I'm having some trouble with the realloc function.
I'm allocating a dynamic bidimensional array with this function:
Bubble ***allocBubblesMatrix(int height, int width) {
Bubble ***bubblesMatrix = (Bubble***) malloc(height * sizeof(Bubble**));
assert(bubblesMatrix != NULL);
int i;
for (i = 0; i < height; ++i) {
bubblesMatrix[i] = (Bubble**) malloc(width * sizeof(Bubble*));
assert(bubblesMatrix[i] != NULL);
}
int x, y;
for (y = 0; y < height; ++y)
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x)
bubblesMatrix[y][x] = newBubble(rand() % N_BUBBLES);
return bubblesMatrix;
}
wich is called with the next code:
int matrixHeight = 1,
matrixWidth = MATRIX_X_SIZE;
Bubble ***bubblesMatrix = allocBubblesMatrix(matrixHeight, matrixWidth);
This successfuly creates a bidimensional array 1* MATRIX_X_SIZE.
Then, I want to add a row or multiple rows to the matrix, so I use realloc with the following function. It's supposed to add heightIncrement rows. The problem is that sometimes it works, other it crashes de program.
void resizeBubblesMatrix(Bubble ****bubblesMatrix, int height, int width,
int heightIncrement) {
if (heightIncrement <= 0) /* temporary */
return;
*bubblesMatrix = (Bubble***) realloc(*bubblesMatrix, (height + heightIncrement) * sizeof(Bubble**));
assert(bubblesMatrix != NULL);
int x, y;
int newHeight = height + heightIncrement;
for (y = height; y < newHeight; ++y) {
(*bubblesMatrix)[y] = (Bubble**) malloc(width * sizeof(Bubble*));
assert((*bubblesMatrix)[y] != NULL);
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x)
(*bubblesMatrix)[y][x] = newBubble(rand() % N_BUBBLES);
}
}
This function is called with:
while(true) {
drawBubblesMatrix(x1, y1, matrixHeight, matrixWidth, &bubblesMatrix, bubbles);
resizeBubblesMatrix(&bubblesMatrix, matrixHeight, matrixWidth, 1);
++matrixHeight;
getch();
clear_screen(1);
}
What am I doing wrong?
Function to deallocate the memory blocks previously allocated:
void freeBubblesMatrix(Bubble ****bubblesMatrix, int height, int width) {
int y, x;
for (y = 0; y < height; ++y) {
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x) {
free((*bubblesMatrix)[y][x]);
(*bubblesMatrix)[y][x] = NULL;
}
free((*bubblesMatrix)[y]);
(*bubblesMatrix)[y] = NULL;
}
free(*bubblesMatrix);
*bubblesMatrix = NULL;
}
Thanks in advance.
EDIT
Silly me. I wasn't doing anything with the return value of realloc as the Karl Knechtel pointed out. But now the program crashes whenever I run it.
With Bart van Ingen Schenau's answer, I confirmed what I feared: I was ignoring the several independent memory blocks that I had allocated previously. I even ended up with a similar code to the one written by Bart but it continues to crash the program.
I've added the assert's to check the results of the malloc/realloc calls and yet I didn't have any luck. I'm using djgpp with Win98 and what's happening it's really odd:
Windows: Sometimes, it never crashes; others, it crashes after adding 2 rows.
MS-DOS: Crashes after adding 2 rows.
I'm gonna try to use -O3 with gcc to get additional clues. What would be a useful (and quick to learn/use) memory corruption/leak detection tool for windows? Is Purify the best solution?
Even my function to free the array is returning page faults.
Read the documentation:
The function may move the memory block to a new location, in which case the new location is returned.... A pointer to the reallocated memory block, which may be either the same as the ptr argument or a new location.
The type of this pointer is void*, which can be cast to the desired type of data pointer in order to be dereferenceable.
If the function failed to allocate the requested block of memory, a NULL pointer is returned, and the memory block pointed to by argument ptr is left unchanged.
You cannot correctly use realloc without doing something with the return value. Your code, right now, expects that realloc will always be able to reallocate the memory in such a way that the new block is in the same place. This is clearly impossible; the memory immediately after your array might be in use for something else.
There are a number of things wrong with your use of realloc.
You are passing the wrong pointer to realloc. You should pass the pointer you optained from malloc, which would be *bubblesMatrix.
The 'layout' of the matrices in your allocBubblesMatrix and resizeBubblesMatrix functions is different. In the alloc function, you allocate several independent memory blocks, but in the resize function, you treat it as one big block of memory. That will simply not work.
The correct usage would be:
void resizeBubblesMatrix(Bubble ****bubblesMatrix, int height, int width,
int heightIncrement) {
*bubblesMatrix = (Bubble ***) realloc(*bubblesMatrix, (height + heightIncrement) * sizeof(Bubble**));
int i;
int newHeight = height + heightIncrement;
for (i = height; i < newHeight; ++i)
(*bubblesMatrix)[i] = (Bubble**) malloc(width * sizeof(Bubble*));
int x, y;
for (y = height; y < newHeight; ++y)
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x)
(*bubblesMatrix)[y][x] = newBubble(rand() % N_BUBBLES);
}
But this function still has some issues:
Both malloc and realloc can fail, which is not taken into account here
If heightIncrement is negative, you have a memory leak in the resize function.
I threw together a quick test case, and I have come to the conclusion that the problem you are now experiencing is not in this block of code. I created a very simple test case that replaces the Bubble objects with ints. When I do this, the reallocation completes successfully without crashing. Here is my code:
#include <malloc.h>
#include <assert.h>
int myVal = 0xDEAD;
int ***allocBubblesMatrix(int height, int width);
void resizeBubblesMatrix(int ****bubblesMatrix, int height, int width,
int heightIncrement);
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int matrixHeight = 1, matrixWidth = 10;
int i = 0;
int ***matrix = allocBubblesMatrix(matrixHeight, matrixWidth);
for(i = 1; i < matrixWidth; i++)
resizeBubblesMatrix(&matrix, matrixHeight, matrixWidth, 1);
printf("Complete!\n");
}
int ***allocBubblesMatrix(int height, int width) {
int ***bubblesMatrix = (int***) malloc(height * sizeof(int**));
assert(bubblesMatrix != NULL);
int i;
for (i = 0; i < height; ++i) {
bubblesMatrix[i] = (int**) malloc(width * sizeof(int*));
assert(bubblesMatrix[i] != NULL);
}
int x, y;
for (y = 0; y < height; ++y)
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x)
bubblesMatrix[y][x] = &myVal;
return bubblesMatrix;
}
void resizeBubblesMatrix(int ****bubblesMatrix, int height, int width,
int heightIncrement) {
if (heightIncrement <= 0) /* temporary */
return;
*bubblesMatrix = (int***) realloc(*bubblesMatrix, (height + heightIncrement) * sizeof(int**));
assert(bubblesMatrix != NULL);
int x, y;
int newHeight = height + heightIncrement;
for (y = height; y < newHeight; ++y) {
(*bubblesMatrix)[y] = (int**) malloc(width * sizeof(int*));
assert((*bubblesMatrix)[y] != NULL);
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x)
(*bubblesMatrix)[y][x] = &myVal;
}
}
The only changes I made were to replace Bubble with int, and to point all the entries in the matrix to a single int variable rather than doing even more allocation.
That means the error is either in drawBubblesMatrix() or in newBubble().
You need to reallocated each dimension separately. You cannot reallocate both dimensions at once, since each "row" was allocated individually.
*bubblesMatrix = (Bubble ***) realloc(bubblesMatrix, (height + heightIncrement) * width * sizeof(Bubble*));
needs to change to
*bubblesMatrix = (Bubble ***) realloc(*bubblesMatrix, (height + heightIncrement) * sizeof(Bubble**));
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)
How do you allocate and declare a 3D array of structs in C?
Do you first allocate the array or declare it?
I feel like you have to allocate it first so you can declare it so it is on the heap, but then how do you allocate something that hasn't been made yet?
Also, should you allocate it all at once or element by element?
Also am i putting the structs into the array correctly?
My guess on how to do it would be:
header.h
struct myStruct{
int a;
int b;
};
typedef struct myStruct myStruct_t;
main.c
#include "header.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){
int length=2;
int height=3;
int width =4;
myStruct_t *elements;
struct myStruct arr = (*myStruct_t) calloc(length*height*width, sizeof(myStruct);
//zero based array
arr[length-1][height-1][width-1];
int x=0;
while(x<length){
int y=0;
while(y<height){
int z=0;
while(z<depth){
arr[x][y][z].a=rand();
arr[x][y][z].b=rand();
z++;
}
y++;
}
x++;
}
return 0;
}
The easy way is:
myStruct_t (*arr2)[height][width] = calloc( length * sizeof *arr );
Then your loop can access arr2[x][y][z].a = rand(); and so on. If you're not familiar with this way of calling calloc, see here. As usual with malloc, check arr2 against NULL before proceeding.
The triple-pointer approach is not really a practical solution. If your compiler does not support variably-modified types then the array should be flattened to 1-D.
There are a couple of different ways to do this, depending on what you want. First, you can allocate your array on the stack (in C99 and some compilers) like this:
myStruct_t arr[length][height][depth];
If you want it allocated on the heap, then you can do a single allocation of the appropriate size. You can then either do the index calculation yourself or make a pointer do the work for you (in C99 and some compilers):
void *buf = malloc(length * height * width * sizeof(myStruct_t));
myStruct_t *arr = buf;
myStruct_t (*arr2)[height][width] = buf;
/* TODO: check return of malloc */
...
arr[x * height * width + y * width + z].a = rand(); /* indexing the C89 way */
arr2[x][y][z].b = rand(); /* indexing the C99 way */
Or you can manually allocate the multiple dimensions.
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct myStruct
{
int a, b;
} myStruct_t;
int main()
{
myStruct_t ***arr;
int length = 5000, height = 1000, depth = 20;
int x, y, z;
int ret = 1;
if (NULL == (arr = malloc(length * sizeof(myStruct_t**))))
goto FAIL;
for (x = 0; x < length; ++x)
{
if (NULL == (arr[x] = malloc(height * sizeof(myStruct_t*))))
goto FAIL_X;
for (y = 0; y < height; ++y)
{
if (NULL == (arr[x][y] = malloc(depth * sizeof(myStruct_t))))
goto FAIL_Y;
for (z = 0; z < depth; ++z)
{
arr[x][y][z].a = rand();
arr[x][y][z].b = rand();
}
}
}
/* TODO: rest of program logic */
/* program successfully completed */
ret = 0;
/* reclaim arr */
FAIL_CLEANUP: /* label used by TODO code that fails */
for (x = length - 1; x >= 0; --x)
{
for (y = height - 1; y >= 0; --y)
{
free(arr[x][y]);
FAIL_Y:
;
}
free(arr[x]);
FAIL_X:
;
}
free(arr);
FAIL:
return ret;
}
This last version uses a lot more memory for all the explicit pointers it contains, its memory locality is worse and it's significantly more complex to properly allocate and reclaim. However, it does allow different sizes along your dimensions. For example, the array arr[0][4] can have a different size than arr[0][7] if you ever need that.
If you want to allocate it on the heap, then you probably want the second version with a single allocation and multi-dimension pointer (if available) or do the indexing yourself manually using appropriate math.
I'm working on a C implementation for Conway's game of life, I have been asked to use the following header:
#ifndef game_of_life_h
#define game_of_life_h
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
// a structure containing a square board for the game and its size
typedef struct gol{
int **board;
size_t size;
} gol;
// dynamically creates a struct gol of size 20 and returns a pointer to it
gol* create_default_gol();
// creates dynamically a struct gol of a specified size and returns a pointer to it.
gol* create_gol(size_t size);
// destroy gol structures
void destroy_gol(gol* g);
// the board of 'g' is set to 'b'. You do not need to check if 'b' has a proper size and values
void set_pattern(gol* g, int** b);
// using rules of the game of life, the function sets next pattern to the g->board
void next_pattern(gol* g);
/* returns sum of all the neighbours of the cell g->board[i][j]. The function is an auxiliary
function and should be used in the following function. */
int neighbour_sum(gol* g, int i, int j);
// prints the current pattern of the g-board on the screen
void print(gol* g);
#endif
I have added the comments to help out with an explanation of what each bit is.
gol.board is a 2-level integer array, containing x and y coordinates, ie board[x][y], each coordinate can either be a 1 (alive) or 0 (dead).
This was all a bit of background information, I'm trying to write my first function create_default_gol() that will return a pointer to a gol instance, with a 20x20 board.
I then attempt to go through each coordinate through the 20x20 board and set it to 0, I am getting a Segmentation fault (core dumped) when running this program.
The below code is my c file containing the core code, and the main() function:
#include "game_of_life.h"
int main()
{
// Create a 20x20 game
gol* g_temp = create_default_gol();
int x,y;
for (x = 0; x < 20; x++)
{
for (y = 0; y < 20; y++)
{
g_temp->board[x][y] = 0;
}
}
free(g_temp);
}
// return a pointer to a 20x20 game of life
gol* create_default_gol()
{
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn) + (sizeof(int) * 20 * 20));
return g_rtn;
}
This is the first feature I'd like to implement, being able to generate a 20x20 board with 0's (dead) state for every coordinate.
Please feel free to criticise my code, I'm looking to determine why I'm getting the segmentation fault, and if I'm allocating memory properly in the create_default_gol() function.
Thanks!
The type int **board; means that board must contain an array of pointers, each of which points to the start of each row. Your existing allocation omits this, and just allocates *g_rtn plus the ints in the board.
The canonical way to allocate your board, supposing that you must stick to the type int **board;, is:
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof *g_rtn);
g_rtn->size = size;
g_rtn->board = malloc(size * sizeof *g_rtn->board);
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(size * sizeof **g_rtn->board);
This code involves a lot of small malloc chunks. You could condense the board rows and columns into a single allocation, but then you also need to set up pointers to the start of each row, because board must be an array of pointers to int.
Another issue with this approach is alignment. It's guaranteed that a malloc result is aligned for any type; however it is possible that int has stricter alignment requirements than int *. My following code assumes that it doesn't; if you want to be portable then you could add in some compile-time checks (or run it and see if it aborts!).
The amount of memory required is the sum of the last two mallocs:
g_rtn->board = malloc( size * size * sizeof **g_rtn->board
+ size * sizeof *g_rtn->board );
Then the first row will start after the end of the row-pointers (a cast is necessary because we are converting int ** to int *, and using void * means we don't have to repeat the word int):
g_rtn->board[0] = (void *) (g_rtn->board + size);
And the other rows each have size ints in them:
for (int i = 1; i < size; ++i)
g_rtn->board[i] = g_rtn->board[i-1] + size;
Note that this is a whole lot more complicated than just using a 1-D array and doing arithmetic for the offsets, but it was stipulated that you must have two levels of indirection to access the board.
Also this is more complicated than the "canonical" version. In this version we are trading code complexity for the benefit of having a reduced number of mallocs. If your program typically only allocates one board, or a small number of boards, then perhaps this trade-off is not worth it and the canonical version would give you fewer headaches.
Finally - it would be possible to allocate both *g_rtn and the board in the single malloc, as you attempted to do in your question. However my advice (based on experience) is that it is simpler to keep the board separate. It makes your code clearer, and your object easier to use and make changes to, if the board is a separate allocation to the game object.
create_default_gol() misses to initialise board, so applying the [] operator to it (in main() ) the program accesses "invaid" memory and with ethis provokes undefined behaviour.
Although enough memory is allocated, the code still needs to make board point to the memory by doing
gol->board = ((char*) gol) + sizeof(*gol);
Update
As pointed out by Matt McNabb's comment board points to an array of pointers to int, so initialisation is more complicate:
gol * g_rtn = malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn) + 20 * sizeof(*gol->board));
g_rtn->board = ((char*) gol) + sizeof(*gol);
for (size_t i = 0; i<20; ++i)
{
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(20 * sizeof(*g_rtn->board[i])
}
Also the code misses to set gol's member size. From what you tell us it is not clear whether it shall hold the nuber of bytes, rows/columns or fields.
Also^2 coding "magic numbers" like 20 is bad habit.
Also^3 create_default_gol does not specify any parameters, which explictily allows any numberm and not none as you might perhaps have expected.
All in all I'd code create_default_gol() like this:
gol * create_default_gol(const size_t rows, const size_t columns)
{
size_t size_rows = rows * sizeof(*g_rtn->board));
size_t size_column = columns * sizeof(**g_rtn->board));
gol * g_rtn = malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn) + size_rows);
g_rtn->board = ((char*) gol) + sizeof(*gol);
if (NULL ! = g_rtn)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i<columns; ++i)
{
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(size_columns); /* TODO: Add error checking here. */
}
g_rtn->size = size_rows * size_columns; /* Or what ever this attribute is meant for. */
}
return g_rtn;
}
gol* create_default_gol()
{
int **a,i;
a = (int**)malloc(20 * sizeof(int *));
for (i = 0; i < 20; i++)
a[i] = (int*)malloc(20 * sizeof(int));
gol* g_rtn = (gol*)malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn));
g_rtn->board = a;
return g_rtn;
}
int main()
{
// Create a 20x20 game
gol* g_temp = create_default_gol();
int x,y;
for (x = 0; x < 20; x++)
{
for (y = 0; y < 20; y++)
{
g_temp->board[x][y] = 10;
}
}
for(x=0;x<20;x++)
free(g_temp->board[x]);
free(g_temp->board);
free(g_temp);
}
main (void)
{
gol* gameOfLife;
gameOfLife = create_default_gol();
free(gameOfLife);
}
gol* create_default_gol()
{
int size = 20;
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof *g_rtn);
g_rtn = malloc(sizeof g_rtn);
g_rtn->size = size;
g_rtn->board = malloc(size * sizeof *g_rtn->board);
int i, b;
for (i = 0; i < size; ++i){
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(sizeof (int) * size);
for(b=0;b<size;b++){
g_rtn->board[i][b] = 0;
}
}
return g_rtn;
}
Alternatively, since you also need to add a create_gol(size_t new_size) of custom size, you could also write it as the following.
main (void)
{
gol* gameOfLife;
gameOfLife = create_default_gol();
free(gameOfLife);
}
gol* create_default_gol()
{
size_t size = 20;
return create_gol(size);
}
gol* create_gol(size_t new_size)
{
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof *g_rtn);
g_rtn = malloc(sizeof g_rtn);
g_rtn->size = new_size;
g_rtn->board = malloc(size * sizeof *g_rtn->board);
int i, b;
for (i = 0; i < size; ++i){
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(sizeof (int) * size);
for(b=0;b<size;b++){
g_rtn->board[i][b] = 0;
}
}
return g_rtn;
}
Doing this just minimizes the amount of code needed.
Why does the heap get corrupted when executing this code? I didn't work with memory allocation that much, yet.
#include <stdlib.h>
void main()
{
char **field, x, _fieldsX, _fieldsY;
_fieldsX = 8;
_fieldsY = 16;
// Allocation
field = malloc(sizeof(char*) * _fieldsX);
for (x = 0; x < _fieldsY; x++)
field[x] = malloc(sizeof(char) * _fieldsY);
// Freeing
for (x = 0; x < _fieldsY; x++)
free(field[x]);
free(field);
}
You get out of the bounds of the allocated area in the first loop:
field = malloc(sizeof(char*) * _fieldsX);
for (x = 0; x < _fieldsY; x++)
field[x] = malloc(sizeof(char) * _fieldsY);
Notice that you are allocating _fieldsX items, but the loop goes _fieldsY times over that area.
The code allocates fields to be _fieldsX in length, but sets _fieldsY elements. This is not correct.
I have an array declared as a member of a struct in C. The array is declared as:
char mValue[MAXROWS][MAXCOLUMNS];
where MAXROWS and MAXROWS are 300. Is there a better way to do this? I mean, should I declare these as pointers instead?
Thanks!
As the previous poster suggested, a good way is to create a linear array and then "convert it to 2D". Many times, caching the 2D pointers greatly increases the speed of programs that use this array, like so:
mystruct *p = (mystruct*)calloc(ROWS * COLUMNS, sizeof(mystruct));
mystruct **p2 = (mystruct**)calloc(ROWS, sizeof(mystruct*));
for (int i = 0; i < ROWS; i++)
p2[i] = p + i*COLUMNS;
Then, you can simply access a 2D element with:
p2[row][column] = foo;
If all your rows are the same size, you should use a 1D array with the rows stored in sequence:
ABCDE
FGHIJ ---> ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
KLMNO
The element at row i, column j will be at index i * ROW_LENGTH + j in the 1D array.
You can allocate the array using malloc(ROW_LENGTH * NUM_ROWS).
Another technique is to create a linear array and then convert it to 2d:
char *p = malloc(ROWS * COLUMNS);
// To access x, y
// This is in row-major ordr
*(p + (x * COLUMNS) + y);
I find that, for this kind of code, its better to create helper functions for accessing the elements. Depending on your profiling data, it may make sense to turn these into macros, but be extra careful.
#include <stdio.h> /* For printf */
/* This is the bit that would go in a header, like char2darray.h */
#include <stdlib.h> /* For calloc */
#include <assert.h> /* For assert */
struct Char2DArray
{
int rows;
int columns;
char *values;
};
/* This is the bit that would go in a source file, like char2darray.c */
void C2DA_initialize(struct Char2DArray *array, int rows, int columns)
{
assert(array != 0);
array->values = calloc(rows * columns, sizeof(char));
array->rows = rows;
array->columns = columns;
}
void C2DA_set(struct Char2DArray *array, int row, int column, int value)
{
assert(array != 0);
assert(array->values != 0);
assert(row < array->rows);
assert(row >= 0);
assert(column < array->columns);
assert(column >= 0);
array->values[(row * array->rows) + column] = value;
}
char C2DA_get(struct Char2DArray *array, int row, int column)
{
assert(array != 0);
assert(array->values != 0);
assert(row < array->rows);
assert(row >= 0);
assert(column < array->columns);
assert(column >= 0);
return array->values[(row * array->rows) + column];
}
void C2DA_free(struct Char2DArray *array)
{
free(array->values);
array->values = 0;
}
/* Here's a main.c to use it */
int main()
{
struct Char2DArray a;
C2DA_initialize(&a, 16, 16);
unsigned char c = 0;
int x, y;
for (x=0; x<16; x++) {
for (y=0; y<16; y++) {
C2DA_set(&a, x, y, (char)c);
c++;
}
}
printf("Character with hex value 0x55 is %c\n", C2DA_get(&a, 5, 5));
C2DA_free(&a);
return 0;
}
If the array needs to have a dynamic size, then you either need to make it a pointer or make the array the last member of the struct and play games when allocating the structure size.
Relevant comp.lang.c FAQ entries:
I came across some code that declared a structure like this...
How can I dynamically allocate a multidimensional array?
I found that changing my approach was very useful when faced with a similar problem.
A vector of vectors filled the same task, avoided memory allocation obstacles, and kept the same familiar shorthand. There may be other pitfalls, but I have not encountered them yet.
//Declaration of mValues, undefined size:
std::vector< std::vector<char> > mValues;
//Filling of mValues:
int max_x = 100 ;
int max_y = 100 ;
char char_foo = 'a';
for ( int x = 0; x <= max_x; ++x ) {
vector<char> temp;
for ( int y = 0; y <= max_y; ++y ) {
temp.push_back( char_foo );
}
mValues.push_back( temp );
}
// Referencing with familiar index notation:
mValues[a][b]; //The a-th row's b-th element
If you are struggling with arrays, but strongly desire the familiar indexing language, I have found this to be a good alternative.
Note that indexing order A then B is going to be critical for memory usage when recalling this data. Failure to call the information in an A,B order will be deeply problematic if performance is an issue.