I need a 2d character array for use in a trash API that absolutely requires use of arrays and NOT vectors (much emphasis on this because all of my searching just had answers "use a vector". I wish I could).
I figured the way to do it would be to allocate an external array of size rows * character length, instead of doing:
char** arr;
arr = new char*[100];
// for loop that allocates the internal arrays
But I'm not sure what method I would need to use to make it contiguous? Do I need to allocate a massive 1D array first, then assign the 1D array to the 2D array in chunks?
As other answers have said: allocate n * m entries to create the contiguous data, and then it can be wrapped in pointers to create a 2d array.
... absolutely requires use of arrays and NOT vectors ...
I'm not sure if vector is a constraint based on the API being used, or requirements -- but it's worth noting that vector can be used for the memory management of the implementation -- while still using the raw data (which can be accessed by &vec[0] or vec.data(), which returns a pointer to the first element of the array, and can be used with functions accepting raw pointers).
Since this question is about c++, one option is to wrap an array of n * m in a class that acts like a 2-d array while actually being contiguous.
A simple example could be:
class array_2d
{
public:
array_2d( std::size_t rows, std::size_t columns )
: m_rows(rows), m_cols(columns), m_array( new char[rows * columns] )
{
}
~array_2d()
{
delete [] m_array;
}
// row-major vs column-major is up to your implementation
T& operator()( std::ptrdiff_t row, std::ptrdiff_t col )
{
// optional: do bounds checking, throw std::out_of_range first
return m_array[row * m_cols + col];
// alternatively:
// return m_array[col * m_rows + row];
}
// get pointer to the array (for raw calls)
char* data()
{
return m_array;
}
private:
char* m_array;
std::size_t m_rows;
std::size_t m_cols;
};
(Ideally char* would be std::unique_ptr<char[]> or std::vector<char> to avoid memory-leak conditions, but since you said vector is not viable, I'm writing this minimally)
This example overloads the call operator (operator()) -- but this could also be a named function like at(...); the choice would be up to you. The use of such type would then be:
auto array = array_2d(5,5); // create 5x5 array
auto& i01 = array(0,1); // access row 0, column 1
Optionally, if the [][] syntax is important to behave like a 2d-array (rather than the (r,c) syntax), you can return a proxy type from a call to an overloaded operator [] (untested):
class array_2d_proxy
{
public:
array_2d_proxy( char* p ) : m_entry(p){}
char& operator[]( std::ptrdiff_t col ){ return m_entry[col]; }
private:
char* m_entry;
};
class array_2d
{
...
array_2d_proxy operator[]( std::ptrdiff_t row )
{
return array_2d_proxy( m_array + (row * m_cols) );
}
...
};
This would allow you to have the 'normal' 2d-array syntax, while still being contiguous:
auto& i00 = array[0][0];
This is a good way to do it:
void array2d(int m, int n) {
std::vector<char> bytes(m * n);
std::vector<char*> arrays;
for (int i = 0; i != m * n; i += n) {
arrays.push_back(bytes.data() + i);
}
char** array2d = arrays.data();
// whatever
}
The main problem in C++ with "continuous 2d arrays with variable column length" is that an access like myArray[r][c] requires the compiler to know the column size of the type of myArray at compile time (unlike C, C++ does not support variable length arrays (VLAs)).
To overcome this, you could allocate a continuous block of characters, and additionally create an array of pointers, where each pointer points to the begin of a row. With such a "view", you can then address the continuous block of memory indirectly with a myArray[r][c]-notation:
int main() {
// variable nr of rows/columns:
int rows = 2;
int columns = 5;
// allocate continuous block of memory
char *contingousMemoryBlock = new char[rows*columns];
// for demonstration purpose, fill in some content
for (int i=0; i<rows*columns; i++) {
contingousMemoryBlock[i] = '0' + i;
}
// make an array of pointers as a 2d-"view" of the memory block:
char **arr2d= new char*[rows];
for (int r=0; r<rows;r++) {
arr2d[r] = contingousMemoryBlock + r*columns;
}
// access the continuous memory block as a 2d-array:
for (int r=0; r<rows; r++) {
for (int c=0; c<columns; c++) {
cout << arr2d[r][c];
}
cout << endl;
}
}
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;
I want to create a dynamic 2d array in a separate function. The size of the array will be determined at runtime.
Pass an array directly:
void foo(int **arr,int width,int height)
{
arr=new int*[width];
for(int i=0;i<height;i++)
{
arr[i]=new int[height];
}
//fill...
}
...
int** array;
foo(array)
doesn't seem to work
Pass an array via a pointer
void foo(int ***arr,int width,int height)
{
*arr=new int*[width];
for(int i=0;i<height;i++)
{
*arr[i]=new int[height];
}
//fill...
}
...
int **array;
foo(&array)
doesnt seem to work either
How do I do that?
I think that your "problem" is caused by ignoring operator precedence
Second code you posted seems to have mistake on line with:
*arr[i]=new int[height];
which should be
(*arr)[i]=new int[height];
Also, as other pointed out, working with raw pointers could sometimes be pretty evil (like in your example with Pointer to Pointer to Pointer), raw pointers could also cause some problems with memory leaks, dangling pointers,etc. Use something "more practical" like std::vector or some of the other STL containers.
(Note: By term "STL", I mean part of Standard library based on STL)
Let's assume you have to create 2d arrays this way (with an int**).
Instead of trying to pass pointers, return the value that denotes the 2d array.
Second, your code had a bug in that you were looping over the height when you should be looping over the width. Your code would have gone into undefined behavior if height > width.
Third, I don't know if you meant width to be the first dimension or height to be the first dimension, so let's assume that what you wrote is what you meant, i.e. width is the first dimension and height is the inner dimension.
int **foo(int width, int height)
{
int **arr = new int*[width];
for(int i=0; i<width; i++)
arr[i]=new int[height];
return arr;
}
//....
int width = 10, height = 10;
int** array = foo(width, height);
Then you have to write code to delete the allocated data:
for (int i = 0; i < width; ++i)
delete [] array [i];
delete [] array;
Now having said the above, and the above should work, a more optimal version is found here, where the data is one contiguous block instead of separate allocated blocks. This reduces the number of times new[] and delete [] would need to be called.
Generally speaking, multidimensional arrays should never, never be created like this. You should be using a single array wrapped in an object that provides row, column, table, etc. access using the operator() function.
You should also never, never be using raw pointers (except in weird, extenuating circumstances) which is why I'm using STL's std::vector class to implement your code.
class array_2d {
public:
array_2d(size_t width, size_t height) :
width(width),
height(height),
_array(width * height)
{}
int & operator()(size_t x, size_t y) {
return _array[y * width + x];
}
const int & operator()(size_t x, size_t y) const {
return _array[y * width + x];
}
std::pair<size_t, size_t> get_size() const {
return std::make_pair<size_t, size_t>(width, height);
}
private:
size_t width, height;
std::vector<int> _array;
};
int main() {
array_2d my_array(5,5);
my_array(3,3) = 7;
std::cout << my_array(3,3) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
====
7
There's a lot of stuff I didn't include (and the code would be significantly more complex if you were to implement this as a raw pointer) but this is a far superior way to write a 2-dimensional (or more dimensions, if you need it) array.
Basically, my problem is: I have the user to define the size (N,M) of a 2D array and then I declare:
int matrix[N][M];
then I need to pass this uninitialized matrix to a function that reads some data from a .csv file and puts it into the matrix, so I tried:
void readwrite(int &matrix[N][], const int N, const int M){....};
int main(){
....
cin>>N;
cin>>M;
int matrix[N][M];
readwrite(matrix,N,M);
};
However, when i compile it, it gives me the following error: "N was not declared in this scope".
Any ideas of how to make this work?
Thank y'all!
What The OP is trying is so annoyingly difficult to get right and the benefits of pulling it off are so minuscule compared to the costs that... Well, I'll quote from the Classics.
The only winning move is not to play.
-Joshua, WarGames
You cannot safely pass a dynamically allocated 2D array in C++ into a function because you always have to know at least one dimension at compile time.
I could point over at Passing a 2D array to a C++ function because that looks like a good duplicate. I won't because it's referring to statically allocated arrays.
You can play silly casting games to force the array into the function, and then cast it back on the inside. I'm not going to explain how to do this because it is epic-class stupid and should be a firing offense.
You can pass a pointer to a pointer, int **, but the construction and destruction logic is a grotesque set of new and loops. Further, the end result scatters the allocated memory around the RAM, crippling the processors attempts at prediction and caching. On a modern processor if you can't predict and cache, you are throwing away the greater part of your CPU's performance.
What you want to do is stay one dimensional. A 1D array is easy to pass. The indexing arithmetic is dead simple and easy to predict. It's all one memory block so cache hits are more likely than not.
Making a 1D array is simple: Don't. Use std::vector instead.
std::vector<int> arr(rows*columns);
If you have to because the assignment spec says "No Vectors!" Well you're stuck.
int * arr = new int[rows*columns];
Note I'm using rows and columns not M and N. When faced with M and N which is which? Who knows, who cares, and why do this to yourself in the first place? Give your variables good, descriptive names and enjoy the time savings of being able to read your code when you are debugging it later.
The guts of usage are identical with array and vector:
int test = arr[row * columns + column];
Will recover the element in 2D space at [row][column]. I shouldn't have to explain what any of those variables mean. Death to M and N.
Defining a function is:
void function (std::vector<int> & arr, size_t rows, size_t columns)
or (yuck)
void function (int * arr, size_t rows, size_t columns)
Note that rows and columns are of type size_t. size_t is unsigned (a negative array size is not something you want, so why allow it?) and it is guaranteed to be big enough to hold the largest possible array index you can use. In other words it is a much better fit than int. But why pass rows and columns everywhere? The smart thing to do at this point is make a wrapper around an the array and its control variables and then bolt on a few functions to make the thing easier to use.
template<class TYPE>
class Matrix
{
private:
size_t rows, columns;
std::vector<TYPE> matrix;
public:
// no default constructor. Matrix is BORN ready.
Matrix(size_t numrows, size_t numcols):
rows(numrows), columns(numcols), matrix(rows * columns)
{
}
// vector handles the Rule of Three for you. Don't need copy and move constructors
// a destructor or assignment and move operators
// element accessor function
TYPE & operator()(size_t row, size_t column)
{
// check bounds here
return matrix[row * columns + column];
}
// constant element accessor function
TYPE operator()(size_t row, size_t column) const
{
// check bounds here
return matrix[row * columns + column];
}
// stupid little getter functions in case you need to know how big the matrix is
size_t getRows() const
{
return rows;
}
size_t getColumns() const
{
return columns;
}
// and a handy-dandy stream output function
friend std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream & out, const Matrix & in)
{
for (int i = 0; i < in.getRows(); i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < in.getColumns(); j++)
{
out << in(i,j) << ' ';
}
out << '\n';
}
return out;
}
};
Rough bash-out of what the array version would have to look like just to show the benefits of allowing vector to do its job. Not tested. May contain howlers. The point is a lot more code and a lot more room for error.
template<class TYPE>
class ArrayMatrix
{
private:
size_t rows, columns;
TYPE * matrix;
public:
ArrayMatrix(size_t numrows, size_t numcols):
rows(numrows), columns(numcols), matrix(new TYPE[rows * columns])
{
}
// Array version needs the copy and move constructors to deal with that damn pointer
ArrayMatrix(const ArrayMatrix & source):
rows(source.rows), columns(source.columns), matrix(new TYPE[rows * columns])
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < rows * columns; i++)
{
matrix[i] = source.matrix[i];
}
}
ArrayMatrix(ArrayMatrix && source):
rows(source.rows), columns(source.columns), matrix(source.matrix)
{
source.rows = 0;
source.columns = 0;
source.matrix = nullptr;
}
// and it also needs a destructor
~ArrayMatrix()
{
delete[] matrix;
}
TYPE & operator()(size_t row, size_t column)
{
// check bounds here
return matrix[row * columns + column];
}
TYPE operator()(size_t row, size_t column) const
{
// check bounds here
return matrix[row * columns + column];
}
// and also needs assignment and move operator
ArrayMatrix<TYPE> & operator=(const ArrayMatrix &source)
{
ArrayMatrix temp(source);
swap(*this, temp); // copy and swap idiom. Read link below.
// not following it exactly because operator=(ArrayMatrix source)
// collides with operator=(ArrayMatrix && source) of move operator
return *this;
}
ArrayMatrix<TYPE> & operator=(ArrayMatrix && source)
{
delete[] matrix;
rows = source.rows;
columns = source.columns;
matrix = source.matrix;
source.rows = 0;
source.columns = 0;
source.matrix = nullptr;
return *this;
}
size_t getRows() const
{
return rows;
}
size_t getColumns() const
{
return columns;
}
friend std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream & out, const ArrayMatrix & in)
{
for (int i = 0; i < in.getRows(); i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < in.getColumns(); j++)
{
out << in(i,j) << ' ';
}
out << std::endl;
}
return out;
}
//helper for swap.
friend void swap(ArrayMatrix& first, ArrayMatrix& second)
{
std::swap(first.rows, second.rows);
std::swap(first.columns, second.columns);
std::swap(first.matrix, second.matrix);
}
};
Creating one of these is
Matrix<int> arr(rows, columns);
Now passing the array around is
void func(Matrix & arr);
Using the array is
int test = arr(row, column);
All of the indexing math is hidden from sight.
Other references:
What is the copy-and-swap idiom?
What is The Rule of Three?
int &matrix[N][] - N has to be a compile-time constant, not just const and not at all a parameter. And reference to an array is declared like: int (&matrix)[size]
Try passing int **matrix, and you'll also need to change the way you create this array. Variable lenght arrays are not supported in C++, you'll need to allocate it's memory dynamically. Or rather, stick with std::vector, std::array if you knew the sizes at compile-time.
I have come across some code which allocates a 2d array with following approach:
auto a = new int[10][10];
Is this a valid thing to do in C++? I have search through several C++ reference books, none of them has mentioned such approach.
Normally I would have done the allocation manually as follow:
int **a = new int *[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
a[i] = new int[10];
}
If the first approach is valid, then which one is preferred?
The first example:
auto a = new int[10][10];
That allocates a multidimensional array or array of arrays as a contiguous block of memory.
The second example:
int** a = new int*[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
a[i] = new int[10];
}
That is not a true multidimensional array. It is, in fact, an array of pointers and requires two indirections to access each element.
The expression new int[10][10] means to allocate an array of ten elements of type int[10], so yes, it is a valid thing to do.
The type of the pointer returned by new is int(*)[10]; one could declare a variable of such a type via int (*ptr)[10];.
For the sake of legibility, one probably shouldn't use that syntax, and should prefer to use auto as in your example, or use a typedef to simplify as in
using int10 = int[10]; // typedef int int10[10];
int10 *ptr;
In this case, for small arrays, it is more efficient to allocate them on the stack. Perhaps even using a convenience wrapper such as std::array<std::array<int, 10>, 10>. However, in general, it is valid to do something like the following:
auto arr = new int[a][b];
Where a is a std::size_t and b is a constexpr std::size_t. This results in more efficient allocation as there should only be one call to operator new[] with sizeof(int) * a * b as the argument, instead of the a calls to operator new[] with sizeof(int) * b as the argument. As stated by Galik in his answer, there is also the potential for faster access times, due to increased cache coherency (the entire array is contiguous in memory).
However, the only reason I can imagine one using something like this would be with a compile-time-sized matrix/tensor, where all of the dimensions are known at compile time, but it allocates on the heap if it exceeds the stack size.
In general, it is probably best to write your own RAII wrapper class like follows (you would also need to add various accessors for height/width, along with implementing a copy/move constructor and assignment, but the general idea is here:
template <typename T>
class Matrix {
public:
Matrix( std::size_t height, std::size_t width ) : m_height( height ), m_width( width )
{
m_data = new T[height * width]();
}
~Matrix() { delete m_data; m_data = nullptr; }
public:
T& operator()( std::size_t x, std::size_t y )
{
// Add bounds-checking here depending on your use-case
// by throwing a std::out_of_range if x/y are outside
// of the valid domain.
return m_data[x + y * m_width];
}
const T& operator()( std::size_t x, std::size_t y ) const
{
return m_data[x + y * m_width];
}
private:
std::size_t m_height;
std::size_t m_width;
T* m_data;
};
How to create a 2d array using dynamic memory allocation in c++?
Maze(int c=10){
const int m=c;
a=new int[m][m];
}
void main(){
Maze(12);
}
std::vector is the typical way to have a dynamically allocated array in C++. You can have a vector of vectors to make it two-dimensional. Here's an example:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> a(m,std::vector<int>(m));
If you want it inside a class:
struct Maze {
std::vector<std::vector<int>> a;
Maze(int m) : a(m,std::vector<int>(m)) { }
};
Easily - using multiplication. Also I suggest using reference to array because in this way you specify the type more explicitly then using a pointer to it's first element. I'm actually amazed why this isn't the type most programmers use. Perhaps because they're lazy and the type is complex ;).
void Maze(int c=10) {
const int m=c;
int (&a)[0][0] = *(int (*)[0][0])new int[/*numbers of rows*/ m * sizeof(int) * m /* number of colums on each row*/];
}
Here 'a' is an reference to the newly created array. As types aren't dynamic in 'C++' language we assume that it has zero elements on each of it's dimensions. But of-course we can access more then 0.
Now if you have a function with parameter of type 2 dim array it will look like this:
void func(int (&_2dimarray)[0][0]) ;
Or if you want to return it from your 'Maze' you could write:
int (&Maze(int c=10))[0][0] {
const int m=c;
int (&a)[0][0] = *(int (*)[0][0])new int[/*numbers of rows*/ m * sizeof(int) * m /* number of colums on each row*/];
return a;
}
Life example.
But of-course the easiest way is using 'std::vector' which however can have performance cost on some compilers while the built-in array will more surely run fast everywhere.
EDIT: The explanation is simple - the 'new []' can be thought as a function like:
template<class T>
T *operator new T[] (std::size_t);
Your instance of it:
a=new int[m][m];
Can also look like this (illustrative)
a=operator new int[m][](m);
Which fulfills 'T' with 'int[m]'.
This is illegal because 'int[m]' is not valid type. 'C++' supports only static types and this is not such because the length of the array can't be determined during compile-time as 'm' is not a constant. The last 'm' is a function parameter to 'operator new[]'.
Yep I also think this construct isn't the most elegant yet but this is the life.
There are two approaches. If the size of the internal one-dimensional subarray is a constant value known at compile time then you can write
const size_t N = 10;
int ( * )[N] Maze( size_t n = N )
{
return new int[n][N];
}
int main()
{
int ( *a )[N] = Maze( 12 );
//...
delete [] a;
}
If it is not a constant then you need to allocate a one-dimensional array of pointers to one-dimensional arrays. For example
const size_t N = 10;
int ** Maze( size_t n = N )
{
int **p = new int *[n];
for ( size_t i = 0; i < n; i++ ) p[i] = new int[n];
return p;
}
int main()
{
int **a = Maze( 12 );
//...
for ( size_t i = 0; i < 12; i++ ) delete [] a[i];
delete [] a;
}
Also you could use smart pointers as for example std::unique_ptr.
The other approach is to use standard container std::vector<std::vector<int>>