Storing and Accessing a 2D Array in a Struct - c

I am trying to code a program in C that generates a spiral based on user input and prints it to the console. I cannot figure out how to access the 2D array "data" that I defined in the struct "Spiral". How do I fix the "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type" error?
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct Spiral {
int size;
int **data;
} Spiral;
Spiral generateSpiral(int size);
void printSpiral(Spiral spiral);
static int rotate();
int main() {
int size;
scanf("%d", &size);
Spiral spiral = generateSpiral(size);
printSpiral(spiral);
return 0;
}
Spiral generateSpiral(int size) {
int data[size][size];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
int j;
for (j = 0; j < size; j++) {
data[i][j] = 0;
}
}
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
data[0][i] = 1;
}
int currX = 0;
int currY = size - 1;
for (i = size - 1; i > 0; i -= 2) {
int j;
for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
int k;
switch (rotate()) {
case 0:
for (k = 0; k < i; k++) {
data[++currX][currY] = 1;
}
break;
case 1:
for (k = i; k > 0; k--) {
data[currX][--currY] = 1;
}
break;
case 2:
for (k = i; k > 0; k--) {
data[--currX][currY] = 1;
}
break;
case 3:
for (k = 0; k < i; k++) {
data[currX][++currY] = 1;
}
break;
}
}
}
Spiral spiral;
spiral.size = size;
spiral.data = data;
return spiral;
}
void printSpiral(Spiral spiral) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < spiral.size; i++) {
int j;
for (j = 0; j < spiral.size; j++) {
switch (spiral.data[i][j]) {
case 0:
printf(" ");
break;
case 1:
printf("#");
break;
}
}
printf("\n");
}
}
static int rotate() {
static int val = 0;
int tmp = val;
val++;
if (val > 3)
val = 0;
return tmp;
}

In the generateSpiral function you make the structures pointer point to the local variable data, but when the function returns data goes out of scope so the pointer now points to unallocated memory leading to undefined behavior.
But that's not your only problem: A second problem is that a pointer to a pointer is not the same as an array of arrays, the memory layout is different.
For the last part, lets check an example. Lets say we have the following declaration
int a[2][2];
In memory it will look something like this:
+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| a[0][0] | a[0][1] | a[1][0] | a[1][1] |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+
In other words, all data is contiguous.
If you, on the other hand have a declaration like
int **p;
and allocate data for it correctly, it will look something like
+------+------+-----+
| p[0] | p[1] | ... |
+------+------+-----+
| | |
| | v
| | ...
| v
| +---------+---------+-----+
| | p[1][0] | p[1][1] | ... |
| +---------+---------+-----+
v
+---------+---------+-----+
| p[0][0] | p[0][1] | ... |
+---------+---------+-----+
The memory is no longer contiguous. There is no longer any maximum size, a pointer points to a contiguous area of memory, but there is no way of knowing how big that area is. You have to keep track of it yourself.
The simple solution to both the problems is to use only pointer to pointer, and then allocate dynamically of the heap:
int **data;
// First allocate memory for `size` number of pointers
// I.e. we allocate an "array" of pointers
data = malloc(size * sizeof(int *));
// Then allocate each entry in the above allocated "array"
// I.e. make each pointer in the "array" point to an "array" of `int`
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
data[i] = malloc(size * sizeof(int));
Now the local variable data can be used directly to assign to spiral.data.
But there is a catch: In Java you don't have to free memory you allocate, it's handled automatically. In C it's not handled automatically, you have to manually free the memory you allocate or you will have a memory leak.
Freeing the memory can be done like
// First free all the "sub-arrays"
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
free(spiral.data[i]);
// Then free the top-level "array"
free(spiral.data);
Regarding pointers, a pointer can point to any memory address, and there is really no safety or checking that it points to a valid location. Also, C does not do deep copying of values and structures, if you have a pointer and make it point somewhere, then the compiler or runtime system doesn't make a copy.
And about scoping, Java has local variables as well, and just like in C when a function returns those go out of scope. The difference between Java and C, is that if you return a reference to a local object, then Java keeps track of that and keep the object in memory as long as there are references to the object. C doesn't have references, a pointer is just an integer whose value is an address in memory, and the data pointed to have no idea that there are pointers to it or how many.

Your problem is due to a mismatch between the int and the unsigned int returned by the vectors size function. Change your int i , j to type size_t so they are also an unsigned integer like the size of the vectors. This is why you are getting the warning

Related

Attempt to access elements of a 2d struct array failing

typedef struct{
unsigned long a;
unsigned long b;
unsigned long c;
} mini_struct;
struct ministruct** build_2Dstruct(unsigned long x, unsigned long y){
double x_squared = pow(2, x);
struct ministruct** temp = (mini_struct**)malloc(x*sizeof(mini_struct*));
for(int i = 0; i < x_squared; i++){
temp[i] = (mini_struct*)malloc(y*sizeof(mini_struct));
for(int j = 0; j < y; j++){
temp[i][j].a = 0;
etc....
}
}
return temp;
}
In the code above I am trying to create a 2D array of ministructs**, with the whole struct being made out of 2^x ministructs*, and each ministruct* has y amount of ministructs.
aka:
x = 2,
y = 2,
[[struct, struct], [struct, struct], [struct, struct], [struct, struct]]
However, for some reason when I try to access the second element or index 1 of the struct inside each struct*, it says there is an error: "expression must be pointer to complete object".
I just do not understand why the code is not allowing me to access each individual element of the elements of the array?
Thanks
You are trying to make an x by y array of structs. So:
// create array of x pointers
mini_struct **temp = malloc(x*sizeof(mini_struct*));
for (int i=0; i<x; i++) {
// to array of y structs
temp[i] = malloc(y*sizeof(mini_struct));
for (int j=0; j < y; j++) {
temp[i][j].a = 0;
... etc.
Question is incomplete so I will be making asumptions.
You seem to be wanting to allocate a 2D array of structs and initialize all members to 0. Here is a possible solution:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct mini_struct{
unsigned long a;
unsigned long b;
unsigned long c;
} mini_struct;
struct mini_struct** build_2Dstruct(unsigned long x, unsigned long y){
double x_squared = pow(x, 2);
mini_struct **temp = (mini_struct **) malloc(x_squared * sizeof(mini_struct*));
for(int i = 0; i < x_squared; i++){
temp[i] = (mini_struct *) calloc(y, sizeof(mini_struct));
}
return temp;
}
int main () {
int x = 3;
int y = 4;
mini_struct **struct2D = build_2Dstruct(x, y);
int x_squared = pow(x,2);
for (int i = 0; i < x_squared; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < y; ++j) {
printf("Value of data stored at struct[%d][%d] is: %d\n", i, j, struct2D[i][j]);
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < x_squared; ++i) {
free(struct2D[i]);
}
free(struct2D);
}
As you can see, this contains the whole program, not just the snippet you showed. In this case, a main function would have been useful so that we don't have to guess what you want to do. My solution creates the 2D array with all elements initialized to 0 (you can use calloc to do that, no need for a second for loop).
Another important point is that, because the function returns a newly heap allocated 2D array, you need to free it to avoid a memory leak (end of main function).
You allocate x pointers to mini_struct:
mini_struct **temp = (mini_struct **) malloc(x_squared * sizeof(mini_struct*));
But then when you initialize them:
for(int i = 0; i < x_squared; i++){
temp[i] = (mini_struct *) calloc(y, sizeof(mini_struct));
}
You index temp based on upto x_squared.
Consider if x is 2. You would allocate temp to be an array of two pointers to mini_struct. But then your for loop would attempt to initialize four elements in temp.

Segmentation fault shmat() with 2d array

Trying to allocate 2d array in shared memory. Execution returns segmentation fault during assignments (I think). Should I do the assignments in another way? This is my code:
...
#define KEYSM 46378
#define X 10
#define Y 10
int main(){
int i, j;
int shm_id;
int **addressArray;
if((shm_id = shmget(KEYSM, sizeof(int[X][Y]), IPC_CREAT | 0666)) == -1){
perror("shmget");
exit(-1);
}
if((addressArray = (int **)shmat(shm_id, NULL, 0)) == (int **)-1){
perror("shmat");
exit(-1);
}
for(i = 0; i < X; i++){
for(j = 0; j < Y; j++){
if(i % 2 != 0)
addressArray[i][j] = -1;
else
addressArray[i][j] = 0;
}
}
...
}
Your problem is in a – (your ?) – misunderstanding of the difference of a true 2D array, and a pointer→pointer→value indirection.
When you define a int **a this is interpreted as a pointer to another pointer, that then reference an int. Assigning a pointer obtained from an allocation function like malloc or shmat to such a double pointer, then as far as the semantics of C go, it expects this allocation of memory contain further pointers. So if you do a double dereference, and there's not a valid pointer there, it will fall flat on its face.
This misunderstanding is furthered by the fact, that in C you can validly write int a[X][Y]; and dereference it with a[i][j]. The key insight to understand this is, that the first "half", i.e. that with a array defined like that, a[i]… decays into a int* pointer, that points toward the 0th element in the i "column". The other half …[j] then dereferences this implicitly "appearing" pointer.
Multidimensional arrays in C are deceiving and I strongly discourage using them like that. Also you'll have a hard time to properly implement specific padding and row alignments with them, without jumping some really annoying arithmetic.
It's easier by far, to just write down the calculations explicitly, with the added benefit of having precise control of padding and alignment.
Suppose we want to create a 2D array of int, that shall be aligned to the sizes of long long
size_t const array_height = ...;
size_t const array_width = ...;
size_t const alignment = sizeof(long long);
size_t const row_size = array_width * sizeof(int);
size_t const row_stride =
alignment * ((row_size + alignment-1) / alignment);
size_t const array_size = array_height * row_stride;
int const shm_id = shmget(KEYSM, array_size, IPC_CREAT | 0666);
if( 0 > shm_id ){
perror("shmget");
exit(-1);
}
int *const array = shmat(shm_id, NULL, 0);
if( (void*)-1 == array ){
perror("shmat");
exit(-1);
}
for(size_t j = 0; j < array_height; ++j){
int *const row = array + j * row_stride;
for(size_t i = 0; i < array_width; ++i){
row[i] = (i % 2) ? -1 : 0;
}
}
A segfault is a runtime error, but your code shouldn't even compile, look a this statement (paranthesis missing):
if ( ( addressArray = ( int** ) shmat ( shm_id, NULL, 0 ) == ( int** ) -1 )
And what if that assignment failed? Does perror terminate the process? No. But you still access the array below. Most likely the source of the seg fault.
As mch pointed out:
// i is not declared
for(i = 0; i < X; i++){
// j is not declared, after j < Y, use semicolon instead of comma
for(j = 0; j < Y, j++){
// if the result is not zero you're doing an assignment
if(i % 2 != 0)
addressArray[i][j] = -1;
// but immediately after you assign a zero,
// previous statement -> useless
// 'else' is missing here
addressArray[i][j] = 0;
}
}

Segmentation fault when accessing a 2D array in a structure whose pointer is returned from a function

I made a structure who has two members (int and int**), and I return the pointer to this structure from one function to main(). It is fine to access the int value in the structure. However, in main() I got Segmentation fault : 11 when I tried to access the element of the 2D array.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
typedef struct Square {
int value;
int **array;
} Square;
Square * generate();
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
Square *sqrptr = generate();
printf("%d\n", sqrptr -> value);
/* It prints 1 */
/* Print out the 2D array */
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){
for (int j = 0; j < 3 ; j++){
printf("%d ", *(*((sqrptr -> array) + i) + j));
}
printf("\n");
}
/* It gives segmentation fault */
return 0;
}
Square * generate(){
Square mySquare;
mySquare.value = 1;
mySquare.array = malloc(sizeof(int*) * 3);
/* Initialize the 2D array */
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){
*(mySquare.array + i) = malloc(sizeof(int) * 3);
for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++){
*(*(mySquare.array + i) + j) = 0;
}
}
/* Print out the 2D array */
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){
for (int j = 0; j < 3l ; j++){
printf("%d ", *(*(mySquare.array + i) + j));
}
printf("\n");
}
/* I can see the complete 2D array here */
Square *sqrptr = &mySquare;
return sqrptr;
}
I have tried to generate the Square in main(), and use one pointer of the structure to access my 2D array. It works fine, so I guess I have missed something when I use a pointer returned from other functions. On the other hand, I can access the int value successfully, so I have no clues now.
Could someone please explain the underlying reason for this segmentation fault? Thanks!
You're returning a pointer to a local variable (&mySquare). Stack memory (where local variables reside) is when the function returns, so the resulting pointer is pointing to invalid memory. Allocate the struct, and return the pointer to heap memory:
Square *my_square = malloc(sizeof *my_square);
//do stuff
return my_square;
Or pass a pointer to a stack variable as argument:
Square * generate(Square *my_square)
{
//in case pointer wasn't provided, allocate
if (my_square == NULL) {
my_square = malloc(sizeof *my_square);
if (!my_square)
return NULL; // or exit or whatever
}
//initialize members. To initialize array to 3x3 zero matrix, you can use:
for (int i=0;i<3;++i)
my_square.array[i] = calloc(3, sizeof *my_square->array[i]);
//or even, if you change array member to type int*:
my_square.array = calloc(3*3, sizeof *my_square->array);
//at the end:
return my_square;
}
The latter is arguably the most flexible solution: if you want to work on stack, you call the function like so:
Square my_stack_square;
generate(&my_stack_square);
If you need to use heap memory, you can use:
Square *my_heap_square = generate(NULL);
As Jonathan Leffler pointed out, for a small struct such as this, returning by value isn't too much of a cost. Getting a struct on heap can be achieved in the same way as returning any other type:
Square generate( void )
{
Square my_square;
//initialize
return my_square;
}
//call like so:
Square sq = generate();
The idea here is that you'll use a local variable in the generate function to create a new square, initialize the fields, and then return it. Because in C everything is passed by value, this essentially means the function will assign the value of the local variable from the generate function to the caller's scoped sq variable. For small structs such as this, that's perfectly fine.
What's more, a common thing for compilers to do is to optimise these kinds of functions to the equivalent of the second example I posted: Essentially your function will be creating a new Sqaure object on the stack memory of the caller. This can happen, that's not to say it will. It depends on the optimization levels used when compiling, and on the size of the struct you're returning.
Basically, if you want to keep the code as close to what you have now, it's probably easiest to stick to the first version (returning a heap pointer).
The more flexible approach is the second one (as it allows you to use stack and heap, depending on how you call the function).
For now, using the third approach is perfectly fine: the compiler will most likely optimize the code to whatever makes most sense anyway.
Try this:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
typedef struct Square {
int value;
int **array;
} Square;
Square * generate();
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
Square *sqrptr = generate();
printf("%d\n", sqrptr -> value);
/* It prints 1 */
/* Print out the 2D array */
int i,j;
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++){
for (j = 0; j < 3 ; j++){
printf("%d ", *(*((sqrptr -> array) + i) + j));
}
printf("\n");
}
/* It gives segmentation fault */
return 0;
}
Square * generate(){
Square* mySquare = (Square*) malloc(sizeof(Square)); //c++ compiler
//Square* mySquare = (void*) malloc(sizeof(Square)); //c compiler
mySquare->value = 1;
mySquare->array = malloc(sizeof(int*) * 3);
/* Initialize the 2D array */
int i,j;
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++){
*(mySquare->array + i) = malloc(sizeof(int) * 3);
for (j = 0; j < 3; j++){
*(*(mySquare->array + i) + j) = 0;
}
}
/* Print out the 2D array */
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++){
for (j = 0; j < 3l ; j++){
printf("%d ", *(*(mySquare->array + i) + j));
}
printf("\n");
}
/* I can see the complete 2D array here */
return mySquare;
}

Allocating contiguous memory for a 3D array in C

I need to allocate contiguous space for a 3D array. (EDIT:) I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS CLEAR IN THE FIRST PLACE but in the actual production code, I will not know the dimensions of the array until run time. I provided them as constants in my toy code below just to keep things simple. I know the potential problems of insisting on contiguous space, but I just have to have it. I have seen how to do this for a 2D array, but apparently I don't understand how to extend the pattern to 3D. When I call the function to free up the memory, free_3d_arr, I get an error:
lowest lvl
mid lvl
a.out(2248,0x7fff72d37000) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fab1a403310: pointer being freed was not allocated
Would appreciate it if anyone could tell me what the fix is. Code is here:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int ***calloc_3d_arr(int sizes[3]){
int ***a;
int i,j;
a = calloc(sizes[0],sizeof(int**));
a[0] = calloc(sizes[0]*sizes[1],sizeof(int*));
a[0][0] = calloc(sizes[0]*sizes[1]*sizes[2],sizeof(int));
for (j=0; j<sizes[0]; j++) {
a[j] = (int**)(a[0][0]+sizes[1]*sizes[2]*j);
for (i=0; i<sizes[1]; i++) {
a[j][i] = (int*)(a[j]) + sizes[2]*i;
}
}
return a;
}
void free_3d_arr(int ***arr) {
printf("lowest lvl\n");
free(arr[0][0]);
printf("mid lvl\n");
free(arr[0]); // <--- This is a problem line, apparently.
printf("highest lvl\n");
free(arr);
}
int main() {
int ***a;
int sz[] = {5,4,3};
int i,j,k;
a = calloc_3d_arr(sz);
// do stuff with a
free_3d_arr(a);
}
Since you are using C, I would suggest that you use real multidimensional arrays:
int (*a)[sz[1]][sz[2]] = calloc(sz[0], sizeof(*a));
This allocates contiguous storage for your 3D array. Note that the sizes can be dynamic since C99. You access this array exactly as you would with your pointer arrays:
for(int i = 0; i < sz[0]; i++) {
for(int j = 0; j < sz[1]; j++) {
for(int k = 0; k < sz[2]; k++) {
a[i][j][k] = 42;
}
}
}
However, there are no pointer arrays under the hood, the indexing is done by the magic of pointer arithmetic and array-pointer-decay. And since a single calloc() was used to allocate the thing, a single free() suffices to get rid of it:
free(a); //that's it.
You can do something like this:
int ***allocateLinearMemory(int x, int y, int z)
{
int *p = (int*) malloc(x * y * z * sizeof(int));
int ***q = (int***) malloc(x * sizeof(int**));
for (int i = 0; i < x; i++)
{
q[i] = (int**) malloc(y * sizeof(int*));
for (int j = 0; j < y; j++)
{
int idx = x*j + x*y*i;
q[i][j] = &p[idx];
}
}
return q;
}
void deallocateLinearMemory(int x, int ***q)
{
free(q[0][0]);
for(int i = 0; i < x; i++)
{
free(q[i]);
}
free(q);
}
I use it and works fine.

int** vs int[const][const] differences

I was writing a code the other day and I found it rather strange, that int** and int[][] does not behave the same way. Can anyone point out the differences between them? Below is my sample code, which fails with a segmentation fault, if I pass constant size 2d array, while it does work fine when I pass a dinamically allocated 2d array.
I am confused mainly because ant int[] array works the same as int*.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
void sort_by_first_row(int **t, int n, int m)
{
int i, j;
for(i = m-1 ; i > 0 ; --i)
{
for(j = 0 ; j < i; ++j)
{
if(t[0][j] < t[0][j+1])
{
int k;
for(k = 0 ; k < n ;++k)
{
int swap;
swap = t[k][j];
t[k][j] = t[k][j+1];
t[k][j+1] = swap;
}
}
}
}
}
int main(void) {
int i, j;
/* Working version */
/*int **t;
t =(int**) malloc(3*sizeof(int*));
for(i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
t[i] = (int*) malloc(6*sizeof(int));
}*/
/*WRONG*/
int t[3][6];
t[0][0] = 121;
t[0][1] = 85;
t[0][2] = 54;
t[0][3] = 89;
t[0][4] = 879;
t[0][5] = 11;
for( i = 0; i < 6; ++i )
t[1][i] = i+1;
t[2][0] = 2;
t[2][1] = 4;
t[2][2] = 5;
t[2][3] = 3;
t[2][4] = 1;
t[2][5] = 6;
sort_by_first_row(t, 3, 6);
for(i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
for(j = 0; j < 6; ++j)
printf("%d ", t[i][j]);
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
So based on the below answers I realize, that a multidimensional array is stored continuously in a row major order. After some modification, the below code works:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
void sort_by_first_row(int *t, int n, int m)
{
int i, j;
for(i = m-1 ; i > 0 ; --i)
{
for(j = 0 ; j < i; ++j)
{
if(t[j] < t[j+1])
{
int k;
for(k = 0 ; k < n ;++k)
{
int swap;
swap = t[k*m + j];
t[k*m + j] = t[k*m + j+1];
t[k*m + j+1] = swap;
}
}
}
}
}
int main(void) {
int i, j;
/* Working version */
/*int **t;
t =(int**) malloc(3*sizeof(int*));
for(i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
t[i] = (int*) malloc(6*sizeof(int));
}*/
/*WRONG*/
int t[3][6];
t[0][0] = 121;
t[0][1] = 85;
t[0][2] = 54;
t[0][3] = 89;
t[0][4] = 879;
t[0][5] = 11;
for( i = 0; i < 6; ++i )
t[1][i] = i+1;
t[2][0] = 2;
t[2][1] = 4;
t[2][2] = 5;
t[2][3] = 3;
t[2][4] = 1;
t[2][5] = 6;
sort_by_first_row(t, 3, 6);
for(i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
for(j = 0; j < 6; ++j)
printf("%d ", t[i][j]);
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
My new question is this: How to modify the code, so that the procedure works with int[][] and int** also?
Realize that int **t makes t a pointer to a pointer, while int t[3][6] makes t an array of an array. In most cases, when an array is used in an expression, it will become the value of the address of its first member. So, for int t[3][6], when t is passed to a function, the function will actually be getting the value of &t[0], which has type pointer to an array (in this case, int (*)[6]).
The type of what is being pointed at is important for how the pointer behaves when indexed. When a pointer to an object is incremented by 5, it points to the 5th object following the current object. Thus, for int **t, t + 5 will point to the 5th pointer, while for int (*t)[M], t + 5 will point to the 5th array. That is, the result of t + 5 is the same as the result of &t[5].
In your case, you have implemented void sort_by_first_row(int **t, int n, int m), but you are passing it an incompatible pointer. That is, the type of &t[0] (which is what t will become in main) is not the same as what the function wants, a int **t. Thus, when the sorting function starts to use that address, it will think its indexing into pointers, when the underlying structure is an array of arrays.
int** is quite different from int[][]. int** is simply a pointer to a pointer and would appear like the following:
in reality, you can access the entire multidimensional array with simply int* pointing to the first element, and doing simple math from that.
Here is the result of the separate allocations (in your commented code):
However when you allocate a multidimensional array, all of the memory is contiguous, and therefore easy to do simple math to reach the desired element.
int t[3][6];
int *t = (int*) malloc((3 * 6) * sizeof(int)); // <-- similarly
This will result in a contiguous chunk of memory for all elements.
You certainly can use the separate allocations, however you will need to walk the memory differently.
Hope this helps.
int t[3][6] is very nearly the same thing as int t[18]. A single contiguous block of 18 integers is allocated in both cases. The variable t provides the address of the start of this block of integers, just like the one-dimensional case.
Contrast this with the case you have marked as "working", where t gives you the address of a block of 3 pointers, each of which points to a block of memory with 6 integers. It's a totally different animal.
The difference between t[3][6] and t[18] is that the compiler remembers the size of each dimension of the array, and automatically converts 2D indices into 1D offsets. For example, the compiler automatically converts t[1][2] into *(t + 1*6 + 2) (equivalent to t[8] if it were declared as a one-dimensional array).
When you pass a multi-dimensional array to a function, there are two ways to handle it. The first is to declare the function argument as an array with known dimension sizes. The second is to treat your array like a 1D array.
If you are going to declare the size of your array, you would declare your function like this:
void sort_by_first_row(int t[][6], int n)
or this
void sort_by_first_row(int t[3][6])
You either have to declare all array dimension sizes, or you can leave out the first size. In both cases, you access elements of t using t[i][j]; you've given the compiler enough information to do the offset math that converts from 2D notation to a 1D index offset.
If you treat it as a 1D array, you have to pass the array dimensions and then do the offset math yourself.
Here's a full working example, where f and f2 both generate the same output:
void f(int* t, int m, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++)
std::cout << t[i * n + j] << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
}
void f2(int t[][6], int m)
{
for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < 6; j++)
std::cout << t[i][j] << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
int t[3][6];
int val = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 6; j++)
{
t[i][j] = val;
val++;
}
}
f(&(t[0][0]), 3, 6);
f2(t, 3);
return 0;
}
One thing to note is the hack-ish way I had to pass t to f. It's been a while since I wrote in C/C++, but I remember being able to pass t directly. Maybe somebody can fill me in on why my current compiler won't let me.
A int ** is a pointer to a pointer to an int, and can be a pointer to an array of pointers to arrays of ints. A int [][] is a 2-dimensional array of ints. A two-dimensional array is exactly the same as a one-dimensional array in C in one respect: It is fundamentally a pointer to the first object. The only difference is the accessing, a two-dimensional array is accessed with two different strides simultaneously.
Long story short, a int[][] is closer to an int* than an int**.

Resources