I'm trying to multiply two dynamic matrices by passing them through a function. I'm getting a segmentation fault during the multiplication.
The matrices are being passed through a function. The items in the arguments are correct because I had to use them for a different operation in this project. I have a feeling that I messed up with the pointers, but i'm pretty new to C and i'm not sure where I messed up.
double** multiplyMatrices(
double** a,
const uint32_t a_rows,
const uint32_t a_cols,
double** b,
const uint32_t b_cols){
uint32_t i = 0;
uint32_t j = 0;
uint32_t k = 0;
double** c;
//allocate memory to matrix c
c = (double **)malloc(sizeof(double *) * a_rows);
for (i = 0; i < a_rows; i++) {
*(c +i) = (double *)malloc(sizeof(double) * b_cols);
}
//clear matrix c
for(i = 0; i < a_rows; i++){
for(j = 0; j < a_cols; j++){
*c[j] = 0;
}
}
i = 0;
//multiplication
while(j = 0, i < a_rows ){
while(k = 0, j < b_cols){
while(k < a_cols){
//following line is where i'm getting the segmentation fault
*(*(c+(i*b_cols))+j) += (*(*(a+(i*a_cols))+k)) * (*(*(b+(k*b_cols))+j));
k++;
}
j++;
}
i++;
}
return c;
}
The obvious mistake is that you dereference c + i * b_cols while c is an array of pointers of size a_rows. So likely c + i * b_cols is outside of the area that you previously allocated with malloc().
I would suggest to simplify the matrix representation using a single array of double with the size equal to the total number of elements, i.e. rows * cols.
For example:
double *c;
c = malloc(sizeof(double) * a_rows * b_cols);
This not only has better overall performance, but simplifies the code. You would then have to "linearise" the offset inside your unidimensional array to convert from bi-dimensional matrix coordinates. For example:
c[i * b_cols + j] = ...
Of course, the other two matrices need to be allocated, filled and accessed in a similar manner.
For code clarity, I would also replace the while statements by for statements with the actual variable that they loop on. For example:
for (i = 0; i < a_rows; i++)
for (j = 0; j < b_cols; j++)
for (k = 0; k < a_cols; k++)
You can (ab)use the C language in many ways, but the trick is to make it more clear for you in the first place.
Related
I'm trying to make a code which converts some decimal numbers to bits.
There are more simple ways to reach this result but I'm poking around and joking with memory in C.
int ** decimalToBits(int *number,int size){
int **bits = (int **)malloc(sizeof(*bits)*size), i = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < size; j++) {
int * temp = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
while (number[j] >= 1) {
temp[i++] = number[j] % 2;
number[j] /= 2;
realloc(temp, sizeof(int));
}
printf("\n");
bits[j] = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)*i);
for (int k = i-1; k >= 0; k--){
bits[j][k] = temp[k];
printf("%d" ,bits[j][k]);
}
i = 0;
}
return bits;
}
I'm having some allocation problems, first of all I'm going to explain the idea:
I pass to the function multiple numbers, so for example:
int numbers[2] = {23,73};
decimalToBits(numbers,2);
Each converted number will be stored in **bits double pointer, so bits[0] will contain the number 23 converted, and bits[1] will contain 73 converted as well.
The problem shows up when I do bits[j] = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)*i); call,
because this seems to let the temp pointer to be overwritten with some random numbers. In fact if I remove the bits[j] = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)*i); and bits[j][k] = temp[k]; lines and I replace printf("%d" ,bits[j][k]); with printf("%d" ,temp[k]);
the code seems to have a good behavior, and it gives me the correct output:
10111
1001001
I also noticed that allocating the bits[j] = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)*8); externally from the for (int j = 0; j < size; j++) loop let the code works. So why this allocation problem occurs when declared just like the above code and what's the best way to solve it?
I am trying to perform a simple operation. I have a matrix that is A x B by size. I have a list of indices of length C, and I want to make a C x B matrix by collecting rows from the first matrix according to the indices. i.e. index i tells me which row from the first matrix I put into row i in the second matrix.
I presorted the indices so the algorithm is input stationary: I load in the row from the A x B matrix and write that row to all the rows in the C x B matrix.
The code looks something like this:
for(int i = 0;i < A; i ++)
{
for(int k = offsets[i]; k < offsets[i+1]; k ++)
{
int dest = index1[k];
for(int j = 0;j < C/ 8; j++)
{
__m256 a = _mm256_load_ps(&input[i * C + j * 8]);
_mm256_store_ps(&output[dest * C + j * 8] ,a);
}
}
}
The code is entirely bottlenecked by write to memory.
This code is efficient when C is small. However it scales very poorly when C increases, which I surmise is due to cache behavior. (It takes 10x time when C = 1024 compared to C = 256).
I tried blocking in the C dimension:
for(int c = 0; c < C; c+= K){
for(int i = 0;i < A; i ++)
{
for(int k = offsets[i]; k < offsets[i+1]; k ++)
{
int dest = index1[k];
for(int j = 0;j < C/ 8 / K; j++)
{
__m256 a = _mm256_load_ps(&input[i * C + c + j * 8]);
_mm256_store_ps(&output[dest * C + c + j * 8] ,a);
}
}
}
}
This actually slows down the code more.
Any suggestions?
It seems the inner loop is a mere streamed copy operation. Cache wouldn't matter in such a case. Rather try using simple memcpy() instead so the compiler can yield better execution code, hopefully.
//for(int j = 0;j < C/ 8; j++)
//{
// __m256 a = _mm256_load_ps(&input[i * C + j * 8]);
// _mm256_store_ps(&output[dest * C + j * 8] ,a);
//}
memcpy(&output[dest * C], &input[i * C], C * sizeof(float));
Appendix
If satisfiable results won't be obtained, in the last resort, take C++ and replace the outer loop with parllel_for(). Then it may be possible to make the cache(or otherwise pipeline?) work a little bit better.
parallel_for(0, A, [&](const int i) {
for(int k = offsets[i]; k < offsets[i+1]; k++)
{
int dest = index1[k];
memcpy(&output[dest * C], &input[i * C], C * sizeof(float));
}
});
Assume that we have given two vector of labels which one of them is the truth and the other one is the predicted ones. My question is how we can write a correct confusion matrix for it in C. This is a function which supposes to find the confusion matrix in a larger c code. I appreciate some help regarding this.
double ConfusionMatrix(int truth[], int prediction[]){
/* The truth vector of labels, the predicted vector of labels, and the unique length of labels which should be given. */
int i, j, c;
int labels; /* The length of unique labels */
conf_mat = (float**)calloc(truth, sizeof(float*)); /* Allocating Memory to the Confusion Matrix. */
for (i = 0; i < truth; i++)
conf_mat[i] = (float*)calloc(truth, sizeof(float));
for (i = 0; i < truth; i++)
for (c = 0; c < truth; c++)
conf_mat[c][i] = 0.0;
for (j = 0; j < truth; j++){
c = labels[j];
for (i = 0; i < prediction; i++)
conf_mat[c][i] += prediction[i][j];
}
/* As Confusion Matrix is sparse, then print only the entries above the threshold. */
printf("Print the Confusion Matrix \n Print only the entries above 0.1\n");
for (c = 0; c < truth; c++){
printf("\n\nClass %d documents were classified in these classes\n", c);
for (i = 0; i < truth; i++)
if (conf_mat[c][i] >= 0.1)
printf("class %d:%5.1f times ", i, conf_mat[c][i]);
}
}
I have been looking for a way to swap the names between two matrices in C. I have 2 square size x size matrices. I make some operation to the one of them, I put the result in a cell in the other matrix, then I swap their names and I repeat.
Below I am giving my code
int main(void){
int const size = 1000;
int const steps = 10;
float A[size][size], B[size][size];
int i,j,k;
int t = 0;
double sum = 0;
double sum1 = 0;
int const ed = size - 1;
for(i = 0; i < size; ++i){
for(j = 0; j < size; ++j){// initialize the matrices
A[i][j] = i+j;
B[i][j] = 0;
}
}
for(i = 0; i < size; ++i){//find the sum of the values in the first matrix
for(j = 0; j < size; ++j){
sum = sum + A[i][j];
}
}
printf("The total sum of the matrix 1 is %lf \n",sum);
for(k = 0; k < steps; ++k){//for each cell of the matrix A calculate the average of the values' of the cell and its surroundings and put it in the coresponding place in the matrix B and then copy matrix B to matrix A and repeat. There are special cases for the cells who are at the edges and the last or first row/column.
for(i = 0; i < size; ++i){
for(j = 0; j < size; ++j){
if(i==0){
if(j==0)
B[i][j]=(A[0][0]+A[0][1]+A[0][ed]+A[1][0]+A[ed][0])/5.0;
else if(j==ed)
B[i][j]=(A[0][ed]+A[0][0]+A[0][ed-1]+A[1][ed]+A[ed][ed])/5.0;
else
B[i][j]=(A[0][j]+A[0][j+1]+A[0][j-1]+A[1][j]+A[ed][j])/5.0;
}else if(i==ed){
if(j==0)
B[i][j]=(A[ed][0]+A[ed][1]+A[ed][ed]+A[0][0]+A[ed-1][0])/5.0;
else if(j==ed)
B[i][j]=(A[ed][ed]+A[ed][0]+A[ed][ed-1]+A[0][ed]+A[ed-1][ed])/5.0;
else
B[i][j]=(A[ed][j]+A[ed][j+1]+A[ed][j-1]+A[0][j]+A[ed-1][j])/5.0;
}else{
if(j==0)
B[i][j]=(A[i][0]+A[i][1]+A[i][ed]+A[i+1][0]+A[i-1][0])/5.0;
else if(j==ed)
B[i][j]=(A[i][ed]+A[i][0]+A[i][ed-1]+A[i+1][ed]+A[i-1][ed])/5.0;
else
B[i][j]=(A[i][j]+A[i][j+1]+A[i][j-1]+A[i+1][j]+A[i-1][j])/5.0;
}
}
}
sum1 = 0;
for(i = 0; i < size; ++i){
for(j = 0; j < size; ++j){
sum1 = sum1 + B[i][j];
}
}
t=t+1;
for(i = 0; i < size; ++i){
for(j = 0; j < size; ++j){
A[i][j] = B[i][j];
}
}
printf("%lf \n",sum1-sum);
}
printf("The total sum of the matrix 2 is %lf \n",sum1);
printf("Number of steps completed: %i \n",t);
printf("Number of steps failed to complete: %i \n", steps-t);
return 0;
}
I have used the method of copying each time the one matrix to the other, but this is not efficient.
I have a hint that I should use pointers but I can not figure it out. Any help will be much appreciated.
You can swap the values of any two variables of the same type by assigning the value of the first to a temporary variable then assigning the value of the second to the first, then assigning the value of the temporary variable to the second:
int a = 2, b = 3, tmp;
tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
In particular, it works exactly the same when the variables are of pointer type, so
/* The matrices */
double one[3][3], another[3][3];
/* pointers to the matrices */
double (*matrix1p)[3] = one;
double (*matrix2p)[3] = another;
double (*tmp)[3];
/* ... perform matrix operations using matrix1p and matrix2p ... */
/* swap labels (pointers): */
tmp = matrix1p;
matrix1p = matrix2p;
matrix2p = tmp;
/* ... perform more matrix operations using matrix1p and matrix2p ... */
Updated to clarify:
matrix1p is initially an alias for one, and matrix2p is initially an alias for another. After the swap, matrix1p is an alias for another, whereas matrix2p is an alias for one. Of course, you can perform such a swap as many times as you want. You cannot, however, swap one and another themselves, except via an element-by-element swap.
Note that this yields improved efficiency because pointers are quite small relative to the matrices themselves. You don't have to move the elements of the matrices, but only to change which matrix each pointer refers to.
Yes, you should definitely use pointers, for example:
void swap (int*** m1, int*** m2)
{
int** temp;
temp = *m1;
*m1 = *m2;
*m2 = temp;
}
And then invoke:
int m1[5][5] = 0;
int m2[5][5] = 0;
swap (&m1, &m2);
I'm trying to multiply two multidimensional arrays to form a matrix. I have this function. This should work in theory. However, I am just getting 0s and large/awkward numbers. Can someone help me with this?
int **matrix_mult( int **a, int **b, int nr1, int nc1, int nc2 )
{
int **c;
int i,j,k,l;
c = malloc(sizeof(int *)*nr1);
if (c == NULL){
printf("Insuff memm");
}
for(l=0;l<nr1;l++){
c[l] = malloc(sizeof(int)*nc1);
if (c[l] == NULL){
printf("Insuff memm");
}
}//for loop
for (i=0;i<nr1;i++){
for (j=0;j<nc2;j++){
for (k=0;k<nc1;k++){
c[i][j] = (a[i][k]) * (b[k][j]);
}
}
}
return( c );
}
Are you doing mathematical matrix multiplication? If so shouldn't it be:
for(i = 0; i < nr1; i++)
{
for(j = 0; j < nc1; j++)
{
c[i][k] = 0;
for(k = 0; k < nc2; k++)
{
c[i][k] += (a[i][j]) * (b[j][k]);
}
}
}
My full and final solution, tested to produce sensible results (I didn't actually do all the calculations myself manually to check them) and without any sensible niceties such as checking memory allocations work, is:
int **matrix_mult(int **a, int **b, int nr1, int nc1, int nc2)
{
int **c;
int i, j, k;
c = malloc(sizeof(int *) * nr1);
for (i = 0; i < nr1; i++)
{
c[i] = malloc(sizeof(int) * nc2);
for (k = 0; k < nc2; k++)
{
c[i][k] = 0;
for (j = 0; j < nc1; j++)
{
c[i][k] += (a[i][j]) * (b[j][k]);
}
}
}
return c;
}
There were a few typos in the core of the for loop in my original answer, mostly due to my being mislead by a different answer. These have been corrected for posterity.
If you change c[i][j] = (a[i][k]) * (b[k][j]); to c[i][j] += (a[i][k]) * (b[k][j]); in your code then it will work just fine provided that
nr1 is number of rows of matrix a
nc1 is the number of columns of the matrix a
nc2 is the number of columns of the matrix b
Just be sure that the matrix c is initiated with zeroes. You can just use calloc instead of malloc when allocating space, or memset the allocated array after a call to malloc.
One more tip is to avoid using the letter l when accessing array elements. when tired, you will have hard time noticing errors with l vs 1.