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.
Related
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.
I meet a case that I want to have an array of pointers(M rows, N cols), each member of this array points to a float vector (L‑length). Could you tell me how to establish it? I hope I can establish it dynamically because I usually don't know M, N, and L at first and L may be different for difference vector.
My occasion is that I need to read Green function with different distance(NDIS) and depth(NDP). So I need to create something like *grn[NDP][NDIS]. then use each pointer of this array to point to a component of green function.
By the way, I think it's a little bit complex than setting a size known array of pointers. Do you think it's worth to use this type of data structure? I'm trying to write a program to deal with observation, which I usually unknown it's size.
However, it's ok for me to use a size-fixed array of pointers. If the total data is larger than the given size, I could ignore the over-sized part. But I'd hope to use them all.
You need to use the 2-d array and need to allocate it Dynamically, like this:
int i, j;
float **arr;
arr = malloc(sizeof(float*) * Size1); //1st array setup
for(i = 0; i < Size1; i++)
arr[i] = malloc(sizeof(float*) * Size2); // 2nd array setup at each element of 1st array
Now accessing it like this:
for(i = 0; i < Size1; i++)
for(j = 0; j < Size2; j++)
printf("%f", arr[i][j]);
Size1 & Size2 are sizes of first array and second array.
You can setup different sizes of individual arrays in first array elements, for that you need to do it without loop and by changing the Size2 variable.
Hope this helps.
I have a 1d buffer which i have to re-organize to be accessed as a 2d array. I have pasted my code below:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void alloc(int ** buf, int r, int c)
{
int **temp=buf;
for(int i=0; i<r; i++)
buf[i]=(int *)temp+i*c;
}
void main()
{
int *buffer=(int *)malloc(sizeof(int)*100);
int **p = (int**) buffer;
alloc(p, 4, 4);
//for(int i=0;i<r;i++)
//for(int j=0;j<c;j++)
// printf("\n %p",&p[i][j]);
p[0][3]=10;
p[2][3]=10;
p[3][2]=10; //fails here
printf("\n %d", p[2][3]);
}
The code is crashing when i make the assignment.
I have ran the code for different test cases. I have observed that the code crashes when there is an assignment to p[0][x] followed by assignment to p[x][anything] with the code crashing at the second assignment. This crash is seen only when the first index of the first assignment is 0 and for no other indices with the crash happening at the second assignment having the first index equal to the second index of the first assignment.
For example, in the above code crash happens at p[3][2] after p[0][3] has been executed. If i change the first assignment to p[0][2] then crash would happen at p[2][3]( or p[2][anything] for that matter).
I have checked the memory pointed to by p, by uncommenting the double for loop, and it seems to be fine. I was suspecting writing at illegal memory locations but that has been ruled out by the above observation.
The problem is that your 2D array is actually an array of pointers to arrays. That means you need to have space for the pointers. At the moment you have your pointers in positions 0-3 in the array, but p[0] is also pointing to position 0. When you write to 'p[0,3]' you are overwriting p[3].
One (tempting) way to fix it is to allow the pointers room at the start of the array. So you could change your alloc method to allow for some space at the front. Something like:
buf[i] = (int *)(temp+r) + i*c;
Note the +r adding to the temp. It needs to be added to temp before it is cast as you can't assume int and int * are the same type.
I would not recommend this method as you still have to remember to allocate extra space in your original malloc to account for the array of pointers. It also means you aren't just converting a 1D array to a 2D array.
Another option would be to allocate your array as an array of pointers to individually allocated arrays. This is the normal way to allocate 2D arrays. However this will not result in a contiguous array of data as you have in your 1D array.
Half way between these two options, you could allocate an extra array of pointers to hold the pointers you need, and then point them to the data. Change your alloc to something like:
int **alloc(int * buf, int r, int c)
{
int **temp = (int **)malloc(sizeof (int *)* r);
for (int i = 0; i<r; i++)
temp[i] = buf + i*c;
return temp;
}
then you call it like:
int **p = alloc(buffer, 4, 4);
you also need to free up the extra buffer.
This way your data and the pointers you need to access it are kept separate and you can keep your original 1D data contiguous.
Note that you don't need to cast the result of malloc in c, in fact some say that you shouldn't.
Also note that this method removes all of the requirement for casting pointers, anything that removes the need for a cast is a good thing.
I think that your fundamental problem is a misconception about 2D arrays in C (Your code is C, not C++).
A 2D array is a consecutive memory space , and the size of the inner array must be known in advance. So you basically cannot convert a 1D array into a 2D array unless the size of the inner array is known at compile time. If it is known, you can do something like
int *buffer=(int *)malloc(sizeof(int)*100);
typedef int FourInts[4];
FourInts *p = (FourInts *)buffer;
And you don't need an alloc function, the data is already aligned correctly.
If you don't know the size of the inner array in advance, you can define and allocate an array of arrays, pointing into the 1D buffer. Code for that:
int ** alloc(int * buf, int r, int c)
{
int **array2d = (int **) malloc(r*sizeof(int *));
for(int i=0; i<r; i++)
array2d[i] = buf+i*c;
return array2d;
}
void _tmain()
{
int *buffer=(int *)malloc(sizeof(int)*100);
int **p = alloc(buffer,4,4);
p[0][3]=10;
p[2][3]=10;
p[3][2]=10; //fails here
printf("\n %d", p[2][3]);
free(buffer);
free(p);
}
But it would have been easier to simply build an array of arrays without using the buffer. If you could use C++ instead of C, then everything could be easier.
If you already have a 1D block of data, the way to make it accessible as a 2D array is to create an array of pointers - one for each row. You point the first one to the start of the block, the next one is offset by the number of columns, etc.
int **b;
b = malloc(numrows*sizeof(int*));
b[0]=temp; // assuming temp is 1D block
for(int ii=1; ii<numrows;ii++)
b[ii]=b[0]+ii*numcols;
Now you can access b[i][j] and it will point to your original data. As long as number of rows and columns are known at run time this allows you to pass variable length 2D arrays around. Remember that you have to free the vector of pointers as well as the main data block when you are done or you will get a memory leak.
You will find examples of this if you google nrutil.c - this is derived from the trick Numerical Recipes in C uses.
This function prototype should be:
void alloc(int *buf[][], int r, int c) //buf[][] <=> **buf, but clearer in this case
{
//*(buf[i]) =
...
}
If you want to work on the same array you have to pass a pointer to this 2D array (*[][]).
The way you do it now is just working on a copy, so when you return it's not modified.
You should also initialize your array correctly :
p = malloc(sizeof(int *[]) * nb of row);
for each row
p[row] = malloc(sizeof(int []) * nb of col);
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" .