
d3Pointer[i] = malloc(sizeof(char*) * 10);
for (j = 0; j < 4; ++j)
{
d3Pointer[i][j] = malloc(sizeof(char) * 4);
}
}
//this
d3Pointer[2][3][1] = 'a';
//is equivalent to this
char **d2Pointer = d3Pointer[2];
char *d1Pointer = d2Pointer[3];
d1Pointer[1] = 'a';
d3Array[2][3][1] = 'a';
//is equivalent to
((char *)d3Array)[(2 * 10 * 4) + (3 * 4) + (1)] = 'a';
}
Generally, I use the layered approach. If I want contiguous memory, I handle the math myself..like so:
char *psuedo3dArray = malloc(sizeof(char) * 10 * 10 * 4);
psuedo3dArray[(2 * 10 * 4) + (3 * 4) + (1)] = 'a';
Better yet, I use a collection library like uthash.
Note that properly encapsulating your data makes the actual code incredibly easy to read:
typedef unsigned char byte_t;
typedef struct
{
byte_t r;
byte_t g;
byte_t b;
}pixel_t;
typedef struct
{
int width;
int height;
pixel_t * pixelArray;
}screen_t;
pixel_t *getxyPixel(screen_t *pScreen, int x, int y)
{
return pScreen->pixelArray + (y*pScreen->width) + x;
}
int main()
{
screen_t myScreen;
myScreen.width = 1024;
myScreen.height = 768;
myScreen.pixelArray = (pixel_t*)malloc(sizeof(pixel_t) * myScreen.height * myScreen.width);
getxyPixel(&myScreen, 150, 120)->r = 255;
}
In C, you should allocate space for your 2D array one row at a time. Your definition of test declares a 10 by 10 array of char pointers, so you don't need to call malloc for it. But to store a string you need to allocate space for the string. Your call to strcpy would crash. Use strdup instead. One way to write your code is as follows.
char ***test = NULL;
char *ptr = NULL;
test = malloc(10 * sizeof(char **));
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
test[i] = malloc(10 * sizeof(char *));
}
test[0][0] = strdup("abc");
ptr = test[0][0];
printf("%s\n", ptr);
test[4][5] = strdup("efg");
ptr = test[4][5];
printf("%s\n", ptr);
Alternatively, if you want to keep your 10 by 10 definition, you could code it like this:
char *test[10][10];
char *ptr = NULL;
test[0][0] = strdup("abc");
ptr = test[0][0];
printf("%s\n", ptr);
test[4][5] = strdup("efg");
ptr = test[4][5];
printf("%s\n", ptr);
Your problem is, that a char[10][10][3] is something very different from a char***: The first is an array of arrays of arrays, the later is a pointer to a pointer to a pointer. The confusions arises because both can be dereferenced with the same syntax. So, here is a bit of an explanation:
The syntax a[b] is nothing but a shorthand for *(a + b): First you perform pointer arithmetic, then you dereference the resulting pointer.
But, how come you can use a[b] when a is an array instead of a pointer? Well, because...
Arrays decay into pointers to their first element: If you have an array declared like int array[10], saying array + 3 results in array decaying to a pointer of type int*.
But, how does that help to evaluate a[b]? Well, because...
Pointer arithmetic takes the size of the target into account: The expression array + 3 triggers a calculation along the lines of (size_t)array + 3*sizeof(*array). In our case, the pointer that results from the array-pointer-decay points to an int, which has a size, say 4 bytes. So, the pointer is incremented by 3*4 bytes. The result is a pointer that points to the fourths int in the array, the first three elements are skipped by the pointer arithmetic.
Note, that this works for arrays of any element type. Arrays can contain bytes, or integers, or floats, or structs, or other arrays. The pointer arithmetic is the same.
But, how does that help us with multidimensional arrays? Well, because...
Multidimensional arrays are just 1D arrays that happen to contain arrays as elements: When you declare an array with char image[256][512]; you are declaring a 1D array of 256 elements. These 256 elements are all arrays of 512 characters, each. Since the sizeof(char) == 1, the size of an element of the outer array is 512*sizeof(char) = 512, and, since we have 256 such arrays, the total size of image is 256*512. Now, I can declare a 3D array with char animation[24][256][512];...
So, going back to your example that uses
char image[10][10][3]
what happens when you say image[1][2][1] is this: The expression is equivalent to this one:
*(*(*(image + 1) + 2) + 3)
image being of type char[10][10][3] decays into a pointer to its first element, which is of type char(*)[10][3] The size of that element is 10*3*1 = 30 bytes.
image + 1: Pointer arithmetic is performed to add 1 to the resulting pointer, which increments it by 30 bytes.
*(image + 1): The pointer is dereferenced, we are now talking directly about the element, which is of type char[10][3].
This array again decays into a pointer to its first element, which is of type char(*)[3]. The size of the element is 3*1 = 3. This pointer points at the same byte in memory as the pointer that resulted from step 2. The only difference is, that it has a different type!
*(image + 1) + 2: Pointer arithmetic is performed to add 2 to the resulting pointer, which increments it by 2*3 = 6 bytes. Together with the increment in step 2, we now have an offset of 36 bytes, total.
*(*(image + 1) + 2): The pointer is dereferenced, we are now talking directly about the element, which is of type char[3].
This array again decays into a pointer to its first element, which is of type char*. The size of the element is now just a single byte. Again, this pointer has the same value as the pointer resulting from step 5, but a different type.
*(*(image + 1) + 2) + 1: Pointer arithmetic again, adding 1*1 = 1 bytes to the total offset, which increases to 37 bytes.
*(*(*(image + 1) + 2) + 1): The pointer is dereferenced the last time, we are now talking about the char at an offset of 37 bytes into the image.
So, what's the difference to a char***? When you dereference a char***, you do not get any array-pointer-decay. When you try to evaluate the expression pointers[1][2][1] with a variable declared as
char*** pointers;
the expression is again equivalent to:
*(*(*(pointers + 1) + 2) + 3)
pointers is a pointer, so no decay happens. Its type is char***, and it points to a value of type char**, which likely has a size of 8 bytes (assuming a 64 bit system).
pointers + 1: Pointer arithmetic is performed to add 1 to the resulting pointer, which increments it by 1*8 = 8 bytes.
*(pointers + 1): The pointer is dereferenced, we are now talking about the pointer value that is found in memory at an offset of 8 bytes of where pointers points.
Further steps depending on what actually happened to be stored at pointers[1]. These steps do not involve any array-pointer-decay, and thus load pointers from memory instead.
You see, the difference between a char[10][10][3] and a char*** is profound. In the first case, the array-pointer-decay transforms the process into a pure offset computation into a multidimensional array. In the later case, we repeatedly load pointers from memory when accessing elements, all we ever have are 1D arrays of pointers. And it's all down to the types of pointers!
If I'm trying to create a global array to hold an arbitrary number of integers in this case 2 ints. How is it possible that I can assign more numbers to it if I only allocate enough space for just two integers.
int *globalarray;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int size = 2;
globalarray = malloc(size * sizeof(globalarray[0]));
// How is it possible to initialize this array pass
// the two location that I allocated.
for (size_t i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
globalarray[i] = i;
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
printf("%d ", globalarray[i]);
}
printf("%s\n", "");
int arrayLength = sizeof(*globalarray)/sizeof(globalarray[0]);
printf("Array Length: %d\n", arrayLength);
}
When I run this it gives me
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Array Length: 1
So I wanted to know if someone could clarify this for me.
(1) Am I creating the global array correctly?
(2) Why is the array length 1? When I feel that it should be 2 since I malloced the pointer for 2.
And background info on why I want to know this is because I want to create a global array (shared array) so that threads can later access the array and change the values.
How is it possible to initialize this array pass the two location that I allocated.
Short answer: This is undefined behaviour and anything can happen, also the appearance that it worked.
Long answer: You can only initialize the memory you've allocated, it
doesn't matter that the variable is a global variable. C doesn't prevent you from
stepping out of bounds, but if you do, then you get undefined behaviour and anything can happen
(it can "work" but it also can crash immediately or it can crash later).
So if you know that you need 10 ints, then allocate memory for 10 int.
globalarray = malloc(10 * sizeof *globalarray);
if(globalarray == NULL)
{
// error handling
}
And if you later need more, let's say 15, then you can use realloc to increase
the memory allocation:
globalarray = malloc(10 * sizeof *globalarray);
if(globalarray == NULL)
{
// error handling
// do not contiue
}
....
// needs more space
int *tmp = realloc(globalarray, 15 * sizeof *globalarray);
if(tmp == NULL)
{
// error handling
// globalarray still points to the previously allocated
// memory
// do not continue
}
globalarray = tmp;
Am I creating the global array correctly?
Yes and no. It is syntactically correct, but semantically it is not, because you are
allocating space for only 2 ints, but it's clear from the next lines that
you need 10 ints.
Why is the array length 1? When I feel that it should be 2 since I malloced the pointer for 2.
That's because
sizeof(*globalarray)/sizeof(globalarray[0]);
only works with arrays, not pointers. Note also that you are using it wrong in
two ways:
The correct formula is sizeof(globalarray) / sizeof(globalarray[0])
This only works for arrays, not pointers (see below)
We sometimes use the term array as a visual representation when we do stuff
like
int *arr = malloc(size * sizeof *arr)
but arr (and globalarray) are not arrays,
they are pointers. sizeof returns the amount in bytes that the
expression/variable needs. In your case *globalarray has type int and
globalarray[0] has also type int. So you are doing sizeof(int)/sizeof(int)
which is obviously 1.
Like I said, this only works for arrays, for example, this is correct
// not that arr here is not an array
int arr[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
size_t len = sizeof arr / sizeof arr[0]; // returns 4
but this is incorrect:
int *ptr = malloc(4 * sizeof *ptr);
size_t len = sizeof ptr / sizeof ptr[0]; // this is wrong
because sizeof ptr does not returns the total amount of allocated
bytes, it returns the amount of bytes that a pointer needs to be stored in memory. When you are dealing with
pointers, you have to have a separate variable that holds the size.
C does not prevent you from writing outside allocated memory. When coding in C it is of the utmost importance that you manage your memory properly.
For your second question, this is how you would want to allocate your buffer:
globalarray = malloc(sizeof(int) * size);
And if you are on an older version of C than c11:
globalarray = (int*) malloc(sizeof(int) * size);
In general, i'm trying to allocate values of first.a and first.b
to a array's in struct secon.
typedef struct {
int a;
int b;
} firs;
//secon is my struct which contains dynamic array
//can i use int here ?
typedef struct {
int *aa;
int *bb;
} secon;
//pointer to secon intialised to NULL;
secon* sp=NULL;
int main()
{
firs first;
//plz assume 2 is coming from user ;
sp=malloc(sizeof(secon)*2);
//setting values
first.a=10;
first.b=11;
/* what i'm trying to do is assign values of first.a and first.b to my
dynamically created array*/
/* plz assume first.a and first.b are changing else where .. that means ,not
all arrays will have same values */
/* in general , i'm trying to allocate values of first.a and first.b
to a array's in struct second. */
for(int i=0; i<2; i++) {
*( &(sp->aa ) + (i*4) ) = &first.a;
*( &(sp->bb ) + (i*4) ) = &first.b;
}
for(int i=0; i<2; i++) {
printf("%d %d \n", *((sp->aa) + (i*4) ),*( (sp->bb) +(i*4) ) );
}
return 0;
}
MY output :
10 11
4196048 0
Problems with my code:
1. whats wrong with my code?
2. can i use int inside struct for dynamic array?
3. what are the alternatives?
4. why am i not getting correct answer?
Grigory Rechistov has done a really good job of untangling the code and you should probably accept his answer, but I want to emphasize one particular point.
In C pointer arithmetic, the offsets are always in units of the size of the type pointed to. Unless the type of the pointer is char* or void* if you find yourself multiplying by the size of the type, you are almost certainly doing it wrong.
If I have
int a[10];
int *p = &(a[5]);
int *q = &(a[7]);
Then a[6] is the same as *(p + 1) not *(p + 1 * sizeof(int)). Likewise a[4] is *(p - 1)
Furthermore, you can subtract pointers when they both point to objects in the same array and the same rule applies; the result is in the units of the size of the type pointed to. q - p is 2, not 2 * sizeof(int). Replace the type int in the example with any other type and the p - q will always be 2. For example:
struct Foo { int n ; char x[37] ; };
struct Foo a[10];
struct Foo *p = &(a[5]);
struct Foo *q = &(a[7]);
q - p is still 2. Incidentally, never be tempted to hard code a type's size anywhere. If you are tempted to malloc a struct like this:
struct Foo *r = malloc(41); // int size is 4 + 37 chars
Don't.
Firstly, sizeof(int) is not guaranteed to be 4. Secondly, even if it is, sizeof(struct Foo) is not guaranteed to be 41. Compilers often add padding to struct types to ensure that the members are properly aligned. In this case it is almost a certainty that the compiler will add 3 bytes (or 7 bytes) of padding to the end of struct Foo to ensure that, in arrays, the address of the n member is aligned to the size of an int. always always always use sizeof.
It looks like your understanding how pointer arithmetic works in C is wrong. There is also a problem with data layout assumptions. Finally, there are portability issues and a bad choice of syntax that complicates understanding.
I assume that wit this expression: *( &(sp->aa ) + (i*4) ) you are trying to access the i-th item in the array by taking address of the 0-th item and then adding a byte offset to it. This is wrong of three reasons:
You assume that after sp[0].aa comes sp[1].aa in memory, but you forget that there is sp[0].bb in between.
You assume that size of int is always 4 bytes, which is not true.
You assume that adding an int to secon* will give you a pointer that is offset by specified number of bytes, while in fact it will be offset in specified number of records of size secon.
The second line of output that you see is random junk from unallocated heap memory because when i == 1 your constructions reference memory that is outside of limits allocated for *secon.
To access an i-th item of array referenced by a pointer, use []:
secon[0].aa is the same as (secon +0)->aa, and secon[1].aa is equal to (secon+1)->aa.
This is a complete mess. If you want to access an array of secons, use []
for(int i=0;i<2;i++)
{
sp[i].aa = &first.a; // Same pointer both times
sp[i].bb = &first.b;
}
You have two copies of pointers to the values in first, they point to the same value
for(int i=0;i<2;i++)
{
sp[i].aa = malloc(sizeof(int)); // new pointer each time
*sp[i].aa = first.a; // assigned with the current value
sp[i].bb = malloc(sizeof(int));
*sp[i].bb = first.b;
}
However the compiler is allowed to assume that first does not change, and it is allowed to re-order these expressions, so you are not assured to have different values in your secons
Either way, when you read back the values in second, you can still use []
for(int i=0;i<2;i++)
{
printf("%d %d \n",*sp[i].aa ),*sp[i].bb );
}
Suppose I ve
int *a,*b;
a= malloc(5*sizeof(int));
b= malloc(5*sizeof(int));
and subsequently assign values.
Let a - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
b - 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Is there a method to concatenate both these malloced arrays without using further malloc,realloc or memcpy? There shud not be a malloc of 10 locations!
I must be able to get a[8]=9 after executing, without the overhead of moving the arrays.
The language is C
a= malloc(5*sizeof(int));
You only allocated 5 ints to a, so no, you can't do it without some form or memory allocation (malloc / realloc), since a[8] would be illegal to begin with.
I must be able to get a[8]=9 after executing, without the overhead of
moving the arrays
Since since you are working with contiguous memory regions (which you are calling arrays) you will always have some overhead when moving elements around. If you don't need to access elements by their indexes just use linked lists.
If you don't need strict array indexing, you could make a pseudo-linked-list (I know there's a name for this data type but I can't remember it right now):
struct listish {
int *arr
size_t size;
struct listish *next;
};
The "indexing" function would look like this:
int *index(struct listish *list, size_t i)
{
if(list == NULL) return NULL; // index out of bounds
if(i < list->size) return list->arr + i; // return a pointer to the element
else return index(list->next, i - list->size); // not in this array - go to next node
}
The idea is to combine the in-place reordering of a linked list with the contiguous space of an array. In this case, index(list, 4) would return &a[4], and index(list, 5) would return &b[0], simulating continuous indexing without reallocating and moving your entire array - all you need to do is allocate a few small struct listish objects and set them up properly, a task I leave to you.
What you ask can't be done.
You have, maybe, another option.
Just allocate space for 10 values, and make b point to the correct element
int *a = malloc(10 * sizeof *a);
/* error checking missing */
int *b = a + 5;
a[0] = 1; a[1] = 2; a[2] = 3; a[3] = 4; a[4] = 5;
b[0] = 6; b[1] = 7; b[2] = 8; b[3] = 9; b[4] = 10;
printf("a[8] is %d\n", a[8]);