i'm trying to make a multidimensional array, which holds weapons and their attachments:
I have lots of arrays like this:
char *G18[19] = { "glock_mp", "glock_akimbo_mp", "glock_eotech_mp", "glock_fmj_mp", "glock_reflex_mp", "glock_silencer_mp", "glock_xmags_mp", "glock_akimbo_fmj_mp", "glock_akimbo_silencer_mp", "glock_akimbo_xmags_mp", "glock_eotech_fmj_mp",
"glock_eotech_silencer_mp", "glock_eotech_xmags_mp", "glock_fmj_reflex_mp", "glock_fmj_silencer_mp", "glock_fmj_xmags_mp", "glock_reflex_silencer_mp", "glock_reflex_xmags_mp", "glock_silencer_xmags_mp" };
But all weapons don't belong to same category, f.e. an AK47 is an Assault Rifle and this G18 is a Machine Gun. So i created 2D Arrays which represnt a category, like so:
char **MACHINEGUNS[4] = { G18, TMP, RAFFICA, PP2000 };
so now i have the weapons sorted i created another array which should hold the categories, like so:
char ***WEAPONS[7] = { ASSAULTRIFLES, SUBMACHINEGUNS, LIGHTMACHINEGUNS, SNIPERS, PISTOLS, MACHINEGUNS, SHOTGUNS };
accessing the weapons like
char *weapon = WEAPONS[assaultrifle][ak47][0]; // assaultrifle & ak47 are enum mebers
works perfectly fine. The problem i'm facing is that i can't get the row and column sizes. F.e. if i want to know how many weapon classes their are i would do:
sizeof(WEAPONS)
which gives me 7. If i want to know how many assaultrifles there are i do:
sizeof(WEAPONS[assaultrifles])
But here's the problem: This gives me 4 although the assaultrifle's array size is 9:
char **ASSAULTRIFLES[9] = { AK47, M16A4, M4A1, FN2000, ACR, FAMAS, FAL, SCARH, TAR21 };
it returns 4 aswell if i do this:
sizeof(WEAPONS[assaultrifles][ak47])
even though the ak47's array size is 39. Any idea why it's not working and how i could achiev this? Thanks in advance and sorry for the long text!
There is no such thing as "getting the size" of an array at runtime in C or C++. You can get the size of an array (declared with [<size>]) with sizeof because its size is known at compile time. When you get the sizeof a pointer you are literally getting how many bytes a pointer takes, which is why you get 4. If you want to know the size of a vector at runtime, the typical options are:
Use std::vector, and STL containers in general. There are a million tutorials and examples out there that you can check about that.
Instead of storing raw arrays (or pointers to arrays), store simple structs or classes containing the pointer to the array and the size. This is kinda like rolling your own, limited std::vector, and you have to be careful of freeing the memory correctly where necessary and so on, so I'm not sure it's a great choice.
Some other dirty C-like trick like adding NULL/nullptr at the end of every array and then iterate through the whole thing until you reach it every time you need to find the size. Inefficient and error-prone.
So, yeah, in short, use std::vector or other containers.
Related
If I have a struct instanceData:
struct InstanceData
{
unsigned usedInstances;
unsigned allocatedInstances;
void* buffer;
Entity* entity;
std::vector<float> *vertices;
};
And I allocate enough memory for an Entity and std::vector:
newData.buffer = size * (sizeof(Entity) + sizeof(std::vector<float>)); // Pseudo code
newData.entity = (Entity *)(newData.buffer);
newData.vertices = (std::vector<float> *)(newData.entity + size);
And then attempt to copy a vector of any size to it:
SetVertices(unsigned i, std::vector<float> vertices)
{
instanceData.vertices[i] = vertices;
}
I get an Access Violation Reading location error.
I've chopped up my code to make it concise, but it's based on Bitsquid's ECS. so just assume it works if I'm not dealing with vectors (it does). With this in mind, I'm assuming it's having issues because it doesn't know what size the vector is going to scale to. However, I thought the vectors might increase along another dimension, like this?:
Am I wrong? Either way, how can I allocate memory for a vector in a buffer like this?
And yes, I know vectors manage their own memory. That's besides the point. I'm trying to do something different.
It looks like you want InstanceData.buffer to have the actual memory space which is allocated/deallocated/accessed by other things. The entity and vertices pointers then point into this space. But by trying to use std::vector, you are mixing up two completely incompatible approaches.
1) You can do this with the language and the standard library, which means no raw pointers, no "new", no "sizeof".
struct Point {float x; float y;} // usually this is int, not float
struct InstanceData {
Entity entity;
std::vector<Point> vertices;
}
This is the way I would recommend. If you need to output to a specific binary format for serialization, just handle that in the save method.
2) You can manage the memory internal to the class, using oldschool C, which means using N*sizeof(float) for the vertices. Since this will be extremely error prone for a new programmer (and still rough for vets), you must make all of this private to class InstanceData, and do not allow any code outside InstanceData to manage them. Use unit tests. Provide public getter functions. I've done stuff like this for data structures that go across the network, or when reading/writing files with a specified format (Tiff, pgp, z39.50). But just to store in memory using difficult data structures -- no way.
Some other questions you asked:
How do I allocate memory for std::vector?
You don't. The vector allocates its own memory, and manages it. You can tell it to resize() or reserve() space, or push_back, but it will handle it. Look at http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector
How do I allocate memory for a vector [sic] in a buffer like this?
You seem to be thinking of an array. You're way off with your pseudo code so far, so you really need to work your way up through a tutorial. You have to allocate with "new". I could post some starter code for this, if you really need, which I would edit into the answer here.
Also, you said something about vector increasing along another dimension. Vectors are one dimensional. You can make a vector of vectors, but let's not get into that.
edit addendum:
The basic idea with a megabuffer is that you allocate all the required space in the buffer, then you initialize the values, then you use it through the getters.
The data layout is "Header, Entity1, Entity2, ..., EntityN"
// I did not check this code in a compiler, sorry, need to get to work soon
MegaBuffer::MegaBuffer() {AllocateBuffer(0);}
MegaBuffer::~MegaBuffer() {ReleaseBuffer();}
MegaBuffer::AllocateBuffer(size_t size /*, whatever is needed for the header*/){
if (nullptr!=buffer)
ReleaseBuffer();
size_t total_bytes = sizeof(Header) + count * sizeof(Entity)
buffer = new unsigned char [total_bytes];
header = buffer;
// need to set up the header
header->count = 0;
header->allocated = size;
// set up internal pointer
entity = buffer + sizeof(Header);
}
MegaBuffer::ReleaseBuffer(){
delete [] buffer;
}
Entity* MegaBuffer::operator[](int n) {return entity[n];}
The header is always a fixed size, and appears exactly once, and tells you how many entities you have. In your case there's no header because you are using member variables "usedInstances" and "allocatednstances" instead. So you do sort of have a header but it is not part of the allocated buffer. But you don't want to allocate 0 bytes, so just set usedInstances=0; allocatedInstances=0; buffer=nullptr;
I did not code for changing the size of the buffer, because the bitsquid ECS example covers that, but he doesn't show the first time initialization. Make sure you initialize n and allocated, and assign meaningful values for each entity before you use them.
You are not doing the bitsquid ECS the same as the link you posted. In that, he has several different objects of fixed size in parallel arrays. There is an entity, its mass, its position, etc. So entity[4] is an entity which has mass equal to "mass[4]" and its acceleration is "acceleration[4]". This uses pointer arithmetic to access array elements. (built in array, NOT std::Array, NOT std::vector)
The data layout is "Entity1, Entity2, ..., EntityN, mass1, mass2, ..., massN, position1, position2, ..., positionN, velocity1 ... " you get the idea.
If you read the article, you'll notice he says basically the same thing everyone else said about the standard library. You can use an std container to store each of these arrays, OR you can allocate one megabuffer and use pointers and "built in array" math to get to the exact memory location within that buffer for each item. In the classic faux-pas, he even says "This avoids any hidden overheads that might exist in the Array class and we only have a single allocation to keep track of." But you don't know if this is faster or slower than std::Array, and you're introducing a lot of bugs and extra development time dealing with raw pointers.
I think I see what you are trying to do.
There are numerous issues. First. You are making a buffer of random data, telling C++ that a Vector sized piece of it is a Vector. But, at no time do you actually call the constructor to Vector which will initialize the pointers and constructs inside to viable values.
This has already been answered here: Call a constructor on a already allocated memory
The second issue is the line
instanceData.vertices[i] = vertices;
instanceData.vertices is a pointer to a Vector, so you actually need to write
(*(instanceData.vertices))[i]
The third issue is that the contents of *(instanceData.vertices) are floats, and not Vector, so you should not be able to do the assignment there.
We usually initialize a 2D array like this:
int a[2][3] = {{2,3,4},{5,6,7}};
I need to initialize the 2D array like this:
int a[2][3];
a[0] = {2,3,4};
a[1] = {5,6,7};
i.e. I want initialize it array by array. Why does this method fail? What should I do? Or can I define a as array of array?
The idea of an array is to keep all the data in memory contiguous, this would not be achieved with the approach you are using, I would recommend using a C style memory management with RAW memory for a low level fast, thigh and possibly dangerous solution, or change to a different data container like the vector (or others) where you can add elements similar to what you want and the memory will still be contagious like the simple array. Although depending on the size of your problem it might be an overkill to use a vector.
I create an array of size int arr[50]; but I will insert value in it during compile time , like my solution will insert 10 values in it after performing some function (different amount of values can come) , Now in second part of my program I have to loop through the array like it should iterate <= total values of array like in int arr[50] my program save 10 values , it should iterate to it only 10 times but how I can get that there is only 10 values in that array.
arr[50]=sum;
for (int ut=0; ut<=arr[100].length();ut++)
Though i know ut<=arr[100].length() is wrong , but its just assumption , that function will work if I solve condition in this way.
Edit:
I know we can use vector , but I am just looking that type of thing using array.
Thanks for response
First of all, the array you show is not a "Dynamic Array". It's created on the stack; it's an automatic variable.
For your particular example, you could do something like this:
int arr[50];
// ... some code
int elem_count = sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]);
In that case, the sizeof(arr) part will return the total size of the array in bytes, and sizeof(arr[0]) would return the size of a single element in bytes.
However, C-style arrays come with their share of problems. I'm not saying never use them, but keep in mind that, for example, they adjust to pointers when passed as function arguments, and the sizeof solution above will give you an answer other than the one you are looking for, because it would return sizeof(int*).
As for actual dynamically allocated arrays (where all what you have is the pointer to that array), declared as follows:
int *arr = new int[50];
// ... do some stuff
delete [] arr;
then sizeof(arr) will also give you the size of an int* in bytes, which is not the size you are looking for.
So, as the comments suggested, if you are looking for a convenient random access container where you want to conveniently and cheaply keep track of the size, use a std::vector, or even a std::array.
UPDATE
To use a std::array to produce equivalent code to that in your question:
std::array<int, 50> arr;
and then use it like a normal array. Keep in mind that doing something like arr[100] will not do any bounds checking, but at least you can obtain the array's size with arr.size().
I'd like to implement a function that selects a random object from an array of objects and returns it to me. It should be something like (in C++ instead of psuedocode):
getRandomObject(objectList) {
return objectList[int(random(length of objectList))];
}
My current code looks like this, but doesn't seem to work:
//definition of random selector
object getRandomObject(Object* objectList) {
return objectList[int(ofRandom(0, sizeof(objectList)))];
};
//create a pointer for the listOfObjects
object* listOfObjects;
//create an empty object to put the randomly selected object in
object randomObject;
//later in the code, populate the array:
object* listOfObjects[] = {
new Object(),
new Object(),
new Object()
};
//select random object
randomObject = getRandomObject(listOfObjects);
But this seems to return a segmentation fault. A few problems I've noticed:
sizeof() returns the size of the pointer in getRandomObject, not the size of the array. is there a good way to get the size of the array? It might involves not using a float* pointer for the array. Is this a good use case for vectors?
I think that much of the problem lies in how I'm creating my arrays, and not so much in how I'm selecting the random object from them. I'm relatively new to C++ (coming from a Java background), so much of pointers / references / memory management in general is new to me.
thanks!
I see one definite problem and one possible one. The definite problem is that sizeof(objectList) returns the size of the objectList pointer, which will be 4 or 8 on most platforms. It does not return the number of elements in the array, objectList. Either pass in the length of the array or use std::vector or std::array.
The second possible problem relates to ofRandom. Make sure that ofRandom(a,b) returns numbers >= a, but strictly < b. If it returns values <= b, then you'll need to us ofRandom(0, objectVector.size() - 1). Typically, functions like this are written to return values strictly < b, but you should check.
C++ has an array template class that you may want to consider using. Check out the documentation here:
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/array/array/
This type has a method, size(), that will return the length of the array.
When the sizeof operator is applied to an array, it yields the total
number of bytes in that array, not the size of the pointer represented
by the array identifier.
Quote
So you take the space alocated for your whole array and divide by the memory need just for one element: sizeof(objectList) / sizeof(*objectList).
Mr Fooz noticed issues that cause a segfault.
Other compilation issues are:
listOfObjects is declared with 2 different types: object* and object*[3] while getRandomObject expects a type Object*.
listOfObjects[] contains elements of type object* while getRandomObject reads elements of type Object and returns object.
suppose I declare a dynamic array like
int *dynArray = new int [1];
which is initialized with an unknown amount of int values at some point.
How would I iterate till the end of my array of unknown size?
Also, if it read a blank space would its corresponding position in the array end up junked?
Copying Input From users post below:
Thing is:
a) I'm not allowed to use STL (means: no )
b) I want to decompose a string into its characters and store them. So far I wanted to use a function like this:
string breakLine (string line){
int lineSize = line.size();
const char *aux;
aux=line.data();
int index=0;
while (index<=lineSize){
mySynonyms[index]=aux[index];
index++;
}
I thought that the array aux would end up junked if there was a large blank space between the two numbers to be stored (apparently not). And I was wondering if there was a way to iterate till an undefined end in this type of array. Thanks for you answers.
You don't: wrap the array into a structure that remembers its length: std::vector.
std::vector v(1);
std::for_each( v.begin(), v.end(), ... );
No portable way of doing this. Either pass the size together with the array, or, better, use a standard container such as std::vector
Short answer is that you can't. If you have a pointer to the first element of an array, you can't know what the size of the array is. Why do you want to use a array in the first place. You would be much better off using a std::vector if your array can change size dynamically, or a boost::Array if it will be a fixed size.
I don't understand your second question.
Your code needs to keep to track of the array, so the size would never be unknown. (Or you would have to use some library with code that does this.)
I don't understand the last part of your quesiton. Could you elaborate?
You explained in your post below that you want to look at the guts of a std::string.
If you are expecting your stirng to be like a c-string (aka doesn't contain NULLs), then use line.c_str() instead of line.data(). This will guarantee that aux points to a null terminates c-style string.
After that you can iterate until aux[index] == '\0';
Otherwise, you can use line.data() and string.length/size to get it's size like in your example.
However, "decomposing a string into its characters" is pretty pointless, a string is an array of characters. Just make of copy of the string and store that. You are allowed to do:
char ch = line[index];
Better yet, use iterators on the original string!
for(std::string::const_iterator it = line.begin(); it != line.end(); ++it) {
const char ch = *it;
// do whatever with ch
}
a) I'm not allowed to use STL (means:
no )
What?? Who's moronic idea was that?
std::vector isn't part of the "STL" (which is a copyrighted product of HP), but is (and has been for nearly a decade) part of the C++ Language Standard.
If you're not allowed to use the STL (for whatever reason), the first thing you want to do is actually to implement your own version of it – at least the parts you need, with the level of customizability you need. For example, it's probably overkill to make your own vector class parametrizable with a custom allocator. But nevertheless do implement your own lightweight vector. Everything else will result in a bad, hardly maintainable solution.
This smells like homework, and the teacher's objective is to give you a feeling of what it takes to implement dynamic arrays. So far you're getting an F.
You need to realize that when you allocate memory like this
int *dynArray = new int [1];
you allocate precisely one integer, not an indefinite number of integers to be expanded by some unidentified magic. Most importantly, you can only say
dynArray[0] = 78;
but you cannot say
dynArray[1] = 8973;
The element at index 1 does not exist, you're stepping into memory that was not reserved for you. This particular violation will result in a crash later on, when you deallocate the array, because the memory where you stored 8973 belongs to the heap management data structures, and you corrupted your heap.
As many other responders mention, you must know how many elements you have in the array at all times. So, you have to do something along the lines of
int arraySize = 1;
int *dynArray = new int [arraySize];
arraySize goes together with the array, and is best combined with dynArray in one C++ object.
Now, before you assign to dynarray[1], you have to re-allocate the array:
if (index > arraySize) {
int newSize = index+1;
int *newArray = new int[newSize]
// don't forget to copy the data from old array to new
memcpy(newarray dynArray, sizeof *newArray * arraySize);
arraySize = newSize;
dynArray = newArray;
}
// now you're ready!
dynArray[index] = value;
Now, if you want to make it a bit more efficient, you allocate more than you need, so you don't have to allocate each time you add an element. I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
And after doing all this, you get to submit your homework and you get to appreciate the humble std::vector that does all of this for you, plus a lot more.
Use a vector, which has a vector.size() function that returns an integer and a vector.end() function that returns an iterator.
You could create a simple Vector class that has only the methods you need. I actually had to recreate the Vector class for a class that I took this year, it's not very difficult.
If there's a value that cannot be valid, you can use that as a sentinel, and make sure all of your arrays are terminated with that. Of course, it's error-prone and will cause hard-to-find bugs when you happen to miss doing it once, but that's what we used to do while reading files in FORTRAN (back in the all-caps days, and before END= became standard).
Yes, I'm dating myself.