I am new to C, and this struct, representing an image, is confusing to me. It's used in this Graphics Gem.
Can someone explain the proper instantiation and use of the struct, especially with regard to the scanline pointer array?
typedef unsigned char Pixel;
typedef struct {
short Hres; /* no. pixels in x direction */
short Vres; /* no. pixels in y direction */
int Size; /* size in bytes */
Pixel *i; /* pixel array */
Pixel *p[1]; /* scanline pointer array; position (x,y) given by image->p[y][x] */
} Image;
Also: is the point to avoid the multiplication implicit when indexing a 2D array? Should it not then be **p which can be allocated to Vres * sizeof(size_t) and populated with the appropriate row pointers?
Update
I think I understand. Is this example block valid?
int m, n, y, x; /* Vres, Hres, index variables */
Image *image;
image = malloc(sizeof(Image) + (m - 1) * sizeof(Pixel*));
image->Hres = n;
image->Vres = m;
image->Size = m*n*sizeof(Pixel);
image->i = malloc(image->Size);
for (y=0; y<m; y++)
{
image->p[y] = image->i + (y * n);
for (x=0; x<n; x++)
{
image->p[y][x] = 0; /* or imageSource[y][x] */
}
}
/* use image */
free(image->i);
free(image);
Finally, on modern computers (with lots of memory), does it make sense to use such a scanline pointer array rather than a 2D array? In this case the only difference would be the implicit pointer multiplication.
The last member, p, of the structure Image is used as a C89 flexible array member.
Flexible array member is a C99 feature and before C99, people sometimes used what was called the struct hack to achieve a similar behavior with C89.
Here is how to dynamically allocate a Image structure object with only one array element:
Image *bla1, *bla2;
bla1 = malloc(sizeof *bla1);
and here is how to allocate a structure object with n array elements:
bla2 = malloc(sizeof *bla2 + (n - 1) * sizeof bla2->p[0]);
After correct initialization of the Pixel * pointers in the p array, you can access the Pixel values like this:
bla2->p[x][y]
Regarding the conformity of the struct hack, C99 Rationale says that
the validity of this construct has always been questionable.
while a C Defect Report (DR #051) says that
The idiom, while common, is not strictly conforming.
Pixel *p[1] is most probably what is called a "flexible" array.
The trick is to put such arrays at the end of a struct and then allocate a block that is the size of the struct plus the total size of the additional array entries at the end. This relieves you from having to know the exact size of the array when defining the struct, you rather specify it at runtime:
Image *img = malloc(sizeof(Image) + 5 * sizeof(Pixel *));
/* img->p[5] is the last element of the array now */
Strictly speaking, you will be accessing the array beyond its bounds, but you make this operation safe by knowing that you have manually reserved enough additional memory past the end of the struct.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Dynamic array in C — Is my understanding of malloc and realloc correct?
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
So for my school project, a large CSV file will be entered through stdin and we will have to sort it based on column and print it out as a sorted csv file.
The step I am on right now is figuring out how to keep reallocing a struct of arrays so that it will grow if there is not big enough to hold the data coming in from stdin. We don't know the exact amount of rows that will be inputted in the CSV file. Right now we just used a static amount to test and see if the values are assigned to the structs.
I am still a beginner at C so I do not clearly know how I would iterate through a pointer like I would iterate through an array. Since we are using a static amount of structs in the array, we can just iterate using array[i] like in Java but how would you iterate through something like *array?
I do not know where to start for creating this dynamic array. I tried
struct array* testArray = (array*)malloc(sizeof(testArray));
but I have no idea how to iterate through it like I did with the static array by using array[i].
Any help would be greatly appreciated, sorry for the wall of text...
You can navigate through a malloced space the same way as with an array (using indicies), but it seems that your main issue lies in your use of malloc. Malloc's argument is the size in number of bytes that you want to allocate. So if you want to have an array of structs, you would first need to find out how many bytes one struct contains using sizeof(struct array), and then determine how large of an array you want, let's say N. So that line of code should look more like struct array* testArray = malloc(N * sizeof(struct array));. The return value of malloc will be a void pointer containing the memory address of the first byte of allocated space. Upon assigning this value to testArray, it will be type-casted to the assigned variable type (struct array *). Now you can use pointer arithmetic to access a specific index i with *(testArray + i), or simply testArray[i]. If you find that N was not a sufficient size, you can use realloc to increase the array size to 2N, or whatever size deemed necessary.
struct array* testArray = (array*)malloc(sizeof(testArray));
is a little wrong as you only allocate 1 element of testArray.
It is more like:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
....
};
struct A* arr = malloc( N * sizeof(struct A) );
^^^
N element of struct A
int j;
for (j=0; j<N; ++j) // Iterate it like any other array
{
arr[j].a = 5;
arr[j].b = 42;
....
}
Use realloc when you need the array to grow.
When reading from a file/stdin it could look like (based on comment from David C. Rankin):
int n=0; // Count of the number of structs read from the file
struct A* arr = malloc( N * sizeof(struct A) );
while (read line from file)
{
arr[n].a = val1;
arr[n].b = val2;
++n; // Increment count
if (n == N) // Check if current array is full, i.e. realloc needed
{
// realloc array to 2 * N; N = N * 2
}
}
I've allocated an "array" of mystruct of size n like this:
if (NULL == (p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n,1))) {
/* handle error */
}
Later on, I only have access to p, and no longer have n. Is there a way to determine the length of the array given just the pointer p?
I figure it must be possible, since free(p) does just that. I know malloc() keeps track of how much memory it has allocated, and that's why it knows the length; perhaps there is a way to query for this information? Something like...
int length = askMallocLibraryHowMuchMemoryWasAlloced(p) / sizeof(mystruct)
I know I should just rework the code so that I know n, but I'd rather not if possible. Any ideas?
No, there is no way to get this information without depending strongly on the implementation details of malloc. In particular, malloc may allocate more bytes than you request (e.g. for efficiency in a particular memory architecture). It would be much better to redesign your code so that you keep track of n explicitly. The alternative is at least as much redesign and a much more dangerous approach (given that it's non-standard, abuses the semantics of pointers, and will be a maintenance nightmare for those that come after you): store the lengthn at the malloc'd address, followed by the array. Allocation would then be:
void *p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n + sizeof(unsigned long int),1));
*((unsigned long int*)p) = n;
n is now stored at *((unsigned long int*)p) and the start of your array is now
void *arr = p+sizeof(unsigned long int);
Edit: Just to play devil's advocate... I know that these "solutions" all require redesigns, but let's play it out.
Of course, the solution presented above is just a hacky implementation of a (well-packed) struct. You might as well define:
typedef struct {
unsigned int n;
void *arr;
} arrInfo;
and pass around arrInfos rather than raw pointers.
Now we're cooking. But as long as you're redesigning, why stop here? What you really want is an abstract data type (ADT). Any introductory text for an algorithms and data structures class would do it. An ADT defines the public interface of a data type but hides the implementation of that data type. Thus, publicly an ADT for an array might look like
typedef void* arrayInfo;
(arrayInfo)newArrayInfo(unsignd int n, unsigned int itemSize);
(void)deleteArrayInfo(arrayInfo);
(unsigned int)arrayLength(arrayInfo);
(void*)arrayPtr(arrayInfo);
...
In other words, an ADT is a form of data and behavior encapsulation... in other words, it's about as close as you can get to Object-Oriented Programming using straight C. Unless you're stuck on a platform that doesn't have a C++ compiler, you might as well go whole hog and just use an STL std::vector.
There, we've taken a simple question about C and ended up at C++. God help us all.
keep track of the array size yourself; free uses the malloc chain to free the block that was allocated, which does not necessarily have the same size as the array you requested
Just to confirm the previous answers: There is no way to know, just by studying a pointer, how much memory was allocated by a malloc which returned this pointer.
What if it worked?
One example of why this is not possible. Let's imagine the code with an hypothetic function called get_size(void *) which returns the memory allocated for a pointer:
typedef struct MyStructTag
{ /* etc. */ } MyStruct ;
void doSomething(MyStruct * p)
{
/* well... extract the memory allocated? */
size_t i = get_size(p) ;
initializeMyStructArray(p, i) ;
}
void doSomethingElse()
{
MyStruct * s = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) * 10) ; /* Allocate 10 items */
doSomething(s) ;
}
Why even if it worked, it would not work anyway?
But the problem of this approach is that, in C, you can play with pointer arithmetics. Let's rewrite doSomethingElse():
void doSomethingElse()
{
MyStruct * s = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) * 10) ; /* Allocate 10 items */
MyStruct * s2 = s + 5 ; /* s2 points to the 5th item */
doSomething(s2) ; /* Oops */
}
How get_size is supposed to work, as you sent the function a valid pointer, but not the one returned by malloc. And even if get_size went through all the trouble to find the size (i.e. in an inefficient way), it would return, in this case, a value that would be wrong in your context.
Conclusion
There are always ways to avoid this problem, and in C, you can always write your own allocator, but again, it is perhaps too much trouble when all you need is to remember how much memory was allocated.
Some compilers provide msize() or similar functions (_msize() etc), that let you do exactly that
May I recommend a terrible way to do it?
Allocate all your arrays as follows:
void *blockOfMem = malloc(sizeof(mystruct)*n + sizeof(int));
((int *)blockofMem)[0] = n;
mystruct *structs = (mystruct *)(((int *)blockOfMem) + 1);
Then you can always cast your arrays to int * and access the -1st element.
Be sure to free that pointer, and not the array pointer itself!
Also, this will likely cause terrible bugs that will leave you tearing your hair out. Maybe you can wrap the alloc funcs in API calls or something.
malloc will return a block of memory at least as big as you requested, but possibly bigger. So even if you could query the block size, this would not reliably give you your array size. So you'll just have to modify your code to keep track of it yourself.
For an array of pointers you can use a NULL-terminated array. The length can then determinate like it is done with strings. In your example you can maybe use an structure attribute to mark then end. Of course that depends if there is a member that cannot be NULL. So lets say you have an attribute name, that needs to be set for every struct in your array you can then query the size by:
int size;
struct mystruct *cur;
for (cur = myarray; cur->name != NULL; cur++)
;
size = cur - myarray;
Btw it should be calloc(n, sizeof(struct mystruct)) in your example.
Other have discussed the limits of plain c pointers and the stdlib.h implementations of malloc(). Some implementations provide extensions which return the allocated block size which may be larger than the requested size.
If you must have this behavior you can use or write a specialized memory allocator. This simplest thing to do would be implementing a wrapper around the stdlib.h functions. Some thing like:
void* my_malloc(size_t s); /* Calls malloc(s), and if successful stores
(p,s) in a list of handled blocks */
void my_free(void* p); /* Removes list entry and calls free(p) */
size_t my_block_size(void* p); /* Looks up p, and returns the stored size */
...
really your question is - "can I find out the size of a malloc'd (or calloc'd) data block". And as others have said: no, not in a standard way.
However there are custom malloc implementations that do it - for example http://dmalloc.com/
I'm not aware of a way, but I would imagine it would deal with mucking around in malloc's internals which is generally a very, very bad idea.
Why is it that you can't store the size of memory you allocated?
EDIT: If you know that you should rework the code so you know n, well, do it. Yes it might be quick and easy to try to poll malloc but knowing n for sure would minimize confusion and strengthen the design.
One of the reasons that you can't ask the malloc library how big a block is, is that the allocator will usually round up the size of your request to meet some minimum granularity requirement (for example, 16 bytes). So if you ask for 5 bytes, you'll get a block of size 16 back. If you were to take 16 and divide by 5, you would get three elements when you really only allocated one. It would take extra space for the malloc library to keep track of how many bytes you asked for in the first place, so it's best for you to keep track of that yourself.
This is a test of my sort routine. It sets up 7 variables to hold float values, then assigns them to an array, which is used to find the max value.
The magic is in the call to myMax:
float mmax = myMax((float *)&arr,(int) sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]));
And that was magical, wasn't it?
myMax expects a float array pointer (float *) so I use &arr to get the address of the array, and cast it as a float pointer.
myMax also expects the number of elements in the array as an int. I get that value by using sizeof() to give me byte sizes of the array and the first element of the array, then divide the total bytes by the number of bytes in each element. (we should not guess or hard code the size of an int because it's 2 bytes on some system and 4 on some like my OS X Mac, and could be something else on others).
NOTE:All this is important when your data may have a varying number of samples.
Here's the test code:
#include <stdio.h>
float a, b, c, d, e, f, g;
float myMax(float *apa,int soa){
int i;
float max = apa[0];
for(i=0; i< soa; i++){
if (apa[i]>max){max=apa[i];}
printf("on i=%d val is %0.2f max is %0.2f, soa=%d\n",i,apa[i],max,soa);
}
return max;
}
int main(void)
{
a = 2.0;
b = 1.0;
c = 4.0;
d = 3.0;
e = 7.0;
f = 9.0;
g = 5.0;
float arr[] = {a,b,c,d,e,f,g};
float mmax = myMax((float *)&arr,(int) sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]));
printf("mmax = %0.2f\n",mmax);
return 0;
}
In uClibc, there is a MALLOC_SIZE macro in malloc.h:
/* The size of a malloc allocation is stored in a size_t word
MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE bytes prior to the start address of the allocation:
+--------+---------+-------------------+
| SIZE |(unused) | allocation ... |
+--------+---------+-------------------+
^ BASE ^ ADDR
^ ADDR - MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE
*/
/* The amount of extra space used by the malloc header. */
#define MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE \
(MALLOC_ALIGNMENT < sizeof (size_t) \
? sizeof (size_t) \
: MALLOC_ALIGNMENT)
/* Set up the malloc header, and return the user address of a malloc block. */
#define MALLOC_SETUP(base, size) \
(MALLOC_SET_SIZE (base, size), (void *)((char *)base + MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE))
/* Set the size of a malloc allocation, given the base address. */
#define MALLOC_SET_SIZE(base, size) (*(size_t *)(base) = (size))
/* Return base-address of a malloc allocation, given the user address. */
#define MALLOC_BASE(addr) ((void *)((char *)addr - MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE))
/* Return the size of a malloc allocation, given the user address. */
#define MALLOC_SIZE(addr) (*(size_t *)MALLOC_BASE(addr))
malloc() stores metadata regarding space allocation before 8 bytes from space actually allocated. This could be used to determine space of buffer. And on my x86-64 this always return multiple of 16. So if allocated space is multiple of 16 (which is in most cases) then this could be used:
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
int size_of_buff(void *buff) {
return ( *( ( int * ) buff - 2 ) - 17 ); // 32 bit system: ( *( ( int * ) buff - 1 ) - 17 )
}
void main() {
char *buff = malloc(1024);
printf("Size of Buffer: %d\n", size_of_buff(buff));
}
Output
Size of Buffer: 1024
This is my approach:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct _int_array
{
int *number;
int size;
} int_array;
int int_array_append(int_array *a, int n)
{
static char c = 0;
if(!c)
{
a->number = NULL;
a->size = 0;
c++;
}
int *more_numbers = NULL;
a->size++;
more_numbers = (int *)realloc(a->number, a->size * sizeof(int));
if(more_numbers != NULL)
{
a->number = more_numbers;
a->number[a->size - 1] = n;
}
else
{
free(a->number);
printf("Error (re)allocating memory.\n");
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int_array a;
int_array_append(&a, 10);
int_array_append(&a, 20);
int_array_append(&a, 30);
int_array_append(&a, 40);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < a.size; i++)
printf("%d\n", a.number[i]);
printf("\nLen: %d\nSize: %d\n", a.size, a.size * sizeof(int));
free(a.number);
return 0;
}
Output:
10
20
30
40
Len: 4
Size: 16
If your compiler supports VLA (variable length array), you can embed the array length into the pointer type.
int n = 10;
int (*p)[n] = malloc(n * sizeof(int));
n = 3;
printf("%d\n", sizeof(*p)/sizeof(**p));
The output is 10.
You could also choose to embed the information into the allocated memory yourself with a structure including a flexible array member.
struct myarray {
int n;
struct mystruct a[];
};
struct myarray *ma =
malloc(sizeof(*ma) + n * sizeof(struct mystruct));
ma->n = n;
struct mystruct *p = ma->a;
Then to recover the size, you would subtract the offset of the flexible member.
int get_size (struct mystruct *p) {
struct myarray *ma;
char *x = (char *)p;
ma = (void *)(x - offsetof(struct myarray, a));
return ma->n;
}
The problem with trying to peek into heap structures is that the layout might change from platform to platform or from release to release, and so the information may not be reliably obtainable.
Even if you knew exactly how to peek into the meta information maintained by your allocator, the information stored there may have nothing to do with the size of the array. The allocator simply returned memory that could be used to fit the requested size, but the actual size of the memory may be larger (perhaps even much larger) than the requested amount.
The only reliable way to know the information is to find a way to track it yourself.
I have a structure like this
struct quantum_reg_struct
{
int width; /* number of qubits in the qureg */
int size; /* number of non-zero vectors */
int hashw; /* width of the hash array */
COMPLEX_FLOAT *amplitude;
};
typedef struct quantum_reg_struct quantum_reg;
quantum_reg reg;
If *amplitude is pointing to the start of array of type COMPLEX_FLOAT then I want to be able to store this in a an array of type Complex_float. Is it possible for me?
Secondly I need to understand the usage of -> operator. What happens if something like this is written .
reg->amplitude[1] *= -1;
As is, your code would crash if you accessed amplitude without assigning it to point to memory.
quantum_reg reg;
reg.amplitude = malloc(5 * sizeof (COMPLEX_FLOAT));
reg.amplitude[0] = 1.2f; // I'm guessing COMPLEX_FLOAT is just a typedef'd float for this to work
reg.amplitude[1] = 1.5f;
// reg->amplitude won't compile because reg is not a pointer.
// if COMPLEX_FLOAT is a struct, then reg.amplitude->fieldname could work, where fieldname is something in COMPLEX_FLOAT.
free(reg.amplitude); // free the allocated memory.
If amplitude has a fixed number of elements, consider redefining it as an array, e.g. COMPLEX_FLOAT amplitude[5];. This is easier to use because you don't have to worry about malloc and free. The advantage of malloc and free is that you can pick the size (number of elements) at runtime, but if you don't need this, then stick with an array.
Yes you could doing something like this :
quantum_reg.amplitude = malloc(sizeof(*quantum_reg.amplitude) * n);
Now the -> operator is just a shortcut for
(*reg).amplitude
Suppose I want to define a structure representing length of the vector and its values as:
struct Vector{
double* x;
int n;
};
Now, suppose I want to define a vector y and allocate memory for it.
struct Vector *y = (struct Vector*)malloc(sizeof(struct Vector));
My search over the internet show that I should allocate the memory for x separately.
y->x = (double*)malloc(10*sizeof(double));
But, it seems that I am allocating the memory for y->x twice, one while allocating memory for y and the other while allocating memory for y->x, and it seems a waste of memory.
It is very much appreciated if let me know what compiler really do and what would be the right way to
initialize both y, and y->x.
No, you're not allocating memory for y->x twice.
Instead, you're allocating memory for the structure (which includes a pointer) plus something for that pointer to point to.
Think of it this way:
1 2
+-----+ +------+
y------>| x------>| *x |
| n | +------+
+-----+
You actually need the two allocations (1 and 2) to store everything you need.
Additionally, your type should be struct Vector *y since it's a pointer, and you should never cast the return value from malloc in C.
It can hide certain problems you don't want hidden, and C is perfectly capable of implicitly converting the void* return value to any other pointer.
And, of course, you probably want to encapsulate the creation of these vectors to make management of them easier, such as with having the following in a header file vector.h:
struct Vector {
double *data; // Use readable names rather than x/n.
size_t size;
};
struct Vector *newVector(size_t sz);
void delVector(struct Vector *vector);
//void setVectorItem(struct Vector *vector, size_t idx, double val);
//double getVectorItem(struct Vector *vector, size_t idx);
Then, in vector.c, you have the actual functions for managing the vectors:
#include "vector.h"
// Atomically allocate a two-layer object. Either both layers
// are allocated or neither is, simplifying memory checking.
struct Vector *newVector(size_t sz) {
// First, the vector layer.
struct Vector *vector = malloc(sizeof (struct Vector));
if (vector == NULL)
return NULL;
// Then data layer, freeing vector layer if fail.
vector->data = malloc(sz * sizeof (double));
if (vector->data == NULL) {
free(vector);
return NULL;
}
// Here, both layers worked. Set size and return.
vector->size = sz;
return vector;
}
void delVector(struct Vector *vector) {
// Can safely assume vector is NULL or fully built.
if (vector != NULL) {
free(vector->data);
free(vector);
}
}
By encapsulating the vector management like that, you ensure that vectors are either fully built or not built at all - there's no chance of them being half-built.
It also allows you to totally change the underlying data structures in future without affecting clients. For example:
if you wanted to make them sparse arrays to trade off space for speed.
if you wanted the data saved to persistent storage whenever changed.
if you wished to ensure all vector elements were initialised to zero.
if you wanted to separate the vector size from the vector capacity for efficiency(1).
You could also add more functionality such as safely setting or getting vector values (see commented code in the header), as the need arises.
For example, you could (as one option) silently ignore setting values outside the valid range and return zero if getting those values. Or you could raise an error of some description, or attempt to automatically expand the vector under the covers(1).
In terms of using the vectors, a simple example is something like the following (very basic) main.c
#include "vector.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
Vector myvec = newVector(42);
myvec.data[0] = 2.718281828459;
delVector(myvec);
}
(1) That potential for an expandable vector bears further explanation.
Many vector implementations separate capacity from size. The former is how many elements you can use before a re-allocation is needed, the latter is the actual vector size (always <= the capacity).
When expanding, you want to generally expand in such a way that you're not doing it a lot, since it can be an expensive operation. For example, you could add 5% more than was strictly necessary so that, in a loop continuously adding one element, it doesn't have to re-allocate for every single item.
The first time around, you allocate memory for Vector, which means the variables x,n.
However x doesn't yet point to anything useful.
So that is why second allocation is needed as well.
In principle you're doing it correct already. For what you want you do need two malloc()s.
Just some comments:
struct Vector y = (struct Vector*)malloc(sizeof(struct Vector));
y->x = (double*)malloc(10*sizeof(double));
should be
struct Vector *y = malloc(sizeof *y); /* Note the pointer */
y->x = calloc(10, sizeof *y->x);
In the first line, you allocate memory for a Vector object. malloc() returns a pointer to the allocated memory, so y must be a Vector pointer. In the second line you allocate memory for an array of 10 doubles.
In C you don't need the explicit casts, and writing sizeof *y instead of sizeof(struct Vector) is better for type safety, and besides, it saves on typing.
You can rearrange your struct and do a single malloc() like so:
struct Vector{
int n;
double x[];
};
struct Vector *y = malloc(sizeof *y + 10 * sizeof(double));
Few points
struct Vector y = (struct Vector*)malloc(sizeof(struct Vector)); is wrong
it should be struct Vector *y = (struct Vector*)malloc(sizeof(struct Vector)); since y holds pointer to struct Vector.
1st malloc() only allocates memory enough to hold Vector structure (which is pointer to double + int)
2nd malloc() actually allocate memory to hold 10 double.
When you allocate memory for struct Vector you just allocate memory for pointer x, i.e. for space, where its value, which contains address, will be placed. So such way you do not allocate memory for the block, on which y.x will reference.
First malloc allocates memory for struct, including memory for x (pointer to double). Second malloc allocates memory for double value wtich x points to.
You could actually do this in a single malloc by allocating for the Vector and the array at the same time. Eg:
struct Vector y = (struct Vector*)malloc(sizeof(struct Vector) + 10*sizeof(double));
y->x = (double*)((char*)y + sizeof(struct Vector));
y->n = 10;
This allocates Vector 'y', then makes y->x point to the extra allocated data immediate after the Vector struct (but in the same memory block).
If resizing the vector is required, you should do it with the two allocations as recommended. The internal y->x array would then be able to be resized while keeping the vector struct 'y' intact.
When you malloc(sizeof(struct_name)) it automatically allocates memory for the full size of the struct, you don't need to malloc each element inside.
Use -fsanitize=address flag to check how you used your program memory.
I am working with a 2-dimensional array of structs which is a part of another struct. It's not something I've done a lot with so I'm having a problem. This function ends up failing after getting to the "test" for-loop near the end. It prints out one line correctly before it seg faults.
The parts of my code which read data into a dummy 2-d array of structs works just fine, so it must be my assigning array to be part of another struct (the imageStruct).
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
/*the structure of each pixel*/
typedef struct
{
int R,G,B;
}pixelStruct;
/*data for each image*/
typedef struct
{
int height;
int width;
pixelStruct *arr; /*pointer to 2-d array of pixels*/
} imageStruct;
imageStruct ReadImage(char * filename)
{
FILE *image=fopen(filename,"r");
imageStruct thisImage;
/*get header data from image*/
/*make a 2-d array of of pixels*/
pixelStruct imageArr[thisImage.height][thisImage.width];
/*Read in the image. */
/*I know this works because I after storing the image data in the
imageArr array, I printed each element from the array to the
screen.*/
/*so now I want to take the array called imageArr and put it in the
imageStruct called thisImage*/
thisImage.arr = malloc(sizeof(imageArr));
//allocate enough space in struct for the image array.
*thisImage.arr = *imageArr; /*put imageArr into the thisImage imagestruct*/
//test to see if assignment worked: (this is where it fails)
for (i = 0; i < thisImage.height; i++)
{
for (j = 0; j < thisImage.width; j++)
{
printf("\n%d: R: %d G: %d B: %d\n", i ,thisImage.arr[i][j].R,
thisImage.arr[i][j].G, thisImage.arr[i][j].B);
}
}
return thisImage;
}
(In case you are wondering why I am using a dummy array in the first place, well it's because when I started writing this code, I couldn't figure out how to do what I am trying to do now.)
EDIT: One person suggested that I didn't initialize my 2-d array correctly in the typedef for the imageStruct. Can anyone help me correct this if it is indeed the problem?
You seem to be able to create variable-length-arrays, so you're on a C99 system, or on a system that supports it. But not all compilers support those. If you want to use those, you don't need the arr pointer declaration in your struct. Assuming no variable-length-arrays, let's look at the relevant parts of your code:
/*data for each image*/
typedef struct
{
int height;
int width;
pixelStruct *arr; /*pointer to 2-d array of pixels*/
} imageStruct;
arr is a pointer to pixelStruct, and not to a 2-d array of pixels. Sure, you can use arr to access such an array, but the comment is misleading, and it hints at a misunderstanding. If you really wish to declare such a variable, you would do something like:
pixelStruct (*arr)[2][3];
and arr would be a pointer to an "array 2 of array 3 of pixelStruct", which means that arr points to a 2-d array. This isn't really what you want. To be fair, this isn't what you declare, so all is good. But your comment suggests a misunderstanding of pointers in C, and that is manifested later in your code.
At this point, you will do well to read a good introduction to arrays and pointers in C, and a really nice one is C For Smarties: Arrays and Pointers by Chris Torek. In particular, please make sure you understand the first diagram on the page and everything in the definition of the function f there.
Since you want to be able to index arr in a natural way using "column" and "row" indices, I suggest you declare arr as a pointer to pointer. So your structure becomes:
/* data for each image */
typedef struct
{
int height;
int width;
pixelStruct **arr; /* Image data of height*width dimensions */
} imageStruct;
Then in your ReadImage function, you allocate memory you need:
int i;
thisImage.arr = malloc(thisImage.height * sizeof *thisImage.arr);
for (i=0; i < thisImage.height; ++i)
thisImage.arr[i] = malloc(thisImage.width * sizeof *thisImage.arr[i]);
Note that for clarity, I haven't done any error-checking on malloc. In practice, you should check if malloc returned NULL and take appropriate measures.
Assuming all the memory allocation succeeded, you can now read your image in thisImage.arr (just like you were doing for imageArr in your original function).
Once you're done with thisImage.arr, make sure to free it:
for (i=0; i < thisImage.height; ++i)
free(thisImage.arr[i]);
free(thisImage.arr);
In practice, you will want to wrap the allocation and deallocation parts above in their respective functions that allocate and free the arr object, and take care of error-checking.
I don't think sizeof imageArr works as you expect it to when you're using runtime-sized arrays. Which, btw, are a sort of "niche" C99 feature. You should add some printouts of crucial values, such as that sizeof to see if it does what you think.
Clearer would be to use explicit allocation of the array:
thisImage.arr = malloc(thisImage.width * thisImage.height * sizeof *thisImage.arr);
I also think that it's hard (if even possible) to implement a "true" 2D array like this. I would recommend just doing the address computation yourself, i.e. accessing a pixel like this:
unsigned int x = 3, y = 1; // Assume image is larger.
print("pixel at (%d,%d) is r=%d g=%d b=%d\n", x, y, thisImage.arr[y * thisImage.width + x]);
I don't see how the required dimension information can be associated with an array at run-time; I don't think that's possible.
height and width are undefined; you might want to initialise them first, as in
thisImage.height = 10; thisImage.width = 20;
also,
what is colorRGB?
*thisImage.arr = *imageArr; /*put imageArr into the thisImage imagestruct*
This won't work. You have to declare arr as colorRGB **, allocate it accordingly, etc.
it looks like you are trying to copy array by assignment.
You cannot use simple assignment operator to do that, you have to use some function to copy things, for example memcpy.
*thisImage.arr = *imageArr;
thisimage.arr[0] = imagearr[0];
The above statements are doing the same thing.
However this is not most likely what causes the memory corruption
since you are working with two dimensional arrays, do make sure you initialize them correctly.
Looking at the code, should not even compile: the array is declared as one-dimensional in your image structure but you refer to as two-dimensional?