I'm attempting to create a simple 2D array in C but apparently running into some memory trouble. My setup is simple enough and I can't tell what's wrong. I admit that my understanding of pointers is insufficient, but I still think this should be working. Can anyone see the flaw here?
typedef unsigned int DATUM;
DATUM **series_of_data;
void initialize_data()
{
*series_of_data = (DATUM *) malloc(1024 * sizeof(DATUM));
}
This causes my program to crash with a bus error when I run it.
series_of_data is actually not allocated.
You have various way to allocates a 2D array, either using the array of rows model whcih has bad cache coherency and thus has usually bad performances or to use the Iliffe vector adviced in Numerical recipes in C that consists in allocating one huge h*w memory block and a side pointer array which contains the beginning of your rows (or columns) :
DATUM** alloc_array( int h, int w )
{
int i;
DATUM** m = (DATUM**)malloc(h*sizeof(DATUM*));
m[0] = (DATUM*)malloc(h*w*sizeof(DATUM));
for(i=1;i<h;i++) m[i] = m[i-1]+w;
return m;
}
void release_array(DATUM** m)
{
free( m[0] );
free( m);
}
int main()
{
int r,c;
DATUM** tab;
int width = 5;
int height = 3;
tab = alloc_array(height, width); /* column first */
for(r = 0;r<height;++r)
for(c = 0;c<width;++c)
tab[r][c] = (1+r+c);
for(r = 0;r<height;++r)
{
for(c = 0;c<width;++c)
{
printf("%d\t",tab[r][c]);
}
puts("");
}
release_array(tab);
}
Data are nicely packed in memory, so cache are happy and you keep the [][] access pattern.
As a matter of speed this is in +/-3% speed of the classical DATUM* + polynomial access method.
series_of_data is an invalid pointer - you don't assign it to anything. When you try to assign to its memory location (*series_of_data = ...), it's putting stuff in a random place, which is likely to not do what you want. You have to point series_of_data somewhere useful, e.g.
series_of_data = (DATUM **)malloc(16 * sizeof(DATUM *))
for an array with 16 slots for DATUM * pointers in it.
You haven't allocated the series_of_data pointer before you assign to *series_of_data.
For example, if series_of_data is intended to be an array then you would need to write something like this:
series_of_data = malloc(n*sizeof(DATUM*));
where n is the length of the series_of_data array.
Only after you have done this can you assign to *series_of_data.
Related
I want to use a struct to contain some data and passing them between different functions in my program,this struct has to contain a dynamic 2D array (i need a matrix) the dimensions change depending on program arguments.
So this is my struct :
struct mystruct {
int **my2darray;
}
I have a function that read numbers from a file and has to assign each of them to a cell of the struct array.
I tried doing this :
FILE *fp = fopen(filename, "r");
int rows;
int columns;
struct mystruct *result = malloc(sizeof(struct mystruct));
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int)*rows);
int tmp[rows][columns];
for(int i = 0;i<rows;i++) {
for(int j = 0;j<columns;j++) {
fscanf(fp, "%d", &tmp[i][j]);
}
result->my2darray[i]=malloc(sizeof(int)*columns);
memcpy(result->my2darray[i],tmp[i],sizeof(tmp[i]));
}
But this is giving me a strange result : all the rows are correctly stored except for the first.
(I'm sure that the problem is not in the scanning of file).
While if i change the fourth line of code in this :
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int)*(rows+1));
it works fine.
Now my question is why this happens?
Here's an answer using some "new" features of the language: flexible array members and pointers to VLA.
First of all, please check Correctly allocating multi-dimensional arrays. You'll want a 2D array, not some look-up table.
To allocate such a true 2D array, you can utilize flexible array members:
typedef struct
{
size_t x;
size_t y;
int flex[];
} array2d_t;
It will be allocated as a true array, although "mangled" into a single dimension:
size_t x = 2;
size_t y = 3;
array2d_t* arr2d = malloc( sizeof *arr2d + sizeof(int[x][y]) );
Because the problem with flexible array members is that they can neither be VLA nor 2-dimensional. And although casting it to another integer array type is safe (in regards of aliasing and alignment), the syntax is quite evil:
int(*ptr)[y] = (int(*)[y]) arr2d->flex; // bleh!
It would be possible hide all this evil syntax behind a macro:
#define get_array(arr2d) \
_Generic( (arr2d), \
array2d_t*: (int(*)[(arr2d)->y])(arr2d)->flex )
Read as: if arr2d is a of type array2d_t* then access that pointer to get the flex member, then cast it to an array pointer of appropriate type.
Full example:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
size_t x;
size_t y;
int flex[];
} array2d_t;
#define get_array(arr2d) \
_Generic( (arr2d), \
array2d_t*: (int(*)[(arr2d)->y])(arr2d)->flex )
int main (void)
{
size_t x = 2;
size_t y = 3;
array2d_t* arr = malloc( sizeof *arr + sizeof(int[x][y]) );
arr->x = x;
arr->y = y;
for(size_t i=0; i<arr->x; i++)
{
for(size_t j=0; j<arr->y; j++)
{
get_array(arr)[i][j] = i+j;
printf("%d ", get_array(arr)[i][j]);
}
printf("\n");
}
free(arr);
return 0;
}
Advantages over pointer-to-pointer:
An actual 2D array that can be allocated/freed with a single function call, and can be passed to functions like memcpy.
For example if you have two array2d_t* pointing at allocated memory, you can copy all the contents with a single memcpy call, without needing to access individual members.
No extra clutter in the struct, just the array.
No cache misses upon array access due to the memory being segmented all over the heap.
The code above never sets rows and columns, so the code has undefined behavior from reading those values.
Assuming you set those values properly, this isn't allocating the proper amount of memory:
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int)*rows);
You're actually allocating space for an array of int instead of an array of int *. If the latter is larger (and it most likely is) then you haven't allocated enough space for the array and you again invoke undefined behavior by writing past the end of allocated memory.
You can allocate the proper amount of space like this:
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int *)*rows);
Or even better, as this doesn't depend on the actual type:
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(*result->my2darray)*rows);
Also, there's no need to create a temporary array to read values into. Just read them directly into my2darray:
for(int i = 0;i<rows;i++) {
result->my2darray[i]=malloc(sizeof(int)*columns);
for(int j = 0;j<columns;j++) {
fscanf(fp, "%d", &result->my2darray[i][j]);
}
}
In your provided code example, the variables rows and columns have not been initialized before use, so they can contain anything, but are likely to be equal to 0. Either way, as written, the results will always be unpredictable.
When a 2D array is needed in C, it is useful to encapsulate the memory allocation, and freeing of memory into functions to simplify the task, and improve readability. For example, in your code the following line will create an array of 5 pointers, each pointing to 20 int storage locations: (creating 100 index addressable int locations.)
int main(void)
{
struct mystruct result = {0};
result.my2darray = Create2D(5, 20);
if(result.my2darray)
{
// use result.my2darray
result.my2darray[0][3] = 20;// for simple example, but more likely in a read loop
// then free result.my2darray
free2D(result.my2darray, 5);
}
return 0;
}
Using the following two functions:
int ** Create2D(int c, int r)
{
int **arr;
int y;
arr = calloc(c, sizeof(int *)); //create c pointers (columns)
for(y=0;y<c;y++)
{
arr[y] = calloc(r, sizeof(int)); //create r int locations for each pointer (rows)
}
return arr;
}
void free2D(int **arr, int c)
{
int i;
if(!arr) return;
for(i=0;i<c;i++)
{
if(arr[i])
{
free(arr[i]);
arr[i] = NULL;
}
}
free(arr);
arr = NULL;
}
Keep in mind that what you have created using this technique is actually 5 different pointer locations each pointing to a set of 20 int locations. This is what facilitates the use of array like indexing, i.e. we can say result.my2darray[1][3] represents the second column, forth row element of a 5X20 array, when it is not really an array at all.
int some_array[5][20] = {0};//init all elements to zero
Is what is commonly referred to in C an int array, also allowing access to each element via indexing. In actuality (Even though commonly referred to as an array.) it is not an array. The location of elements in this variable are stored in one contiguous location in memory.
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0... (~ 82 more)
But C maintains the locations such that they are all indexable as an 2D array.
I am trying to develop the TicTacToe game in C and I am using the following structures.The myboard->a member is used to store 'X' or 'O' ,meaning the move a player has made in the same coordinates as the board , ie. 'X' in (1.1) or 'O' (3.1)
typedef struct{
int** a;
int size;
}_board;
typedef _board* board;
board myboard =(board) malloc(sizeof(board));
scanf_s("%d", &(myboard->size));
Size=is the size of the TicTacToe board nxn.
myboard->a =(int**)malloc(myboard->size*sizeof(char *));
if (myboard->a = NULL)
{
printf("ERROR!!!");
}
Until this point everything seems to work but when a try to allocate memory as you see bellow, a get a segmentation fault.
int i;
for (i = 0; j<myboard->size; i++)
{
myboard->a[i] = malloc(sizeof(char));
if (myboard->a[i] == NULL)
{
printf("ERROR");
}
}
I am using free for its malloc at the end of me program.
Thanks, in advance for any answer , and sorry for my bad english. Any help is apreciated.
I don't really understand why you are using a int** variable for storing your board data, when you could just use one simple int*, which you could later assign with malloc(3) as in:
int* b_data;
int b_size = 9;
b_data = malloc(b_size * sizeof(int));
// ... Your code
free(b_data);
If however, you really want to use a int** variable, you could do something like:
int** b_data;
int b_size_x = 3;
int b_size_y = 3;
int i;
b_data = malloc(b_size_x * sizeof(int*));
for(i = 0; i < b_size_x; i++)
*(b_data + i) = malloc(b_size_y * sizeof(int));
// ... Your code where you access your array of size_x containing
// arrays of size_y of int typed "cells"
for(i = 0; i < b_size_x; i++)
free(*(b_data + i));
free(b_data);
But this is really unnecessarily complicated, and I would dis-advise from doing so unless for learning purposes: in most cases, the allocated memory will be contiguous, so the second solution will allocate a nearly identical structure in memory, but will be less efficient (the "2D" array solution takes b_size_x times sizeof(int*) more memory), and the first solution will be simpler to read/write (so less prone to bugs, and easier to maintain).
Concerning your code, your problem is that myboard->a is NULL right after the "check" (which is in fact an allocation - note that the "ERROR" is never shown because myboard-> is then NULL, which evaluate to 'false'.):
if (myboard->a = NULL)
which should be:
if (myboard->a == NULL)
In addition, as pointed by #WhozCraig in his comment on your post, you might want to use i in the condition of your for loop, rather than j; and you also probably want to use int and int* types rather than char and char* types respectively in your malloc(s), since the a member of the board structure is an int**. Oh and also, think about putting newlines after your printf(3) strings, or use puts(3).
If this is a beginner's question, my apologies - most of my programming has been in very high level langauges, and I have limited expertise in C. (This is the sort of thing I could do very easily in languages such as Matlab, Octave, Sage, Maxima etc, but for this I need the speed of C).
But anyway... I have an array whose size is set at run time with malloc:
int *A = malloc(m * sizeof(int));
where m is computed from some values provided by the user. I have a function "update" which updates the array (or, if you prefer, takes the array as input and returns another as output). This update function may be called upwards of 10^8 times.
So the function itself can't introduce the appropriately sized output array with malloc, or the memory will be used up. So, for example, I can't do this:
int * update(int *L) /* produces next iteration of L */
{
int *out = malloc(m * sizeof(int));
/* do some stuff with L and produce new array out */
return (out);
}
I've tried to make out a static variable outside the update function:
static int *out;
and define its size in main:
out = malloc(m * sizeof(int));
But this doesn't seem to work either.
Anyway, I would be very grateful of some advice - I think I've exhausted the excellence of google.
Allocate the array outside of update, then pass a pointer to it:
void update(int const *L, int *out)
{
// whatever
}
Call as
int *A = malloc(m * sizeof(int));
if (A == NULL)
// handle error
for (i=0; i < N_ITER; i++)
update(L, A);
Though you may want to redesign the program so that it updates L in-place.
So if you are simply wanting to work on the data that is coming into the function directly, then what you have is partially already correct. The only thing that I would do is to add the size of the array as an input parameter to the routine to look like this:
void update(int * L, unsigned int size){
unsigned int count;
// Make sure the array has actually been allocated from outside
if(L == NULL) return;
// Example work on L just as if it is an array of values
for(count = 0; count < size; count++){
L[count] = L[count] + 1;
}
}
REMEMBER, this will work if you DO NOT wish to maintain the original data within L. If you do wish to maintain the original data, then larsmans answer will work better for you.
Also remember that you will have to malloc whatever variable you wish to input into L, outside and prior to your update routine, and free at some other point.
int * myVar = (int *)malloc(m * sizeof(int));
update(myVar, m);
// Other work to be done
free(myVar);
You should use realloc.
int *a = realloc(a, m * sizeof(a[0]));
It will work just as malloc in the first run but then it will reallocate a different sized array. You should note that the new array might or might not have the previous values assigned in it. You should assume that it has garbage like all things given by malloc.
Here is a good explanation of using realloc.
http://www.java-samples.com/showtutorial.php?tutorialid=589
NOTE : sizeof(a[0]) is equal to sizeof int but if you change int it will still be right
I am supposed to follow the following criteria:
Implement function answer4 (pointer parameter and n):
Prepare an array of student_record using malloc() of n items.
Duplicate the student record from the parameter to the array n
times.
Return the array.
And I came with the code below, but it's obviously not correct. What's the correct way to implement this?
student_record *answer4(student_record* p, unsigned int n)
{
int i;
student_record* q = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
for(i = 0; i < n ; i++){
q[i] = p[i];
}
free(q);
return q;
};
p = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
This is problematic: you're overwriting the p input argument, so you can't reference the data you were handed after that line.
Which means that your inner loop reads initialized data.
This:
return a;
is problematic too - it would return a pointer to a local variable, and that's not good - that pointer becomes invalid as soon as the function returns.
What you need is something like:
student_record* ret = malloc(...);
for (int i=...) {
// copy p[i] to ret[i]
}
return ret;
1) You reassigned p, the array you were suppose to copy, by calling malloc().
2) You can't return the address of a local stack variable (a). Change a to a pointer, malloc it to the size of p, and copy p into. Malloc'd memory is heap memory, and so you can return such an address.
a[] is a local automatic array. Once you return from the function, it is erased from memory, so the calling function can't use the array you returned.
What you probably wanted to do is to malloc a new array (ie, not p), into which you should assign the duplicates and return its values w/o freeing the malloced memory.
Try to use better names, it might help in avoiding the obvious mix-up errors you have in your code.
For instance, start the function with:
student_record * answer4(const student_record *template, size_t n)
{
...
}
It also makes the code clearer. Note that I added const to make it clearer that the first argument is input-only, and made the type of the second one size_t which is good when dealing with "counts" and sizes of things.
The code in this question is evolving quite quickly but at the time of this answer it contains these two lines:
free(q);
return q;
This is guaranteed to be wrong - after the call to free its argument points to invalid memory and anything could happen subsequently upon using the value of q. i.e. you're returning an invalid pointer. Since you're returning q, don't free it yet! It becomes a "caller-owned" variable and it becomes the caller's responsibility to free it.
student_record* answer4(student_record* p, unsigned int n)
{
uint8_t *data, *pos;
size_t size = sizeof(student_record);
data = malloc(size*n);
pos = data;
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < n ; i++, pos=&pos[size])
memcpy(pos,p,size);
return (student_record *)data;
};
You may do like this.
This compiles and, I think, does what you want:
student_record *answer4(const student_record *const p, const unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int i;
student_record *const a = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
for(i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
a[i] = p[i];
}
return a;
};
Several points:
The existing array is identified as p. You want to copy from it. You probably do not want to free it (to free it is probably the caller's job).
The new array is a. You want to copy to it. The function cannot free it, because the caller will need it. Therefore, the caller must take the responsibility to free it, once the caller has done with it.
The array has n elements, indexed 0 through n-1. The usual way to express the upper bound on the index thus is i < n.
The consts I have added are not required, but well-written code will probably include them.
Altought, there are previous GOOD answers to this question, I couldn't avoid added my own. Since I got pascal programming in Collegue, I am used to do this, in C related programming languages:
void* AnyFunction(int AnyParameter)
{
void* Result = NULL;
DoSomethingWith(Result);
return Result;
}
This, helps me to easy debug, and avoid bugs like the one mention by #ysap, related to pointers.
Something important to remember, is that the question mention to return a SINGLE pointer, this a common caveat, because a pointer, can be used to address a single item, or a consecutive array !!!
This question suggests to use an array as A CONCEPT, with pointers, NOT USING ARRAY SYNTAX.
// returns a single pointer to an array:
student_record* answer4(student_record* student, unsigned int n)
{
// empty result variable for this function:
student_record* Result = NULL;
// the result will allocate a conceptual array, even if it is a single pointer:
student_record* Result = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
// a copy of the destination result, will move for each item
student_record* dest = Result;
int i;
for(i = 0; i < n ; i++){
// copy contents, not address:
*dest = *student;
// move to next item of "Result"
dest++;
}
// the data referenced by "Result", was changed using "dest"
return Result;
} // student_record* answer4(...)
Check that, there is not subscript operator here, because of addressing with pointers.
Please, don't start a pascal v.s. c flame war, this is just a suggestion.
I am given the following structures to create my code with:
struct Mtrx {
unsigned double h;
struct MtrxRows** mtrxrows;
}
struct MtrxRows {
unsigned double w;
double* row;
}
I am trying to create a method called mtrxCreate that takes in parameters height and width and this is what I have below:
Mtrx* mtrxCreate(unsigned double height, unsigned double width){
Mtrx* mtrx_ptr = malloc(sizeof(double)*height);
int i;
mtrx_ptr->mtrxrows = malloc(sizeof(double)*height);
for(i = 0; i < height; ++i){
mtrx_ptr->mtrxrows[i]->row = malloc(sizeof(double) * width);
mtrx_ptr->mtrxrows[i]->w = width;
}
mtrx_ptr->h = height;
return mtrx_ptr;
}
The GCC compiler is telling me that I have a segmentation fault so I believe I did not allocate the memory correctly. I am not sure what memory I am still needing to allocating and if I allocated the current amount to the parts of the matrix above, any help is appreciated!
You aren't allocating the right amount of memory for certain things. First of all, the Mtrx structure itself:
Mtrx* mtrx_ptr = malloc(sizeof(double)*height);
Should be:
Mtrx* mtrx_ptr = malloc(sizeof(struct Mtrx));
Next, I'm not sure why your mtrxrows field is a double pointer. I think it should be a single pointer, a one-dimensional array of rows (where each row has some number of elements in it, as well). If you change it to a single pointer, you would allocate the rows as such:
mtrx_ptr->mtrxrows = malloc(sizeof(struct MtrxRows)*height);
Edit: Sorry I keep noticing things in this sample, so I've tweaked the answer a bit.
Wow. I don't exactly know where to start with cleaning that up, so I'm going to try to start from scratch.
From your code, it seems like you want all rows and all columns to be the same size - that is, no two rows will have different sizes. If this is wrong, let me know, but it's much harder to do.
Now then, first let's define a struct to hold the number of rows, the number of columns, and the array data itself.
struct Matrix {
size_t width;
size_t height;
double **data;
};
There are different ways to do store the data, but we can look at those later.
size_t is an unsigned integer (not floating point - there are no unsigned floating point types) type defined in stddef.h (among other places) to be large enough to store any valid object size or array index. Since we need to store array sizes, it's exactly what we need to store the height and width of our matrix.
double **data is a pointer to a pointer to a double, which is (in this case) a complex way to say a two-dimensional array of doubles that we allocate at runtime with malloc.
Let's begin defining a function. All these lines of code go together, but I'm splitting them up to make sure you understand all the different parts.
struct Matrix *make_Matrix(size_t width, size_t height, double fill)
Notice that you have to say struct Matrix, not just Matrix. If you want to drop the struct you'd have to use a typedef, but it's not that important IMHO. The fill parameter will allow the user to specify a default value for all the elements of the matrix.
{
struct Matrix *m = malloc(sizeof(struct Matrix));
if(m == NULL) return NULL;
This line allocates enough memory to store a struct Matrix. If it couldn't allocate any memory, we return NULL.
m->height = height;
m->width = width;
m->data = malloc(sizeof(double *) * height);
if(m->data == NULL)
{
free(m);
return NULL;
}
All that should make sense. Since m->data is a double **, it points to double *s, so we have to allocate a number of double *-sized objects to store in it. If we want it to be our array height, we allocate height number of double *s, that is, sizeof(double *) * height. Remember: if your pointer is a T *, you need to allocate T-sized objects.
If the allocation fails, we can't just return NULL - that would leak memory! We have to free our previously allocated but incomplete matrix before we return NULL.
for(size_t i = 0; i < height; i++)
{
m->data[i] = malloc(sizeof(double) * width);
if(m->data[i] == NULL)
{
for(size_t j = 0; j < i; j++) free(m->data[j]);
free(m->data);
free(m);
return 0;
}
Now we're looping over every column and allocating a row. Notice we allocate sizeof(double) * width space - since m->data[i] is a double * (we've dereferenced the double ** once), we have to allocate doubles to store in that pointer.
The code to handle malloc failure is quite tricky: we have to loop back over every previously added row and free it, then free(m->data), then free(m), then return NULL. You have to free everything in reverse order, because if you free m first then you don't have access to all of ms data (and you have to free all of that or else you leak memory).
for(size_t j = 0; j < width; j++) m->data[i][j] = fill;
This loops through all the elements of the row and fills them with the fill value. Not too bad compared to the above.
}
return m;
}
Once all that is done, we just return the m object. Users can now access m->data[1][2] and get the item in column 2, row 3. But before we're finished, since it took so much effort to create, this object will take a little effort to clean up when we're done. Let's make a cleanup function:
void free_Matrix(struct Matrix *m)
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < height; i++) free(m->data[i]);
free(m->data);
free(m);
}
This is doing (basically) what we had to do in case of allocation failure in the (let's go ahead and call it a) constructor, so if you get all that this should be cake.
It should be noted that this is not necessarily the best way to implement a matrix. If you require users to call a get(matrix, i, j) function for array access instead of directly indexing the data via matrix->data[i][j], you can condense the (complex) double ** allocation into a flat array, and manually perform the indexing via multiplication in your access functions. If you have C99 (or are willing to jump through some hoops for C89 support) you can even make the flat matrix data a part of your struct Matrix object allocation with a flexible array member, thus allowing you to deallocate your object with a single call to free. But if you understand how the above works, you should be well on your way to implementing either of those solutions.
As noted by #Chris Lutz, it's easier to start from scratch. As you can see from the other answers, you should normally use an integer type (e.g. size_t) to specify array lengths, and you should allocate not only the pointers, but also the structures where they are stored. And one more thing: you should always check the result of allocation (if malloc returned NULL). Always.
An idea: store 2D array in a 1D array
What I'd like to add: often it is much better to store entire matrix as a contiguous block of elements, and do just one array allocation. So the matrix structure becomes something like this:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
/* allocate a single contiguous block of elements */
typedef struct c_matrix_t {
size_t w;
size_t h;
double *elems; /* contiguos block, row-major order */
} c_matrix;
The benefits are:
you have to allocate memory only once (generally, a slow and unpredictable operation)
it's easier to handle allocation errors (you do not need to free all previously allocated rows if the last row is not allocated, you have only one pointer to check)
you get a contuguous memory block, which may help writing some matrix algorithms effectively
Probably, it is also faster (but this should be tested first).
The drawbacks:
you cannot use m[i][j] notation, and have to use special access functions (see get and set below).
Get/set elements
Here they are, the function to manipulate such a matrix:
/* get an element pointer by row and column numbers */
double* getp(c_matrix *m, size_t const row, size_t const col) {
return (m->elems + m->w*row + col);
}
/* access elements by row and column numbers */
double get(c_matrix *m, size_t const row, size_t const col) {
return *getp(m, row, col);
}
/* set elements by row and column numbers */
void set(c_matrix *m, size_t const row, size_t const col, double const val) {
*getp(m, row, col) = val;
}
Memory allocation
Now see how you can allocate it, please note how much simpler this allocation method is:
/* allocate a matrix filled with zeros */
c_matrix *alloc_c_matrix(size_t const w, size_t const h) {
double *pelems = NULL;
c_matrix *pm = malloc(sizeof(c_matrix));
if (pm) {
pm->w = w;
pm->h = h;
pelems = calloc(w*h, sizeof(double));
if (!pelems) {
free(pm); pm = NULL;
return NULL;
}
pm->elems = pelems;
return pm;
}
return NULL;
}
We allocate a matrix structure first (pm), and if this allocation is successful, we allocate an array of elements (pelem). As the last allocation may also fail, we have to rollback all the allocation we already made to this point. Fortunately, with this approach there is only one of them (pm).
Finally, we have to write a function to free the matrix.
/* free matrix memory */
void free_c_matrix(c_matrix *m) {
if (m) {
free(m->elems) ; m->elems = NULL;
free(m); m = NULL;
}
}
As the original free (3) doesn't take any action when it receives a NULL pointer, so neither our free_c_matrix.
Test
Now we can test the matrix:
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
c_matrix *m;
int i, j;
m = alloc_c_matrix(10,10);
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
set(m, i, j, i*10+j);
}
}
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
printf("%4.1f\t", get(m, i, j));
}
printf("\n");
}
free_c_matrix(m);
return 0;
}
It works. We can even run it through Valgrind memory checker and see, that it seems to be OK. No memory leaks.