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 a double x[12] which has no elements in it. When the user is prompted, he/she enters a number, which is stored in x.
I want the program to first check if x is empty and if it is, put the user's input in x[0] or if it isn't, put the user's input in the next free index.
I had done this:
...
double x[12];
void AddPayment(double Amount)
{
int i = sizeof(x);
x[i] = Amount;
}
Is it that sizeof() doesn't work with arrays, is there a better way of doing this?
When sizeof is applied to an array, it does not tell you how much data the array holds; it tells you how much data the array could hold. The fact that you did not specify any data to put into your double x[12] has no influence on the size of the array. Therefore, sizeof would return the number of bytes required on your system to hold an array of twelve doubles.
If you would like to keep a count of how many items among 12 have been assigned, add a separate variable for it. Initialize it to zero, and use it to keep track of how many items have been inserted:
size_t x_count = 0;
double x[12];
void AddPayment(double Amount) {
if (x_count == 12) {
// Error; we cannot add more than 12 items.
// Tell the user what's going on and quit,
// or handle the error in some other way.
cerr << "Cannot add more than 12 elements to x[]" << endl;
return;
}
x[x_count++] = Amount;
}
Whether x[12] has values or not, it will always have a size of 12 * sizeof(double).
So using the sizeof() operator is not a good way to accomplish your aim.
A best thing to do would be initialize x[12] with a value that the user cannot enter, say 0, and test for the first available location in the array that has a zero to enter that value.
double x[12] = { 0 };
void AddPayment(double Amount)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 12; i++) {
if (x[i] == 0) {
x[i] = Amount;
break;
}
}
}
I have a double x[12] which has no elements in it.
That's a misconception. double x[12]; creates 12 double elements, leaving their values in an undefined status. So you have 12 uninitialised elements. That's quite different from having no elements.
(The misconception would become even clearer if you had, for example, an array of type std::string. Unlike double, std::string is always initialised to a defined value, an empty string. So std::string x[12] would definitely be 12 strings, not an empty array.)
When the user is prompted, he/she enters a number, which is stored in
x.
I want the program to first check if x is empty and if it is, put the
user's input in x[0] or if it isn't, put the user's input in the next
free index.
I'm really surprised that nobody has suggested this, but an array is the wrong tool for what you are trying to accomplish. You need a container which can grow. You need std::vector:
std::vector<double> x; // starts off empty
void AddPayment(double Amount)
{
x.push_back(Amount); // grows by 1 element
}
std::vector also has a size() member function to tell you the current number of elements. No more sizeof needed.
I am trying to make an own simple string implementation in C++. My implementation is not \0 delimited, but uses the first element in my character array (the data structure I have chosen to implement the string) as the length of the string.
In essence, I have this as my data structure: typedef char * arrayString; and I have got the following as the implementation of some primal string manipulating routines:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include "new_string.h"
// Our string implementation will store the
// length of the string in the first byte of
// the string.
int getLength(const arrayString &s1) {
return s1[0] - '0';
}
void append_str(arrayString &s, char c) {
int length = getLength(s); // get the length of our current string
length++; // account for the new character
arrayString newString = new char[length]; // create a new heap allocated string
newString[0] = length;
// fill the string with the old contents
for (int counter = 1; counter < length; counter++) {
newString[counter] = s[counter];
}
// append the new character
newString[length - 1] = c;
delete[] s; // prevent a memory leak
s = newString;
}
void display(const arrayString &s1) {
int max = getLength(s1);
for (int counter = 1; counter <= max; counter++) {
std::cout << s1[counter];
}
}
void appendTest() {
arrayString a = new char[5];
a[0] = '5'; a[1] = 'f'; a[2] = 'o'; a[3] = 't'; a[4] = 'i';
append_str(a, 's');
display(a);
}
My issue is with the implementation of my function getLength(). I have tried to debug my program inside Visual Studio, and all seems nice and well in the beginning.
The first time getLength() is called, inside the append_str() function, it returns the correct value for the string length (5). When it get's called inside the display(), my own custom string displaying function (to prevent a bug with std::cout), it reads the value (6) correctly, but returns -42? What's going on?
NOTES
Ignore my comments in the code. It's purely educational and it's just me trying to see what level of commenting improves the code and what level reduces its quality.
In get_length(), I had to do first_element - '0' because otherwise, the function would return the ascii value of the arithmetic value inside. For instance, for decimal 6, it returned 54.
This is an educational endeavour, so if you see anything else worth commenting on, or fixing, by all means, let me know.
Since you are getting the length as return s1[0] - '0'; in getLength() you should set then length as newString[0] = length + '0'; instead of newString[0] = length;
As a side why are you storing the size of the string in the array? why not have some sort of integer member that you store the size in. A couple of bytes really isn't going to hurt and now you have a string that can be more than 256 characters long.
You are accessing your array out of bounds at couple of places.
In append_str
for (int counter = 1; counter < length; counter++) {
newString[counter] = s[counter];
}
In the example you presented, the starting string is "5foti" -- without the terminating null character. The maximum valid index is 4. In the above function, length has already been set to 6 and you are accessing s[5].
This can be fixed by changing the conditional in the for statement to counter < length-1;
And in display.
int max = getLength(s1);
for (int counter = 1; counter <= max; counter++) {
std::cout << s1[counter];
}
Here again, you are accessing the array out of bounds by using counter <= max in the loop.
This can be fixed by changing the conditional in the for statement to counter < max;
Here are some improvements, that should also cover your question:
Instead of a typedef, define a class for your string. The class should have an int for the length and a char* for the string data itself.
Use operator overloads in your class "string" so you can append them with + etc.
The - '0' gives me pain. You subtract the ASCII value of 42 from the length, but you do not add it as a character. Also, the length can be 127 at maximum, because char goes from -128 to +127. See point #1.
append_str changes the pointer of your object. That's very bad practice!
Ok, thank you everyone for helping me out.
The problem appeared to be inside the appendTest() function, where I was storing in the first element of the array the character code for the value I wanted to have as a size (i.e storing '5' instead of just 5). It seems that I didn't edit previous code that I had correctly, and that's what caused me the issues.
As an aside to what many of you are asking, why am I not using classes or better design, it's because I want to implement a basic string structure having many constraints, such as no classes, etc. I basically want to use only arrays, and the most I am affording myself is to make them dynamically allocated, i.e resizable.
I am writing a program to simulate a cache in c++ and am trying to copy addresses that are given in a file into an array. I am struggling to figure out how to copy an array into another array so that I can have an array of memory address arrays. I have read in the addresses into an array called "address" and I want my simulated cache to be an array called "L1_Cache". h is a counter that I am incrementing after I put an address into the L1_Cache. Also, cache size is going to be how many lines of addresses are available in my L1_Cache array, which will be decided by the user of the program. Below is the snippet where I am trying to put the array into the other array.
if(sizeof(L1_Cache) < cachesize)
strcpy(L1_Cache[][h], address);
they are defined as:
const char* address[10];
char* L1_Cache;
If anyone has any suggestions on how to copy one array into another array to make an array of arrays, let me know. I am not sure if anything I am doing is correct, but I am struggling to figure this out.
I want to compare new addresses that I am given to old addresses that are already in the L1_Cache array.
Yes, it is possible to make an array of arrays.
int a[3][3]; // a is an array of integer arrays
You have
a[0]; // this refers to the first integer array
a[1]; // this refers to the second array
Is the following what you are looking for?
#include <iostream>
#include <cstring>
int main()
{
char p[2][256];
strncpy(p[0], "This is my first address", 256);
strncpy(p[1], "This is my second address", 256);
std::cout << p[0] << std::endl << p[1];
return 0;
}
Yes. They are called multidimensional arrays.
They can have any number of dimensions.
For example:
int foo[3][3]; // initialize the 2 dimensional array of integers
foo[0][0] = 1; // change a value
foo[0][1] = 2; // change a value
foo[0][2] = 3; // change a value
foo[1][0] = 4; // change a value
foo[1][1] = 5; // change a value
foo[1][2] = 6; // change a value
foo[2][0] = 7; // change a value
foo[2][1] = 8; // change a value
foo[2][2] = 9; // change a value
for(int i=0;i<3;++i){ // display the 2d array
for(int j=0;j<3;++j){
cout<<foo[i][j];
}
cout<<endl;
}
What's happening:
Values are being assigned in a chart.
Think of it like writing a value on each point of a piece of paper.
Is there a way to cross over all elements in integer array using pointer ( similiar to using pointer to cross over string elements).I know that integer array is not NULL terminated so when I try to cross over array using pointer it overflows.So I added NULL as a last element of an array and it worked just fine.
int array[7]={1,12,41,45,58,68,NULL};
int *i;
for(i=array;*i;i++)
printf("%d ",*i);
But what if one of the elements in array is 0 ,that will behave just as NULL.Is there any other way that will implement pointer in crossing over all elements in integer array?
In general, no unless you pick a sentinel value that's not part of the valid range of the data. For example, the valid range might be positive numbers, so you can use a negative number like -1 as a sentinel value that indicates the end of the array. This how C-style strings work; the NULL terminator is used because it's outside of the valid range of integers that could represent a character.
However, it's usually better to somehow pair up the array pointer with another variable that indicates the size of the array, or another pointer that points one-past-the-end of the array.
In your specific case, you can do something like this:
// Note that you don't have to specify the length of the array.
int array[] = {1,12,41,45,58,68};
// Let the compiler count the number of elements for us.
int arraySize = sizeof(array)/sizeof(int);
// or int arraySize = sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0]);
int main()
{
int* i;
for(i = array; i != array + arraySize; i++)
printf("%d ",*i);
}
You can also do this:
int arrayBegin[] = {1,12,41,45,58,68};
int* arrayEnd = arrayBegin + sizeof(arrayBegin)/sizeof(arrayBegin[0]);
int main()
{
int* i;
for(i = arrayBegin; i != arrayEnd; i++)
printf("%d ",*i);
}
But given only a pointer, no you can't know how long the array it points to is. In fact, you can't even tell if the pointer points to an array or a single object! (At least not portably.)
If you have functions that must accept an array, either have your function require:
the pointer and the size of the array pointed by the pointer,
or two pointers with one pointing to the first element of the array and one pointing one-past-the-end of the array.
I'd like to give some additional advice: Never use some kind of sentinel/termination value in arrays for determining their bounds. This makes your programs prone to error and is often the cause for security issues. You should always store the length of arrays to limit all operations to their bounds and test against that value.
In C++ you have the STL and its containers.
In C you'll effectively end up using structures like
typedef struct t_int_array
{
size_t length;
int data[1]; /* note the 1 (one) */
} int_array;
and a set of manipulation functions like this
int_array * new_int_array(size_t length)
{
int_array * array;
/* we're allocating the size of basic t_int_array
(which already contains space for one int)
and additional space for length-1 ints */
array = malloc( sizeof(t_int_array) + sizeof(int) * (length - 1) );
if(!array)
return 0;
array->length = length;
return array;
}
int_array * concat_int_arrays(int_array const * const A, int_array const * const B);
int_array * int_array_push_back(int_array const * const A, int const value);
/* and so on */
This method will make the compiler align the t_int_array struct in a way, that it's optimal for the targeted architecture (also with malloc allocation), and just allocating more space in quantities of element sizes of the data array element will keep it that way.
The reason that you can iterate across a C-style string using pointers is that of the 256 different character values, one has been specifically reserved to be interpreted as "this is the end of the string." Because of this, C-style strings can't store null characters anywhere in them.
When you're trying to use a similar trick for integer arrays, you're noticing the same problem. If you want to be able to stop at some point, you'll have to pick some integer and reserve it to mean "this is not an integer; it's really the end of the sequence of integers." So no, there is no general way to take an array of integers and demarcate the end by a special value unless you're willing to pick some value that can't normally appear in the string.
C++ opted for a different approach than C to delineate sequences. Instead of storing the elements with some sort of null terminator, C++-style ranges (like you'd find in a vector, string, or list) store two iterators, begin() and end(), that indicate the first element and first element past the end. You can iterate over these ranges by writing
for (iterator itr = begin; itr != end; ++itr)
/* ... visit *itr here ... */
This approach is much more flexible than the C-string approach to defining ranges as it doesn't rely on specific properties of any values in the range. I would suggest opting to use something like this if you want to iterate over a range of integer values. It's more explicit about the bounds of the range and doesn't run into weird issues where certain values can't be stored in the range.
Apart from the usual suggestion that you should go and use the STL, you can find the length of a fixed array like this:
int array[6]={1,12,41,45,58,68};
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]); ++i)
{ }
If you use a templated function, you can implicitly derive the length like this:
template<size_t len> void func(int (&array)[len])
{
for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { }
}
int array[6]={1,12,41,45,58,68};
func(array);
If 0 is a value that may occur in a normal array of integers, you can specify a different value:
const int END_OF_ARRAY = 0x80000000;
int array[8]={0,1,12,41,45,58,68,END_OF_ARRAY};
for (int i = 0; array[i] != END_OF_ARRAY; ++i)
{ }
If every value is a possibility, or if none of the other approaches will work (for example, a dynamic array) then you have to manage the length separately. This is how strings that allow embedded null characters work (such as BSTR).
In your example you are using (or rather abusing) the NULL macro as a sentinel value; this is the function of the NUL('\0') character in a C string, but in the case of a C string NUL is not a valid character anywhere other than as the terminal (or sentinel) value .
The NULL macro is intended to represent an invalid pointer not an integer value (although in C++ when implicitly or explicitly cast to an int, its value is guaranteed to be zero, and in C this is also almost invariably the case). In this case if you want to use zero as the sentinel value you should use a literal zero not NULL. The problem is of course that if in this application zero is a valid data value it is not suitable for use as a sentinel.
So for example the following might suit:
static const int SENTINEL_VALUE = -1 ;
int array[7] = { 1, 12, 41, 45, 58, 68, SENTINEL_VALUE } ;
int* i ;
for( i = array; *i != SENTINEL_VALUE; i++ )
{
printf( "%d ", *i ) ;
}
If all integer values are are valid data values then you will not be able to use a sentinel value at all, and will have to use either a container class (which knows its length) or iterate for the known length of the array (from sizeof()).
Just to pedanticize and expand a little on a previous answer: in dealing with integer arrays in C, it's vanishingly rare to rely on a sentinel value in the array itself. No(1) sane programmer does that. Why not? Because by definition an integer can hold any value within predefined negative/positive limits, or (for the nowadays-not-unusual 32-bit integer) 0 to 0xffffff. It's not a good thing to redefine the notion of "integer" by stealing one of its possible values for a sentinel.
Instead, one always(1) must(1) rely on a controlling up-to-date count of integers that are in the array. Suppose we are to write a C function
that returns an int pointer to the first array member whose value is greater than the function's argument or, if there's no such member, returns NULL (all code is untested):`
int my_int_array[10]; // maximum of 10 integers in my_int_array[], which must be static
int member_count = 0; // varies from 0 to 10, always holds number of ints in my_int_array[]
int *
first_greater_than ( int val ) {
int i;
int *p;
for ( i = 0, p = my_int_array; i < member_count; ++i, ++p ) {
if ( *p > val ) {
return p;
}
}
return NULL;
}
Even better is also to limit the value of i to never count past the last possible member of my_int_array[], i.e., it never gets bigger than 9, and p never points at my_int_array[10] and beyond:
int my_int_array[10]; // maximum of 10 integers in my_int_array[], which must be static
int member_count = 0; // varies from 0 to 10, always holds number of ints in my_int_array[]
int *
first_greater_than ( int val ) {
#define MAX_COUNT sizeof(my_int_array)/sizeof(int)
int i;
int* p;
for ( i = 0, p = my_int_array; i < member_count && i < MAX_COUNT; ++i, ++p ) {
if ( *p > val ) {
return p;
}
}
return NULL;
}
HTH and I apologize if this is just too, too elementary.
--pete
Not strictly true but believe it for now
In ANSI C it's very easy and shorter than solution before:
int array[]={1,12,41,45,58,68}, *i=array;
size_t numelems = sizeof array/sizeof*array;
while( numelems-- )
printf("%d ",*i++);
Another way is to manage array of pointers to int:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define MAX_ELEMENTS 10
int main() {
int * array[MAX_ELEMENTS];
int ** i;
int k;
// initialize MAX_ELEMENTS,1 matrix
for (k=0;k<MAX_ELEMENTS;k++) {
array[k] = malloc(sizeof(int*));
// last element of array will be NULL pointer
if (k==MAX_ELEMENTS-1)
array[k] = NULL;
else
array[k][0] = k;
}
// now loop until you get NULL pointer
for (i=array;*i;i++) {
printf("value %i\n",**i);
}
// free memory
for (k=0;k<MAX_ELEMENTS;k++) {
free(array[k]);
}
return 0;
}
In this way loop condition is totally independent from the values of integers. But... for this to work you must use 2D array (matrix) instead of ordinary 1D array. Hope that helps.