I get a stack overflow error because of setting a large array. I'm not sure how to allocate memory for this 2D array here, I just can't seem to get the syntax right. I used a vector previously which worked fine but I NEED to use an array for this. This code of nested loops populates the array.
static const int n = 607800;
int vars = 3;
array<int, vars> inputs[n];
//int *inputs = (int*)malloc(n * vars * sizeof(int));
int k = 0;
for (unsigned int a = 0; a < aa.size(); aa++)
{
for (unsigned int b = 0; b < bb.size(); bb++)
{
for (unsigned int c = 0; c < cc.size(); cc++)
{
inputs[k] = { aa[a], bb[b], cc[c] };
k++;
}
}
}
I've tried using new and looping the array for 2D but it didn't work for me. What's the best way to structure this?
Related
I am trying to create a merge function for two array structures in c++ but am coming up with a bad access error that I don't know how to solve. The error comes up when I am trying to swap the element in the smaller array into the larger, merged array. The code doesn't even go through a single iteration. All three of i, j, and k remain at 0. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Here is the code:
struct Array
{
int *A;
int size;
int length;
};
void display(Array arr){
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
std::cout << arr.A[i] << std::endl;
}
Array merge(Array arr1, Array arr2){
Array arr3;
arr3.length = arr1.length + arr2.length;
arr3.size = arr1.length + arr2.length;
int i = 0, j =0, k =0;
while(i <arr1.length && j < arr2.length){
if (arr1.A[i] < arr2.A[j])
{
arr3.A[k] = arr1.A[i]; //(The error is displayed here: Thread 1: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=1, address=0x28))
k++;
i++;
}
else if (arr2.A[j] < arr1.A[i])
{
arr3.A[k] = arr2.A[j];
k++;
j++;
}
}
for (; i< arr1.length; i++)
{
arr3.A[k]=arr1.A[i];
k++;
}
for (; i< arr2.length; j++)
{
arr3.A[k]=arr2.A[j];
k++;
}
return arr3;
}
int main() {
Array arr1;
arr1.size = 10;
arr1.length = 5;
arr1.A = new int[arr1.size];
arr1.A[0]= 2;
arr1.A[1]= 6;
arr1.A[2]= 10;
arr1.A[3]= 15;
arr1.A[4]= 25;
Array arr2;
arr2.size = 10;
arr2.length = 5;
arr2.A = new int[arr2.size];
arr2.A[0]= 3;
arr2.A[1]= 4;
arr2.A[2]= 7;
arr2.A[3]= 18;
arr2.A[4]= 20;
Array arr3 = merge(arr1, arr2);
display(arr3);
return 0;
}
Your Array arr3 does not allocate any memory for its int *A field. It's natural that it would not work.
Anyway, your implementation of Array is very poor. Don't reimplement arrays unless you have a good reason; use std::vector instead.
If you really need to implement an Array on your own, then learn about encapsulation, make a class with a constructor, and allocate/delete your data (*A) field properly. Remember, using pointers and heap memory without understanding them is a recipe for disaster.
Easy: arr3.A is not initialized. It's a pointer. What does it point to?
Suggestion: learn about dynamic memory allocation.
I have an array called int **grid that is set up in Amazon::initGrid() and is made to be a [16][16] grid with new. I set every array value to 0 and then set [2][2] to 32. Now when I leave initGrid() and come back in getGrid() it has lost its value and is now 0x0000.
I don't know what to try, the solution seems to be really simple, but I'm just not getting it. Somehow the data isn't being kept in g_amazon but I could post the code.
// Returns a pointer to grid
int** Amazon::getGridVal()
{
char buf[100];
sprintf_s(buf, "Hello %d\n", grid[2][2]);
return grid;
}
int Amazon::initGrid()
{
int** grid = 0;
grid = new int* [16];
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++)
{
grid[i] = new int[16];
for (int j = 0; j < 16; j++)
{
grid[i][j] = 0;
}
}
grid[2][2] = 32;
return 0;
}
int **grid;
g_amazon = Amazon::getInstance();
g_amazon->initGrid();
grid = g_amazon->getGridVal();
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 16; j++)
{
int index;
index = (width * 4 * i) + (4 * j);
int gridval;
gridval = grid[i][j];
lpBits[index] = gridval;
lpBits[index + 1] = gridval;
lpBits[index + 2] = gridval;
}
}
It crashes when I run it at the line where sprintf_s prints out [2][2] and it also crashes when I get to gridval = grid[i][j] because it's at memory location 0x000000.
The variable
int** grid
in the initGrid() function is a local variable. Edit** When the function returns the variable is popped off the stack. However, since it was declared with the new operator the memory still exists on the heap; it is simply just not pointed to by your global grid variable.
#Dean said in comment:
I have grid as an int** grid; in class Amazon {}; so shouldn't it stay in memory or do I need a static var.
That is the problem:
local int **grid; on Amazon::initGrid::
is masking
member int **grid; on Amazon::
as the first context has higher priority in name lookup.
So initGrid() allocates memory referenced only by a local pointer. That pointer no longer exists when you return from this function, Amazon::grid was never touched on initialization and you're also left with some bad memory issues.
So, as commented by #Remy-Lebeau, I also suggest
Consider using std::vector> or std::array, 16> instead. There is no good reason to use new[] manually in this situation.
I am completely stuck on this problem... The code structure that is given is as follows:
typedef struct _myvar{
uint32_t someInt;
uint32_t *ptr;
} myvar;
...
myvar **var;
..
var = new myvar*[x]; // where x is an int
for(int i = 0; i < y; i++){ // y is usually 2 or 4
var[i] = new myvar[z]; //create dynamic 2d array
for(int j = 0; j < z; j++){
var[i][j].ptr = new int[b]; //where b is another int
}
}
What happens is I want to create a 2d structure that has one part of it being 3d i.e. the ptr is just a pointer to an array of ints.
My code compiles but I get seg faults in trying to allocate memory so ptr can point to it. I tried working on this for about an hour and figure it was time for some help.
Thanks!
EDIT1: Fixed code issue in regards to comment on code not compiling.. Secondly... I cannot use vectors as much as I would like to... The data structure that I have there is what I have to use.
EDIT2: b is dynamic and set at the command line. For testing purposes use 16.
I think you are getting confused with your indices. In your first loop you use var[i], so i must stop at x, not at y. For the columns I have used j and y. Not sure what z is.
Then, as pointed out by others, you shouldn't mix int and uint32_t.
Try this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef struct _myvar{
uint32_t someInt;
uint32_t *ptr;
} myvar;
int main() {
myvar **var;
int x = 3;
int y = 4;
var = new myvar*[x]; // where x is an int
for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) { // i stops at x
var[i] = new myvar[y]; //create dynamic 2d array
for(int j = 0; j < y; j++){
var[i][j].ptr = new uint32_t[16]; // used 16 for testing
}
}
return 0;
}
Ok, so I'm quite new to C++ and I'm sure this question is already answered somewhere, and also is quite simple, but I can't seem to find the answer....
I have a custom array class, which I am using just as an exercise to try and get the hang of how things work which is defined as follows:
Header:
class Array {
private:
// Private variables
unsigned int mCapacity;
unsigned int mLength;
void **mData;
public:
// Public constructor/destructor
Array(unsigned int initialCapacity = 10);
// Public methods
void addObject(void *obj);
void removeObject(void *obj);
void *objectAtIndex(unsigned int index);
void *operator[](unsigned int index);
int indexOfObject(void *obj);
unsigned int getSize();
};
}
Implementation:
GG::Array::Array(unsigned int initialCapacity) : mCapacity(initialCapacity) {
// Allocate a buffer that is the required size
mData = new void*[initialCapacity];
// Set the length to 0
mLength = 0;
}
void GG::Array::addObject(void *obj) {
// Check if there is space for the new object on the end of the array
if (mLength == mCapacity) {
// There is not enough space so create a large array
unsigned int newCapacity = mCapacity + 10;
void **newArray = new void*[newCapacity];
mCapacity = newCapacity;
// Copy over the data from the old array
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mLength; i++) {
newArray[i] = mData[i];
}
// Delete the old array
delete[] mData;
// Set the new array as mData
mData = newArray;
}
// Now insert the object at the end of the array
mData[mLength] = obj;
mLength++;
}
void GG::Array::removeObject(void *obj) {
// Attempt to find the object in the array
int index = this->indexOfObject(obj);
if (index >= 0) {
// Remove the object
mData[index] = nullptr;
// Move any object after it down in the array
for (unsigned int i = index + 1; i < mLength; i++) {
mData[i - 1] = mData[i];
}
// Decrement the length of the array
mLength--;
}
}
void *GG::Array::objectAtIndex(unsigned int index) {
if (index < mLength) return mData[index];
return nullptr;
}
void *GG::Array::operator[](unsigned int index) {
return this->objectAtIndex(index);
}
int GG::Array::indexOfObject(void *obj) {
// Iterate through the array and try to find the object
for (int i = 0; i < mLength; i++) {
if (mData[i] == obj) return i;
}
return -1;
}
unsigned int GG::Array::getSize() {
return mLength;
}
I'm trying to create an array of pointers to integers, a simplified version of this is as follows:
Array array = Array();
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
int j = i + 1;
array.addObject(&j);
}
Now the problem is that the same pointer is used for j in every iteration. So after the loop:
array[0] == array[1] == array[2];
I'm sure that this is expected behaviour, but it isn't quite what I want to happen, I want an array of different pointers to different ints. If anyone could point me in the right direction here it would be greatly appreciated! :) (I'm clearly misunderstanding how to use pointers!)
P.s. Thanks everyone for your responses. I have accepted the one that solved the problem that I was having!
I'm guessing you mean:
array[i] = &j;
In which case you're storing a pointer to a temporary. On each loop repitition j is allocated in the stack address on the stack, so &j yeilds the same value. Even if you were getting back different addresses your code would cause problems down the line as you're storing a pointer to a temporary.
Also, why use a void* array. If you actually just want 3 unique integers then just do:
std::vector<int> array(3);
It's much more C++'esque and removes all manner of bugs.
First of all this does not allocate an array of pointers to int
void *array = new void*[2];
It allocates an array of pointers to void.
You may not dereference a pointer to void as type void is incomplete type, It has an empty set of values. So this code is invalid
array[i] = *j;
And moreover instead of *j shall be &j Though in this case pointers have invalid values because would point memory that was destroyed because j is a local variable.
The loop is also wrong. Instead of
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
there should be
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
What you want is the following
int **array = new int *[2];
for ( int i = 0; i < 2; i++ )
{
int j = i + 1;
array[i] = new int( j );
}
And you can output objects it points to
for ( int i = 0; i < 2; i++ )
{
std::cout << *array[i] << std::endl;
}
To delete the pointers you can use the following code snippet
for ( int i = 0; i < 2; i++ )
{
delete array[i];
}
delete []array;
EDIT: As you changed your original post then I also will append in turn my post.
Instead of
Array array = Array();
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
int j = i + 1;
array.addObject(&j);
}
there should be
Array array;
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
int j = i + 1;
array.addObject( new int( j ) );
}
Take into account that either you should define copy/move constructors and assignment operators or define them as deleted.
There are lots of problems with this code.
The declaration void* array = new void*[2] creates an array of 2 pointers-to-pointer-to-void, indexed 0 and 1. You then try to write into elements 0, 1 and 2. This is undefined behaviour
You almost certainly don't want a void pointer to an array of pointer-to-pointer-to-void. If you really want an array of pointer-to-integer, then you want int** array = new int*[2];. Or probably just int *array[2]; unless you really need the array on the heap.
j is the probably in the same place each time through the loop - it will likely be allocated in the same place on the stack - so &j is the same address each time. In any case, j will go out of scope when the loop's finished, and the address(es) will be invalid.
What are you actually trying to do? There may well be a better way.
if you simply do
int *array[10];
your array variable can decay to a pointer to the first element of the list, you can reference the i-th integer pointer just by doing:
int *myPtr = *(array + i);
which is in fact just another way to write the more common form:
int *myPtr = array[i];
void* is not the same as int*. void* represent a void pointer which is a pointer to a specific memory area without any additional interpretation or assuption about the data you are referencing to
There are some problems:
1) void *array = new void*[2]; is wrong because you want an array of pointers: void *array[2];
2)for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { : is wrong because your array is from 0 to 1;
3)int j = i + 1; array[i] = *j; j is an automatic variable, and the content is destroyed at each iteration. This is why you got always the same address. And also, to take the address of a variable you need to use &
Can we dynamically allocate 2D array without using any for loop or while loops?
i there any direct command or function in c c++?
Without using a loop you will have one restriction in ISO c++ i.e. size of one dimension has to be determined at compile time. Then this allocation can be done in a single statement as follows:
#define COLUMN_SIZE 10 // this has to be determined at compile time
int main()
{
int (* arr)[COLUMN_SIZE];
int rows = 20; // this is dynamic and can be input from user at run time
arr = new int[rows][COLUMN_SIZE];
arr[3][4] = 10;
cout << arr[3][4] << endl;
return 0;
}
The memory allocated with new needs to be freed. Also if we extend it to n dimensions, only one of these dimensions can be determined at run time. The reason is that compiler has to know the size of each row in order to create a row of contiguous memory.
Although you should avoid raw pointers, this should work->
int *myArray = new int[R*C];
Here R is number of rows and C is number of columns. Although it is really a 1D array, you can manipulate it as 2D array. For example, myArray[i][j] can be read as->
myArray[i*C + j]
The only way to do it with out loops is to allocate a psuedo 2D array thus:
int *ary = new int[sizeX * sizeY];
but then accessing that is non standard & frankly ugly:
ary[y*sizeX + x]
If you want a "real" 2D array then your stuck with loop intialization:
int **ary = new int*[sizeY];
for(int i = 0; i < sizeY; ++i) {
ary[i] = new int[sizeX];
}
But then you have to be careful about clean up:
for(int i = 0; i < sizeY; ++i) {
delete [] ary[i];
}
delete [] ary;
So in my view
std::vector<std::vector < int> >
is probably the simplest and safest way to go in a real world app.
Alternative way to access in arr[..][..] format.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
int COL ;
int ROW ;
COL = 8;
ROW = 12;
int (*p)[COL];
int *mem = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*COL*ROW);
memset(mem,0,sizeof(int)*COL*ROW);
p = (int (*)[10])mem;
printf("0x%p\n", p);
printf("0x%p %d\n", p+1, (((int)(p+1))-((int)p))/sizeof(int));
mem[2*COL+0] = 1;
printf("%d\n", p[2][0]);
mem[2*COL+5] = 2;
printf("%d\n", p[2][5]);
mem[6*COL+7] = 3;
printf("%d\n", p[6][7]);
p[1][2] = 4;
printf("%d\n", mem[1*COL+2]);
free(p);
return 0;
}
Of course, you can do int (*p)[COL] = (int (*)[COL]) malloc(sizeof(int)*COL*ROW); directly.
A std::map<TypeDim1, std::map<TypeDim2, TypeContent> > might be a dynamically allocated choice to represent a 2D array.
#include <map>
typedef std::map<int, std::map<int, std::string> > array2dstring;
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
array2dstring l_myarray2d;
l_myarray2d[10][20] = "Anything";
}
Try to replace loop by recursion