I am wondering what is the best way to clean up memory which was already allocated during the failed creation of 2D array.
int** a = (int**)malloc(rows * sizeof(int*));
for (int i = 0; i != rows; ++i)
a[i] = (int*)malloc(columns * sizeof(int));
for (int i = 0; i != rows; ++i)
free(a[i]);
free(a);
The sample code above should work like a charm. However malloc can return null and when it will the code above will not handle the problem. How can we protect such case?
Let's say (int*)malloc(columns * sizeof(int)) returned null for i = 3. We already have allocated space for int** a and a[0], a[1] and a[2].
Here is my current approach. Ugly and not sure if correct. This is why I am asking you for help.
int rows;
int columns;
scanf("%d", &rows);
scanf("%d", &columns);
int** a = (int**)malloc(rows * sizeof(int*));
if (!a)
{
printf("Cannot allocate enough space."); // nothing to clean up here
return 1; // to make example easier
}
int i;
bool arrayCreated = true;
for (i = 0; i != rows; ++i)
{
int* tmp = (int*)malloc(columns * sizeof(int));
if (!tmp) // malloc returned null
{
arrayCreated = false; // let's mark that we need to do some cleanup
break;
}
a[i] = tmp;
}
if (!arrayCreated) // creation failed, clean up is needed
{
for (int j = 0; j <= i; ++j)
free(a[j]);
}
else
{
for (int i = 0; i != rows; ++i)
free(a[i]);
}
free(a);
In short:
As you have different functions used to allocate memory, you'll need to call their counterpart deallocation functions accordingly:
malloc(), calloc() and realloc() need to be deallocated with a call to free()
X* x = new X(); needs to be deallocated with delete x;
X** x = new X[10]; needs to be deallocated with delete[] x;
The idiomatic way in c++ is to use either a container
std::vector<X> x;
or a smart pointer like
std::unique_ptr<X> x = std::make_unique<X>();
to redeem you from caring about the necessary bookkeeping to balance allocation/deallocation operations correctly.
Please notice that this is a theoretical question about error handling in such, specific cases. I want to highlight that first two cases are for C, not C++.
There's no standard error handling defined if you're using the wrong pairs of dynamic memory de-/allocation functions.
As mentioned above they need to pair like described. Anything else calls undefined behavior.
int** b = (int**)calloc(sizeof(int*) * rows, sizeof(int*));
This is not correct, the first parameter of calloc is "number of elements to allocate".
should be
int** b = (int**)calloc(rows, sizeof(int*)); /* No need to cast in C */
What is the safe way for creating multidimensional arrays in C and C++
for such scenarios?
In C (in order to avoid segmentation) a real 2D dynamic array should be declared as
int (*arr)[columns]; /* A pointer to an array of n ints */
and (m)allocated using
arr = malloc(sizeof(int [rows][columns]));
or
arr = calloc(rows, sizeof(int[columns]));
In this way a single call to free(arr); is enough.
I'm not sure about C, but C++; delete[] should suffice.
Related
My goal is to dynamically reallocate memory for a two dimensional int array in C. I know there are already several questions about that topic, but unfortunately my code does not run properly and i don't know what is going wrong.
First i am allocating memory:
int n = 10;
int m = 4;
int** twoDimArray;
twoDimArray = (int**)malloc(n * sizeof(int*));
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
twoDimArray[i] = (int*)malloc(m * sizeof(int));
}
And initializing the array with integer numbers:
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for(j = 0; j < 4; j++) {
twoDimArray[i][j] = i * j;
}
}
Then i use realloc() to reallocate memory dynamically:
int plus = 10;
int newArraySize = n + plus;
twoDimArray = (int**)realloc(twoDimArray, newArraySize * sizeof(int));
I am expecting my aray twoDimArray to be accessible at [10][0] now, but when running
printf("twoDimArray[10][0] = %d\n", twoDimArray[10][0]);
i get an "EXC_BAD_ACCESS" runtime error.
Probably i am missing something rather simple, but since i am new to C and can't figure out my mistake. Any help is appreciated.
reallocating the array of pointers is necessary, but then you have only n values that point to something valid. You need to allocate the rest of the sub-arrays because the newly allocated memory points to unallocated/invalid areas. The error is not from accessing the pointer, but from dereferencing it.
You need to add something like:
for(int i = n; i < n+plus; i++) {
twoDimArray[i] = malloc(m * sizeof(int));
}
(same goes for deallocation: first deallocate the arrays in a loop, then deallocate the array of pointers)
Aside:
assigning the result of realloc directly to the original variable can be a problem if realloc returns NULL. Even if it's rare in those resizing cases (Under what circumstances can malloc return NULL?), you should copy the result in a temp variable, check for NULL, and free the old pointer if reallocation failed.
Do I cast the result of malloc?
I am somewhat new to C programming. I have a doubt regarding dynamic memory allocation. The following is a code in the main program for memory allocation.
double **mat=(double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*n);
mat[0]=(double*)calloc(sizeof(double),n*n);
for(i=1; i<n; i++)
mat[i] = mat[i-1] + n;
mat = create_square_matrix(n);
I want to call the function and create elements in the matrix inside the function. Do I have once again allocation memory inside the function like below or Is there any other method to avoid this tedious memory allocation repetition. Following is the function.
`double** create_square_matrix(int n)
{
int i,j,sum=0;
double **array2=(double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*n);
array2[0]=(double*)calloc(sizeof(double),n*n);
for(i=1; i<n; i++)
array2[i] = array2[i-1] + n;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
for (j = 0; j < n; ++j)
{
sum=sum+j;
array2[i][j]=sum;
}
}
return array2;
}
`
The above function returns the array which is stored in the 'mat' variable. And another question is how do I free the memory of variable 'array2' inside the function after using the return method. I can't free the memory possibly before returning the array. Is there a method to free the memory in the above function.
Your function create_square_matrix allocates memory and then fills it by some values.
Your top piece of code allocates memory, and then calls create_square_matrix which again allocates memory. It is like to mop floors before calling the janitor who also mops floors. You don't need to allocate memory twice. Not only it is unneccessary, in fact it is bad. Since you perform two allocations, the memory from the first one is lost, and there is no way to free it. This is called memory leak. Instead of
double **mat=(double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*n);
mat[0]=(double*)calloc(sizeof(double),n*n);
for(i=1; i<n; i++)
mat[i] = mat[i-1] + n;
mat = create_square_matrix(n);
you should write
double **mat = create_square_matrix(n);
As mentioned, in C there's no need to cast to/from void*. Also, your calloc is backwards: use N elements for the first argument, sizeof(element) for the second.
I will answer your question, and then suggest a better approach.
You are choosing double ** for your matrix. Even if it weren't square, you know exactly how many pointers and how many doubles you need, and of course how big each type is. So,
double **M = malloc( n * sizeof(double*) + n * m * sizeof(double) );
does the trick, does it not? If sizeof(double*) == sizeof(double) for your machine (probably true), then
double **M = calloc( (1+n) * m, sizeof(double) );
works, too, but less portably. You also get the zeros for free; you'll have trouble finding a machine for which it's not true that double f=0 yields a value for which all bits are zero.
But why define your matrix as an array of pointers? Why not instead define it as an array of doubles?
double *M = calloc( n * m, sizeof(double) );
Better yet, for the past 15 years or so, C has supported variable-length arrays, meaning you can define arrays whose size is determined at runtime. Back in K&R days, you could define an array M[n] unless n was a static constant or enum. If your arrays aren't ginormous -- meaning that for the machine in question they'll fit comfortably on the stack -- you can skip malloc and simply define your matrix by a size determined at runtime.
Even if you can't do that, can typedef one dimension dynamically,
typedef double (x_axis_t)[m];
double x_axis_t *M = calloc( n * sizeof(x_axis_t), sizeof(double) );
which is nice, because then you can access your array as
M[x][y];
Just don't try to use M[x,y], because that's something else altogether.
BTW, since you're new to the game, to use a c99 compiler, the standard command is c99, not cc. See your friendly manual for details. :-)
Using a nice function macro for memory allocation is always a good idea. Unless you have to free memory manually I would leave it to a garbage collector such as libgc. Below is an example. If you don't want to use a garbage collector you can just replace GC_MALLOC with malloc. When you free the array (manually) you must first free the individual rows.
#include <gc/gc.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NEW_ARRAY(ptr, n) (ptr) = GC_MALLOC((n) * sizeof (ptr)[0])
double **SquareMatrix(int n)
{
double **A;
int i, j;
NEW_ARRAY(A, n);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
NEW_ARRAY(A[i], n);
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
A[i][j] = 0.0;
}
}
return A;
}
int main(void)
{
const int n = 5;
double **A;
int i, j;
A = SquareMatrix(n);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
printf("%5.2f ", A[i][j]);
}
putchar('\n');
}
return 0;
}
I allocate a non-square matrix in this way, but I'm not sure if I'm using the deallocation correctly
float **matrix_alloc(int m /* rows */, int n /* columns */)
{
int i;
float **arr = malloc(m*sizeof(*arr));
for(i=0; i<m; i++)
{
arr[i]=malloc(n*sizeof(**arr));
}
return arr;
}
I have tried two way to free the memory
-Attempt A loop rows
void free_mem_mat(int m, float **array) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < m; i++) {
free(array[i]);
}
free(array);
}
- Attempt B loop columns
void free_mem_mat(int n, float **array) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
free(array[i]);
}
free(array);
}
what should I use to free? the way A on the rows or the way B? (I know as written the method is the same I have rewritten this to be most clear possible)
You need one free() for each malloc()*. There were m+1 calls to malloc(); you'd better make m+1 calls to free() too.
Given that as the starting point, option A is the correct solution. However, it is also fair to note that the two functions (option A and option B) are strictly equivalent as long as you pass the m dimension given to the allocation function as the size argument of the deallocation function. The comment in option B is misleading; you're not looping over columns.
Given:
enum { MAT_ROWS = 20, MAT_COLS = 30 };
float **matrix = matrix_alloc(MAT_ROWS, MAT_COLS);
The correct call to free_mem_mat() is:
free_mem_mat(MAT_ROWS, matrix);
* This is an over-simplified statement if you use realloc() or calloc(). You need a free() for each malloc() that was not realloc()'d, and a free() for each realloc() that did not do a free() — by setting the size to 0. Treat calloc() as equivalent to malloc() as far as free() is concerned.
The trouble is that it has many allocations
I prefer this mode
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
float **matrix_alloc(int m /* rows */, int n /* columns */)
{
int i;
float **arr = malloc(m * sizeof(float *));
*(arr) = malloc(m * n * sizeof(float));
for (i = 0; i < m; i++) {
*(arr + i) = (*(arr) + i * n);
}
return arr;
}
void free_mem_mat(float **array) {
free(*(array));
free(array);
}
int main () {
float **matrix = matrix_alloc(10, 20);
free_mem_mat(matrix);
return 0;
}
more information in:
http://c-faq.com/aryptr/dynmuldimary.html
arr was allocated as an array of m elements, each a pointer to some allocated memory. Therefore, you must free the m pointers in arr. In freeing each, you don't need to mention the size of the thing pointed to.
I am trying to build two dimensional array by dynamically allocating. My question is that is it possible that its first dimension would take 100 values, then second dimension would take variable amount of values depending on my problem? If it is possible then how I would access it? How would I know the second dimension's boundary?
(See the comments in the code)
As a result you'll get an array such like the following:
// Create an array that will contain required variables of the required values
// which will help you to make each row of it's own lenght.
arrOfLengthOfRows[NUMBER_OF_ROWS] = {value_1, value_2, ..., value_theLast};
int **array;
array = malloc(N * sizeof(int *)); // `N` is the number of rows, as on the pic.
/*
if(array == NULL) {
printf("There is not enough memory.\n");
exit (EXIT_FAILURE);
}
*/
// Here we make each row of it's own, individual length.
for(i = 0; i < N; i++) {
array[i] = malloc(arrOfLengthOfRows[i] * sizeof(int));
/*
if(array[i] == NULL) {
printf("There is not enough memory.\n");
exit (EXIT_FAILURE);
}
*/
}
You can use array of 100 pointers:
int *arr[100];
then you can dynamically allocate memory to each of the 100 pointers separately of any size you want, however you have to remember how much memory (for each pointer) you have allocated, you cannot expect C compiler to remember it or tell it to you, i.e. sizeof will not work here.
To access any (allowed, within boundary) location you can simply use 2D array notation e.g. to access 5th location of memory allocated to 20th pointer you can use arr[20][5] or *(arr[20] + 5).
I believe the OP wants a single chunk of memory for the array, and is willing to fix one of the dimensions to get it. I frequently like to do this when coding in C as well.
We all used to be able to do double x[4][]; and the compiler would know what to do. But someone has apparently messed that up - maybe even for a good reason.
The following however still works and allows us to use large chunks of memory instead of having to do a lot of pointer management.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
// double x[4][];
struct foo {
double y[4];
} * x;
void
main(int ac, char * av[])
{
double * dp;
int max_x = 10;
int i;
x = calloc(max_x, sizeof(struct foo));
x[0].y[0] = 0.23;
x[0].y[1] = 0.45;
x[9].y[0] = 1.23;
x[9].y[1] = 1.45;
dp = x[9].y;
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
if (dp[i] > 0)
printf("%f\n", dp[i]);
}
The trick is to declare the fixed dimension in a struct. But keep in mind that the "first" dimension is the dynamic dimension and the "second" one is fixed. And this is the opposite of the old way ...
You will have to track the size of your dynamic dimension on your own - sizeof can't help you with that.
Using anonymous thingies you might even be able to git rid of 'y'.
Using a single pointer:
int *arr = (int *)malloc(r * c * sizeof(int));
/* how to access array elements */
for (i = 0; i < r; i++)
for (j = 0; j < c; j++)
*(arr + i*c + j) = ++count; //count initialized as, int count=0;
Using pointer to a pointer:
int **arr = (int **)malloc(r * sizeof(int *));
for (i=0; i<r; i++)
arr[i] = (int *)malloc(c * sizeof(int));
In this case you can access array elements same as you access statically allocated array.
I want to declare the correct pointer and allocate memory for a two-dimensional array, and correctly pass to a function. I am having trouble getting this to work properly and need help.
Here is my code:
double **podrucje;
podrucje=(double **) malloc (sizeof (double *) *123);
for (i=0;i<(123);i++)
{
podrucje[i]=(double *) malloc (sizeof (double) * 11);
}
for (i=0;i<(123);i++)
{
memset (podrucje[i], 0, 10);
}
But this code doesnt work, it messes up whole my program. So i decided to give up on dynamic allocation and use this:
double podrucje[123][11]={0};
But i dont know how to send it and use it in function...
memset works on per byte basis.
double **podrucje = (double **) malloc (sizeof (double *) * 123);
for (i = 0; i < 123; i++)
{
podrucje[i] = (double *) malloc (sizeof (double) * 11);
memset(podrucje[i], 0, sizeof(double) * 11);
}
if you want to pass it just declare it as such
void function(double podrucje[123][11]) {
...
}
You're best off to use malloc, but allocate the whole array on your second line, so it all gets allocated in contiguous memory. So
podrucje = (double*) malloc (sizeof (double) * 123 * 11);
Then the first loop can go away too. And it looks like you're initializing the array to 0 -- in that case, use calloc instead of malloc, eliminating the second loop.
To index into the array, use things like
double myitem = podrucje [11 * row + col];
You should of course use a define or similar to keep the use of 11 consistent, but that's not the point of this answer.
Write the function argument the same way you wrote the variable definition:
void myfunc(double podrucje[123][11])
{
...
}
double podrucje[123][11];
myfunc(podrucje);
Note that the array is passed "by reference" rather than being copied.
In the following code snippet,
podrucje[i]=(double *) malloc (sizeof (double) * 11);
for (i=0;i<(123);i++)
{
memset (podrucje[i], 0, 10);
}
1) You dont need the extra parenthesis against the numbers 123 and 11
The for loop can be as follows,
for (i = 0; i < 123; i++)
2) Instead of using 123 and 11. Try to define a MACRO and use that instead.
Advantage: The code becomes independent of special numbers and is easily maintainable. Especially in the cases of larger code base.
3) If you read the code, podrucje[i] is allocated a memory of 11 doubles But when you memset you are setting it for only 10 doubles while the last one may or may not consist of garbage. Use calloc here, It not only allocated memory but also initializes the same.
podrucje[i]=(double *) calloc(11,sizeof(double));
Also It could be more helpful if you could tell How exactly is it screwing up your code ?
Example, Code Snippet could help more than just stating its screwing up.
It helps others to investigate and solve the issue.
If you have a modern C compiler (C99 would do) you can even declare real 2D matrices with variable sizes. You don't need to fall back to this awful emulation with pointers.
void myfunc(size_t n, size_t m, double podrucje[n][m])
{
...
}
double (*podrucje)[n] = malloc(sizeof(double[n][m]));
myfunc(n, m, podrucje);
For the function you just have to ensure that the declarations of n and m come first, before the matrix.
There are several ways to dynamically allocate memory for an NxM array. Here are two:
You can declare a pointer to an M-element array, and then malloc N instances of it:
double (*podrucje)[11] = malloc(sizeof *podrucje * 123);
As of C89, you don't need to cast the result of malloc, and the practice is discouraged. Also, note that the operand to sizeof is the expression *podrucje; this gives me the same result as sizeof (double) * 11.
You would index this array as podrucje[i][j] like any other 2D array. podrucje[i] implicitly dereferences the pointer (remember that a[i] is equivalent to *(a + i)) so you don't have to do anything funky with it.
You would use it in a function as follows:
void init(double (*podrucje)[11], size_t rows)
{
size_t i, j;
for (i = 0; i < rows; i++)
for (j = 0; j < 11; j++)
podrucje[i][j] = 0.0;
}
which would be called as
init(podrucje, 123);
The drawback to this method is that the function can only operate on Nx11 arrays; if you're using a C99 compiler or a C2011 compiler that supports variable length arrays, you could specify the number of columns as a runtime variable:
void foo(void)
{
size_t rows = 123, cols = 11;
double (*podrucje)[cols] = malloc(sizeof *podrucje * rows);
if (podrucje)
init(cols, podrucje, rows);
...
}
// cols must be declared before it can be used
// in an array declarator
//
void init(size_t cols, double(*podrucje)[cols], size_t rows)
{
size_t i, j;
for (i = 0; i < rows; i++)
for (j = 0; j < cols; j++)
podrucje[i][j] = 0.0;
}
When you're done with the array, deallocate it as follows:
free(podrucje);
The other approach is to allocate each row separately, as follows:
size_t rows = 123, cols = 11;
double **podrucje = malloc(sizeof *podrucje * rows);
if (!podrucje)
{
// malloc failed; handle allocation error here
}
else
{
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
podrucje[i] = malloc(sizeof *podrucje[i] * cols);
if (!podrucje[i])
{
// malloc failed; handle allocation error here
}
}
}
And you would use it in a function as follows:
void foo()
{
double **podrucje;
// allocate array as above
init(foo, rows, cols);
...
}
void init(double **podrucje, size_t rows, size_t cols)
{
size_t i, j;
for (i = 0; i < rows; i++)
for (j = 0; j < cols; j++)
podrucje[i][j] = 0.0;
}
When you're finished with the array, deallocate it as follows:
for(i = 0; i < rows; i++)
free(podrucje[i]);
free(podrucje);
The first method allocates memory as a single, contiguous block; the second allocates it in a series of smaller, discontinuous chunks. If your array is especially big or your heap especially fragmented, the first method may fail where the second will succeed. If you're working with a compiler that doesn't support variable-length arrays, the first method is much less flexible, because the number of columns must be specified at compile time.
How could the same indexing method work for both forms?
In the first case, each podrucje[i] is an 11-element array of double; indexing it with j works like any other array. In the second case, each podrucje[i] is a pointer to double. Since a[i] is evaluated as *(a + i), array indexing works on pointer expressions just as well as array expressions.
int print_func(char((*p)[26])[10])
{
int i = 0;
for (i=0; i < 26 ; i++) {
fprintf(stderr, "%02d:%.*s\n", i, 10, p[0][i]);
}
return (0);
}
int main(void)
{
int nrow = 26;
int ncol = 10;
char((*p)[26])[10] = (char((*)[26])[10])(0);
char(*q)[10];
char c = 'a';
int i = 0;
p = (char((*)[26])[10])malloc(sizeof(char) * nrow * ncol);
if ((char((*)[26])[10])0 == p) {
return (-1);
}
for (i=0, q=p[0]; i < nrow ; i++) {
memset(q, c, sizeof(char) * ncol);
c++;
q++;
}
for (i=0,q=p[0] ; i < nrow ; i++) {
fprintf(stderr, "%.*s\n", 10, q);
q++;
}
p[0][8][0]='z';
getchar();
print_func(p);
return (0);
}