The following code compiles with gcc but not g++. Is it possible to write a function with a matrix argument of arbitrary dimensions in C++?
void print_mat(const int nr, const int nc, const float x[nr][nc]);
#include <stdio.h>
void print_mat(const int nr, const int nc, const float x[nr][nc])
{
for (int ir=0; ir<nr; ir++) {
for (int ic=0; ic<nc; ic++) {
printf(" %f",x[ir][ic]);
}
printf("\n");
}
}
To build on Peter’s answer, you can use the single-dimension variant with proper indexing to do the work. But you can make invoking the function much nicer in C++:
void print_mat(const int nr, const int nc, const float *x)
{
...
}
template <std::size_t NumRows, std::size_t NumColumns>
void print_mat(const float (*x)[NumRows][NumColumns])
{
print_mat((int)NumRows, (int)NumColumns, (const float *)x);
}
Now you can use the function naturally:
float matrix[4][3] = { ... };
print_mat( matrix );
This only works, however, as long as you do not let the array downgrade to a pointer.
Also, there are limit issues with the cast from size_t to int, but it really shouldn’t be possible to make one big enough that it would matter.
EDIT: There are also potential buffering/alignment issues when casting a multidimensional array to a one-dimensional, flat array. But no common, modern compiler + hardware that I am aware of where this is an issue. Just be sure to know your target platform.
As noted in comments, C++ does not support variable-length arrays (VLAs). C did from the 1999 standard, but that became optional in C11. In combination, those factors are relevant to why gcc (depending on version) accepts your code, but g++ does not.
In C (and C++ if writing in a C style <blech!>), an alternative is to pass a single-dimensional array (with contiguous elements) to a function that accepts a pointer and use an indexing scheme to access elements. For example, assuming row-major ordering;
void print_mat(const int nr, const int nc, const float *x)
{
for (int ir=0; ir<nr; ir++)
{
int row_start = ir * nc;
for (int ic=0; ic<nc; ic++)
{
printf(" %f",x[row_start + ic]);
}
printf("\n");
}
}
In C++, one can use - depending on which (if any) dimensions are known at compile time;
std::array<std::array<float, nc>, nr> (if array dimensions nc and nr are both fixed at compile time);
std::vector<std::vector<float> > (if neither dimension is known
until run time). Bear in mind that individual std::vector<float>s
in a std::vector<std::vector<float> > CAN have different dimensions. Your caller will need to ensure dimensions are the same for all contained std::vector<float>s and/or your function will need to check sizes.
If nc is fixed at compile time but nr is not, you can use std::vector<std::array<float, nc> >. If nr is fixed at compile time, but nc is not, you can use std::array<std::vector<float>, nr>.
If you must pass the entire vector/array, usually better to pass it by reference than by value. For example;
void print_mat(const std::array<std::array<float, nc>, nr> &)
{
// definition
}
or (if you need to pass around some arrays of different dimensions) create a family of such functions
template<int nc, int nr>
void print_mat(const std::array<std::array<float, nc>, nr> &)
{
// definition
}
Personally, I would not actually pass arrays or vectors around. I'd use iterators, such as;
template<class NestedIterator>
void print_mat(NestedIterator row, NestedIterator end_row)
{
while (row != end_row)
{
auto col = std::begin(*row); // Assuming C++11 and later
auto col_end = std::end(*row);
while (col != col_end)
{
std::cout << ' ' << *col;
++col;
}
std::cout << '\n'; // or std::endl
++row;
}
}
This function assumes begin and end iterators from a container that contains (nested) containers (so passing iterators from a std::vector<float> will be a diagnosable error). It works for any type of element (e.g. is not limited to float in your case), that can be streamed to a std::ostream.
I've assumed row-major ordering in the above. The adjustments for column-major ordering are trivial.
Related
how can I cast void pointer to a 2d array (array of pointers to arrays of ints), when I dont know array size at compile time? Is it somehow possible? (I am doing this because, I pass an 2d array of unknow size to a func. So I cast 2d array to a void pointer and then in that func I want it to recast back.)
int i = 5;
int tab1[i][i];
//cast to void pointer
void *p = (void *)tab1;
//and recast back
int (*tab2)[5] = (int (*)[5])p; //this is working
int (*tab3)[i] = (int (*)[i])p; // but this is not
First I suggest to don't use runtime size for array in C/C++, except you using STL vector as an array. so instead of:
int i = 5;
you must use:
const int i = 5;
except you use Vector that is safe and better than intrinsic arrays.
how can I cast void pointer to a 2d array (array of pointers to arrays of ints), when I dont know array size at compile time? Is it somehow possible?
If we talk about C intrinsic array, It is not possible!
why it is not possible?
because C/C++ compiler not aware of your the array size, borders,.... so if you cast your 2d array to 1d array, it is possible. it is the reason that tab2 array can access to first 5th element of your array. really C/C++ compiler cannot distinguish the different of
int a[3][3]
with
int a[3*3]
so You must be aware of at least one dimension of your array:
int main() {
const int i = 3,j = 4;
int tab1[i][j] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11};
//cast to void pointer
void *p = (void *)tab1;
auto a = (int (*)[i][12/i])p;
return 0;
}
In the above example, I aware about i and total count(12) and I calculate the second dimension.
I use auto keyword that very easily inferred the data type.
int i = 5; int tab1[i][i]; is a VLA. It's not standard C++ and should be avoided.
An array-of-pointers-to-arrays (and vector-of-vectors) won't be as efficient as a true 2D array since it's no longer contiguous (int tab1[5][5] is a true 2D array and is stored contiguously in memory, but the dimensions must be known at compile-time).
You can easily create a custom 2D container class that would store the data in a contiguous 1D vector and apply some simple math (x + y*width) to access the elements.
Example:
class Matrix {
std::vector<int> data;
public:
const int width;
const int height;
Matrix(int width, int height) : width(width), height(height), data(width*height) {}
int operator()(int x, int y) const {
return data[y * width + x];
}
int& operator()(int x, int y) {
return data[y * width + x];
}
};
void print(Matrix const& mat) {
for (int y = 0; y < mat.height; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < mat.width; x++)
std::cout << mat(x, y) << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
Matrix mat(5, 5);
mat(1, 1) = 1;
mat(2, 2) = 2;
mat(3, 3) = 3;
print(mat);
}
For convenience this overloads the () operator. It's still possible with the [] operator but that will require a proxy class to access the inner dimension(s) and also putting y before x since the dimensions are actually reversed.
int tab1[i][i]; is a non-standard compiler extension for variable length arrays. It is better to avoid this because it is not portable and hard to deal with as you are seeing. You would be better with:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> tab1(i, std::vector<int>(i));
Then your function can simply take this vector:
void foo(const std::vector<std::vector<int>>& array) { ....
how can I cast void pointer to a 2d array (array of pointers to arrays of ints), when I dont know array size at compile time?
You can't. You can only cast to a type that is known at compile time.
What you can do is convert to a pointer to first element of the first row: int* p = static_cast<int*>(tab1);. You can then treat the array as one dimensional1. Converting two dimensional indices to one dimensional requires some trivial math: x, y -> x + y * i.
1 As long as you don't mind the technicality that pointer arithmetic across the sub array boundary might technically not be allowed by the standard. But that rule is silly. If you're concerned about this, then you should create a one dimensional array in the first place.
The problem you are having here is that the size of an array must be defined at compile time.
In your case, you have multiple options:
make i a constexpr like constexpr int i = 5;
use a int ** instead:
int i = 5;
int tab1[i][i];
//cast to void pointer
void *p = (void *)tab1;
// cast to int **
auto tab1_p = (int **)p;
// use it like it was an array
tab1_p[1][3] = 5;
What is the equivalent matrix-like C-array of a nested std::vector (for C and C++ interop)?
For example, if one wanted to treat std::vector<std::vector<int>> as some kind of int arr[n][m], where n is the dimension of the outer vector and m of the inner vector, then what structure would one use in C?
This is motivated by wanting to have a similar correspondence between matrices in C and C++ as for vectors in:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1733150/4959635
Based on additional information in the comments, let me suggest you do something like this instead:
class TwoDimVector {
public:
TwoDimVector(int num_cols, int num_rows)
: m_num_cols(num_cols)
, m_num_rows(num_rows)
, m_data(m_num_cols * m_num_rows, 0)
{ }
int & ix(int row, int col) {
return data[num_cols * row + col];
}
const int m_num_rows;
const int m_num_cols;
private:
std::vector<int> m_data;
}
When you do nested vectors, there's a lot of extra work happening. Also, with nested vectors, the data is not contiguous, making it hard to work with any C-apis. Notice with this data structure, the size is fixed at construction time and accessible. This is designed to be row contiguous, so for C interoperability you can access extra raw pointers like so:
TwoDimVector tdv(4,3);
int * raw = &tdv.ix(0,0);
int * raw_second_row = &tdv.ix(1,0);
Just note: if you pass this into a function, be sure to pass by reference:
void do_work(TwoDimVector & tdv) {
...
}
If you don't pass by reference, it will copy everything, which is a bunch of (typically unnecessary) work.
Maybe, this code
void translate(const vector< vector >& vec){
int m = vec.size(), n = 0;
for (vector<int>& deep : vec) // search maximum size if nested vectors
{
if (deep.size() > n)
n = deep.size();
}
int arr[m][n];
m = n = 0;
for (vector<int>& deep : vec){
for (int& x : deep)
{
arr[m][n] = x;
++n;
}
++m;
}
// So, I really don't know how you can return this array :(
}
You see, it code is BAD, you mustn't do it !!!
If you writing on C++ you should using std::vector - it is easier.
C-like arrays is heritage from C, you shouldn't using they
I am relatively new to C++ and still confused how to pass and return arrays as arguments. I would like to write a simple matrix-vector-product c = A * b function, with a signature like
times(A, b, c, m, n)
where A is a two-dimensional array, b is the input array, c is the result array, and m and n are the dimensions of A. I want to specify array dimensions through m and n, not through A.
The body of the (parallel) function is
int i, j;
double sum;
#pragma omp parallel for default(none) private(i, j, sum) shared(m, n, A, b, c)
for (i = 0; i < m; ++i) {
sum = 0.0;
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
sum += A[i][j] * b[j];
}
c[i] = sum;
}
What is the correct signature for a function like this?
Now suppose I want to create the result array c in the function and return it. How can I do this?
So instead of "you should rather" answer (which I will leave up, because you really should rather!), here is "what you asked for" answer.
I would use std::vector to hold your array data (because they have O(1) move capabilities) rather than a std::array (which saves you an indirection, but costs more to move around). std::vector is the C++ "improvement" of a malloc'd (and realloc'd) buffer, while std::array is the C++ "improvement" of a char foo[27]; style buffer.
std::vector<double> times(std::vector<double> const& A, std::vector<double> const& b, size_t m, size_t n)
{
std::vector<double> c;
Assert(A.size() = m*n);
c.resize(n);
// .. your code goes in here.
// Instead of A[x][y], do A[x*n+y] or A[y*m+x] depending on if you want column or
// row-major order in memory.
return std::move(c); // O(1) copy of the std::vector out of this function
}
You'll note I changed the signature slightly, so that it returns the std::vector instead of taking it as a parameter. I did this because I can, and it looks prettier!
If you really must pass c in to the function, pass it in as a std::vector<double>& -- a reference to a std::vector.
This is the answer you should use... So a good way to solve this one involves creating a struct or class to wrap your array (well, buffer of data -- I'd use a std::vector). And instead of a signature like times(A, b, c, m, n), go with this kind of syntax:
Matrix<4,4> M;
ColumnMatrix<4> V;
ColumnMatrix<4> C = M*V;
where the width/height of M are in the <4,4> numbers.
A quick sketch of the Matrix class might be (somewhat incomplete -- no const access, for example)
template<size_t rows, size_t columns>
class Matrix
{
private:
std::vector<double> values;
public:
struct ColumnSlice
{
Matrix<rows,columns>* matrix;
size_t row_number;
double& operator[](size_t column) const
{
size_t index = row_number * columns + column;
Assert(matrix && index < matrix->values.size());
return matrix->values[index];
}
ColumnSlice( Matrix<rows,columns>* matrix_, size_t row_number_ ):
matrix(matrix_), row_number(row_number_)
{}
};
ColumnSlice operator[](size_t row)
{
Assert(row < rows); // note: zero based indexes
return ColumnSlice(this, row);
}
Matrix() {values.resize(rows*columns);}
template<size_t other_columns>
Matrix<rows, other_columns> operator*( Matrix<columns, other_columns> const& other ) const
{
Matrix<rows, other_columns> retval;
// TODO: matrix multiplication code goes here
return std::move(retval);
}
};
template<size_t rows>
using ColumnMatrix = Matrix< rows, 1 >;
template<size_t columns>
using RowMatrix = Matrix< 1, columns >;
The above uses C++0x features your compiler might not have, and can be done without these features.
The point of all of this? You can have math that both looks like math and does the right thing in C++, while being really darn efficient, and that is the "proper" C++ way to do it.
You can also program in a C-like way using some features of C++ (like std::vector to handle array memory management) if you are more used to it. But that is a different answer to this question. :)
(Note: code above has not been compiled, nor is it a complete Matrix implementation. There are template based Matrix implementations in the wild you can find, however.)
Normal vector-matrix multiplication is as follows:
friend Vector operator*(const Vector &v, const Matrix &m);
But if you want to pass the dimensions separately, it's as follows:
friend Vector mul(const Vector &v, const Matrix &m, int size_x, int size_y);
Since the Vector and Matrix would be 1d and 2d arrays, they would look like this:
struct Vector { float *array; };
struct Matrix { float *matrix; };
I have 2 2D arrays that represent a maze
const char maze1[10][11]
and
const char maze2[20][21]
I'm trying to create 1 function to handle both mazes like so:
void solveMaze(maze[][])
{
}
and just pass the maze like solveMaze(maze1);
However, I have to supply a size for the array, which is different depending on which maze is being passed in. Without overloading the function or using function templates, how can I have 1 function to handle both arrays?
C++ answer
Use std::vector:
// Initialize the vector with 11 rows of 10 characters
std::vector<std::vector<char> > maze(11, std::vector<char>(10));
void solveMaze(const std::vector<std::vector<char> > &maze) {
// note that you can access an element as maze[x][y]
}
The boost::multi_array is slightly more efficient (if you're allowed to use boost). I think it goes something like this:
boost::multi_array<char, 2> maze(boost::extents[10][11]);
void solveMaze(const boost::multi_array<char, 2> &maze) {
// note that you can access an element as maze[x][y]
}
C answer
Use pointers:
const char maze1[10][11];
void solveMaze(char *maze, size_t x_length, size_t y_length) {
// note that you can access an element as maze[x + (x_length * y)]
}
Std c++ doesn't allow variably sized arrays. Gnu extensions allow this.
given a gnu compiler, you can
void solvemaze(int w, int h, const char maze[h][w])
{ //solve it...
}
otherwise,
void solvemaze(int w, int h, const char *maze)
{ //solve it, bearing in mind:
//maze[y][x] = maze[(w*y)+x];
}
Actually it can be solved without vector:
template<size_t N, size_t M>
void foo(char (&maze)[N][M])
{
// do your stuff here
}
On the other hand, I would also prefer to use vectors: it just feels safer.
I have an array of edges, which is defined as a C-style array of doubles, where every 4 doubles define an edge, like this:
double *p = ...;
printf("edge1: %lf %lf %lf %lf\n", p[0], p[1], p[2], p[3]);
printf("edge2: %lf %lf %lf %lf\n", p[4], p[5], p[6], p[7]);
So I want to use std::sort() to sort it by edge length. If it was a struct Edge { double x1, y1, x2, y2; }; Edge *p;, I would be good to go.
But in this case, the double array has a block size that is not expressed by the pointer type. qsort() allows you to explicitly specify the block size, but std::sort() infers the block-size by the pointer type.
For performance reasons (both memory-usage and CPU), let's say that it's undesirable to create new arrays, or transform the array somehow. For performance reasons again, let's say that we do want to use std::sort() instead of qsort().
Is it possible to call std::sort() without wasting a single CPU cycle on transforming the data?
Possible approach:
An obvious approach is to try to force-cast the pointer:
double *p = ...;
struct Edge { double arr[4]; };
Edge *p2 = reinterpret_cast<Edge*>(p);
std::sort(...);
But how do I make sure the data is aligned properly? Also, how do I make sure it will always be aligned properly on all platforms and architectures?
Or can I use a typedef double[4] Edge;?
How about having a reordering vector? You initialize vector with 1..N/L, pass std::sort a comparator that compares elements i1*L..i1*L+L to i2*L..i2*L+L, and when your vector is properly sorted, reorder the C array according to new order.
In response to comment: yes things get complicated, but it may just be good complication! Take a look here.
You can use a "stride iterator" for this. A "stride iterator" wraps another iterator and an integer step size. Here's a simple sketch:
template<typename Iter>
class stride_iterator
{
...
stride_iterator(Iter it, difference_type step = difference_type(1))
: it_(it), step_(step) {}
stride_iterator& operator++() {
std::advance(it_,step_);
return *this;
}
Iter base() const { return it_; }
difference_type step() const { return step_; }
...
private:
Iter it_;
difference_type step_;
};
Also, helper functions like these
template<typename Iter>
stride_iterator<Iter> make_stride_iter(
Iter it,
typename iterator_traits<Iter>::difference_type step)
{
return stride_iterator<Iter>(it,step);
}
template<typename Iter>
stride_iterator<Iter> make_stride_iter(
stride_iterator<Iter> it,
typename iterator_traits<Iter>::difference_type step)
{
return stride_iterator<Iter>(it.base(),it.step() * step);
}
should make it fairly easy to use stride iterators:
int array[N*L];
std::sort( make_stride_iter(array,L),
make_stride_iter(array,L)+N );
Implementing the iterator adapter all by yourself (with all operators) is probably not a good idea. As Matthieu pointed out, you can safe yourself a lot of typing if you make use of Boost's iterator adapter tools, for example.
Edit:
I just realized that this doesn't do what you wanted since std::sort will only exchange the first element of each block. I don't think there's an easy and portable solution for this. The problem I see is that swapping "elements" (your blocks) cannot be (easily) customized when using std::sort. You could possibly write your iterator to return a special reference type with a special swap function but I'm not sure whether the C++ standard guarantees that std::sort will use a swap function that is looked up via ADL. Your implementation may restrict it to std::swap.
I guess the best answer is still: "Just use qsort".
For the new question, we need to pass in sort() a kind of iterator that will not only let us compare the right things (i.e. will make sure to take 4 steps through our double[] each time instead of 1) but also swap the right things (i.e. swap 4 doubles instead of one).
We can accomplish both by simply reinterpreting our double array as if it were an array of 4 doubles. Doing this:
typedef double Edge[4];
doesn't work, since you can't assign an array, and swap will need to. But doing this:
typedef std::array<double, 4> Edge;
or, if not C++11:
struct Edge {
double vals[4];
};
satisfies both requirements. Thus:
void sort(double* begin, double* end) {
typedef std::array<double, 4> Edge;
Edge* edge_begin = reinterpret_cast<Edge*>(begin);
Edge* edge_end = reinterpret_cast<Edge*>(end);
std::sort(edge_begin, edge_end, compare_edges);
}
bool compare_edges(const Edge& lhs, const Edge& rhs) {
// to be implemented
}
If you're concerned about alignment, can always just assert that there's no extra padding:
static_assert(sizeof(Edge) == 4 * sizeof(double), "uh oh");
I don't remember exactly how to do this, but if you can fake anonymous functions, then you can make a comp(L) function that returns the version of comp for arrays of length L... that way L becomes a parameter, not a global, and you can use qsort. As others mentioned, except in the case where your array is already sorted, or backwards or something, qsort is going to be pretty much just as fast as any other algorithm. (there's a reason it's called quicksort after all...)
It's not part of any ANSI, ISO, or POSIX standard, but some systems provide the qsort_r() function, which allows you to pass an extra context parameter to the comparison function. You can then do something like this:
int comp(void *thunk, const void *a, const void *b)
{
int L = (int)thunk;
// compare a and b as you would normally with a qsort comparison function
}
qsort_r(array, N, sizeof(int) * L, (void *)L, comp);
Alternatively, if you don't have qsort_r, you can use the callback(3) package from the ffcall library to create closures at runtime. Example:
#include <callback.h>
void comp_base(void *data, va_alist alist)
{
va_start_int(alist); // return type will be int
int L = (int)data;
const void *a = va_arg_ptr(alist, const void*);
const void *b = va_arg_ptr(alist, const void*);
// Now that we know L, compare
int return_value = comp(a, b, L);
va_return_int(alist, return_value); // return return_value
}
...
// In a function somewhere
typedef int (*compare_func)(const void*, const void*);
// Create some closures with different L values
compare_func comp1 = (compare_func)alloc_callback(&comp_base, (void *)L1);
compare_func comp2 = (compare_func)alloc_callback(&comp_base, (void *)L2);
...
// Use comp1 & comp2, e.g. as parameters to qsort
...
free_callback(comp1);
free_callback(comp2);
Note that the callback library is threadsafe, since all parameters are passed on the stack or in registers. The library takes care of allocating memory, making sure that memory is executable, and flushing the instruction cache if necessary to allow dynamically generated code (that is, the closure) to be executed at runtime. It supposedly works on a large variety of systems, but it's also quite possible that it won't work on yours, either due to bugs or lack of implementation.
Also note that this adds a little bit of overhead to the function call. Each call to comp_base() above has to unpack its arguments from the list passed it (which is in a highly platform-dependent format) and stuff its return value back in. Most of the time, this overhead is miniscule, but for a comparison function where the actual work performed is very small and which will get called many, many times during a call to qsort(), the overhead is very significant.
std::array< std::array<int, L>, N > array;
// or std::vector< std::vector<int> > if N*L is not a constant
std::sort( array.begin(), array.end() );
I'm not sure if you can achieve the same result without a lot more work. std::sort() is made to sort sequences of elements defined by two random access iterators. Unfortunately, it determines the type of the element from the iterator. For example:
std::sort(&array[0], &array[N + L]);
will sort all of the elements of array. The problem is that it assumes that the subscripting, increment, decrement, and other indexing operators of the iterator step over elements of the sequence. I believe that the only way that you can sort slices of the array (I think that this is what you are after), is to write an iterator that indexes based on L. This is what sellibitze has done in the stride_iterator answer.
namespace
{
struct NewCompare
{
bool operator()( const int a, const int b ) const
{
return a < b;
}
};
}
std::sort(array+start,array+start+L,NewCompare);
Do test with std::stable_sort() on realistic data-sets - for some data mixes its substantially faster!
On many compilers (GCC iirc) there's a nasty bite: the std::sort() template asserts that the comparator is correct by testing it TWICE, once reversed, to ensure the result is reversed! This will absolutely completely kill performance for moderate datasets in normal builds. The solution is something like this:
#ifdef NDEBUG
#define WAS_NDEBUG
#undef NDEBUG
#endif
#define NDEBUG
#include <algorithm>
#ifdef WAS_NDEBUG
#undef WAS_NDEBUG
#else
#undef NDEBUG
#endif
Adapted from this excellent blog entry: http://www.tilander.org/aurora/2007/12/comparing-stdsort-and-qsort.html
Arkadiy has the right idea. You can sort in place if you create an array of pointers and sort that:
#define NN 7
#define LL 4
int array[NN*LL] = {
3, 5, 5, 5,
3, 6, 6, 6,
4, 4, 4, 4,
4, 3, 3, 3,
2, 2, 2, 2,
2, 0, 0, 0,
1, 1, 1, 1
};
struct IntPtrArrayComp {
int length;
IntPtrArrayComp(int len) : length(len) {}
bool operator()(int* const & a, int* const & b) {
for (int i = 0; i < length; ++i) {
if (a[i] < b[i]) return true;
else if (a[i] > b[i]) return false;
}
return false;
}
};
void sortArrayInPlace(int* array, int number, int length)
{
int** ptrs = new int*[number];
int** span = ptrs;
for (int* a = array; a < array+number*length; a+=length) {
*span++ = a;
}
std::sort(ptrs, ptrs+number, IntPtrArrayComp(length));
int* buf = new int[number];
for (int n = 0; n < number; ++n) {
int offset = (ptrs[n] - array)/length;
if (offset == n) continue;
// swap
int* a_n = array+n*length;
std::move(a_n, a_n+length, buf);
std::move(ptrs[n], ptrs[n]+length, a_n);
std::move(buf, buf+length, ptrs[n]);
// find what is pointing to a_n and point it
// to where the data was move to
int find = 0;
for (int i = n+1; i < number; ++i) {
if (ptrs[i] == a_n) {
find = i;
break;
}
}
ptrs[find] = ptrs[n];
}
delete[] buf;
delete[] ptrs;
}
int main()
{
for (int n = 0; n< NN; ++n) {
for (int l = 0; l < LL; ++l) {
std::cout << array[n*LL+l];
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "----" << std::endl;
sortArrayInPlace(array, NN, LL);
for (int n = 0; n< NN; ++n) {
for (int l = 0; l < LL; ++l) {
std::cout << array[n*LL+l];
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Output:
3555
3666
4444
4333
2222
2000
1111
----
1111
2000
2222
3555
3666
4333
4444
A lot of these answers seem like overkill. If you really have to do it C++ style, using jmucchiello's example:
template <int Length>
struct Block
{
int n_[Length];
bool operator <(Block const &rhs) const
{
for (int i(0); i < Length; ++i)
{
if (n_[i] < rhs.n_[i])
return true;
else if (n_[i] > rhs.n_[i])
return false;
}
return false;
}
};
and then sort with:
sort((Block<4> *)&array[0], (Block<4> *)&array[NN]);
It doesn't have to be any more complicated.