Using memset for integer array in C - c

char str[] = "beautiful earth";
memset(str, '*', 6);
printf("%s", str);
Output:
******ful earth
Like the above use of memset, can we initialize only a few integer array index values to 1 as given below?
int arr[15];
memset(arr, 1, 6);

No, you cannot use memset() like this. The manpage says (emphasis mine):
The memset() function fills the first n bytes of the memory area pointed to by s with the constant byte c.
Since an int is usually 4 bytes, this won't cut it.
If you (incorrectly!!) try to do this:
int arr[15];
memset(arr, 1, 6*sizeof(int)); //wrong!
then the first 6 ints in the array will actually be set to 0x01010101 = 16843009.
The only time it's ever really acceptable to write over a "blob" of data with non-byte datatype(s), is memset(thing, 0, sizeof(thing)); to "zero-out" the whole struture/array. This works because NULL, 0x00000000, 0.0, are all completely zeros.
The solution is to use a for loop and set it yourself:
int arr[15];
int i;
for (i=0; i<6; ++i) // Set the first 6 elements in the array
arr[i] = 1; // to the value 1.

Short answer, NO.
Long answer, memset sets bytes and works for characters because they are single bytes, but integers are not.

On Linux, OSX and other UNIX like operating systems where wchar_t is 32 bits and you can use wmemset() instead of memset().
#include<wchar.h>
...
int arr[15];
wmemset( arr, 1, 6 );
Note that wchar_t on MS-Windows is 16 bits so this trick may not work.

The third argument of memset is byte size. So you should set total byte size of arr[15]
memset(arr, 1, sizeof(arr));
However probably, you should want to set value 1 to whole elements in arr. Then you've better to set in the loop.
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]); i++) {
arr[i] = 1;
}
Because memset() set 1 in each bytes. So it's not your expected.

Since nobody mentioned it...
Although you cannot initialize the integers with value 1 using memset, you can initialize them with value -1 and simply change your logic to work with negative values instead.
For example, to initialize the first 6 numbers of your array with -1, you would do
memset(arr,-1,6*(sizeof int));
Furthermore, if you only need to do this initialization once, you can actually declare the array to start with values 1 from compile time.
int arr[15] = {1,1,1,1,1,1};

Actually it is possible with memset_pattern4 which sets 4 bytes at a time.
memset_pattern4(your_array, your_number, sizeof(your_array));

No, you can't [portably] use memset for that purpose, unless the desired target value is 0. memset treats the target memory region as an array of bytes, not an array of ints.
A fairly popular hack for filling a memory region with a repetitive pattern is actually based on memcpy. It critically relies on the expectation that memcpy copies data in forward direction
int arr[15];
arr[0] = 1;
memcpy(&arr[1], &arr[0], sizeof arr - sizeof *arr);
This is, of course, a pretty ugly hack, since the behavior of standard memcpy is undefined when the source and destination memory regions overlap. You can write your own version of memcpy though, making sure it copies data in forward direction, and use in the above fashion. But it is not really worth it. Just use a simple cycle to set the elements of your array to the desired value.

Memset sets values for data types having 1 byte but integers have 4 bytes or more , so it won't work and you'll get garbage values.
It's mostly used when you are working with char and string types.

Ideally you can not use memset to set your arrary to all 1.Because memset works on byte and set every byte to 1.
memset(hash, 1, cnt);
So once read, the value it will show 16843009 = 0x01010101 = 1000000010000000100000001
Not 0x00000001
But if your requiremnt is only for bool or binary value then we can set using C99 standard for C library
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdbool.h> //Use C99 standard for C language which supports bool variables
int main()
{
int i, cnt = 5;
bool *hash = NULL;
hash = malloc(cnt);
memset(hash, 1, cnt);
printf("Hello, World!\n");
for(i=0; i<cnt; i++)
printf("%d ", hash[i]);
return 0;
}
Output:
Hello, World!
1 1 1 1 1

The following program shows that we can initialize the array using memset() with -1 and 0 only
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
void printArray(int arr[], int len)
{
int i=0;
for(i=0; i<len; i++)
{
printf("%d ", arr[i]);
}
puts("");
}
int main()
{
int arrLen = 15;
int totalNoOfElementsToBeInitialized = 6;
int arr[arrLen];
printArray(arr, arrLen);
memset(arr, -1, totalNoOfElementsToBeInitialized*sizeof(arr[0]));
printArray(arr, arrLen);
memset(arr, 0, totalNoOfElementsToBeInitialized*sizeof(arr[0]));
printArray(arr, arrLen);
memset(arr, 1, totalNoOfElementsToBeInitialized*sizeof(arr[0]));
printArray(arr, arrLen);
memset(arr, 2, totalNoOfElementsToBeInitialized*sizeof(arr[0]));
printArray(arr, arrLen);
memset(arr, -2, totalNoOfElementsToBeInitialized*sizeof(arr[0]));
printArray(arr, arrLen);
return 0;
}

Related

memset sets some elements to *almost* zero or nan

I have the line memset(C, 0, N*M);, where C is a matrix of doubles. (I am using WSL.)
However if I look in gdb, certain elements in the matrix are set to either -nan(0xffffffffffff8) and others are set to for example 9.0096750001652956e-314.
The first one doesn't give any errors but a += doesn't seem to change anything (or at the very least doesn't seem to make the nan thing disappear), while the second is an issue if the element is not changed or only has += 0, as the comparison if (0 == C[i][j]) then fails.
If I set the values to 0 manually, then these issues do not arise at all.
Is this a WSL thing, or is there something about memset that I do not understand?
You do not fully initialize the matrix: memset() expects a number of bytes. Assuming the matrix layout is linear, either 1D or 2D, you should clear sizeof(double) * N * M bytes.
If your matrix is defined as a 2D array, you could write:
#define N 10
#define M 20
double C[N][M];
memset(C, 0, sizeof C);
If the matrix is received as a function argument, you actually get a pointer, so you must be more careful:
void clear_matrix(double C[N][M]) {
memset(C, 0, sizeof(*C) * N);
}
or possibly more readable:
void clear_matrix(double C[N][M]) {
memset(C, 0, sizeof(C[0][0]) * N * M);
}
or simply, as suggested by Lundin, but likely to break if the matrix element type changes:
void clear_matrix(double C[N][M]) {
memset(C, 0, sizeof(double[N][M]);
}
Note however that memset() will clear the matrix data to all bits zero, which sets the double values to +0.0 if the system uses IEEE-754 representation, but is not fully portable. A portable version would use a nested loop and a good compiler will generate the same memset call or inline code if appropriate for the target system:
#include <stddef.h>
#define N 10
#define M 20
void clear_matrix(double C[N][M]) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < N; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < M; j++) {
C[i][j] = 0.0;
}
}
}
The M*N is the number of items (doubles) but memset expects the number of bytes. For an array double C[M][N], you need to do memset(C, 0, sizeof(C));.

why a array-pointer gives me different values

The code goes
#include<stdio.h>
int sumOfElements_new(int *A, int size){ // int *A or int A[] same thing
int i, sum = 0; // remember arrays decay as pointers in other functions besides main
for (i =0; i<size;i++){
sum += A[i]; // A[i] = *(A+i)-> value at that address
}
return sum;
}
int main(){
int A[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int size = sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]);
int total = sumOfElements_new(&A[0], size);
printf("%d\n", &A[4]);
printf("Sum of elements = %d\n", total);
printf("Size of A = %d and size of A[0] = %d\n", sizeof(A), sizeof(A[0]));
return 0;
}
Now when I do something like this
int total = sumOfElements_new(&A[3], size);
the result is
Sum of elements = 30
Size of A = 20 and size of A[0] = 4
whenever I use &A[1] to any &A[6], it gives me different values.
Then why calling it in
int size = sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]);
gives me the correct answer of the Sum of the elements but, using &A[1-6] the answer goes up and its not even memory address??
Given how you define size, (e.g) int size = sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]); you can [only] do:
sumOfElements_new(&A[0],size)
If you use (e.g.) &A[3], you can't pass:
sumOfElements_new(&A[3],size)
because you're telling the function to sum past the end of the array. This is UB (undefined behavior). The program will fetch the data beyond the end, but that data is random (it is just whatever happens to be there).
You have to shorten the size/length you pass to the function. What you'd want is:
sumOfElements_new(&A[3],size - 3)
UPDATE:
May want to comment on printf("%d\n", &A[4]); as well..
This presents another issue. You [probably] want to print the value of the element of the A that has index 4.
The indexing is correct (i.e. it does not go beyond the end of the array), but you're passing the address of that element and not its value.
With your original code, if you compiled with warnings enabled (e.g. using the -Wall option--which you should always do, IMO), the compiler would flag this statement.
That's because you're passing an address [which on modern x86 cpus is probably 64 bits]. That's an unsigned quantity and you're trying to print it in decimal using only 32 bits [because an int is usually only 32 bits].
So, to print the value, you'd probably want:
printf("%d\n", A[4]);
If you truly wanted to print the address of that element [a more advanced usage], you could do:
printf("%p\n", &A[4]);

How to properly sum the elements of an array w/out getting large random outputs

I wrote two functions and call the functions in main.
Function 1 – I wrote a function that returns void and takes an int * (pointer to integer array) or int[], and int (for the size). The function needs to initialize all the elements of the array to non-zero values.
Function 2 – I wrote another function that returns int and takes an const int * (pointer to integer array) or int[], and int (for the size). The function should sum all the elements of the array and return the sum.
In main I defined an integer array of size 5. Called function 1 in main to initialize the values of the array. Called function 2 in main to get the sum and print the value of the sum to the console.
My problem is the program runs but the print out for sum we are getting is a large (in the millions), random, number and is not the expected answer of 15. Anyone who can help us get the correct answer would be greatly appreciated
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <windows.h>
#pragma warning(disable: 4996)
void func1(int* ptr, int size);
int func2(const int* ptr, int size);
int main()
{
int grid[5];
func1(grid, 5);
func2(grid, 5);
}
void func1(int* ptr, int size)
{
*ptr = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5;
}
int func2(const int* ptr, int size)
{
int sum;
sum = ptr[0] + ptr[1] + ptr[2] + ptr[3] + ptr[4]; // *(ptr + 0); putting an asterisk makes it so that it changes the entire "ptr" value and the "[0]" value
printf("\n\nThe sum of the integers in the array is %d.\n\n", &sum);
}
*ptr = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5;
does not do what you think it does. It actually evaluates all the integer constants but sets ptr[0] to be 1 (see comma operator for more detail), leaving all the others at some arbitrary value.
Note that it is not evaluating *ptr = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (which would set *ptr to 5) but is actually evaluating (*ptr = 1), 2, 3, 4, 5 - this works because something like 42 is actually a valid C statement, albeit not very useful.
If you're trying to set the array to increasing values, just use something like:
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
ptr[i] = i + 1;
You probably also want to do that when summing the values since it should depend on the passed-in size rather than just summing five values:
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
sum += ptr[i];
Additionally, the value you are printing out is not the sum, it's the address of the variable containing the sum (a decent compiler will warn you about this). You should be using sum in your printf rather than &sum.
And, as a final note, the signature for func2 indicates that you should actually be returning the sum rather than just printing it. So I would suggest removing the printf from that function and simply doing:
return sum;
Then you can put the printf into the caller (main) as follows:
int main(void)
{
int grid[5];
func1(grid, sizeof(grid) / sizeof(*grid));
int sum = func2(grid, sizeof(grid) / sizeof(*grid));
printf("The sum of the integers in the array is %d.\n\n", sum);
return 0;
}
Note the use of sizeof(grid) / sizeof(*grid), which is basically the number of array elements in grid - this will allow you to resize grid by simply changing it in one place to something like int grid[42] and still have all the code work with the updated size.
Not actually necessary for your code but it's best to get into good programming habits early (more descriptive names for your functions may also be a good idea).
Line *ptr = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; assigns ptr[0] value and leaves other spots unitilized so when you sum it, it will be random memory.
You should use for like this to initialize
for(int i=0;i<size;i++)
{
ptr[i] = i+1;
}
and similiar aproach to sum it.

unsigned char table length

I declared a table of unsigned char as follow:
unsigned char buf[10]={'1','5',0x00,'8'};
in order to know the number of elements of this table i implemented this function
int tablength(unsigned char *buf)
{
int i=0;
for (i=0;buf[i];i++)
;
return i;
}
However this function don't give me the right result when the buffer contains 0 in the middle .Sizeof don't give me the right result since it returns 10 in this case i can't neither use strlen since this is a table of unsigned char.
Do you have any idea to improve this function or any predefined function that help me solve my problem (the result that i 'am waiting for is 4)
Technically, since you declared a statically allocated array of 10 elements, the size of the array is 10. Even though you may not have initialized every element, there is something filling that space. C++ cannot determine whether the value in the array means anything or not.
After
unsigned char x[10] = {1, 2, 3};
the variable x (an array) has 10 elements, the first three initialized to 1, 2 and 3 and all the others initialized to 0. In other words that definition is absolutely identical to
unsigned char x[10] = {1, 2, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0};
An array in C and C++ is just a fixed area of memory and doesn't include a counter of how many "interesting" elements are there.
If you are looking for a container with a variable number of elements consider instead std::vector (C++ only). With that std::vector::size() returns the current number of elements in the container.
If you need the array to contain exactly the number of elements you've specified, just declare it without a specific size:
unsigned char buf[]={'1','5',0x00,'8'};
cout << sizeof(buf); // should be 4
If you want to store a variable amount of data (in C++) use std::vector instead of an array.
Otherwise you'll need to keep track of the number of valid elements yourself. There's nothing in the language that will do it for you.
Compilers cannot know how you would like to use an array instance.
Therefore you must follow the language's semantics. By declaring your array globally or locally, but with the storage class specifier static you are initializing every element to 0 on default and your function will work.
0x00 is false. 0x00 (which same as 0x0) is a hex number representing 0 (false). This is where your counting loop will stop at - the 3rd element.
Another thing you can do is declare your array with non-fixed size.
unsigned char buf[]={'1','5',0x00,'8'};
In that case, the sizeof operator works as expected.
Because that way, you will have an array of 4 elements.
strlen() obviously won't work as it is designed to work with strings, not a buffer.
As for a function that counts on a smarter way:
size_t arrcnt (unsigned char source[], size_t size)
{
size_t i;
for(i = size; i >= 0 && !source[i]; i--);
return i + 1;
}
Usage:
printf("size of buf: %u", arrcnt(buf, sizeof(buf));
buf[i] evaluates to false when buf[i] contains 0.
You cannot do what you want unless you know one value which can never occur in your array between 0 to UCHAR_MAX (255). Say the value is 255, then you first preinitialize the full array to 255 before you start filling it up.
memset(buf, 255, sizeof(char) * sizeof(buf));
Then you fill other elements like you want and then you can use the following
for(i = 0; buf[i] != 255, ++i)
try putting :
for(int i=0;buf[i]!= 0;i++)
count++;
return count;

Strange behaviour of an elementary CUDA code.

I am having trouble understanding the output of the following simple CUDA code. All that the code does is allocate two integer arrays: one on the host and one on the device each of size 16. It then sets the device array elements to the integer value 3 and then copies these values into the host_array where all the elements are then printed out.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int num_elements = 16;
int num_bytes = num_elements * sizeof(int);
int *device_array = 0;
int *host_array = 0;
// malloc host memory
host_array = (int*)malloc(num_bytes);
// cudaMalloc device memory
cudaMalloc((void**)&device_array, num_bytes);
// Constant out the device array with cudaMemset
cudaMemset(device_array, 3, num_bytes);
// copy the contents of the device array to the host
cudaMemcpy(host_array, device_array, num_bytes, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
// print out the result element by element
for(int i = 0; i < num_elements; ++i)
printf("%i\n", *(host_array+i));
// use free to deallocate the host array
free(host_array);
// use cudaFree to deallocate the device array
cudaFree(device_array);
return 0;
}
The output of this program is 50529027 printed line by line 16 times.
50529027
50529027
50529027
..
..
..
50529027
50529027
Where did this number come from? When I replace 3 with 0 in the cudaMemset call then I get correct behaviour. i.e.
0 printed line by line 16 times.
I compiled the code with nvcc test.cu on Ubuntu 10.10 with CUDA 4.0
I'm no cuda expert but 50529027 is 0x03030303 in hex. This means cudaMemset sets each byte in the array to 3 and not each int. This is not surprising given the signature of cuda memset (to pass in the number of bytes to set) and the general semantics of memset operations.
Edit: As to your (I guess) implicit question of how to achieve what you intended I think you have to write a loop and initialize each array element.
As others have pointed out, cudaMesetworks like the standard C memset- it sets byte values. From the CUDA documentation:
cudaError_t cudaMemset( void * devPtr, int value, size_t count)
Fills the first count bytes of the memory area pointed to by devPtr
with the constant byte value value.
If you want to set word size values, the best solution is to use your own memset kernel, perhaps something like this:
template<typename T>
__global__ void myMemset(T * x, T value, size_t count )
{
size_t tid = threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
size_t stride = blockDim.x * gridDim.x;
for(int i=tid; i<count; i+=stride) {
x[i] = value;
}
}
which could be launched with enough blocks to cover the number of MP in your GPU, and each thread will do as many iterations as required to fill the memory allocation. Writes will be coalesced, so performance shouldn't be too bad. This could also be adapted to CUDA's vector types, if you so desired.
memset sets bytes, and integer is 4 bytes.. so what you get is 50529027 decimal, which is 0x3030303 in hex... In other words - you are using it wrong, and it has nothing to do with CUDA.
This is a classic memset shortcoming; it works only on data type with 8-bit size i.e char. This means it sets (probably) 3 to every 8-bits of the total memory. You can confirm this by a simple C++ code:
int main ()
{
int x=16;
size_t bytes = x*sizeof(int);
int *M = (int*)malloc(bytes);
memset(M,3,bytes);
for (int i = 0; i < x; ++i) {
printf("%d\n", M[i]);
}
return 0;
}
The only case in which memset works on all data types is when you set it to 0. (it sets every byte to 0 and hence all data to 0). If you change the data type to char, you'll see the desired output. cudaMemset is ditto copy of memset with the only difference that it takes a GPU pointer in input.
So memset or cudaMemset probably sets every byte to the integer value (in your case 3) of whole memory space defined by the third argument regardless of the datatype.
Tip:
Google: 50529027 in binary and you'll get the answer :)

Resources