I am using Dev C++ to write a simulation program. For it, I need to declare a single dimensional array with the data type double. It contains 4200000 elements - like double n[4200000].
The compiler shows no error, but the program exits on execution. I have checked, and the program executes just fine for an array having 5000 elements.
Now, I know that declaring such a large array on the stack is not recommended. However, the thing is that the simulation requires me to call specific elements from the array multiple times - for example, I might need the value of n[234] or n[46664] for a given calculation. Therefore, I need an array in which it is easier to sift through elements.
Is there a way I can declare this array on the stack?
No there is no(we'll say "reasonable") way to declare this array on the stack. You can however declare the pointer on the stack, and set aside a bit of memory on the heap.
double *n = new double[4200000];
accessing n[234] of this, should be no quicker than accessing n[234] of an array that you declared like this:
double n[500];
Or even better, you could use vectors
std::vector<int> someElements(4200000);
someElements[234];//Is equally fast as our n[234] from other examples, if you optimize (-O3) and the difference on small programs is negligible if you don't(+5%)
Which if you optimize with -O3, is just as fast as an array, and much safer. As with the
double *n = new double[4200000];
solution you will leak memory unless you do this:
delete[] n;
And with exceptions and various things, this is a very unsafe way of doing things.
You can increase your stack size. Try adding these options to your link flags:
-Wl,--stack,36000000
It might be too large though (I'm not sure if Windows places an upper limit on stack size.) In reality though, you shouldn't do that even if it works. Use dynamic memory allocation, as pointed out in the other answers.
(Weird, writing an answer and hoping it won't get accepted... :-P)
Yes, you can declare this array on the stack (with a little extra work), but it is not wise.
There is no justifiable reason why the array has to live on the stack.
The overhead of dynamically allocating a single array once is neglegible (you could say "zero"), and a smart pointer will safely take care of not leaking memory, if that is your concern.
Stack allocated memory is not in any way different from heap allocated memory (apart from some caching effects for small objects, but these do not apply here).
Insofar, just don't do it.
If you insist that you must allocate the array on the stack, you will need to reserve 32 megabytes of stack space first (preferrably a bit more). For that, using Dev-C++ (which presumes Windows+MingW) you will either need to set the reserved stack size for your executable using compiler flags such as -Wl,--stack,34000000 (this reserves somewhat more than 32MiB), or create a thread (which lets you specify a reserved stack size for that thread).
But really, again, just don't do that. There's nothing wrong with allocating a huge array dynamically.
Are there any reasons you want this on the stack specifically?
I'm asking because the following will give you a construct that can be used in a similar way (especially accessing values using array[index]), but it is a lot less limited in size (total max size depending on 32bit/64bit memory model and available memory (RAM and swap memory)) because it is allocated from the heap.
int arraysize= 4200000;
int *heaparray= new int[arraysize];
...
k= heaparray[456];
...
delete [] heaparray;
return;
Related
I have a very basic question related to NULL variables in C. Consider a hypothetical 64-bit system with very limited memory say 4KB and with a large number of integer pointers all set to NULL, such that the total size exceeds the available memory. Will such a program compile and execute?
Assume that the program doesn't have to do anything meaningful, just do declarations to a bunch of null integer pointers(of the sort int *x = NULL) and terminate.
Even though you did this:
int *x = NULL;
memory is still allocated for storing the pointer x (despite there being NULL on the right hand side). Memory in such case, if x is automatic variable was allocated on the stack.
If you had used malloc on the right hand side you would additionally have claimed memory from the heap.
Now if you create many such pointers which will exceed available stack memory you will get stack overflow on run time - but if you don't use these pointers they might as well get optimized away.
If you declare but don't use a variable which has no side effects the compiler will optimize it out of existence. So no, this is not a way to go out of memory.
If you don't have optimizations turned on, you could create enough variables on the stack to cause a stack overflow. You could also just create a really big array on the stack.
That said, it's quite easy to run out of memory, and you don't need to do it with copious quantities of int pointers. No matter how you manage to run out of memory, it won't stop you from compiling the program successfully.
So I can fix this manually so it isn't an urgent question but I thought it was really strange:
Here is the entirety of my code before the weird thing that happens:
int main(int argc, char** arg) {
int memory[100];
int loadCounter = 0;
bool getInput = true;
print_memory(memory);
and then some other unrelated stuff.
The print memory just prints the array which should've initialized to all zero's but instead the first few numbers are:
+1606636544 +32767 +1606418432 +32767 +1856227894 +1212071026 +1790564758 +813168429 +0000 +0000
(the plus and the filler zeros are just for formatting since all the numbers are supposed to be from 0-1000 once the array is filled. The rest of the list is zeros)
It also isn't memory leaking because I tried initializing a different array variable and on the first run it also gave me a ton of weird numbers. Why is this happening?
Since you asked "What do C++ arrays init to?", the answer is they init to whatever happens to be in the memory they have been allocated at the time they come into scope.
I.e. they are not initialized.
Do note that some compilers will initialize stack variables to zero in debug builds; this can lead to nasty, randomly occurring issues once you start doing release builds.
The array you are using is stack allocated:
int memory[100];
When the particular function scope exits (In this case main) or returns, the memory will be reclaimed and it will not leak. This is how stack allocated memory works. In this case you allocated 100 integers (32 bits each on my compiler) on the stack as opposed to on the heap. A heap allocation is just somewhere else in memory hopefully far far away from the stack. Anyways, heap allocated memory has a chance for leaking. Low level Plain Old Data allocated on the stack (like you wrote in your code) won't leak.
The reason you got random values in your function was probably because you didn't initialize the data in the 'memory' array of integers. In release mode the application or the C runtime (in windows at least) will not take care of initializing that memory to a known base value. So the memory that is in the array is memory left over from last time the stack was using that memory. It could be a few milli-seconds old (most likely) to a few seconds old (less likely) to a few minutes old (way less likely). Anyways, it's considered garbage memory and it's to be avoided at all costs.
The problem is we don't know what is in your function called print_memory. But if that function doesn't alter the memory in any ways, than that would explain why you are getting seemingly random values. You need to initialize those values to something first before using them. I like to declare my stack based buffers like this:
int memory[100] = {0};
That's a shortcut for the compiler to fill the entire array with zero's.
It works for strings and any other basic data type too:
char MyName[100] = {0};
float NoMoney[100] = {0};
Not sure what compiler you are using, but if you are using a microsoft compiler with visual studio you should be just fine.
In addition to other answers, consider this: What is an array?
In managed languages, such as Java or C#, you work with high-level abstractions. C and C++ don't provide abstractions (I mean hardware abstractions, not language abstractions like OO features). They are dessigned to work close to metal that is, the language uses the hardware directly (Memory in this case) without abstractions.
That means when you declare a local variable, int a for example, what the compiler does is to say "Ok, im going to interpret the chunk of memory [A,A + sizeof(int)] as an integer, which I call 'a'" (Where A is the offset between the beginning of that chunk and the start address of function's stack frame).
As you can see, the compiler only "assigns" memory-segments to variables. It does not do any "magic", like "creating" variables. You have to understand that your code is executed in a machine, and the machine has only a memory and a CPU. There is no magic.
So what is the value of a variable when the function execution starts? The value represented with the data which the chunk of memory of the variable has. Commonly, that data has no sense from our current point of view (Could be part of the data used previously by a string, for example), so when you access that variable you get extrange values. Thats what we call "garbage": Data previously written which has no sense in our context.
The same applies to an array: An array is only a bigger chunk of memory, with enough space to fit all the values of the array: [A,A + (length of the array)*sizeof(type of array elements)]. So as in the variable case, the memory contains garbage.
Commonly you want to initialize an array with a set of values during its declaration. You could achieve that using an initialiser list:
int array[] = {1,2,3,4};
In that case, the compiler adds code to the function to initialize the memory-chunk which the array is with that values.
Sidenote: Non-POD types and static storage
The things explained above only applies to POD types such as basic types and arrays of basic types. With non-POD types like classes the compiler adds calls to the constructor of the variables, which are designed to initialise the values (attributes) of a class instance.
In addition, even if you use POD types, if variables have static storage specification, the compiler initializes its memory with a default value, because static variables are allocated at program start.
the local variable on stack is not initialized in c/c++. c/c++ is designed to be fast so it doesn't zero stack on function calls.
Before main() runs, the language runtime sets up the environment. Exactly what it's doing you'd have to discover by breaking at the load module's entry point and watching the stack pointer, but at any rate your stack space on entering main is not guaranteed clean.
Anything that needs clean stack or malloc or new space gets to clean it itself. Plenty of things don't. C[++] isn't in the business of doing unnecessary things. In C++ a class object can have non-trivial constructors that run implicitly, those guarantee the object's set up for use, but arrays and plain scalars don't have constructors, if you want an inital value you have to declare an initializer.
What is the advantage of allocating a memory for some data. Instead we could use an array of them.
Like
int *lis;
lis = (int*) malloc ( sizeof( int ) * n );
/* Initialize LIS values for all indexes */
for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
lis[i] = 1;
we could have used an ordinary array.
Well I don't understand exactly how malloc works, what is actually does. So explaining them would be more beneficial for me.
And suppose we replace sizeof(int) * n with just n in the above code and then try to store integer values, what problems might i be facing? And is there a way to print the values stored in the variable directly from the memory allocated space, for example here it is lis?
Your question seems to rather compare dynamically allocated C-style arrays with variable-length arrays, which means that this might be what you are looking for: Why aren't variable-length arrays part of the C++ standard?
However the c++ tag yields the ultimate answer: use std::vector object instead.
As long as it is possible, avoid dynamic allocation and responsibility for ugly memory management ~> try to take advantage of objects with automatic storage duration instead. Another interesting reading might be: Understanding the meaning of the term and the concept - RAII (Resource Acquisition is Initialization)
"And suppose we replace sizeof(int) * n with just n in the above code and then try to store integer values, what problems might i be facing?"
- If you still consider n to be the amount of integers that it is possible to store in this array, you will most likely experience undefined behavior.
More fundamentally, I think, apart from the stack vs heap and variable vs constant issues (and apart from the fact that you shouldn't be using malloc() in C++ to begin with), is that a local array ceases to exist when the function exits. If you return a pointer to it, that pointer is going to be useless as soon as the caller receives it, whereas memory dynamically allocated with malloc() or new will still be valid. You couldn't implement a function like strdup() using a local array, for instance, or sensibly implement a linked representation list or tree.
The answer is simple. Local1 arrays are allocated on your stack, which is a small pre-allocated memory for your program. Beyond a couple thousand data, you can't really do much on a stack. For higher amounts of data, you need to allocate memory out of your stack.
This is what malloc does.
malloc allocates a piece of memory as big as you ask it. It returns a pointer to the start of that memory, which could be treated similar to an array. If you write beyond the size of that memory, the result is undefined behavior. This means everything could work alright, or your computer may explode. Most likely though you'd get a segmentation fault error.
Reading values from the memory (for example for printing) is the same as reading from an array. For example printf("%d", list[5]);.
Before C99 (I know the question is tagged C++, but probably you're learning C-compiled-in-C++), there was another reason too. There was no way you could have an array of variable length on the stack. (Even now, variable length arrays on the stack are not so useful, since the stack is small). That's why for variable amount of memory, you needed the malloc function to allocate memory as large as you need, the size of which is determined at runtime.
Another important difference between local arrays, or any local variable for that matter, is the life duration of the object. Local variables are inaccessible as soon as their scope finishes. malloced objects live until they are freed. This is essential in practically all data structures that are not arrays, such as linked-lists, binary search trees (and variants), (most) heaps etc.
An example of malloced objects are FILEs. Once you call fopen, the structure that holds the data related to the opened file is dynamically allocated using malloc and returned as a pointer (FILE *).
1 Note: Non-local arrays (global or static) are allocated before execution, so they can't really have a length determined at runtime.
I assume you are asking what is the purpose of c maloc():
Say you want to take an input from user and now allocate an array of that size:
int n;
scanf("%d",&n);
int arr[n];
This will fail because n is not available at compile time. Here comes malloc()
you may write:
int n;
scanf("%d",&n);
int* arr = malloc(sizeof(int)*n);
Actually malloc() allocate memory dynamically in the heap area
Some older programming environments did not provide malloc or any equivalent functionality at all. If you needed dynamic memory allocation you had to code it yourself on top of gigantic static arrays. This had several drawbacks:
The static array size put a hard upper limit on how much data the program could process at any one time, without being recompiled. If you've ever tried to do something complicated in TeX and got a "capacity exceeded, sorry" message, this is why.
The operating system (such as it was) had to reserve space for the static array all at once, whether or not it would all be used. This phenomenon led to "overcommit", in which the OS pretends to have allocated all the memory you could possibly want, but then kills your process if you actually try to use more than is available. Why would anyone want that? And yet it was hyped as a feature in mid-90s commercial Unix, because it meant that giant FORTRAN simulations that potentially needed far more memory than your dinky little Sun workstation had, could be tested on small instance sizes with no trouble. (Presumably you would run the big instance on a Cray somewhere that actually had enough memory to cope.)
Dynamic memory allocators are hard to implement well. Have a look at the jemalloc paper to get a taste of just how hairy it can be. (If you want automatic garbage collection it gets even more complicated.) This is exactly the sort of thing you want a guru to code once for everyone's benefit.
So nowadays even quite barebones embedded environments give you some sort of dynamic allocator.
However, it is good mental discipline to try to do without. Over-use of dynamic memory leads to inefficiency, of the kind that is often very hard to eliminate after the fact, since it's baked into the architecture. If it seems like the task at hand doesn't need dynamic allocation, perhaps it doesn't.
However however, not using dynamic memory allocation when you really should have can cause its own problems, such as imposing hard upper limits on how long strings can be, or baking nonreentrancy into your API (compare gethostbyname to getaddrinfo).
So you have to think about it carefully.
we could have used an ordinary array
In C++ (this year, at least), arrays have a static size; so creating one from a run-time value:
int lis[n];
is not allowed. Some compilers allow this as a non-standard extension, and it's due to become standard next year; but, for now, if we want a dynamically sized array we have to allocate it dynamically.
In C, that would mean messing around with malloc; but you're asking about C++, so you want
std::vector<int> lis(n, 1);
to allocate an array of size n containing int values initialised to 1.
(If you like, you could allocate the array with new int[n], and remember to free it with delete [] lis when you're finished, and take extra care not to leak if an exception is thrown; but life's too short for that nonsense.)
Well I don't understand exactly how malloc works, what is actually does. So explaining them would be more beneficial for me.
malloc in C and new in C++ allocate persistent memory from the "free store". Unlike memory for local variables, which is released automatically when the variable goes out of scope, this persists until you explicitly release it (free in C, delete in C++). This is necessary if you need the array to outlive the current function call. It's also a good idea if the array is very large: local variables are (typically) stored on a stack, with a limited size. If that overflows, the program will crash or otherwise go wrong. (And, in current standard C++, it's necessary if the size isn't a compile-time constant).
And suppose we replace sizeof(int) * n with just n in the above code and then try to store integer values, what problems might i be facing?
You haven't allocated enough space for n integers; so code that assumes you have will try to access memory beyond the end of the allocated space. This will cause undefined behaviour; a crash if you're lucky, and data corruption if you're unlucky.
And is there a way to print the values stored in the variable directly from the memory allocated space, for example here it is lis?
You mean something like this?
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) std::cout << lis[i] << '\n';
I am using Dev C++ to write a simulation program. For it, I need to declare a single dimensional array with the data type double. It contains 4200000 elements - like double n[4200000].
The compiler shows no error, but the program exits on execution. I have checked, and the program executes just fine for an array having 5000 elements.
Now, I know that declaring such a large array on the stack is not recommended. However, the thing is that the simulation requires me to call specific elements from the array multiple times - for example, I might need the value of n[234] or n[46664] for a given calculation. Therefore, I need an array in which it is easier to sift through elements.
Is there a way I can declare this array on the stack?
No there is no(we'll say "reasonable") way to declare this array on the stack. You can however declare the pointer on the stack, and set aside a bit of memory on the heap.
double *n = new double[4200000];
accessing n[234] of this, should be no quicker than accessing n[234] of an array that you declared like this:
double n[500];
Or even better, you could use vectors
std::vector<int> someElements(4200000);
someElements[234];//Is equally fast as our n[234] from other examples, if you optimize (-O3) and the difference on small programs is negligible if you don't(+5%)
Which if you optimize with -O3, is just as fast as an array, and much safer. As with the
double *n = new double[4200000];
solution you will leak memory unless you do this:
delete[] n;
And with exceptions and various things, this is a very unsafe way of doing things.
You can increase your stack size. Try adding these options to your link flags:
-Wl,--stack,36000000
It might be too large though (I'm not sure if Windows places an upper limit on stack size.) In reality though, you shouldn't do that even if it works. Use dynamic memory allocation, as pointed out in the other answers.
(Weird, writing an answer and hoping it won't get accepted... :-P)
Yes, you can declare this array on the stack (with a little extra work), but it is not wise.
There is no justifiable reason why the array has to live on the stack.
The overhead of dynamically allocating a single array once is neglegible (you could say "zero"), and a smart pointer will safely take care of not leaking memory, if that is your concern.
Stack allocated memory is not in any way different from heap allocated memory (apart from some caching effects for small objects, but these do not apply here).
Insofar, just don't do it.
If you insist that you must allocate the array on the stack, you will need to reserve 32 megabytes of stack space first (preferrably a bit more). For that, using Dev-C++ (which presumes Windows+MingW) you will either need to set the reserved stack size for your executable using compiler flags such as -Wl,--stack,34000000 (this reserves somewhat more than 32MiB), or create a thread (which lets you specify a reserved stack size for that thread).
But really, again, just don't do that. There's nothing wrong with allocating a huge array dynamically.
Are there any reasons you want this on the stack specifically?
I'm asking because the following will give you a construct that can be used in a similar way (especially accessing values using array[index]), but it is a lot less limited in size (total max size depending on 32bit/64bit memory model and available memory (RAM and swap memory)) because it is allocated from the heap.
int arraysize= 4200000;
int *heaparray= new int[arraysize];
...
k= heaparray[456];
...
delete [] heaparray;
return;
I've got a prewritten function in C that fills an 1-D array with data, e.g.
int myFunction(myData **arr,...);
myData *array;
int arraySize;
arraySize = myFunction(&arr, ...);
I would like to call the function n times in a row with slightly different parameters (n is dependent on user input), and I need all the data collected in a single C array afterwards. The size of the returned array is not always fixed. Oh, and myFunction does the memory allocation internally. I want to do this in a memory-efficient way, but using realloc in each iteration does not sound like a good idea.
I do have all the C++ functionality available (the project is in C++, just using a C library), but using std::vector is no good because the collected data is later sent in to a function with a definition similar to:
void otherFunction(myData *data, int numData, ...);
Any ideas? Only things I can think of are realloc or using a std::vector and copying the data into an array afterwards, and those don't sound too promising.
Using realloc() in each iteration sounds like a very fine idea to me, for two reasons:
"does not sound like a good idea" is what people usually say when they have not established a performance requirement for their software, and they have not tested their software against the performance requirement to see if there is any need to improve it.
Instead of reallocating a new block each time, the realloc method will simply keep expanding your memory block which will presumably be at the top of the memory heap, so it won't be wasting any time either traversing memory block lists, or copying data around. This holds true provided that whatever memory allocated by myFunction() gets freed before it returns. You can verify it by looking at the pointer returned by realloc() and seeing that it always (or almost always(*1)) is the exact same pointer as the one you gave it to reallocate.
EDIT (*1) some C++ runtimes implement two heaps, one for small allocations and one for large allocations, so if your block gets allocated in the heap for small blocks, and then it grows large, there is a possibility that it will be moved once to the heap for large blocks. So, don't expect the pointer to always be the same; just most of the time.
Just copy all of the data into an std::vector. You can call otherFunction on a vector v with
otherFunction(&v[0], v.size(), ...)
or
otherFunction(v.data(), v.size(), ...)
As for your efficiency requirement: it looks to me like your optimizing prematurely. First try this option, then measure how fast it is and only look for other solutions if it's really too slow.
If you know that you are going to call the function N times, and returned arrays are always M long, then why don't you just allocate one array M*N initially? Or if you don't know one of M or N, then set a worst case maximum. Or are M and N both dependent on user-input?
Then, change how you call your user-input-getting function, such that the array pointer you pass it is actually an offset into that large array, so that it stores the data in the right location. Then, next iteration, offset further, and call again.
I think best solution would be to write your own 1D array class with some methods which you need.
depending on how you write the class you'll get such result. (sorry bad grammar)..