I want to do something like:
int a[][]; // I know this code won't work, its to demonstrate what I want to do
void func(int n, int m){
a = int[n][m];
}
that is, initialise a global array whose size depends on function input. If this array was local, it would be a trivial case, but I don't know how to do this in the case shown above. Any help would be very useful!
You can create a matrix with std::vector:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> a;
void func(int n, int m) {
a.resize(n);
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
a[i].resize(m);
}
}
Then you can access elements in the same way you do with int a[][]:
a[i][j] = number;
One way to achieve this is to encapsulate a flat std::vector in a Matrix class and use math to get an element with row and column as in this example:
template<typename T>
class Matrix {
private:
vector<T> vec;
//...
public:
T& get_value(size_t const row, size_t const col) {
return vec[row * col_count + col];
}
};
you can try this
int ** a; // is a pointer of two dimension
void func(int n, int m){
a = new int*[n]; //dynamic allocation global pointer a
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
a[i] = new int[m]();
}
Related
int** transpose(int** matrix,int row, int column)
{
int** new_mat = new int*[column];
for(int i = 0; i < column; i++)
{
new_mat[i] = new int[row];
}
for(int i = 0; i < row; i++ )
{
for(int j = 0; j < column; j ++)
{
new_mat[j][i] = matrix[i][j];
}
}
return new_mat;
}
I have written this function but something feels wrong I couldn't decide whether should I delete new_mat somehow basically function returns this value how should I manage with memory without using any smart pointers or something?
The caller would use the returned matrix.
Moreover, it could acquire ownership. As a result, when the matrix would be no longer needed, it could delete it.
Another option, is for you, to provide another function, that will delete the matrix. The caller then, must call that function to de-allocate the dynamically allocated memory.
However, smart pointers is a nice C++ feature, and I encourage you to give them a shot.
Furthermore, since this C++, you could use a std::vector<std::vector<int>> for the type of your matrix. That way, you don't have to worry about memory management, since everything about it, will happen automatically.
To answer the question as asked, the caller would need to release the returned pointer. For every usage of operator new in the function, there needs to be a corresponding usage of operator delete in the caller. The caller would do this when the matrix returned is no longer needed i.e. anything that is deleted should not subsequently be used.
A better approach - in many respects, including no potential to forget to release memory - is to avoid using pointers directly, avoid using operator new (or variants) or operator delete directly. Instead, use a standard container, such as std::vector(std::vector<int> >. If used carefully, standard containers manage their own elements, and keep a record of their own size, so there is no possibility of memory leak (when a standard container ceases to exist, any dynamically allocated memory it uses also is released).
In principle, you should be able to simplify your function to something that is declared as
std::vector<std::vector<int> > transpose(const std::vector<std::vector<int> > &matrix);
rather than needing to pass numbers of rows and columns as separate arguments (the vectors will keep track). I'll leave implementing that function as an exercise, since you'll learn more of use that way.
You really should think about your matrix representation:
int** matrix = ...; // create matrix of 10x12
// doing quite a lot of stuff
delete[] matrix[7]; // possibly even forgotten -> memory leak
matrix[7] = new int[7];
and you now have a jagged array. Although std::vector will relieve you from all the memory management stuff, you still won't be able to prevent jagged arrays with:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> matrix = ...; // create matrix of 10x12
// doing quite a lot of stuff
matrix[7].resize(7);
Safest thing you can do is create your own class wrapping around the data; I'll be using std::vectors to hold the data, this will make the whole memory management stuff much easier:
template <typename T> // more flexibility: you can use arbitrary data types...
class Matrix // (but you don't _need_ to make a template from)
{
std::vector<std::vector<T>> data;
public:
Matrix(size_t rows, size_t columns)
: data(rows)
{
for(auto& d : data)
d.resize(columns);
}
// the nice thing about using std::vector as data container is
// that default generated move/copy constructors/assignment
// operators and destructor are fine already, so you can forget
// about rule of three or five respectively
// but you need ways to access your data:
size_t rows() { return data.size(); }
size_t columns() { return data.empty() ? 0 : data[0].size(); }
??? operator[](size_t index);
??? operator[](size_t index) const;
};
Well, the index operators... What you actually want to achieve is something that you can access the matrix just like you did with your arrays:
Matrix<int> m(10, 12);
m[7][7] = 7;
But what should we return? A reference to an inner vector would again allow to modify its size and to create a jagged array this way. Solution: A wrapper class around!
template <typename T>
class Matrix
{
// all we had so far...
template <typename Data>
class Row
{
Data& data;
friend class Matrix;
Row(std::vector<T>& data)
: data(data)
{ }
public:
// default constructed constructors/operators/destructor
// themselves and being public are fine again...
auto& operator[](size_t index) { return data[index]; }
};
auto operator[](size_t index) { return Row(data[index]); }
auto operator[](size_t index) const { return Row(data[index]); }
};
Why Row a template? Well, we need different Row types (mutable and immutable access to data) as return types for the two different index operators...
Finally: If you implement yourself, I'd reorder the private/public sections such that public comes first. This improves readability for users of your Matrix class, as they are interested in public interface only (normally) unless they intend to inherit from. But that (currently) is not a good idea here anyway as this class is not intended for, just as std::vector is not either. If you want that: make the destructor virtual:
virtual ~Matrix() = default;
If you feel more comfortable with, you could make the rule of three/five explicit:
Matrix(Matrix const& other) = default; // rule of three
Matrix& operator=(Matrix const& other) = default; // rule of three
Matrix(Matrix&& other) = default; // rule of five
Matrix& operator=(Matrix&& other) = default; // rule of five
Analogously for Row class. Be aware that if you insist on using raw arrays inside then you will have to write all of these explicitly!
Transposing matrices could then be done via a free function again:
Matrix transpose(Matrix const& m)
{
Matrix t(m.columns(), m.rows());
// loops as you had
return t;
}
You could even provide a member function that transposes the matrix itself, best: use above transpose function:
template <typename T>
class Matrix
{
public:
void transpose()
{
Matrix t(transpose(*this));
t.data.swap(data); // cleanup of previously owned data done in t's destructor...
}
If you don't want to use any smart pointers and vectors, then try like this.
matrix - is a wrapper for 2D-dynamic array with size [col][row].
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
class matrix
{
private:
unsigned int m_row;
unsigned int m_col;
int **m_data;
public:
matrix(unsigned int row, unsigned int col) : m_row(row), m_col(col), m_data(nullptr)
{
alloc();
}
matrix(const matrix &m) : m_row(m.get_rows_count()), m_col(m.get_cols_count()), m_data(nullptr)
{
alloc();
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < m_row; i++)
for(unsigned int j = 0; j < m_col; j++)
m_data[i][j] = m[i][j];
}
~matrix()
{
free();
}
unsigned int get_rows_count() const { return m_row; }
unsigned int get_cols_count() const { return m_col; }
const int* operator[](unsigned int ind) const
{
return m_data[ind];
}
int* operator[](unsigned int ind)
{
return m_data[ind];
}
matrix& operator=(const matrix &m)
{
free();
m_row = m.get_rows_count();
m_col = m.get_cols_count();
alloc();
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < m_row; i++)
for(unsigned int j = 0; j < m_col; j++)
m_data[i][j] = m[i][j];
return *this;
}
// you need move-operations:
//matrix(matrix&& other) = delete; // move constructor (rule of 5)
//matrix& operator=(matrix&& other); // move assignment (rule of 5)
void print()
{
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < m_row; i++)
{
for(unsigned int j = 0; j < m_col; j++)
cout << m_data[i][j] << " ";
cout << endl;
}
}
private:
void alloc()
{
if(m_data)
return;
m_data = new int*[m_row];
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < m_row; i++)
{
m_data[i] = new int[m_col];
std::fill(m_data[i], m_data[i] + m_col, 0);
}
}
void free()
{
if(!m_data)
return;
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < m_row; i++)
delete[]m_data[i];
delete[]m_data;
m_data = nullptr;
}
};
matrix transpose(const matrix matrix_in)
{
unsigned int M = matrix_in.get_rows_count();
unsigned int N = matrix_in.get_cols_count();
matrix out(N, M);
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < M; i++)
for(unsigned int j = 0; j < N; j++)
out[j][i] = matrix_in[i][j];
return out;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
matrix m1(5, 7);
m1[0][1] = m1[0][2] = m1[0][3] = 7;
auto m2 = transpose(m1);
m1.print();
cout << endl;
m2.print();
}
In any case, it is better to free the memory in the same place where it was allocated. If you do not want to use some classes, you can do it like this:
void transpose(int **matr_in, int **matr_out, int M, int N)
{
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++)
for(int j = 0; j < N; j++)
matr_out[j][i] = matr_in[i][j];
}
int **create_matrix(int M, int N)
{
int **m = new int*[M];
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++)
m[i] = new int[N];
return m;
}
void delete_matrix(int **m, int M)
{
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++)
delete []m[i];
delete []m;
}
int main()
{
int M = 5, N = 4;
int **m1 = create_matrix(M, N);
// fill matrix m1
int **m2 = create_matrix(N, M);
transpose(m1, m2, M, N);
delete_matrix(m1, M);
delete_matrix(m2, N);
return 0;
}
you provide a function return a pointer array which holds seperated memory blocks (each represents one row). then you must also provide the free (or delete) function at the same time, and in the same module (to ensure the memory managerment functions matches exactly).
int** transpose(int** matrix, int row, int column)
{
int** new_mat = new int*[column];
...
return new_mat;
}
//when free the mat, cols is not concerned;
void free_mat(int** matrix, int rows)
{
int i;
for(i= 0; i< rows; i++)
delete[] matrix[i];
delete[] matrix;
}
//use the function as:
int** m2 = transpose(m1, rows, cols);
...
free_mat(m2, cols);
//after free_mat(), m2 still holds the address.
//so make it nullptr.
m2 = NULL;
also you can allcate one plane continuous memory block to present 2-dimention matrix:
int* mat = new int[rows * cols];
//transfer mat[iRow][iCol] to mat[iRow * cols + iCol];
return mat;
I'm trying to use clear functions to do a matrix multiplication with random generated values. Therefore I'm hoping to use a function(mat_def) to generate the matrices and another function(mat_mul) to multiply them when the matrices are sent as parameters.
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
using namespace std;
double mat_def(int n) //how to return the matrix
{
double a[n][n];
double f;
for(int i=0; i<n; i++)
{
for(int j=0; j<n; j++)
{
f= rand();
cout<<f ;
a[i][j]=f;
}
}
return 0;
}
double mat_mul( int n, double a[n][n], double b[n][n]) //how to send matrix as parameter
{
return 0;
}
int main()
{
/* initialize random seed: */
srand (time(NULL));
mat_def(10);
}
Here's a nice, standard C++ Matrix template for you.
Matrix.h
#include <vector>
class Matrix
{
class InnerM
{
private:
int ydim;
double* values;
public:
InnerM(int y) : ydim(y)
{
values = new double[y];
}
double& operator[](int y)
{
return values[y];
}
};
private:
int xdim;
int ydim;
std::vector<InnerM> inner;
public:
Matrix(int x, int y) : xdim(x), ydim(y), inner(xdim, InnerM(ydim))
{
}
InnerM& operator[](int x)
{
return inner[x];
}
};
All the memory leaks are there for you but you get the idea. From here you can handle the multiplication by overiding ::operator*() in the Matrix class.
I assume your problem is to define 2-D array and then pass it to mat_mul function to multiply the matrices. And the rest will be quite simple.
Defining the 2-D array(considering memory needs are known at run time):
int rows,cols;
cin >> rows;
cin >> cols;
int **arr = new int*[rows]; // rows X cols 2D-array
for(int i = 0; i < rows; ++i) {
arr[i] = new int[cols];
}
You can define another 2-D array exactly the same way with required rows and column.
now, Passing the 2-D array to function:
void mat_mul(int **arr1, int **arr2, int m, int n, int p, int q){
//define a 2-D array to store the result
//do the multiplication operation
//you could store the result in one of the two arrays
//so that you don't have to return it
//or else the return type should be modified to return the 2-D array
}
example:
void display(int **arr, int row, int col){
for (int i=0; i<row; i++){
for(int j=0;j<col; j++){
cout << arr[i][j] << '\t';
}
cout << endl;
}
}
Delete the memory if not required anymore with the following syntax:
for(int i=0; i<rows; i++){
delete[] array[i];
}
delete[] array;
hope this will be sufficient to get your work done!
there is already an answer on how to return a 2-D array on SO. Check the link below.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8618617/8038009
Returning the raw allocation is a sucker bet. You need to manage all of the memory allocated yourself and pass it around with the matrix size parameters.
Why suffer? Use a matrix class
template<class Type>
class Matrix{
int rows;
int cols;
std::vector<type> data;
public:
Matrix(int row, int col):rows(row), cols(col), data(rows*cols)
{
// does nothing. All of the heavy lifting was in the initializer
}
// std::vector eliminates the need for destructor, assignment operators, and copy
//and move constructors.
//add a convenience method for easy access to the vector
type & operator()(size_t row, size_t col)
{
return data[row*cols+col];
}
type operator()(size_t row, size_t col) const
{
return data[row*cols+col];
}
};
Usage would be
Matrix<double> mat_mul(const Matrix<double> &a, const Matrix<double> &b)
{
Matrix<double> result;
// do multiplication
return result;
}
int main()
{
/* initialize random seed: */
srand (time(NULL));
Matrix<double> matA(10, 10);
matA(0,0) = 3.14; // sample assignment
matA(9,9) = 2.78;
double x = matA(0,0) * matA(9,9)
Matrix<double> matB(10, 10);
Matrix<double> matC = mat_mul(matA, matB) ;
}
More functionality, such as construction from an initializer list, can be added to the class to make your life easier. You can also specify an operator * overload for Matrix and use that in place of mat_mul if you chose. Read Operator overloading for more on that option.
For a vector in C++, I have
class Vec
{
public:
int len;
double * vdata;
Vec();
Vec(Vec const & v)
{
cout<<"Vec copy constructor\n";
len = v.len;
vdata=new double[len];
for (int i=0;i<len;i++) vdata[i]=v.vdata[i];
};
I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me how to write an analogous code for a matrix. I am thinking something like this:
class Mat
{
public:
int nrows;
int ncols;
double * mdata;
Mat();
Mat(Mat const & m)
{
cout<<"Mat copy constructor\n";
nrows = m.nrows;
ncols = m.ncols;
But I don't know how to code the memory allocation for a matrix using the idea that first we put all the elements into a 1D array (row1 row2 ... rown) then we chop the array into rows and then chop each row into columns. Particularly, could you help me translate this idea into C++ language that is analogous to the following:
vdata=new double[len];
for (int i=0;i<len;i++) vdata[i]=v.vdata[i];
};
I am thinking of something like this:
double *data=new double[nrows*ncols];
for (int i=0;i<nrows;i++)
{
for (int j=0;j<ncols,j++){data(i,j)=m.mdata[i][j]};
};
But I am not sure about this part:
data(i,j)=m.mdata[i][j]
Also, I am supposed to use a pure virtual element indexing method: the (i,j) element of a Mat object m will be retrieved by m(i,j). I have to provide both const and non-const versions of this indexing operator.<-- May you show me how I could do this?
Thanks a lot.
Use as a single-dimensional array. You will notice that in practice, it's generally much simpler to use a 1d-array for such things.
class Matrix
{
public:
Matrix(unsigned int rows, unsigned int cols)
: _rows(rows)
, _cols(cols)
, _size(_rows*_cols)
, _components(new double[_size])
{
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < _size; ++i)
{
_components[i] = 0;
}
}
~Matrix()
{
delete[] _components;
}
double& operator()(unsigned int row, unsigned int col)
{
unsigned int index = row * _cols + col;
return _components[index];
}
private:
unsigned int _rows;
unsigned int _cols;
unsigned int _size;
double* _components;
};
However, if you want to actually use matrices and vectors, and not just implement them for learning, I would really advise you to use the Eigen library. It's free and open source and has great and easy-to-use vector and matrix classes.
While Eigen is great to use, if you want to look at source code of an existing implementation, it can be quite confusing for new programmers - it's very general and contains a lot of optimizations. A less complicated implementation of basic matrix and vector classes can be found in vmmlib.
Also you can use one standard vector to implement matrix but vector size will be nrows * ncols:
#include <vector>
class Mat {
public:
Mat(int rows, int cols):
nrows(rows),
ncols(cols),
elems(rows*cols,0)
{}
Mat(const Mat &m):
nrows(m.nrows),
ncols(m.ncols),
elems(m.elems.begin(), m.elems.end())
{}
double celem(int i,int j) const {
return elems[ncols*i + nrows*j];
}
double *pelem(int i,int j) {
return &elems[ncols*i + nrows*j];
}
private:
int nrows;
int ncols;
vector<double> elems;
};
I want to declare an array of arrays or multidimensional array without knowing the size.
I want to do something similar to what I did in this cases with simple arrays:
int *array;
cin >> size;
array = new int[size];
Maybe I can loop to initialize a pointer of pointers like this:
int **array;
cin >> rows >> col;
array = new *int[rows]
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i)
array[i] = new int[col];
But I would prefer to not do this if a better solution exists.
Why not use std::vector?
std::vector<std::vector<int> > array;
If you don't want to use an array of pointers, you could use one large array that you allocate dynamically after you get the size and access it as an array of rows.
int rows = 10;
int columns = 20;
int* array = new int[rows * columns];
for (int count = 0; count < rows; count++)
{
int* row = &array[count * columns];
for (int inner_count = 0; inner_count < columns; inner_count++)
{
int* element = &row[inner_count];
//do something
}
}
delete [] array;
You're pretty much going to have to go with the loop version. You can make one slight improvement, which is to allocate one big block and then build your own int* index into it:
int **array;
int *storage;
cin >> rows >> col;
array = new *int[rows];
storage = new int[rows*col];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i)
array[i] = storage + col * i;
This has the nice property that you can still use array[i][j] syntax for accessing the array.
You could use a single std::vector to contain the entire two dimensional array and wrap it in a class to hide the details. Here's an example, it uses a data( row, col ) member function that returns a reference to the element at row and col. I included an example 2 dimensional matrix of int where each entry in the array is initialized to the product of its row and col. When an instance of this class goes out of scope, the default destructor will get called and release the memory, that way you don't have to remember to call delete[] to release the memory. All elements of the matrix will be contiguous in memory, this is cache friendly and should give you good performance.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <stdexcept>
template <typename T>
class matrix {
std::vector<T> data_;
public:
size_t const rows_;
size_t const cols_;
matrix(size_t rows, size_t cols)
: rows_(rows)
, cols_(cols)
, data_( rows * cols )
{}
T& data( size_t row, size_t col ) {
if (row > rows_ || col > cols_) throw std::out_of_range("matrix");
return data_[ row * cols_ + col ];
}
};
int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
matrix<int> array(100,100);
for(size_t r=0; r < array.rows_; ++r) {
for(size_t c=0; c < array.cols_; ++c) {
array.data(r,c) = r * c;
}
}
std::cout << "8 x 7 = " << array.data(8,7) << std::endl;
return 0; // array goes out of scope here, memory released automatically
}
When you run this you will get
8 x 7 = 56
If you care, you can have a little bit more convenience by have a helper
template <typename T>
struct C3DArray
{
vector<vector<vector<T>>> m;
C3DArray(int size_x, int size_y, int size_z)
: m(make(T(), size_z, size_y, size_x))
{ }
template <typename U> static std::vector<U> make(U v, size_t n) {
return { n, std::move(v) };
}
template <typename U, typename... Dim> static auto make(U v, size_t n, Dim... other)
-> std::vector<decltype(make(v, other...))> {
return { n, make(v, other...) };
}
};
This uses variadics. Use it like this:
C3DArray<int> arr(3,4,20);
I need to create 2d array in c++.
I can't do it by int mas= new int[x][y]; or auto mas= new int[x][y];
I need to create an array dynamically like:
int x,y
auto mas= new int[x][y];//error - must be const.
Please help me.
int x,y;
x =3;
y = 5;
int ** mas = new int*[x];
for (int i=0;i<x;i++)
{
mas[i] = new int[y];
}
I think something like this.
Don't forget
for(int i=0;i<x;i++)
delete[] mas[i];
delete[] mas;
at the end.
The C++ tool for creating dynamically sized arrays is named std::vector. Vector is however one-dimensional, so to create a matrix a solution is to create a vector of vectors.
std::vector< std::vector<int> > mas(y, std::vector<int>(x));
It's not the most efficient solution because you pay for the ability to have each row of a different size. You you don't want to pay for this "feature" you have to write your own bidimensional matrix object. For example...
template<typename T>
struct Matrix
{
int rows, cols;
std::vector<T> data;
Matrix(int rows, int cols)
: rows(rows), cols(cols), data(rows*cols)
{ }
T& operator()(int row, int col)
{
return data[row*cols + col];
}
T operator()(int row, int col) const
{
return data[row*cols + col];
}
};
Then you can use it with
Matrix<int> mat(y, x);
for (int i=0; i<mat.rows; i++)
for (int j=0; j<mat.cols; j++)
mat(i, j) = (i == j) ? 1 : 0;
My advice would be to avoid the pain of multidimensional arrays in the first place and use a struct.
struct Point {
int x;
int y;
}
int points = 10;
Point myArray[points];
Then to access a value:
printf("x: %d, y: %d", myArray[2].x, myArray[2].y);
Depends on exactly what you're trying to achieve, though.
You can do the manipulations yourself.
int* mas = new int[x*y];
and access [i,j] by:
mas[i*y + j] = someInt;
otherInt = mas[i*y +j];
std::vector<std::vector<int> > mas(y, std::vector<int>(x));