I'm trying to create a dynamically allocated array of type unsigned char* in C++. However, when I this I get back a string instead of a bracket enclosed ({}) array which is what I want.
unsigned char* arr = new unsigned char[arrLen];
Code Picture
Picture showing the difference between the two
You see how the latter doesn't just go to nothing after the first character? That's what I want.
How might I go about remedying this?
Thank you for your time.
First, de debugger assumes by default that char represents an ascii character rather than a number. It will display char as such.
arr2 has type const char[3] so the debugger knows there are 3 elements to display.
arr has type const char*. The debugger can't know if it's only one elements or an array with a certain number of elements.
If you are using visual studio for instance, you can hint the debugger to display three char by adding a “variable watch” with the syntax arr,3 in the watch menu.
I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but have you tried using a std::vector? It can handle the dynamic assignment you are looking for at least, and shouldn't treat a NULL character as the end of a string.
#include <vector>
std::vector<char> arr = { 0x5A, 0x00, 0x2B };
If you want a list of chars(array) that grows dynamically, what you need is a list of pointers where the list of each segment is a large number-say 1000. A vector container class sacrifices memory usage for the ability to grow.
vector container class allows for dynamic growth but uses a lot of memory
Also, dynamic growth one data element at a time is not recommended for a large list of data. If you want dynamic growth for a large list, create a list in chunks such as the following. Use a large list segment- of say 1000 units. I created 1000 lists in the following example. I do this by creating an array of 1000 pointers. This will create the 1 million chars you are looking for and can grow dynamically. The following example shows how you would do this.
.
void main() {
unsigned char* listsegment[1000];
int chrn=0;
int x, y = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < 1000; x++) {
listsegment[x] = new unsigned char[1000];
for (y = 0; y < 1000; y++) {
*(listsegment[x] + y) = chrn;
if (chrn >=255) chrn=0;
else chrn++;
}
}
}
Completing the program- What if more than 1000 segments need to be dynamically allocated?
Then create a list of Segment Sets. It can either be in a linked list or a in a container class.
Since the single set creates a 1000 segments of 1000 characters, a collection of these sets needs probably not be larger than 1000. A thousands sets would equal (1000*1000)*1000 which would equal one billion. Therefore, the collection would only need to be 1000 or less, which can be quickly iterated through-which makes random access for the collection not necessary.
Here is the program redone to support an infinite amount of sets through an infinitely large collection of sets. This also is a good example of segmented dynamic memory allocation in general.
#include <iostream>
#include<queue>
using namespace std;
struct listSegmentSetType {
unsigned char* listSegment[1000];
int count=0;
};
void main() {
listSegmentSetType listSegmentSet;
queue<listSegmentSetType> listSegmentSetCollection;
int numberOfListSegmentSets = 0;
int chrn = 0;
int x, y = 0;
listSegmentSet.count = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < 1000; x++) {
listSegmentSet.listSegment[x] = new unsigned char[1000];
for (y = 0; y < 1000; y++) {
*(listSegmentSet.listSegment[x] + y) = chrn;
if (chrn >= 255) chrn = 0;
else chrn++;
}
listSegmentSet.count++;
}
// add just completely filled out first list segment set to que
listSegmentSetCollection.push(listSegmentSet);
numberOfListSegmentSets++;
// now fill in second set of list segments-
listSegmentSet.count = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < 1000; x++) {
listSegmentSet.listSegment[x] = new unsigned char[1000];
for (y = 0; y < 1000; y++) {
*(listSegmentSet.listSegment[x] + y) = chrn;
if (chrn >= 255) chrn = 0;
else chrn++;
}
listSegmentSet.count++;
}
listSegmentSetCollection.push(listSegmentSet);
numberOfListSegmentSets++;
// now fill out any more sets of list segments and add to collection
// only when count listSegmentSet.count is no
// longer less than 1000.
}
Related
I have an array of values e.g. 1, 4, 7, 2.
I also have another array of values and I want to add its values to this first array, but only when they all are different from all values that are already in this array. How can I check it? I've tried many types of loops, but I always ended with an iteration problem.
Could you please tell me how to solve this problem? I code in c++.
int array1[7] = {2,3,7,1,0};
int val1 = rand() % 10;
int val2 = rand() % 10;
int array2[2] = {val1, val2};
and I am trying to put every value from array2 into array1. I tried loop
for (int x:array2)
{
while((val1 && val2) == x)
{
val1 = rand() % 10;
val2 = rand() % 10;
}
}
and many more, but still cannot figure it out. I have this problem because I may have various number of elements for array2. So it makes this "&&" solution infinite.
It is just a sample to show it more clearly, my code has much more lines.
Okay, you have a few problems here. If I understand the problem, here's what you want:
A. You have array1 already populated with several values but with space at the end.
1. How do you identify the number of entries in the array already versus the extras?
B. You have a second array you made from two random values. No problem.
You want to append the values from B to A.
2. If initial length of A plus initial length of B is greater than total space allocated for A, you have a new problem.
Now, other people will tell you to use the standard template library, but if you're having problems at this level, you should know how to do this yourself without the extra help from a confusing library. So this is one solution.
class MyArray {
public:
int * data;
int count;
int allocated;
MyArray() : data(nullptr), count(0), allocated(0) {}
~MyArray() { if (data != nullptr) free(data); }
// Appends value to the list, making more space if necessary
void add(int value) {
if (count >= allocated) {
// Not enough space, so make some.
allocated += 10;
data = (data == nullptr) malloc(allocated * sizeof(int))
: realloc)data, allocated * sizeof(int));
}
data[count++] = value;
}
// Adds value only if not already present.
void addUnique(int value) {
if (indexOf(value) < 0) {
add(value);
}
}
// Returns the index of the value, if found, else -1
int indexOf(int value) {
for (int index = 0; index < count; ++index) {
if (data[index] == value) {
return index;
}
}
return -1;
}
}
This class provides you a dynamic array of integers. It's REALLY basic, but it teaches you the basics. It helps you understand about allocation / reallocating space using old-style C-style malloc/realloc/free. It's the sort of code I was writing back in the 80s.
Now, your main code:
MyArray array;
array.add(2);
array.add(3);
array.add(7);
// etc. Yes, you could write a better initializer, but this is easy to understand
MyArray newValues;
newValues.add(rand() % 10);
newValues.add(rand() % 10);
for (int index = 0; index < newValues.count; ++index) {
array.addUnique(newValues.data[index]);
}
Done.
The key part of this is the addUnique function, which simply checks first whether the value you're adding already is in the array. If not, it appends the value to the array and keeps track of the new count.
Ultimately, when using integer arrays like this instead of the fancier classes available in C++, you HAVE TO keep track of the size of the array yourself. There is no magic .length method on int[]. You can use some magic value that indicates the end of the list, if you want. Or you can do what I did and keep two values, one that holds the current length and one that holds the amount of space you've allocated.
With programming, there are always multiple ways to do this.
Now, this is a lot of code. Using standard libraries, you can reduce all of this to about 4 or 5 lines of code. But you're not ready for that, and you need to understand what's going on under the hood. Don't use the fancy libraries until you can do it manually. That's my belief.
I have the following piece of code, which is only half on the entire code:
// Declare map elements using an enumeration
enum entity_labels {
EMPTY = 0,
WALL
};
typedef entity_labels ENTITY;
// Define an array of ASCII codes to use for visualising the map
const int TOKEN[2] = {
32, // EMPTY
178 // WALL
};
// create type aliases for console and map array buffers
using GUI_BUFFER = CHAR_INFO[MAP_HEIGHT][MAP_WIDTH];
using MAP_BUFFER = ENTITY[MAP_HEIGHT][MAP_WIDTH];
//Declare application subroutines
void InitConsole(unsigned int, unsigned int);
void ClearConsole(HANDLE hStdOut);
WORD GetKey();
void DrawMap(MAP_BUFFER & rMap);
/**************************************************************************
* Initialise the standard output console
*/
HANDLE hStdOut = GetStdHandle(STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE);
if (hStdOut != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
{
ClearConsole(hStdOut);
// Set window title
SetConsoleTitle(TEXT("Tile Map Demo"));
// Set window size
SMALL_RECT srWindowRect;
srWindowRect.Left = 0;
srWindowRect.Top = 0;
srWindowRect.Bottom = srWindowRect.Top + MAP_HEIGHT;
srWindowRect.Right = srWindowRect.Left + MAP_WIDTH;
SetConsoleWindowInfo(hStdOut, true, &srWindowRect);
// Set screen buffer size
COORD cWindowSize = { MAP_WIDTH, MAP_HEIGHT };
SetConsoleScreenBufferSize(hStdOut, cWindowSize);
}
/*************************************************************************/
/*************************************************************************
* Initialise the tile map with appropriate ENTITY values
*/
MAP_BUFFER tileMap;
for (unsigned int row = 0; row < MAP_HEIGHT; row++)
{
for (unsigned int col = 0; col < MAP_WIDTH; col++)
{
tileMap [row][col] = WALL;
}
}
Essentially the entire code is used to create a tile map and output it to screen but I'm attempting to make tileMap a dynamic array in runtime.
I have tried creating one down where the tileMap is being created.
I've tried creating one just after "entity_lables" are given the typedef "ENTITY".
I've tried creating one after the "MAP_BUFFER" and "GUI_BUFFER" become aliases.
But still I'm at a loss, I have no idea on how to successfully implement a dynamic array to tileMap, and I certainly don't know the best spot to put it.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
The syntax you are using for defining your array is for a constant sized C array. In general you should shy away from C arrays unless the size of the data is determined at compile time(and never needs to change) and the array never leaves the scope(because a C array does not retain information on its own size.)
In place of constant or dynamically sized C arrays I would suggest to use the Vector container. The Vector is a dynamically sized container that fills up from the back, the last element you have added to
std::vector<std::vector<ENTITY>>
To add the vector container to your project add the line
#include <vector>
To fill the container your loop could look like:
MAP_BUFFER tileMap;
for (unsigned int row = 0; row < MAP_HEIGHT; row++)
{
std::vector<ENTITY> column; // A column of the tile map
for (unsigned int col = 0; col < MAP_WIDTH; col++)
{
column.push_back(WALL); // Add one element to the column
}
tileMap.push_back(column); // Add the column to the tile map
}
or you could initialize the Vector to the size you want at the beginning and use your current loop to assign the tile values:
using TILE_MAP = vector<vector<ENTITY>>;
// MAP_WIDTH x MAP_HEIGHT multidimensional vector
TILE_MAP tileMap(MAP_WIDTH, vector<ENTITY>(MAP_HEIGHT));
for (unsigned int row = 0; row < MAP_HEIGHT; row++)
{
for (unsigned int col = 0; col < MAP_WIDTH; col++)
{
tileMap [row][col] = WALL;
}
}
Calling an element of a vector after it has been filled has the same syntax as an array.
tileMap[2][4]
You can also check the length of the vector:
int rows = tileMap.size();
if( rows > 0 )
int columnsInRow0 = tileMap[0].size()
While you are at it you should look into other containers like Maps and Sets since they make your life easier.
Edit:
Since you want to know how to make a dynamic array not using a vector I will give you an answer: std::vector is the C++ defined dynamically sized array. C arrays will not change size after they are defined, vector will.
However I think you are asking about the ability to define runtime constant sized arrays. So I will explain what they are and why you should not use them.
When you define the C array you are probably getting a warning saying that the expression needs to be constant.
A C array is a pointer to the stack. And the implementation of the compiletime C array is that it needs to be a constant size at compile time.
int compiletimeArray[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
// turns out c arrays are pointers
int* ptr = compiletimeArray;
// prints 2
std::cout << compiletimeArray[1];
// prints 2
std::cout << ptr[1];
// prints 2
std::cout << *(compiletimeArray + 1);
// also prints 2
std::cout << *(ptr + 1); //move pointer 1 element and de-reference
Pointers are like a whiteboard with a telephone number written on it. The same kind of issues occur as with telephone numbers; number on whiteboard has been erased, number on whiteboard has changed, recipient does not exist, recipient changed their number, service provider running out of available numbers to give new users... Keep that in mind.
To get create a runtime constant sized array you need to allocate the array on the heap and assign it to a pointer.
int size = 4;
int* runtimeArray = new int[size]; // this will work
delete[] runtimeArray; // de-allocate
size = 8; // change size
runtimeArray = new int[size]; // allocate a new array
The main difference between the stack and heap is that the stack will de-allocate the memory used by a variable when the program exits the scope the variable was declared in, on the other hand anything declared on the heap will still remain in memory and has to be explicitly de-allocated or you will get a memory leak.
// You must call this when you are never going to use the data at the memory address again
// release the memory from the heap
delete[] runtimeArray; // akin to releasing a phone number to be used by someone else
If you do not release memory from the heap eventually you will run out.
// Try running this
void crashingFunction() {
while(true)
{
// every time new[] is called ptr is assigned a new address, the memory at the old address is not freed
// 90001 ints worth of space(generally 32 or 64 bytes each int) is reserved on the heap
int* ptr = new int[90001]; // new[] eventually crashes because your system runs out of memory space to give
}
}
void okFunction() {
// Try running this
while(true)
{
// every time new[] is called ptr is assigned a new address, the old is not freed
// 90001 ints worth of space is reserved on the heap
int* ptr = new int[90001]; // never crashes
delete[] ptr; // reserved space above is de-allocated
}
}
Why use std::vector? Because std::vector internally manages the runtime array.
// allocates for you
vector(int size) {
// ...
runtimeArray = new runtimeArray[size];
}
// When the vector exits scope the deconstructor is called and it deletes allocated memory
// So you do not have to remember to do it yourself
~vector() {
// ...
delete[] runtimeArray;
}
So if you had the same scenario as last time
void vectorTestFunction() {
// Try running this
while(true)
{
std::vector<int> vec(9001); // internally allocates memory
} // <-- deallocates memory here because ~vector is called
}
If you want to use a runtime constant array I suggest the std:array container. It is like vector in that it manages its internal memory but is optimized for if you never need to add new elements. It is declared just like vector but does not contain resizing functions after its constructor.
I'm creating a new object of my class 'Dynamic' (not shown), which inheritates from 'Organic', which inheritates from 'Being' certain parameters such as id, biomeRow, etc.
Organic has: features_ (a struct), max_spawn_, total_spawn_, age_dur_ (an array) and current_age_.
The problem: Upon creating a Dynamic object, all values are set just right except max_spawn_. I've done my printfs both before creating Dynamic, in the creation of Dynamic and in the creation of Organic for the input value, and all of them are correct.
Features struct is right, total_spawn_ is right, age_dur_ array and current_age_ are both also right.
All of them are what I asked except for max_spawn_. maxSpawn is the value I'm passing (20), max_spawn_ should then be 20, but it isn't. All my printfs and debugging console show it is something around -858993460. I'm guessing that's just garbage, but I don't know how is it possible when all I'm doing is:
max_spawn_ = maxSpawn;
So, this is my function:
Organic::Organic(int id, int biomeRow, int biomeColumn, int biomeType, int beingType,
int object, Features features, int maxSpawn, int totalSpawn,
int age_dur[5], int current_age)
: Being(id, biomeRow, biomeColumn, biomeType, beingType, object)
{
features_ = features;
max_spawn_ = maxSpawn;
total_spawn_ = totalSpawn;
age_ = current_age;
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++)
age_dur_[i] = age_dur[i];
printf("\n%d\n", max_spawn_);
}
age_dur (and presumably age_dur_) are int [5] arrays. Copying like this:
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++)
age_dur_[i] = age_dur[i];
will overwrite something near age_dur_ with something. If max_spawn_ is adjacent to age_dur_, it's probably being overwritten with garbage.
Change the loop to:
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
age_dur_[i] = age_dur[i];
I want to make a map such that a set of pointers point to arrays of dynamic size.
I did use hashing with chaining. But since data I am using it for is huge, the program give std::bad_alloc after few iterations. The reason of which may be new used to generate the linked list.
Someone please suggest which data structure shall I use?
Or anything else that can improve memory usage with my hash table?
Program is in C++.
This is what my code looks like:
Initialization of hashtable:
class Link
{
public:
double iData;
Link* pNext;
Link(double it) : iData(it)
{ }
void displayLink()
{ cout << iData << " "; }
};
class List
{
private:
Link* pFirst;
public:
List()
{ pFirst = NULL; }
void insert(double key)
{
if(pFirst==NULL)
pFirst = new Link(key);
else
{
Link* pLink = new Link(key);
pLink->pNext = pFirst;
pFirst = pLink;
}
}
};
class HashTable
{
public:
int arraySize;
vector<List*> hashArray;
HashTable(int size)
{
hashArray.resize(size);
for(int j=0; j<size; j++)
hashArray[j] = new List;
}
};
main snippet:
int t_sample = 1000;
for(int i=0; i < k; i++) // initialize random position
{
x[i] = (cal_rand() * dom_sizex); //dom_sizex = 20e-10 cal_rand() generates rand no between 0 and 1
y[i] = (cal_rand() * dom_sizey); //dom_sizey = 10e-10
}
for(int t=0; t < t_sample; t++)
{
int size;
size = cell_nox * cell_noy; //size of hash table cell_nox = 212, cell_noy = 424
HashTable theHashTable(size); //make table
int hashValue = 0;
for(int n=0; n<k; n++) // k = 10*212*424
{
int m = x[n] /cell_width; //cell_width = 4.7e-8
int l = y[n] / cell_width;
hashValue = (kx*l)+m;
theHashTable.hashArray[hashValue]->insert(n);
}
-------
-------
}
First things first, use a Standard Container. In your specific case, you might want:
either std::unordered_multimap<int, double>
or std::unordered_map<int, std::vector<double>>
(Note: if you do not have C++11, those are available in Boost)
Your main loop becomes (using the second option):
typedef std::unordered_map<int, std::vector<double>> HashTable;
for(int t = 0; t < t_sample; ++t)
{
size_t const size = cell_nox * cell_noy;
// size of hash table cell_nox = 212, cell_noy = 424
HashTable theHashTable;
theHashTable.reserve(size);
for (int n = 0; n < k; ++n) // k = 10*212*424
{
int m = x[n] / cell_width; //cell_width = 4.7e-8
int l = y[n] / cell_width;
int const cellId = (kx*l)+m;
theHashTable[cellId].push_back(n);
}
}
This will not leak memory (reliably), although of course you might have other leaks, and thus will give you a reliable baseline. It is also probably faster than your approach, with a more convenient interface, etc...
In general you should not re-invent the wheel, unless you have a specific need that is not addressed by the available wheels or you are actually trying to learn how to create a wheel or to create a better wheel.
The OS has to solve the same issues with the memory pages, maybe it's worth looking at how that is done? First of all, let's assume all pages are on the disk. A page is a fixed size memory chunk. For your use case, let's say it's an array of your records. Because RAM is limited, the OS maintains a mapping between the page number and it's location in RAM.
So, let's say your pages have 1000 records, and you want to access record 2024, you would ask the OS for page 2, and read record 24 from that page. That way, your map is only 1/1000 in size.
Now, if your page has no mapping to a memory location, then it is either on disk or has never been accessed before (is empty). Then you need to swap out another page, and load that page from disk (and update the location mapping).
This is a very simplified description of what happens and i wouldn't be surprised if someone jumps me in the neck for describing it like this.
The point is:
What does this mean for you?
First of all, your data exceeds your RAM - you won't get around writing to disk, if you don't want to try compression first.
Second, your chains can work as pages if you want, but i wonder whether just paging your hashcode would work better. What i mean is, use the upper bits as page number, and the lower bits as offset in the page. Avoiding collisions is still key, as you want to load the least pages possible. You can still chain your pages, and end up with a much smaller map.
Second - a crucial part is deciding which pages to swap out to make room for the new pages. LRU should do ok. If you can better predict which pages you will (not) need, so much better for you.
Third - you need placeholders for your pages to tell you whether they are in-memory or on disk.
Hope this helps.
Suppose I have bunch of numbers. I have to first put the least significant digit into the corresponding bucket. Ex: 530 , I have to first put into the bucket 0. For number 61, I have to put into bucket 1.
I planned to use a multidimensional array to do this. So I create a 2-dimenional array, which nrows is 10 ( for 0~ 9) and ncolumns is 999999 ( because I don't know how large will the list be):
int nrows = 10;
int ncolumns = 999999;
int **array_for_bucket = (int **)malloc(nrows * sizeof(int *));
for(i = 0; i < nrows; i++)
array_for_bucket[i] = (int *)malloc(ncolumns * sizeof(int));
left = (a->value)%10;
array_for_bucket[left][?? ] = a->value;
Then I created one node call a. In this node a, there is a value 50. To find out which bucket I want to put it in, I calculate "left" and I got 0. So I want to put this a-> value into bucket 0. But now I am stuck. How do I put this value into the bucket? I have to use a pointer array to do this.
I thought for a long time but still couldn't find a good way to do it. So please share some ideas with me. thank you!
There is a much easier way of doing this, and instead of radix*nkeys space you only need an nkeys-sized buffer.
Allocate a second buffer that can fit nkeys keys. Now do a first pass through your data and simply count how many keys end up in each bucket. You now can create a radix-sized array of pointers where each pointer is to the start of that bucket in the output buffer. Finally, the second pass though the data moves the keys. Every time you move a key, increment that bucket pointer.
Here's some C code to make into C++:
void radix_sort(int *keys, int nkeys)
{
int *shadow = malloc(nkeys * sizeof(*keys));
int bucket_count[10];
int *bucket_ptrs[10];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
bucket_count[i] = 0;
for (i = 0; i < nkeys; i++)
bucket_count[keys[i] % 10]++;
bucket_ptrs[0] = shadow;
for (i = 1; i < 10; i++)
bucket_ptrs[i] = bucket_ptrs[i-1] + bucket_count[i-1];
for (i = 0; i < nkeys; i++)
*(bucket_ptrs[keys[i] % 10]++) = keys[i];
//shadow now has the sorted keys
free(shadow);
}
But I may have misunderstood the question. If you are doing something a little different than radix sort, pleas add some details.
Look the Boost Pointer containers library if you want to store pointers.
C++ isn't my forte but this code from wikipedia-Raidx Sort is very comprehensive and probably is more C++-ish than what you've implemented so far. Hope it helps
This is C++, we don't use malloc anymore. We use containers. A two-dimensional array is a vector of vectors.
vector<vector<int> > bucket(10);
left = (a->value)%10;
bucket[left].push_back(a->value);