I'm trying to write a stack based on array, that can be dynamically reallocated. The main problem I have is how to implement procedure that resizes the array. In C++ it could look like that:
template<class T, int incr>
void Vector<T, incr>::inflate(int increase) {
const int tsz = sizeof(T*);
T** st = new T*[quantity + increase];
memset(st, 0, (quantity + increase) * tsz);
memcpy(st, storage, quantity * tsz);
quantity += increase;
delete []storage;
storage = st;
}
where int quantity; and T** storage; are declared in private section.
If there is anyone who could share me some sample I'd be much grateful. I tried to look through the implementation of Ada.Containers.Vectors but argh... it's to big =P
So far I've made this Vector.ads Can anyone help?
Ok, case is solved. I've finished my Vector class (which is actually a stack build on an array). Thank everyone for help.
Just for posterity here is my code. Hope someone will learn something from it.
Code -> https://gist.github.com/496a50bc7f5cd93f8d91
If you'd like to take a look and find something worth changing just comment. ;D
If you go with Ada.Containers.Vectors, there's a helpful discussion in the Rationale for Ada 2005: §8.2 Lists and vectors. Basically, you instantiate the generic package with your Index_Type and Element_Type:
package Container is new Containers.Vectors (Natural, T);
Then declare a variable having the new type:
Stack : Container.Vector;
The Push procedure then becomes Stack.Append and the Pop function returns Stack.Last_Element. Note the availability of prefixed notation.
Presumably you know how to initially allocate the (empty) array for your stack.
When you need to reallocate to a larger array, allocate it into a local access variable, akin to "st" in your C++ example. Then loop though the existing, full array, copying its elements into your newly allocated one.
Free, using an instantiation of Unchecked Deallocation, the old array--that's the Elements field in your Vector record. Then set the Elements field to the variable containing the newly allocated array.
Essentially, it closely follows your C++ example, only you don't need to mess around with sizeof() and you use a copy loop instep of memset/memcpy.
Related
include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int num = 10;
int arr[num];
for(int i = 0; i < num; i++){
arr[num] = i+1;
}
}
Some colleague of mine says that this code is not correct and that it is illegal. However, when I am running it, it is working without any errors. And he does not know how to explain why it is working and why I should not code like this. Can you please help me. I am a beginner and I want to learn C.
If you want to dynamically allocate an array of length n ints, you'll need to use either malloc or calloc. Calloc is preferred for array allocation because it has a built in multiplication overflow check.
int num = 10;
int *arr = calloc(num, sizeof(*arr));
//Do whatever you need to do with arr
free(arr);
arr = NULL;
Whenever you allocate memory with malloc or calloc, always remember to free it afterwards, then set the pointer to NULL in order to prevent any accidental, future references, as well as to prevent a double free.
While not necessarily illegal, this code won't do what you intend. When you declare an array, you declare the number of items you want to store, in this instance num. So when you declare num = 10 and arr[num] you get an array that can hold 10 integers. C arrays are indexed from 0, so the indices are 0-9, not 1-10. This is probably what they mean by illegal. Since you are writing to arr[num] or arr[10], you are attempting to use memory beyond the memory allocated for the array.
Additionally, if I understand the intent of the program correctly, you want to fill in the array with the numbers 1-10. To do this, you'd need to access each index individually. You're almost there, the only problem being arr[num] = i + 1;. As mentioned before, it is beyond the end of the array. However, you should probably be using i as your index, so arr[i], because this will access each index, 0-9.
Are you learning C or C++?
Your colleague meant that in that code of yours you are doing something different from what you wanted. It's working because of some additional factors. Because C/C++ standards are evolving and so do compilers as well. Let me show you.
Static array
When you a beginner, it's generally advised to stick to the concept that "a typed array of the compilation-given size" is int arr[N], where N is a constant. You allocate it on the stack and you don't manage it's memory.
In C++11 you can use a constexpr (constant expression), but is still not an arbitrary variable.
In C++14 you can use a "simple expression" for size, but you shouldn't try a lot of it before getting the array concept beforehand. Also, GCC compiler provides an extension to support variable sized arrays, it could be an explanation of "why the code is working at all".
Notice: variable sized arrays are not the same as dynamic arrays. They are not that static arrays from the first chapter of a C/C++ guide book as well.
There also exists a modern approach – std::array<int, 10> but once again, don't start with it.
Dynamic array
When you need to create an array in runtime everything changes. First of all, you allocate it on the heap and either you mange it's memory yourself (if you do not, you get a memory leak, a Pure C way) or use special C++ classes like std::vector. Once again, vectors should be used after getting to know Pure C arrays.
Your colleague must have been meaning something like that:
int* arr = new int[some_variable]; // this is dynamic array allocation
delete[] arr; // in modern C/C++ you can write "delete arr;" as well
So, your compiler made it work in this exact case, but you definitely should not rely on the approach you've tried. It's not an array allocation at all.
TL;DR:
In C++ variable length arrays are not legal
g++ compiler allows variable length arrays, because C99 allows them
Remember that C and C++ are two different languages
The piece of code from the question seems to be not doing what you'd wanted it to do
As others mentioned, it should be arr[i] = i + 1 instead, you are assigning to the same array item all the time otherwise
before you mark this as a duplicate please notice that I'm looking for a more general solution for arrays of arbitrary dimensions. I have read many posts here or in forums about making 2D or 3D arrays of integers but these are specific solutions for specific dimensions. I want a general solution for an array of any dimension.
First I need to have a type of intlist as defined below:
typedef struct{
int l // length of the list
int * e // pointer to the first element of the array
}intlist;
this actually fills the gap in C for treating arrays just as pointers. using this type I can pass arrays to functions without worrying about loosing the size.
then in the next step I want to have a mdintlist as multidimensional dynamically allocated arrays. the type definition should be something like this:
typedef struct Mdintlist{
intlist d // dimension of the array
/* second part */
}mdintlist;
there are several options for the second part. on option is that to have a pointer towards a mdintlist of lower dimension like
struct Mdintlist * c;
the other options is to use void pointers:
void * c;
I don't know how to continue it from here.
P.S. one solution could be to allocate just one block of memory and then call the elements using a function. However I would like to call the elements in array form. something like tmpmdintlist.c[1][2][3]...
Hope I have explained clearly what I want.
P.S. This is an ancient post, but for those who may end up here some of my efforts can be seen in the Cplus repo.
You can't! you can only use the function option in c, because there is no way to alter the language semantics. In c++ however you can overload the [] operator, and even though I would never do such an ugly thing (x[1][2][3] is alread y ugly, if you continue adding "dimensions" it gets really ugly), I think it would be possible.
Well, if you separate the pointers and the array lengths, you end up with much less code.
int *one_dem_array;
size_t one_dem_count[1];
int **two_dem_array;
size_t two_dem_count[2];
int ***three_dem_array;
size_t three_dem_count[3];
This way you can still use your preferred notation.
int num_at_pos = three_dem_array[4][2][3];
I am trying to create a 2d Array at compile time that has an unknown number of rows that i can dynamically allocate throughout the program but a specific number of columns as 8.
Something like ---->Elements[?][8];
If you have to use 2d array instead of list of array you gonna have to make a array
constant i = 1
foo[i][8]
and every time you want to expand that array
make temp_foo[i][8]
copy foo to temp_foo
delete foo
make foo[i++][8]
copy temp_foo to foo
But that's make confusing. and i think its better if use link list
struct node
{
foo[8]
node *next;
}
adding first element
node *element_head
element->foo = {add elements}
element->next = null
adding new element
node *temp
temp->foo = {add element}
temp->next = element_head
element_head= temp
Knowing the number of columns, and making only the number of rows dynamic you can either use a VLA or dynamic allocation. A VLA is straight forward:
int rows;
// get rows somehow
int table[rows][8];
Keeping in mind a VLA has automatic storage lifetime and will be removed from addressable memory once the enclosing scope expires. And they cannot be globals.
If your implementation doesn't support VLA's, automatic storage space is a concern, or you need a global variable for some nefarious purpose, you'll have to manage this dynamically (which it sounds like you want to do anyway). To do that, declare a pointer to an array of 8 elements, as such:
int rows;
// get rows somehow
int (*table)[8] = malloc(rows * sizeof(*table));
The rest is straight forward. You can reference your elements as table[i][j] for i in 0..rows-1 and j in 0..7. Just remember to free your allocation when finished:
free(table);
and don't reference it again.
As far as I know, you can't have foo[][8] in C. You might be able to hack around it by making a struct and casting a pointer to that struct to an array, as discussed here, but that is a somewhat fragile hack.
What you can do is change the definition of rows and columns in your problem space, so that, in order to access row i, column j, you would do foo[j][i] instead of foo[i][j].
In this case you could declare your array like this: <typename> * foo[8].
I'd go with this approach when the dimensions are unknown.
Assuming data type to be int.
int* a; //this will point to your 2D array
allocate it when you know the dimensions (ROW, COL):
a = malloc(sizeof(int)*ROW*COL);
and access it like
a[ROW*i + j] = value // equivalent of a[i][j]
I think it will not be created when you are not passing any value at compile time, my suggestion is to use dynamic memory allocation as you don't know how many rows
I'm having a conceptual problem in OpenCV
I have the following function:
void project_on_subspace(CvMat * projectionResult_img)
{
[...]
projectionResult_img = cvReshape( projectionResult_line_normalised_centered, projectionResult_img, 0, 100 );
}
Basically I'm returning a square matrix as a result of my function.
The problem is that the actual data of my matrix is stored in "projectionResult_line_normalised_centered" (if I understood how open CV works), which means that trying to use CvReleaseMat(projectionResult_img) later in my code to free the memory will not work, as the real matrix data is elsewhere.
Is there any proper way to release the actual matrix data WITHOUT also dealing with a pointer to "projectionResult_line_normalised_centered" ?
Thanks
No, there is no other way than to keep a pointer to the result matrix (projectionResult_line_normalised_centered) around in a variable or struct member.
I'm sort of learning C, I'm not a beginner to programming though, I "know" Java and python, and by the way I'm on a mac (leopard).
Firstly,
1: could someone explain when to use a pointer and when not to?
2:
char *fun = malloc(sizeof(char) * 4);
or
char fun[4];
or
char *fun = "fun";
And then all but the last would set indexes 0, 1, 2 and 3 to 'f', 'u', 'n' and '\0' respectively. My question is, why isn't the second one a pointer? Why char fun[4] and not char *fun[4]? And how come it seems that a pointer to a struct or an int is always an array?
3:
I understand this:
typedef struct car
{
...
};
is a shortcut for
struct car
{
...
};
typedef struct car car;
Correct? But something I am really confused about:
typedef struct A
{
...
}B;
What is the difference between A and B? A is the 'tag-name', but what's that? When do I use which? Same thing for enums.
4. I understand what pointers do, but I don't understand what the point of them is (no pun intended). And when does something get allocated on the stack vs. the heap? How do I know where it gets allocated? Do pointers have something to do with it?
5. And lastly, know any good tutorial for C game programming (simple) ? And for mac/OS X, not windows?
PS. Is there any other name people use to refer to just C, not C++? I hate how they're all named almost the same thing, so hard to try to google specifically C and not just get C++ and C# stuff.
Thanks!!
It was hard to pick a best answer, they were all great, but the one I picked was the only one that made me understand my 3rd question, which was the only one I was originally going to ask. Thanks again!
My question is, why isn't the second one a pointer?
Because it declares an array. In the two other cases, you have a pointer that refers to data that lives somewhere else. Your array declaration, however, declares an array of data that lives where it's declared. If you declared it within a function, then data will die when you return from that function. Finally char *fun[4] would be an array of 4 pointers - it wouldn't be a char pointer. In case you just want to point to a block of 4 chars, then char* would fully suffice, no need to tell it that there are exactly 4 chars to be pointed to.
The first way which creates an object on the heap is used if you need data to live from thereon until the matching free call. The data will survive a return from a function.
The last way just creates data that's not intended to be written to. It's a pointer which refers to a string literal - it's often stored in read-only memory. If you write to it, then the behavior is undefined.
I understand what pointers do, but I don't understand what the point of them is (no pun intended).
Pointers are used to point to something (no pun, of course). Look at it like this: If you have a row of items on the table, and your friend says "pick the second item", then the item won't magically walk its way to you. You have to grab it. Your hand acts like a pointer, and when you move your hand back to you, you dereference that pointer and get the item. The row of items can be seen as an array of items:
And how come it seems that a pointer to a struct or an int is always an array?
item row[5];
When you do item i = row[1]; then you first point your hand at the first item (get a pointer to the first one), and then you advance till you are at the second item. Then you take your hand with the item back to you :) So, the row[1] syntax is not something special to arrays, but rather special to pointers - it's equivalent to *(row + 1), and a temporary pointer is made up when you use an array like that.
What is the difference between A and B? A is the 'tag-name', but what's that? When do I use which? Same thing for enums.
typedef struct car
{
...
};
That's not valid code. You basically said "define the type struct car { ... } to be referable by the following ordinary identifier" but you missed to tell it the identifier. The two following snippets are equivalent instead, as far as i can see
1)
struct car
{
...
};
typedef struct car car;
2)
typedef struct car
{
...
} car;
What is the difference between A and B? A is the 'tag-name', but what's that? When do I use which? Same thing for enums.
In our case, the identifier car was declared two times in the same scope. But the declarations won't conflict because each of the identifiers are in a different namespace. The two namespaces involved are the ordinary namespace and the tag namespace. A tag identifier needs to be used after a struct, union or enum keyword, while an ordinary identifier doesn't need anything around it. You may have heard of the POSIX function stat, whose interface looks like the following
struct stat {
...
};
int stat(const char *path, struct stat *buf);
In that code snippet, stat is registered into the two aforementioned namespaces too. struct stat will refer to the struct, and merely stat will refer to the function. Some people don't like to precede identifiers always with struct, union or enum. Those use typedef to introduce an ordinary identifier that will refer to the struct too. The identifier can of course be the same (both times car), or they can differ (one time A the other time B). It doesn't matter.
3) It's bad style to use two different names A and B:
typedef struct A
{
...
} B;
With that definition, you can say
struct A a;
B b;
b.field = 42;
a.field = b.field;
because the variables a and b have the same type. C programmers usually say
typedef struct A
{
...
} A;
so that you can use "A" as a type name, equivalent to "struct A" but it saves you a lot of typing.
Use them when you need to. Read some more examples and tutorials until you understand what pointers are, and this ought to be a lot clearer :)
The second case creates an array in memory, with space for four bytes. When you use that array's name, you magically get back a pointer to the first (index 0) element. And then the [] operator then actually works on a pointer, not an array - x[y] is equivalent to *(x + y). And yes, this means x[y] is the same as y[x]. Sorry.
Note also that when you add an integer to a pointer, it's multiplied by the size of the pointed-to elements, so if you do someIntArray[1], you get the second (index 1) element, not somewhere inbetween starting at the first byte.
Also, as a final gotcha - array types in function argument lists - eg, void foo(int bar[4]) - secretly get turned into pointer types - that is, void foo(int *bar). This is only the case in function arguments.
Your third example declares a struct type with two names - struct A and B. In pure C, the struct is mandatory for A - in C++, you can just refer to it as either A or B. Apart from the name change, the two types are completely equivalent, and you can substitute one for the other anywhere, anytime without any change in behavior.
C has three places things can be stored:
The stack - local variables in functions go here. For example:
void foo() {
int x; // on the stack
}
The heap - things go here when you allocate them explicitly with malloc, calloc, or realloc.
void foo() {
int *x; // on the stack
x = malloc(sizeof(*x)); // the value pointed to by x is on the heap
}
Static storage - global variables and static variables, allocated once at program startup.
int x; // static
void foo() {
static int y; // essentially a global that can only be used in foo()
}
No idea. I wish I didn't need to answer all questions at once - this is why you should split them up :)
Note: formatting looks ugly due to some sort of markdown bug, if anyone knows of a workaround please feel free to edit (and remove this note!)
char *fun = malloc(sizeof(char) * 4);
or
char fun[4];
or
char *fun = "fun";
The first one can be set to any size you want at runtime, and be resized later - you can also free the memory when you are done.
The second one is a pointer really 'fun' is the same as char ptr=&fun[0].
I understand what pointers do, but I don't understand what the point of
them is (no pun intended). And when
does something get allocated on the
stack vs. the heap? How do I know
where it gets allocated? Do pointers
have something to do with it?
When you define something in a function like "char fun[4]" it is defined on the stack and the memory isn't available outside the function.
Using malloc (or new in C++) reserves memory on the heap - you can make this data available anywhere in the program by passing it the pointer. This also lets you decide the size of the memory at runtime and finaly the size of the stack is limited (typically 1Mb) while on the heap you can reserve all the memory you have available.
edit 5. Not really - I would say pure C. C++ is (almost) a superset of C so unless you are working on a very limited embedded system it's usualy OK to use C++.
\5. Chipmunk
Fast and lightweight 2D rigid body physics library in C.
Designed with 2D video games in mind.
Lightweight C99 implementation with no external dependencies outside of the Std. C library.
Many language bindings available.
Simple, read the documentation and see!
Unrestrictive MIT license.
Makes you smarter, stronger and more attractive to the opposite gender!
...
In your second question:
char *fun = malloc(sizeof(char) * 4);
vs
char fun[4];
vs
char *fun = "fun";
These all involve an array of 4 chars, but that's where the similarity ends. Where they differ is in the lifetime, modifiability and initialisation of those chars.
The first one creates a single pointer to char object called fun - this pointer variable will live only from when this function starts until the function returns. It also calls the C standard library and asks it to dynamically create a memory block the size of an array of 4 chars, and assigns the location of the first char in the block to fun. This memory block (which you can treat as an array of 4 chars) has a flexible lifetime that's entirely up to the programmer - it lives until you pass that memory location to free(). Note that this means that the memory block created by malloc can live for a longer or shorter time than the pointer variable fun itself does. Note also that the association between fun and that memory block is not fixed - you can change fun so it points to different memory block, or make a different pointer point to that memory block.
One more thing - the array of 4 chars created by malloc is not initialised - it contains garbage values.
The second example creates only one object - an array of 4 chars, called fun. (To test this, change the 4 to 40 and print out sizeof(fun)). This array lives only until the function it's declared in returns (unless it's declared outside of a function, when it lives for as long as the entire program is running). This array of 4 chars isn't initialised either.
The third example creates two objects. The first is a pointer-to-char variable called fun, just like in the first example (and as usual, it lives from the start of this function until it returns). The other object is a bit strange - it's an array of 4 chars, initialised to { 'f', 'u', 'n', 0 }, which has no name and that lives for as long as the entire program is running. It's also not guaranteed to be modifiable (although what happens if you try to modify it is left entirely undefined - it might crash your program, or it might not). The variable fun is initialised with the location of this strange unnamed, unmodifiable, long-lived array (but just like in the first example, this association isn't permanent - you can make fun point to something else).
The reason why there's so many confusing similarities and differences between arrays and pointers is down to two things:
The "array syntax" in C (the [] operator) actually works on pointers, not arrays!
Trying to pin down an array is a bit like catching fog - in almost all cases the array evaporates and is replaced by a pointer to its first element instead.