I wanted to create a function that deletes from an array of segments the ones that are longer than a given number, by freeing the memory I don't need anymore. The problem is that the function I've created frees also all the memory allocated after the given point. How can I limit it, so that it frees just one pointer without compromising the others?
Here is the code I've written so far:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <time.h>
typedef struct
{
double x1;
double y1;
double x2;
double y2;
} Segment;
double length(Segment* s)
{
return sqrt(pow(s->x1 - s->x2, 2) + pow(s->y1 - s->y2, 2));
}
// HERE IS THE PROBLEM!!
void delete_longer(Segment* as[], int n, double max_len)
{
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
if(length(as[i]) > max_len)
{
as[i] = NULL; // Those two lines should be swapped, but the problem remains
free(as[i]);
}
}
}
int main()
{
const int SIZE = 5;
Segment** arr = (Segment**)calloc(SIZE, sizeof(Segment*));
for(int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
{
arr[i] = (Segment*)malloc(sizeof(Segment));
}
srand(time(0));
for(int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
{
arr[i]->x1 = rand() % 100;
arr[i]->x2 = rand() % 100;
arr[i]->y1 = rand() % 100;
arr[i]->y2 = rand() % 100;
printf("Lungezza: %d\n", (int)length(arr[i]));
}
delete_longer(arr, SIZE, 80);
for(int i = 0; i < SIZE && arr[i]; i++)
{
printf("Lunghezza 2: %d\n", (int)length(arr[i]));
}
return 0;
}
First of all the free function should come after the instruction that sets the pointer to NULL, but that's not the main cause of the problem.
What causes the behaviour I described was the fact that the second for loop in the main stops after finding the first NULL pointer. Instead I should have written:
for(int i = 0; i < SIZE ; i++)
{
if(arr[i])
printf("Lunghezza 2: %d\n", (int)length(arr[i]));
}
You have two main problems:
In the delete function you write:
as[i] = NULL;
free(as[i]);
This is the wrong order. You must first free the memory and then set the element to null. But note that this is not the cause of your perceived problem, it only causes a memory leak (i.e. the memory of as[i] becomes inaccessible). You should write:
free(as[i]);
as[i] = NULL;
Your second problem is in your for loop, which now stops at the first null element. So not all the memory after it is deleted, you just don't print it. The loop should be for example:
for(int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
{
printf("Lunghezza 2: %d\n", arr[i]?(int)length(arr[i]):0);
}
Note: I agree with the discussion that free(NULL) may be implementation dependent in older implementations of the library function. In my personal opinion, never pass free a null pointer. I consider it bad practice.
There's no way to change the size of an array at runtime. The compiler assigns the memory statically, and even automatic arrays are fixed size (except if you use the last C standard, in which you can specify a different size at declaration time, but even in that case, the array size stands until the array gets out of scope). The reason is that, once allocated, the memory of an array gets surrounded of other declarations that, being fixed, make it difficult ot use the memory otherwise.
The other alternative is to allocate the array dynamically. You allocate a fixed number of cells, and store with the array, not only it's size, but also its capacity (the maximum amount of cell it is allow to grow) Think that erasing an element of an array requires moving all the elements behind to the front one place, and this is in general an expensive thing to do. If your array is filled with references to other objects, a common technique is to use NULL pointers on array cells that are unused, or to shift all the elements one place to the beginning.
Despite the technique you use, arrays are a very efficient way to access multiple objects of the same type, but they are difficult to shorten or enlengthen.
Finally, a common technique to handle arrays in a way you can consider them as variable length is to allocate a fixed amount of cells (initially) and if you need more memory to allocate double the space of the original (there are other approaches, like using a fibonacci sequence to grow the array) and use the size of the array and the actual capacity of it. Only in case your array is full, you call a function that will allocate a new array of larger size, adjust the capacity, copy the elements to the new copy, and deallocate the old array. This will work until you fill it again.
You don't post any code, so I shall do the same. If you have some issue with some precise code, don't hesitate to post it in your question, I'll try to provide you with a working solution.
Related
I am trying to shift the elements in a dynamically created 3d array by one index, so that each element [i][j][k] should be on [i+1][j][k].
This is how my array creation looks like
typedef struct stencil{
int ***arr;
int l;
int m;
int n;}matrix;
void createMatrix(matrix *vector){
vector->arr = (int***) malloc(sizeof(int**) * (vector->l+2));
for (int i = 0; i< vector->l+2; ++i) {
vector->arr[i] = (int**) malloc(sizeof(int*) * (vector->m+2));
for (int j = 0; j < vector->m+2; ++j) {
vector->arr[i][j] = (int*) calloc((vector->n+2),sizeof(int));
}
}
}
This is basically what I want to achieve with memmove
for(int i = vector->l-1; i >= 0; --i){
for(int j = vector->m; j >= 0; --j){
for(int k = vector->n; k >= 0; --k){
vector->arr[i+1][j][k] = vector->arr[i][j][k];
}
}
}
for some reason memmove shifts 2 indices.
memmove(&(vector->arr[1][1][1]), &(vector->arr[0][1][1]), (vector->l+2)*(vector->m+2)*(vector->n)*sizeof(int*));
Could anyone give me a hint?
When you create a dynamic multi-dimensional array like this, the array contents are not contiguous -- each row is a separate allocation. So you can't move it all with a single memmov().
But you don't need to copy all the data, just shift the pointers in the top-level array.
int **temp = arr[l-1]; // save last pointer, which will be overwritten
memmov(&arr[1], &arr[0], sizeof(*arr[1]));
arr[0] = temp;
I've shifted the last element around to the first, to avoid having two elements that point to the same data. You could also free the old last element (including freeing the arrays it points to) and create a new first element, but this was simpler.
Compile with a higher optimization level (-O3). Obtain a direct reference on vector->arr instead of forcing dereferencing on every single array access.
Your call to memmove looks half correct under the assumption that you allocated arr as continuous memory. However, since you said "dynamic", I very much doubt that. Plus the size calculation appears very much wrong, with the sizeof(int*).
I suppose arr is not int arr[constexpr][constexpr][constexpr] (single, continuous allocation), but rather int ***arr.
In which case the memmove goes horribly wrong. After moving the int** contents of the arr field by one (which actually already did the move), it caused a nasty overflow on the heap, most likely by chance hitting also a majority of the int* allocations following.
Looks like a double move, and leaves behind a completely destroyed heap.
Simply doing this would work (Illustrating in a 3d array)
memmove(arr[1], arr[0], Y*Z*sizeof(int));
where Y and Z denotes the other 2 dimensions of the 2d array.
Here arr[X][Y][Z] is the int array where X>=2.
In case of dynamically allocated memory you need to do each continuous chunk one by one. Then it would work.
I am learning C language. I want to know the size of an array inside a function. This function receive a pointer pointing to the first element to the array. I don't want to send the size value like a function parameter.
My code is:
#include <stdio.h>
void ShowArray(short* a);
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
short vec[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
short* p = &vec[0];
ShowArray(p);
return 0;
}
void ShowArray(short* a)
{
short i = 0;
while( *(a + i) != NULL )
{
printf("%hd ", *(a + i) );
++i;
}
printf("\n");
}
My code doesn't show any number. How can I fix it?
Thanks.
Arrays in C are simply ways to allocate contiguous memory locations and are not "objects" as you might find in other languages. Therefore, when you allocate an array (e.g. int numbers[5];) you're specifying how much physical memory you want to reserve for your array.
However, that doesn't tell you how many valid entries you have in the (conceptual) list for which the physical array is being used at any specific point in time.
Therefore, you're required to keep the actual length of the "list" as a separate variable (e.g. size_t numbers_cnt = 0;).
I don't want to send the size value like a function parameter.
Since you don't want to do this, one alternative is to use a struct and build an array type yourself. For example:
struct int_array_t {
int *data;
size_t length;
};
This way, you could use it in a way similar to:
struct int_array_t array;
array.data = // malloc for array data here...
array.length = 0;
// ...
some_function_call(array); // send the "object", not multiple arguments
Now you don't have to write: some_other_function(data, length);, which is what you originally wanted to avoid.
To work with it, you could simply do something like this:
void display_array(struct int_array_t array)
{
size_t i;
printf("[");
for(i = 0; i < array.length; ++i)
printf("%d, ", array.data[i]);
printf("]\n");
}
I think this is a better and more reliable alternative than another suggestion of trying to fill the array with sentinel values (e.g. -1), which would be more difficult to work with in non-trivial programs (e.g. understand, maintain, debug, etc) and, AFAIK, is not considered good practice either.
For example, your current array is an array of shorts, which would mean that the proposed sentinel value of -1 can no longer be considered a valid entry within this array. You'd also need to zero out everything in the memory block, just in case some of those sentinels were already present in the allocated memory.
Lastly, as you use it, it still wouldn't tell you what the actual length of your array is. If you don't track this in a separate variable, then you'll have to calculate the length at runtime by looping over all the data in your array until you come across a sentinel value (e.g. -1), which is going to impact performance.
In other words, to find the length, you'd have to do something like:
size_t len = 0;
while(arr[len++] != -1); // this is O(N)
printf("Length is %u\n", len);
The strlen function already suffers from this performance problem, having a time-complexity of O(N), because it has to process the entire string until it finds the NULL char to return the length.
Relying on sentinel values is also unsafe and has produced countless bugs and security vulnerabilities in C and C++ programs, to the point where even Microsoft recommends banning their use as a way to help prevent more security holes.
I think there's no need to create this kind of problem. Compare the above, with simply writing:
// this is O(1), does not rely on sentinels, and makes a program safer
printf("Length is %u\n", array.length);
As you add/remove elements into array.data you can simply write array.length++ or array.length-- to keep track of the actual amount of valid entries. All of these are constant-time operations.
You should also keep the maximum size of the array (what you used in malloc) around so that you can make sure that array.length never goes beyond said limit. Otherwise you'd get a segfault.
One way, is to use a terminator that is unique from any value in the array. For example, you want to pass an array of ints. You know that you never use the value -1. So you can use that as your terminator:
#define TERM (-1)
void print(int *arr)
{
for (; *arr != TERM; ++arr)
printf("%d\n", *arr);
}
But this approach is usually not used, because the sentinel could be a valid number. So normally, you will have to pass the length.
You can't use sizeof inside of the function, because as soon as you pass the array, it decays into a pointer to the first element. Thus, sizeof arr will be the size of a pointer on your machine.
#include <stdio.h>
void ShowArray(short* a);
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
short vec[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
short* p = &vec[0];
ShowArray(p);
return 0;
}
void ShowArray(short* a)
{
short i = 0;
short j;
j = sizeof(*a) / sizeof(short);
while( i < j )
{
printf("%hd ", *(a + i) );
++i;
}
printf("\n");
}
Not sure if this will work tho give it a try (I don't have a pc at the moment)
I am new to C and was writing a function to insert an element to sorted list. But my code does not display the last digit correctly. Though i know there are variety of ways to correct it but i want to know why my code isnt working, here's the code
#include <stdio.h>
int insert(int array[],int val);
int main (void)
{
int arr[5],j;
for (j = 0; j<5; j++)
{
scanf("%d",&arr[j]);
}
insert(arr,2);
for(j = 0;j<6;j++)
printf("%d",arr[j]);
return(0);
}
int insert(int array[],int val)
{
int k,i;
for (k = 0;k<5;k++)
if(val<array[k])
break;
for (i = 4; i>=k;i--)
{
array[i+1] = array[i];
}
array[k] = val;
return(1);
}
You are writing out of the range of the array here:
for (i = 4; i>=k;i--)
{
array[i+1] = array[i];
Where i+1 == 5 and you array has a range of 0 ...
4
Then you try to print the array but you go out of bounds again:
for(j = 0;j<6;j++)
printf("%d",arr[j]);
First make sure your array is large enough.
When you give a static / auto array to a function for insertion of elements, you must give: Address, Valid length, and Buffer Space unless guaranteed large enough.
When giving a dynamically allocated array, you must give pointer and valid length, you might give buffer space or guarantee enough space left to avoid reallocations.
Otherwise, you risk a buffer overrun, and UB means anything may happen, as in your example.
You're trying to make arr[6] out of arr[5] adding one val - it's impossible in C using statically allocated arrays.
To accomplish what you're trying to do you'd need to use dynamical arrays allocation:
int *arr;
int N = 5;
arr = (int *)malloc(N*sizeof(int));
then you use this arr same way as you did with arr[5] for loading data here via scanf.
And later on , while adding extra value to array - you'd need to reallocate your arr to make it bigger (read about malloc/realloc C functions):
arr = (int *)realloc((N+1)*sizeof(int));
Now your arr is of 6 int-s size.
Unfortunately if you don't know array sizes (number of elements) a priori you would need to deal with dynamical memory allocations in C.
Don't forget to release that memory in the end of the main() function:
free(arr);
You have to increase your array size from 5 to 6 as you are inserting one new element in your array, so there should be some space for that.
int arr[6];
you can also find more information in the link below:
https://learndswithvishal.blogspot.com/2020/06/insert-element-in-sorted-array.html
i have a 2D array of size 5428x5428 size.and it is a symmetric array. but while compiling it gives me an error saying that array size too large. can anyone provide me a way?
This array is to large for program stack memory - thats your error.
int main()
{
double arr[5428][5428]; // 8bytes*5428*5428 = 224MB
// ...
// use arr[y][x]
// ...
// no memory freeing needed
}
Use dynamic array allocation:
int main()
{
int i;
double ** arr;
arr = (double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*5428);
for (i = 0; i < 5428; i++)
arr[i] = (double*)malloc(sizeof(double)*5428);
// ...
// use arr[y][x]
// ...
for (i = 0; i < 5428; i++)
free(arr[i]);
free(arr);
}
Or allocate plain array of size MxN and use ptr[y*width+x]
int main()
{
double * arr;
arr = (double*)malloc(sizeof(double)*5428*5428);
// ...
// use arr[y*5428 + x]
// ...
free(arr);
}
Or use combined method:
int main()
{
int i;
double * arr[5428]; // sizeof(double*)*5428 = 20Kb of stack for x86
for(i = 0; i < 5428; i++)
arr[i] = (double)malloc(sizeof(double)*5428);
// ...
// use arr[y][x]
// ...
for(i = 0; i < 5428; i++)
free(arr[i]);
}
When arrays get large, there are a number of solutions. The one that is good for you depends heavily on what you are actually doing.
I'll list a few to get you thinking:
Buy more memory.
Move your array from the stack to the heap.
The stack has tighter size limitations than the heap.
Simulate portions of the array (you say yours is symmetric, so just under 1/2 of the data is redundant).
In your case, the array is symmetric, so instead of using an array, use a "simulated array"
int getArray(array, col, row);
void setArray(array, col, row, value);
where array is a data structure tha only holds the lower left half and the diagonal. The getArray(..) then determines if the column is greater than the row, and if it is, it returns (note the reversed entries getArray(array, row, col); This leverages the symmetric property of the array without the need to actually hold both symmetric sides.
Simulate the array using a list (or tree or hash table) of "only the value holding items"
This works very well for sparse arrays, as you no longer need to allocate memory to hold large numbers of zero (or empty) values. In the event that someone "looks up" a non-set value, your code "discovers" no value set for that entry, and then returns the "zero" or empty value without it actually being stored in your array.
Again without more details, it is hard to know what kind of solution is the best approach.
When you create local variables, they go on the stack, which is of limited size. You're blowing through that limit.
You want your array to go on the heap, which is all the virtual memory your system has, i.e. gigs and gigs on a modern system. There are two ways to manage that. One is to dynamically allocate the array as in k06a's answer; use malloc() or your platform-specific allocator function (e.g. GlobalAlloc() on Windows) . The second is to declare the array as a global or module static variable, outside of any function.
Using a global or static has the disadvantage that this memory will be allocated for the entire lifetime of your program. Also, pretty much everybody hates globals on principle. On the other hand, you can use the two-dimensional array syntax, "array[x][y]" and the like, to access array elements... easier than doing array[x + y * width], plus you don't have to remember whether you're supposed to be doing "x + y * width" or "x * height + y" .
The exercise says "Create a function with two parameters a and b which are integers and the function will return an array of integers with every number from a to b.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void exc(int a, int b){
int i,k=0,d[k];
for(i=a;i<=b;i++){
d[k]=i;
k++;
printf("%d ",d[k]);
}
}
int main(void){
int c,d;
printf("Give first integer: ");
scanf("%d",&c);
printf("Give second integer: ");
scanf("%d",&d);
exc(c,d);
system("pause");
}
The problem is that if I put for example c=2 and d=5 the program returns something like 2088806975 16384 1 2293536 instead of 2 3 4 5. Where is the problem? Thanks
For starters
If your main() has return type int, don't forget to return a value from it!
int main(void)
{
/* code here */
return 0;
}
Problem 1
By
d[k]=i;
k++;
printf("%d ", d[k]);
I think you meant
d[k]=i;
printf("%d ", d[k]);
k++;
otherwise you're printing the "next" array element each time, which will be one-past-the-end of the array on the last loop iteration.
Problem 2
int i,k=0,d[k];
You make an array d of size k where k is 0. I think you intended for the array to automatically resize when you write k++, but this is not the case. The array is created with zero elements, and then that's its size for all time.
Your next instinct may be to create the array big enough in the first place:
int d[b-a+1];
Unfortunately, this is most likely wrong, too. It relies on a feature called Variable Length Arrays (or "VLAs"); although a GCC compiler extension (and, incidentally, C99) does allow this (and it's not clear whether you have that extension enabled and/or are allowed to use it in your homework — I will assume for this answer that you do not / are not), the language itself does not allow an array with a dynamic size.
What do I mean by dynamic size?
I mean that the variables a and b depend on user input: they are not known at compile-time. In general, the size of an array must be known at compile-time.
Note: If you use this, your code may compile without error, and your program may even appear to run and work correctly. However, you'd be relying on what's called "Undefined Behaviour", and your code could stop running or even crash at any time, due to any number of random, unpredictable factors. Even if it looks like it's okay, it's invalid. Don't do it!
Solution
Fortunately, there is a way to allocate a block of memory with the right size for your elements, when you don't know the elements until your program runs. It's called "dynamic allocation", and it involves a function call:
int *d = malloc(sizeof(int) * (b-a+1));
You can use the same syntax (d[k]) to access "elements" in this "array" or block of memory, but you must later manually free the memory:
free(d);
Possible problem 3
Your assignment says to return an array from the function, but you're not doing this. Instead, you're just creating, filling and printing the array all within the same function (which seems a bit pointless).
You can't actually return an array either, but since you're dynamically allocating the space for it, you have a pointer to work with. It's my opinion that your teacher may have wanted you to return a pointer to this array.
If so, the finished code looks a bit like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int *exc(int a, int b)
{
int i, k = 0;
int *d = malloc(sizeof(int) * ((b-a)+1));
for (i=a; i<=b; i++) {
d[k]=i;
k++;
}
return d;
}
int main(void)
{
int a,b,i,*ar;
printf("Give first integer: ");
scanf("%d",&a);
printf("Give second integer: ");
scanf("%d",&b);
ar = exc(a,b);
for (i=0; i < (b-a+1); i++) {
printf("%d ", ar[i]);
}
free(ar);
system("pause");
return 0;
}
Disclaimer: I'm rusty on C, so the finished code might have a few syntax bugs.
Hope this helps!
The size of d is always 0. Since you are initializing it as d[k]. You should instead do something like d[b-a+1].
Update:
Furthermore, the order of your statements are wrong, see pmg's answer.
Update 2:
Your code doesn't actually return the array you are creating and it won't work unless you create the array on the heap (ie. using malloc / free).
The order of statements is not correct
d[k]=i; // d[0] = 42;
k++; // ...
printf("%d ",d[k]); // print d[1]
You need to allocate the memory for the array first, use malloc with the amount of integers you need to assign
Also, to be true to the problem statement, have the function return a pointer to the array so the main function can print it out instead of the exec function doing it directly.
Doing somebodys homework is always somewhat bad but obviously OP has no idea how to aproach this particular problem so here is a full example of dynamic memory allocation (overly commented).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* required for malloc() and free() */
/* function that retuns a pointer to int type of data */
int *create_array(int a, int b)
{
int *array;
int array_size = b - a + 1; /* assuming that 'a' is always smaller than 'b' */
int i;
array = malloc( array_size * sizeof(int) ); /* allocate memory for the array */
if(array == NULL) exit(EXIT_FAILURE); /* bail out if allocation fails */
/* assign the values into array */
for(i = 0; i < array_size; ++i)
array[i] = a++;
/* return a pointer to our allocated array */
return array;
}
int main(void)
{
int *array;
int i, a = 42, b = 50;
/* and now we can call the function to create the array */
array = create_array(a, b);
/* print results */
for(i = 0; i < b - a + 1; ++i)
printf("%d\n", array[i]);
/* always remember to free the data after you are done with it */
free(array);
return 0;
}
You incorrectly declare d array in your code:
int d[k];
should be:
int d[b-a+1];
Edit::
Also, as others have posted, the statement order is wrong:
d[k]=i;
k++;
printf("%d ",d[k]);
should be:
d[k]=i;
printf("%d ",d[k]);
k++;
because otherwise you "lose" the first value when k==0.
You made an array of size zero and then started throwing data in without resizing the array. I'm a bit surprised that you aren't getting an error.
You're accessing data from memory outside the safety of defined data storage. It should be an error because the results are not defined. The data past the end of your array could be used for anything. And since your array is size zero, everything is past the end.
There are a couple problems. First, d is not returned from exc. Of course, you shouldn't just return it since it's allocated on the stack. Secondly, the printf is called after you increment k. That prints the next element in d, not the one whose value you just filled in. Finally, d doesn't have any space allocated for it, since k is always 0 when d is created.
It happens because you allocate memory for d on the stack. If you move the declaration of it outside the function, everything shoud be ok.