Dynamic arrays with an embedded meta-information struct - c

Question

I am fiddling around with an implementation of a generic dynamic array. The array should hold information about its size, how many entries are used, and then hold the actual data. The meta-information (size/used) is generic, but the data needs to handle different types, so I am handling that with macros. I am trying, however, to get the memory allocation code into functions. So my thought it is: I have a struct for meta-information
struct da_meta {
size_t size;
size_t used;
};
and then I have a macro that creates a struct per type, using a flexible array following the meta information:
#define dynarray(TYPE) \
struct { \
struct da_meta meta; \
TYPE data[]; \
}
I can declare an integer array, for example, as
dynarray(int) *int_array = 0;
To allocate and reallocate arrays, my thought was now to use code such as this:
#define size_overflow(meta_size, obj_size, len) \
((SIZE_MAX - meta_size) / obj_size < len)
// Always free if we cannot reallocate
void *realloc_dynarray_mem(void *p,
size_t meta_size,
size_t obj_size,
size_t new_len)
{
if (size_overflow(meta_size, obj_size, new_len))
goto abort;
struct da_meta *new_da =
realloc(p, meta_size + obj_size * new_len);
if (!new_da) goto abort;
new_da->size = new_len;
new_da->used = MIN(new_da->used, new_len);
return new_da;
abort:
free(p);
return 0;
}
The function gets the size of the struct sans the data objects, the size of individual objects, and the number of objects to allocate memory for. I don't use the size of the struct meta type, because it might be too small depending on the alignment of the data objects, but I will get it from sizeof the concrete (typed) structures. The function will always free the input and return NULL if I cannot allocate because in my application I have to give up if I cannot grow the array, so I don't try to preserve the old data in case there is an error.
There is nothing wrong with this code, as far as I can tell. I can always allocate memory, and as long as I have more than the size of struct meta, I can set the variables there. But when I return the result and use it as a dynarray(T) type, I am less sure. I think it should work, because C should put the memory of the first member of a struct first in a struct, and that is where I put struct meta, but am I right here?
I create a new array like this:
void *new_dynarray_mem(size_t meta_size,
size_t obj_size,
size_t len)
{
struct da_meta *array =
realloc_dynarray_mem(0, meta_size, obj_size, len);
if (array) {
// we do set size in realloc, but
array->size = len;
// if used was not initialised in realloc (and it wasn't)
// then we have to set it here...
array->used = 0;
}
return array;
}
#define new_da(type, init_size) \
new_dynarray_mem(sizeof(dynarray(type)), \
sizeof(type), init_size)
Here, the macro new_da() gets the size of the header/meta information from sizeof(dynarray(type)) and the size of the underlying types from sizeof(type). The second value is fine, but I am also uncertain about the first. Does the C standard guarantee that if I create two different structs with exactly the same code, e.g., calling dynarray(int) twice, that I get the same memory layout? I cannot imagine a compiler that would give me a different layout for the same code, but when it comes to imagining what compilers get up to, I am quite limited.
For appending to the array, I think all is fine. There I do not generate new types but get the size from the existing dynamic array, so if the first allocation is standard compliant, then I think the appending is as well, but I could be wrong.
#define da_free(da) \
do { free(da); da = 0; } while(0)
#define grow(size) \
(((size) == 0) ? /* special case for zero */ \
1 : \
((size) > SIZE_MAX / 2) ? /* can we grow? */ \
0 : /* no, then report size zero */ \
(2 * (size))) /* double the size */
#define da_append(da, ...) \
do { \
if (da->meta.used == da->meta.size) { \
size_t new_size = grow(da->meta.size); \
if (new_size == 0) { da_free(da); break; } \
da = realloc_dynarray_mem( \
da, sizeof *da, *da->data, new_size \
); \
if (!da) break; \
} \
da->data[da->meta.used++] = __VA_ARGS__; \
} while (0)
Am I guaranteed that if I lay out the concrete dynamic arrays with the meta-information at the top of the structs, then I can treat the allocate memory as both a pointer to the meta-information and the array? Is it safe to assume that I get the same size and memory layout if I generate the same struct twice? I feel that it must be that way since it shouldn't differ from if I include the same header file twice, but since I am generating the code there might be something that I am missing.
EDIT Based on the comments, I have updated the code to that below, but I have left the original code (of course) so the comments make sense in terms of that.
#define da_at(da,i) (da->data[(i)])
#define da_len(da) (da->meta.used)
struct da_meta {
size_t size;
size_t used;
};
#define dynarr(TYPE) \
struct { \
struct da_meta meta; \
TYPE data[]; \
}
// Always free if we cannot reallocate
void *realloc_dynarray_mem(struct da_meta *p,
size_t meta_size,
size_t obj_size,
size_t new_len)
{
// Size size overflow?
if (((SIZE_MAX - meta_size) / obj_size < new_len))
goto fail;
struct da_meta *new_da =
realloc(p, meta_size + obj_size * new_len);
if (!new_da) goto fail;
new_da->size = new_len;
new_da->used = MIN(new_da->used, new_len);
return new_da;
fail:
free(p);
return 0;
}
void *new_dynarray_mem(size_t meta_size,
size_t obj_size,
size_t len)
{
struct da_meta *array =
realloc_dynarray_mem(0, meta_size, obj_size, len);
if (array) array->used = 0;
return array;
}
void *grow_dynarray_mem(struct da_meta *p,
size_t meta_size,
size_t obj_size)
{
// Can we double the length?
size_t used = meta_size - obj_size * p->size;
size_t adding = MAX(1, p->size);
if ((SIZE_MAX - used) / obj_size < adding) {
free(p);
return 0;
}
return realloc_dynarray_mem(
p, meta_size, obj_size, p->size + adding
);
}
#define new_da(da, init_size) \
new_dynarray_mem(sizeof *(da), \
sizeof *(da)->data, \
(init_size))
#define da_free(da) \
do { free(da); da = 0; } while(0)
#define da_append(da, ...) \
do { \
if (da->meta.used == da->meta.size) { \
da = grow_dynarray_mem( \
(struct da_meta *)da, \
sizeof *da, sizeof *da->data \
); \
if (!da) break; \
} \
da->data[da->meta.used++] = __VA_ARGS__; \
} while (0)
When used, the code can look like this:
int main(void)
{
dynarr(int) *int_array = new_da(int_array, 0);
if (!int_array) goto error;
printf("%zu out of %zu\n",
int_array->meta.used,
int_array->meta.size);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
da_append(int_array, i);
if (!int_array) goto error;
}
for (int i = 0; i < da_len(int_array); i++) {
printf("%d ", da_at(int_array, i));
}
printf("\n");
da_free(int_array);
return 0;
error:
return 1;
}

Answer 1

Just remember about padding between between meta and the start of the array and about alignment requirements and you should be fine.
because C should put the memory of the first member of a struct first in a struct, and that is where I put struct meta, but am I right here?
Yes.
Am I guaranteed that if I lay out the concrete dynamic arrays with the meta-information at the top of the structs, then I can treat the allocate memory as both a pointer to the meta-information
Yes, and...
and the array?
No. The array starts at address after meta + padding. So at address (char*)da + sizeof(dynarray(TYPE)) or just da->data.
Is it safe to assume that I get the same size and memory layout if I generate the same struct twice?
No and yes. There are many other great stackoverflow questions and answers about that topic - research them. Pragmatically yes, it would be a strange compiler that would would generate different padding for the same looking struct, but technically that's allowed.
using a flexible array
Unless you have specific aim, then I would just advise not to use them. It makes it harder for you to write the code. It makes it very hard to create and manage an array of such arrays.
goto abort;
What an unfortunate name for a goto label - abort() is a standard function.
#define grow(size)
Please use a prefix to all your library functions, especially macros. Defining such macro will make it impossible to use it in other code that happens to use a different grow() function. da_ seems like a good prefix.
I guess *da->data in realloc_dynarray_mem should be sizeof(*da->data).
#edit

Answer 2

I would suggest to use typeof keyword in new_da(). This would avoid specifying the type twice: in dynarray(TYPE) and in new_da(type, init_size). To make it, instead of passing the type, just pass the pointer on the dynamic array:
#define new_da(da, init_size) \
(da) = new_dynarray_mem(sizeof(dynarray(typeof(*(da)))), \
sizeof(typeof((da)->data[0])), (init_size))
Hence, this would avoid the mistake where the type used in the definition would differ from the type used in the allocation:
dynarray(int) *pInt;
pInt = new_da(char, 1024);
UPDATE FROM DISCUSSION IN COMMENTS:
And what about a single macro to define and initialize ?
#define new_da(da, type, init_size) \
dynarray(type) *da = new_dynarray_mem(sizeof(dynarray(type)), sizeof(type), init_size)