I'm trying to store three square, 2d arrays into a buffer so I use one contiguous block of memory. If the array size is rxr, my formula is:
buffer = (double*) malloc((r + r + r) * sizeof(double *) +
(r*r + r*r + r*r) * sizeof(double));
if(buffer == NULL) {
printf("out of memory\n");
return 0;
}
for(i = 0, j = 0; i < r; i++) {
a[i] = &buffer[j];
j+=r;
}
for(i = 0; i < r; i++) {
b[i] = &buffer[j];
j+=r;
}
for(i = 0; i < r; i++) {
c[i] = &buffer[j];
j+=r;
}
a = buffer[j];
b = buffer[j + r];
c = buffer[j + r + r];
As you can see, I'm lost. a, b, c, are declared as double pointers (meant to be pointers to arrays of arrays), so I want each to have an array of size r, with each element pointing to its own separate array of size r. Any ideas...
You're confusing malloc'ing pointers with malloc'ing doubles themselves. Just allocate the doubles like:
double* all = (double*) malloc( 3*r*r*sizeof(double));
Then where do your actual matrices go?
double *p1 = all;
double *p2 = &all[r*r];
double *p3 = &all[2*r*r];
Please check for off by one errors :) But the point is you don't need to malloc out both the double* and the double.
So, if I'm understanding correctly, what you want are three r x r arrays (a, b, and c), but you want all three of them stored contiguously; essentially, the backing store will be a single 3 x r x r array.
If the size r is not known at compile time and you're working in C99 or a C11 implementation that supports variable-length arrays, you could do something like the following:
size_t r = ...;
double (*a)[r] = NULL;
double (*b)[r] = NULL;
double (*c)[r] = NULL;
double (*backing_store)[r][r] = malloc(3 * sizeof *backing_store);
if (!backing_store)
{
// panic and exit
}
a = backing_store[0];
b = backing_store[1];
c = backing_store[2];
You can then use a, b, and c as though they were regular rxr arrays of double:
a[i][j] = ...;
printf("%f\n", b[x][y]);
etc.
When you're done, you only need to free backing_store:
free(backing_store);
Why does this work?
The expression backing_store has type "pointer to r-element array of r-element array of double. Since the expression backing_store[i] is equivalent to *(backing_store + i), the subscript operator implicitly dereferences the pointer, so the type of the expression is "r-element array of r-element array of double". Each of backing_store[0], backing_store[1], and backing_store[2] is an r x r array of double.
Remember that in most contexts, an expression of type "N-element array of T" is implicitly converted ("decays") to an expression of type "pointer to T", and its value is the address of the first element in the array.
Thus, the expression backing_store[0] is converted from type "r-element array of r-element array of double" to "pointer to r-element array of double", which just happens to be the type of a, and the value is the address of the first subarray (which happens to be the same as backing_store). Again, applying the subscript operator implicitly dereferences the pointer, so a[i][j] gives the jth element of the ith array after a.
If r is known at compile time (i.e., it is a constant expression) then the procedure is the same, you just don't have to declare the variable r:
#define R ...
double (*a)[R] = NULL;
double (*b)[R] = NULL;
double (*c)[R] = NULL;
double (*backing_store)[R][R] = malloc(3 * sizeof *backing_store);
if (!backing_store)
{
// panic and exit
}
a = backing_store[0];
b = backing_store[1];
c = backing_store[2];
If r is not known at compile time and you don't have variable-length arrays available (using C89 or a C11 compiler that doesn't support VLAs), then it can get a little messier. Here we treat backing_store as a 1-d array of double and compute 1-d subscripts into each subarray:
double *a = NULL;
double *b = NULL;
double *c = NULL;
double *backing_store = malloc(3 * r * r * sizeof *backing_store);
if (!backing_store)
{
// panic
}
a = backing_store;
b = backing_store + r * r;
c = backing_store + 2 * r * r;
a[i*r+j] = ...;
printf("%f\n", b[x*r+y]);
Again, you should only need to free backing_store when you're done:
free(backing_store);
Not as pretty as using 2-d subscripts, but it should work.
First, two-dimensional arrays are usually better managed as arrays of arrays rather than as pointers to rows, unless there is particular reason to use pointers. For this, we could do:
double (*Memory)[r][r] = malloc(3 * sizeof *Memory);
// Now Memory points to three r-by-r arrays of double.
double (*a)[r] = Memory[0];
double (*b)[r] = Memory[1];
double (*c)[r] = Memory[2];
However, if you want to use pointers to rows, then you should allocate space for the pointers separately from allocating space for the elements. (If you do not, there are issues with conformance to the C standard, particularly with padding and alignment. Additionally, your code treated buffer as an array of one type, either double or double *. But the address arithmetic you need sometimes requires pointers to double [when setting element addresses] and sometimes requires pointers to double * [when setting addresses of pointers to double].) To use pointers to rows, you can allocate with this:
double *(*PointerMemory)[r] = malloc(3 * sizeof *PointerMemory);
// PointerMemory points to three arrays of r elements of pointers to double.
double (*ElementMemory)[r][r] = malloc(3 * sizeof *ElementMemory);
Then you can set up pointers to the rows:
// Set a to point to the first array of r elements of pointers to double.
double *a[r] = PointerMemory[0];
// Initialize the elements of a to point to rows of the first r-by-r array of double.
for (i = 0; i < r; ++i)
a[i] = ElementMemory[0][i];
// Set b for the second array of pointers and the second array of double.
double *b[r] = PointerMemory[0];
for (i = 0; i < r; ++i)
b[i] = ElementMemory[1][i];
// Set c for the third arrays.
double *c[r] = PointerMemory[0];
for (i = 0; i < r; ++i)
c[i] = ElementMemory[2][i];
Related
I dynamically allocated memory for 3D array of pointers. My question is how many pointers do I have? I mean, do I have X·Y number of pointers pointing to an array of double or X·Y·Z pointers pointing to a double element or is there another variant?
double*** arr;
arr = (double***)calloc(X, sizeof(double));
for (int i = 0; i < X; ++i) {
*(arr + i) = (double**)calloc(Y, sizeof(double));
for (int k = 0; k < Y; ++k) {
*(*(arr+i) + k) = (double*)calloc(Z, sizeof(double));
}
}
The code you apparently intended to write would start:
double ***arr = calloc(X, sizeof *arr);
Notes:
Here we define one pointer, arr, and set it to point to memory provided by calloc.
Using sizeof (double) with this is wrong; arr is going to point to things of type double **, so we want the size of that. The sizeof operator accepts either types in parentheses or objects. So we can write sizeof *arr to mean “the size of a thing that arr will point to”. This always gets the right size for whatever arr points to; we never have to figure out the type.
There is no need to use calloc if we are going to assign values to all of the elements. We can use just double ***arr = malloc(X * sizeof *arr);.
In C, there is no need to cast the return value of calloc or malloc. Its type is void *, and the compiler will automatically convert that to whatever pointer type we assign it to. If the compiler complains, you are probably using a C++ compiler, not a C compiler, and the rules are different.
You should check the return value from calloc or malloc in case not enough memory was available. For brevity, I omit showing the code for that.
Then the code would continue:
for (ptrdiff_t i = 0; i < X; ++i)
{
arr[i] = calloc(Y, sizeof *arr[i]);
…
}
Notes:
Here we assign values to the X pointers that arr points to.
ptrdiff_t is defined in stddef.h. You should generally use it for array indices, unless there is a reason to use another type.
arr[i] is equivalent to *(arr + i) but is generally easier for humans to read and think about.
As before sizeof *arr[i] automatically gives us the right size for the pointer we are setting, arr[i].
Finally, the … in there is:
for (ptrdiff_t k = 0; k < Y; ++k)
arr[i][k] = calloc(Z, sizeof *arr[i][k]);
Notes:
Here we assign values to the Y pointers that arr[i] points to, and this loop is inside the loop on i that executes X times, so this code assigns XY pointers in total.
So the answer to your question is we have 1 + X + XY pointers.
Nobody producing good commercial code uses this. Using pointers-to-pointers-to-pointers is bad for the hardware (meaning inefficient in performance) because the processor generally cannot predict where a pointer points to until it fetches it. Accessing some member of your array, arr[i][j][k], requires loading three pointers from memory.
In most C implementations, you can simply allocate a three-dimensional array:
double (*arr)[Y][Z] = calloc(X, sizeof *arr);
With this, when you access arr[i][j][k], the compiler will calculate the address (as, in effect, arr + (i*Y + j)*Z + k). Although that involves several multiplications and additions, they are fairly simple for modern processors and are likely as fast or faster than fetching pointers from memory and they leave the processor’s load-store unit free to fetch the actual array data. Also, when you are using the same i and/or j repeatedly, the compiler likely generates code that keeps i*Y and/or (i*Y + j)*Z around for multiple uses without recalculating them.
Well, short answer is: it is not known.
As a classic example, keep in mind the main() prototype
int main( int argc, char** argv);
argc keeps the number of pointers. Without it we do not know how many they are. The system builds the array argv, gently updates argc with the value and then launches the program.
Back to your array
double*** arr;
All you know is that
arr is a pointer.
*arr is double**, also a pointer
**arr is double*, also a pointer
***arr is a double.
What you will get in code depends on how you build this. A common way if you need an array of arrays and things like that is to mimic the system and use a few unsigned and wrap them all with the pointers into a struct like
typedef struct
{
int n_planes;
int n_rows;
int n_columns;
double*** array;
} Cube;
A CSV file for example is char ** **, a sheet workbook is char ** ** ** and it is a bit scary, but works. For each ** a counter is needed, as said above about main()
A C example
The code below uses arr, declared as double***, to
store a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a double
prints the value using the 3 pointers
then uses arr again to build a cube of X*Y*Z doubles, using a bit of math to set values to 9XY9.Z9
the program uses 2, 3 and 4 for a total of 24 values
lists the full array
list the first and the very last element, arr[0][0][0] and arr[X-1][Y-1][Z-1]
frees the whole thing in reverse order
The code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct
{
int n_planes;
int n_rows;
int n_columns;
double*** array;
} Cube;
int print_array(double***, int, int, int);
int main(void)
{
double sample = 20.21;
double* pDouble = &sample;
double** ppDouble = &pDouble;
double*** arr = &ppDouble;
printf("***arr is %.2ff\n", ***arr);
printf("original double is %.2ff\n", sample);
printf("*pDouble is %.2ff\n", *pDouble);
printf("**ppDouble is %.2ff\n", **ppDouble);
// but we can build a cube of XxYxZ doubles for arr
int X = 2;
int Y = 3;
int Z = 4; // 24 elements
arr = (double***)malloc(X * sizeof(double**));
// now each arr[i] must point to an array of double**
for (int i = 0; i < X; i += 1)
{
arr[i] = (double**)malloc(Y * sizeof(double*));
for (int j = 0; j < Y; j += 1)
{
arr[i][j] = (double*)malloc(Z * sizeof(double));
for (int k = 0; k < Z; k += 1)
{
arr[i][j][k] = (100. * i) + (10. * j) + (.1 * k) + 9009.09;
}
}
}
print_array(arr, X, Y, Z);
printf("\n\
Test: first element is arr[%d][%d[%d] = %6.2f (9XY9.Z9)\n\
last element is arr[%d][%d[%d] = %6.2f (9XY9.Z9)\n",
0, 0, 0, arr[0][0][0],
(X-1), (Y-1), (Z-1), arr[X-1][Y-1][Z-1]
);
// now to free this monster
for (int x = 0; x < X; x += 1)
{
for (int y = 0; y < Y; y += 1)
{
free(arr[x][y]); // the Z rows
}
free(arr[x]); // the plane Y
}
free(arr); // the initial pointer;
return 0;
}; // main()
int print_array(double*** block, int I, int J, int K)
{
for (int a = 0; a < I; a += 1)
{
printf("\nPlane %d\n\n", a);
for (int b = 0; b < J; b += 1)
{
for (int c = 0; c < K; c += 1)
{
printf("%6.2f ", block[a][b][c]);
}
printf("\n");
}
}
return 0;
}; // print_array()
The output
***arr is 20.21f
original double is 20.21f
*pDouble is 20.21f
**ppDouble is 20.21f
Plane 0
9009.09 9009.19 9009.29 9009.39
9019.09 9019.19 9019.29 9019.39
9029.09 9029.19 9029.29 9029.39
Plane 1
9109.09 9109.19 9109.29 9109.39
9119.09 9119.19 9119.29 9119.39
9129.09 9129.19 9129.29 9129.39
Test: first element is arr[0][0[0] = 9009.09 (9XY9.Z9)
last element is arr[1][2[3] = 9129.39 (9XY9.Z9)
I am exploring pointer "mechanics" in C/C++. I try to understand if and how is possible to implement a 2D matrix using two pointers (one for "rows" and one for "columns") instead of a single double pointer. I am aware that a matrix with rows*columns number of values could be stored in memory sequentially, but i am looking to comprehend deeper the mechanics of pointers and eventually to implement a function similar to
int value=getValue(vectorNr,vectorValue)
that is able to "simulate" the construct
value=Matrix[vectorNr][vectorValue]
vectorPointer vectorValue
| AddressV1 |------|valAddr11 valAddr12 valAddr13 |
| AddressV2 |------|valAddr21 valAddr22 valAddr23 |
| AddressV3 |------|valAddr31 valAddr32 valAddr33 |
I tried to begin writing a code like this but I quickly get stuck on pointer arithmetic and address offsetting. I also might chose a very dirty approach so any comment is welcome.
CODE TO IMPLEMENT A 2D ARRAY WITH POINTERS (BUT NOT USING DOUBLE POINTERS). To avoid confusion between rows and columns I refer to "Vectors as rows" and "Columns as vector values"
int vectorsNumber = 3; //Number of Vectors
int valuesNumber = 3; //Number of values stored in one Vector
//Addresses of Vectors. Since Vectors holds a reference to set of values, vectorPointer will hold an address for every set.
void* vectorPointer = malloc(vectorsNumber *sizeof(void*));
//Populating the vectorPointer with the address generated by allocating memory for every set of values
for (int i = 0; i < vectorsNumber; i++)
{
vectorPointer = (int*)malloc(valuesNumber * sizeof(int)); //Values shall be of int types
vectorPointer++; //ILLEGAL since cannot perform arithmetic on pointers of type void. What do do??
}
//Restore the initial address. In any case...ILLEGAL arithmetic. What do do??
for (int i = 0; i < vectorsNumber; i++)
{
vectorPointer--; //Restore the initial address. In any case...ILLEGAL arithmetic.
}
//Declaring the pointer to hold the address of one value. Memory was already allocated before
int* valueAddress;
for (int j = 0; j < vectorsNumber; j++)
{
//Getting the address of the first value of the first Vector
valueAddress = (int*)vectorPointer; //Is this casting valid in C language?
//Populating the value with whatever operation
for (int k = 0; k < valuesNumber; k++)
{
*valueAddress = (k + 1)*(j + 1); //populate the Vector with int values
}
vectorPointer++; //Switch to next Vector.ILLEGAL arithmetic
}
Actually, you only need one pointer. One way of doing it is by allocating enough memory to hold all the values, and then have functions that map the x/y values in the array to the respective memory location. Assume we want those to be the dimensions and our array variable:
int dimX = 10, dimY = 5;
int *array;
You can set a value this way:
void arraySet(int value, int x, int y) {
array[x + dimX * y] = value;
}
And get a value this way:
int arrayGet(int x, int y) {
return array[x + dimX * y];
}
Allocate the memory beforehand such as in the main function:
array = malloc(sizeof(int)*dimX*dimY);
Use it like this:
arraySet(123, 9, 3); // sets the value of [9, 3] to 123
printf("Memory at 9, 3 is %d\n", arrayGet(9, 3));
This "two pointers" idea doesn't make any sense and the code you posted cannot be salvaged. What you should do instead is to use a pointer to a 2D array:
int (*ptr)[x][y] = malloc(sizeof *ptr);
...
free(ptr);
That's it. However, a pointer to a 2D array is cumbersome, since we have to de-reference it before accessing the actual array. That is, we'd end up writing (*ptr)[i][j] = ...; which is ugly.
To dodge this, we can instead still allocate a 2D array, but instead of pointing at "the whole array", we point at the first element, which is a 1D array:
int (*ptr)[y] = malloc( sizeof(int[x][y]) );
...
ptr[i][j] = ... ; // more convenient syntax for access
...
free(ptr);
More info: Correctly allocating multi-dimensional arrays
You can simulate int a[2][3]; with
one dimensional array and index computing:
int* matrix = (int*) malloc(6 * sizeof(int));
int get_matrix_2_3(int* matrix, int i, int j) { return matrix[3 * i + j]; }
2-dimensional array:
int** matrix = (int**) malloc(2 * sizeof(int*));
for (int i = 0; i != 2; ++i) {
matrix[i] = (int*) malloc(3 * sizeof(int));
}
matrix[1][2] = 42;
I know there are very similar questions, but I've read them and I don't understand what is going wrong or what exactly I haven't understood about pointers to pointers.
My teacher is using a "learning by doing" approach to pointers and it has left me with approximately 100 questions. Sometimes I just change things around until it compiles, but it really isn't becoming any more clear to me, so if someone could help clarify a few things, I'd really appreciate it.
struct Matrix {
int rows; // number of rows
int cols; // number of columns
double **data;
};
typedef struct Matrix Matrix;
The pointer to a pointer, is something like this, right?
double *row1 = (double *) malloc (n_cols*sizeof(double));
double *row2 = (double *) malloc (n_cols*sizeof(double));
double *row3 = (double *) malloc (n_cols*sizeof(double));
double *data[] = { row1, row2, row3};
Data is pointing to the row number which is pointing to the doubles in the rows.
Now I am supposed to make a constructor function that makes a Matrix with a 0 in every position returns a pointer to a Matrix.
Matrix *make_matrix(int n_rows, int n_cols) {
Matrix *m = xmalloc(sizeof(Matrix));
m->rows = n_rows;
m->cols = n_cols;
double **rows_and_columns = xmalloc(n_rows * n_cols * sizeof(double));
memset(rows_and_columns, 0, m->rows * m->cols * sizeof(double));
m->data = *rows_and_columns;
return m;
}
So I made a pointer for the matrix, then I assigned the values for the rows and columns. Then I got confused (although I am not sure how confused, because this part compiles). I made a pointer to pointer for the last element of the struct Matrix (**data). Since **rows_and_columns has to hold the rows and columns, I allocated xmalloc(n_rows * n_cols * sizeof(double)) memory to it. I then set the whole thing to 0 and assign it to data. I think this m->data = rows_and_columns; says that m points to data and since data is a pointer and rows_and_columns is a pointer, we'll align their addresses, so m->data will also point to a bunch of 0s? Or is this wrong? And I am returning m, because the output is Matrix * and the m will get the * upon output, correct?
The next step is to copy a matrix, at which point I got even more lost.
Matrix *copy_matrix(double *data, int n_rows, int n_cols) {
Matrix *m = make_matrix(n_rows, n_cols);
double *row = (double *) malloc (n_cols*sizeof(double));
int i = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < n_rows; j++) {
for (; i < n_cols; i++) {
row = (double *) malloc (n_cols*sizeof(double));
row [i] = data[i + j*n_cols];
}
m->data [j] = *row [i];
}
free(row);
return m;
}
So we are returning a pointer to a Matrix again. The input is now a pointer to double values, which I am assuming are the rows. First, I made a matrix. Then I made a pointer for a row with a n columns worth of memory (double *) malloc (n_cols*sizeof(double)).
This is where I got super confused. I was imagining **data the whole time as something like above (double *data[] = { row1, row2, row3};). So, I wanted to copy each row of *data into *row, then save that as an entry in **data, like data[0] = row0, but something isn't clicking with the pointers, because I am not allowed to assign m->data [j] = row [i];, because I'm assigning incompatible types by assigning double * from type double?
xmalloc() returns a void * pointer to single block of memory.
What you need is one block of pointers, serving as an conceptual table header row, holding pointers to other memory blocks which themselves contain the actual doubles.
double **columns -> [double *col0] [double *col1] [double *col2] ...
| | |
V V V
[double col_val0] [double col_val0] ...
[double col_val1] [double col_val1]
[double col_val2] [double col_val2]
... ...
A matrix allocation could look like this:
// Allocate the double pointer array:
double **matrix_rows = xmalloc(sizeof(double *) * column_count);
// Iterate over each double-pointer in the double-pointer-array allocated above.
for(int i = 0; i < column_count; i++) {
// Allocate a new double-array, and let current double-pointer point to it:
matrix_rows[i] = malloc(sizeof(double) * row_count);
// Initialize matrix cell, iterating over allocated values.
for(int j = 0; j < row_count; j++) {
// Accessing the i'th col and j'th cell.
matrix_rows[i][j] = 0.0;
}
}
A possible implementation of a matrix copy function could be done by iteratively copying individial cells. One way to do this is using a loop composition.
for(int col = 0; col < col_count; col++) {
for(int row = 0; row < row_count; row++) {
destination_matrix[col][row] = source_matrix[col][row];
}
}
To give some intuition where an n-pointer indirection could be used:
n = 1: Strings, an array of characters.
n = 2: Paragraph, holding lines of strings.
n = 3: An article, holding a list of paragraphs.
Please be aware of using two indirections is usually not something you want. It is usually more efficient to store data in a linear fashion and compute linear indices out of two-compoment vectors and the other way around, especially in the case of this matrix example.
If you want to represent a matrix as an array of pointers to rows you need to allocate memory both for the rows and for the array of pointers to rows. It is simpler to allocate the rows consecutively as a single block.
typedef struct
{
int n_rows;
int n_cols;
double **rows;
double *data;
} Matrix;
Matrix *matrix_new (int n_rows, int n_cols)
{
// allocate matrix
Matrix *m = malloc (sizeof(Matrix));
m->n_rows = n_rows;
m->n_cols = n_cols;
// allocate m->data
m->data = malloc (n_rows * n_cols * sizeof(double));
// allocate and fill m->rows
m->rows = malloc (n_rows * sizeof(double*));
for (int i = 0; i < n_rows; i++) {
m->rows[i] = &data[i * n_cols];
}
// set the matrix to 0
for (int i = 0; i < n_rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < n_cols; j++) {
m->rows[i][j] = 0.0;
}
}
return m;
}
The purpose of the rows array it to give you the convenience of being able to refer to element i,j with m->rows[i][j] instead of m->data[i * m->n_cols + j].
To free the matrix, take the inverse steps:
void matrix_free (Matrix *m)
{
free (m->rows);
free (m->data);
free (m);
}
To copy you can simply allocate a matrix of the same size and copy element by element:
Matrix *matrix_copy (Matrix *m1)
{
Matrix *m2 = matrix_new (m1->n_rows, m1->n_cols);
for (int i = 0; i < m1->n_rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < m1->n_cols; j++) {
m2->rows[i][j] = m1->rows[i][j];
}
}
return m2;
}
The important thing to note is that you must not copy the rows array since it is unique to each matrix.
It is important to understand the difference between pointers-to-pointers and multi-dimensional arrays.
What makes it extra confusing is that the same syntax is used for referencing individual elements: var[i][j] will reference element (i,j) of var regardless of if var is a pointer to pointer, double **var or a two-dimensional array, double var[22][43].
What really happens is not the same. A two-dimensional array is a contiguous memory block. A pointer to pointers is an array of pointers that point to the individual rows.
// Two-dimensional array
char var1[X1][X2];
int distance = &var[4][7] - &var[0][0]; // distance = 4*X2+7
// Pointer-to-pointer
char **var2 = malloc(X1 * sizeof(char*)); // Allocate memory for the pointers
for (i=0; i<X1; i++) var2[i] = malloc(X2); // Allocate memory for the actual data
int distance2 = &var2[4][7] - &var[0][0]; // This could result in anything, since the different rows aren't necessarily stored one after another.
The calculation of distance2 invokes undefined behaviour since the C standard doesn't cover pointer arithmetic on pointers that point to different memory blocks.
You want to use pointer-to-pointer. So you need to first allocate memory for an array of pointers and then for each array:
Matrix *make_matrix(int n_rows, int n_cols) {
Matrix *m = xmalloc(sizeof(Matrix));
int i, j;
m->rows = n_rows;
m->cols = n_cols;
m->data = xmalloc(n_rows * sizeof(double*));
for (i=0; i < n_; i++) {
m->data[i] = xmalloc(n_cols * sizeof(double));
for (j=0; j < n_cols; j++) {
m->data[i][j] = 0.0;
}
}
return m;
}
Don't assume that the double 0.0 will have all bits set to 0!
To copy a matrix:
Matrix *copy_matrix(Matrix *source) {
Matrix *m = make_matrix(source->n_rows, source->n_cols);
int i, j;
for (j = 0; j < n_rows; j++) {
for (i = 0; i < n_cols; i++) {
m->data[i][j] = source[i][j];
}
}
return m;
}
I'll backup a bit and start with the basics. Pointers are one of those things that are not difficult to understand technically, but require you to beat your head into the I want to understand pointers wall enough for them to sink in. You understand that a normal variable (for lack of better words) is just a variable that holds a direct-reference to an immediate value in memory.
int a = 5;
Here, a is a label to the memory address that holds the value 5.
A pointer on the other hand, does not directly-reference an immediate value like 5. Instead a pointer holds, as its value, the memory address where 5 is stored. You can also think of the difference this way. A normal variable holds a value, while a pointer holds the address where the value can be found.
For example, to declare a pointer 'b' to the memory address holding 5 above, you would do something like:
int *b = &a;
or equivalently:
int *b = NULL;
b = &a;
Where b is assigned the address of a. To return the value stored at the address held by a pointer, or to operate directly on the value stored at the address held by a pointer, you must dereference the pointer. e.g.
int c = *b; /* c now equals 5 */
*b = 7; /* a - the value at the address pointed to by b, now equals 7 */
Now fast forward to pointer-to-pointer-to-type and simulated 2D matricies. When you declare your pointer-to-pointer-to-type (e.g. int **array = NULL), you are declaring a pointer that points to a pointer-to-type. To be useful in simlated 2D arrays (matricies, etc.), you must delcare an array of the pointer-to-pointer-to-type:
int **array = NULL;
...
array = calloc (NUM, sizeof *array); /* creates 'NUM' pointer-to-pointer-to-int. */
You now have NUM pointers to pointers-to-int that you can allocate memory to hold however many int values and you will assign the starting address for the memory block holding those int values to the pointers you previously allocated. For example, let's say you were to allocate space for an array of 5 random int values (from 1 - 1000) to each of the NUM pointers you allocated above:
for (i = 0; i < NUM; i++) {
array[i] = calloc (5, sizeof **array);
for (j = 0; j < 5; j++)
array[i][j] = rand() % 1000 + 1;
}
You have now assigned each of your NUM pointers (to-pointer-to-int) the starting address in memory where 5 random int values are stored. So your array is now complete. Each of your original NUM pointers-to-pointer-to-int now points to the address for a block of memory holding 5 int values. You can access each value with array notation (e.g. array[i][j] or with pointer notation *(*(array + i) + j) )
How do you free the memory? In the reverse order you allocated (values, then pointers):
for (i = 0; i < NUM; i++)
free (array[i]);
free (array);
Note: calloc both allocates memory and initializes the memory to 0/nul. This is particularly useful for both the pointers and arrays when dealing with numeric values, and when dealing with an unknown number of rows of values to read. Not only does it prevent an inadvertent read from an uninitialized value, but it also allows you to iterate over your array of pointers with i = 0; while (array[i] != NULL) {...}.
I want to create a bidimensional array like so:
void **mdeclaraMatrice(int nrLini,int nrColoane, int sizeOfElement)
{
int i;
void **m = malloc(nrLini * 4);
if(m==NULL)
return NULL;
for(i=0; i<nrLini; i++)
{
*(m + (i*4)) = malloc(nrColoane * sizeOfElement);
if(*(m + (i*4)) == NULL)
return NULL;
}
return m;
}
I whant to use it like this:
int **m = (int **)mdeclaraMatrice(n,m,sizeof(int));
but it doesn't work. What do I do wrong?
You should use m[i] instead of *(m+i*4) and let the compiler do the arithmetic.
In addition, you should deallocate the already-allocated memory in case of a failure.
Try this instead:
void **mdeclaraMatrice(int nrLini, int nrColoane, int sizeOfElement)
{
int i;
void **m = malloc(nrLini * sizeof(void*));
if (m == NULL)
return NULL;
for (i=0; i<nrLini; i++)
{
m[i] = malloc(nrColoane * sizeOfElement);
if (m[i] == NULL)
{
while (i-- > 0)
free(m[i]);
free(m);
return NULL;
}
}
return m;
}
[not an answer to the question, but to the indented usage of the proper answer as given by others]
To access the void pointer array as an array of int, doing this
int **m = (int **)mdeclaraMatrice(n,m,sizeof(int));
is not correct, as per the C-Standard only void* converts to any other pointer properly, void** doesn't necessarily. So it shall correctly be
void ** ppv = mdeclaraMatrice(n,m,sizeof(int));
int * pi = *ppv; /* Please note, there is NO casting necessary here! */
Then access the members like so:
pi[0] = 42
pi[1] = 43;
...
Which essently is the same as doing
*((int *) (pi + 0)) = 42;
*((int *) (pi + 1)) = 43;
which indeed does not make sense really as pi already is int*, so the fully correct approach (also taking into account the 2nd dimension) would be:
((int *)(ppv[0]))[0] = 42;
((int *)(ppv[0]))[1] = 43;
Which could be made usable by definging a macro:
#define GENERIC_ARRAY_ELEMENT(type, address, r, c) \
((type *)(address[r]))[c]
GENERIC_ARRAY_ELEMENT(int, ppv, 0, 0) = 42;
GENERIC_ARRAY_ELEMENT(int, ppv, 0, 1) = 43;
I will address the problem of allocation an array of void pointers and then interpreting them as an array of int pointers.
int **nope = (int **)mdeclaraMatrice(n,m,sizeof(int));
Even assuming the allocation was completely correct the assignment and later usage of nope is undefined behavior. void** and int** have incompatible types.
What you can do is the following. Assign the void pointers one by one to an array of int pointers.
void** arrp = mdeclaraMatrice(n,m,sizeof(int));
int* arr[n] ;
for( size_t i = 0 , i < n ; i++ )
arr[i] = arrp[i] ;
And then use the arr array, When you want to free the memory you free the original pointer:
free( arrp ) ;
The problem occurs in this line:
*(m + (i*4)) = malloc(nrColoane * sizeOfElement);
You have to know that when adding a number to an address, the address will be incremented by the number times the size of the object the address points to. So if your pointer points to an object that is of size 4 bytes, and you add 1 to it, then the address will automatically be incremented by 4, not by 1. So you should abandon *4.
Also, use the sizeof operator when allocating space, because addresses (and thus pointers) can have different sizes on different processor architectures.
Actually, you don't even need your generic 2D array function if you know the powerfull VLA features of C99. To allocate a true 2D array (no index array required), you just do this:
int (*twoDIntArray)[width] = malloc(height*sizeof(*twoDIntArray));
That's it. Accesses are just as simple:
twoDIntArray[line][column] = 42;
In this code, twoDIntArray is a pointer to an array of width integers. The malloc() call simply allocates enough space for height such line arrays. When you do the pointer arithmetic twoDIntArray[line], you add the size of line line arrays to the pointer, which produces the address of the corresponding line array. This line array is then indexed by the second array subscript [column].
Needless to say that freeing such an array is just as trivial:
free(twoDIntArray);
double *f(int n, double v)
{
double *a, *p;
a = malloc(n * sizeof(double));
if (a != NULL)
for (p = a; p < a + n; p++)
*p = v;
return a;
}
Can you explain me what this function is needed for? Does it copy the content of v in n? If yes, why does it return a? I really don't get it... Thanks in advance.
It returns a newly allocated double array of size n filled with value v, or NULL if the allocation fails.
This loop:
for (p = a; p < a + n; p++)
*p = v;
uses pointer arithmetic. As p is a pointer to a double, incrementing it will point to the next double to write. *p = v writes the double at the specified location.
double *f(int n, double v)
{
double *a, *p;
a = malloc(n * sizeof(double)); // allocate memory enough for "n" doubles (an array)
if (a != NULL) // if the allocation was successful
for (p = a; p < a + n; p++) // loop from the beginning of the array to the end
*p = v; // fill every element of the array with the value "v"
return a; // return the new array
}
So if I called this function:
double * myarray;
myarray = f(3, 1.3);
Now I have:
myarray[0] = 1.3
myarray[1] = 1.3
myarray[2] = 1.3
So to answers your questions:
Can you explain me what this function is needed for?
allocates and initializes an array of doubles.
Does it copy the content of v in n?
No. Considering v is a double and n is an int, that doesn't even make sense. It makes an array n large and initializes it with the value v.
If yes, why does it return a?
It returns a so you have a reference to the newly created array. (see example above on how it could be used)
It allocates an array of n doubles, initialising each element of the array to the value of v.
The function returns a to allow the caller to use this newly allocated array.
It allocs a memory area of n * sizeof(double) bytes and enterely fill it with v value
Allocate an array of n doubles in heap, fill it with v and return the pointer to it?
Duplicate the v n times into an array of float
The array is allocated in the function and contains n float elements.
at the end of the function each element in the array a is containing v as value