I'm eradicating std::string in favor of C-strings, which I'm new to. How do I get the following to compile? g++ complains: cannot convert char(*)[16] to char**
#include <iostream>
void print(char** s, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
std::cout << s[i] << '\n';
}
}
int main()
{
constexpr int n = 3;
char s[n][16]{ "Hello", "Bye", "Sky"};
print(s, n);
}
You created a multidimensional array, not an array of pointers. Usually an array can be said to be equivalent to a pointer, however in this case c++ needs to know the size of the second dimension of your array. The function would be as follows
void print(char s[][16], int n)`{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
std::cout << s[i] << std::endl;
}
}
Understandably you may want to pass the function using pointers as to not make an entire copy of the 2-d array. I saw you mentioned you were okay with variable length strings. That functionality is supported in the string library. You are dealing with c-strings which are not strings at all but static arrays of type character. Defining these c-strings using dynamic memory happens to give you the desired behavior as you create in the simplest terms an array of pointers.
void print(char** s, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
std::cout << s[i] << std::endl;
}
}
int main()
{
int n = 3, i;
char** s = new char*[n];
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
s[i] = new char[16];
}
s[0] = "Hello";
s[1] = "Bye";
s[2] = "Sky";
print(s, n);
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
delete [] s[i];
}
delete [] s;
s = NULL;
return 0;
}
Since you are using dynamic memory now you need to free your memory which is what the last loop serves to do. As you can see using all this dynamic memory is quite taxing and it would be easier to use the string library that has been optimized to do a much better job then you can. If you're still not convinced you should at least make your own string class to handle the dynamic memory that contains a char * as its private member. In either case you avoid this mess and just make an array of zed class objects and not deal at all with multidimensional nonsense. No one likes seg faults and memory leaks.
Given any type T, T arr[N]; declares a variable arr of type T[N], which is an array and not a pointer. When you use arr in almost all contexts, array to pointer conversions happen, giving the incorrect illusion that arr is a pointer of type T*.
char s[n][16] = { "Hello", "Bye", "Sky" };
declares s as an array of n elements of type char[16]. Now, when array to pointer conversion happens, s decays into a pointer of type char (*)[16]. Hence, your function needs to have the signature
void print(char (*s)[16], int n);
Which is equivalent to
void print(char s[][16], int n);
the [] is interpreted as a pointer by the compiler.
To make these complex types more readable, a type alias may be used.
using T = char[16];
void print(T s[], int n);
Addressing some concerns
As pointed out in the comments, std::string should almost always be preferred over a char array. If you have performance concerns, benchmark before doing this. I really doubt much performance gains can be observed in most cases.
Declaring an array with length n which is an int is not standard C++. It is an extension provided by your compiler, it is not portable and in most cases not necessary.
int n = 3;
char vla[n]; // this is a variable length array
char arr[3]; // this is just an array
char* darr = new char[3]; // this is a pointer pointing to dynamically allocated memory
std::string str; // but instead, this is just better
The compiler cannot extract from char ** the infomation about char[16]. You need to define a type char[16] and pass the pointer to this type to your print function.
#include <iostream>
typedef char str_t[16];
void print(str_t* s, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
std::cout << s[i] << std::endl;
}
}
int main()
{
int n = 3;
char s[n][16]{ "Hello", "Bye", "Sky"};
print(s, 3);
}
Related
I have a class array inside which I have declared an array its size and length. I am trying to merge two sorted arrays by creating the third array on the heap and both the sorted array will be merged on the third array. But whenever I create a new arr on heap the compiler gives me this error: request for member '..' in '..' which is of non-class type
class Array
{
public:
int A[10];
int length;
int Size;
};
void display(Array arr)
{
int i;
for(i=0;i<arr.length;i++)
{
cout<<arr.A[i]<<" ";
}
}
void Merge(Array *arr1,Array *arr2)
{
int i,j,k;
i=j=k=0;
int *arr3;
arr3=new int[10];
while(i<arr1->length && j<arr2->length)
{
if(arr1->A[i]<arr2->A[j])
arr3->A[k++]=arr1->A[i++];
else
arr3->A[k++]=arr2->A[j++];
}
for(;i<arr1->length;i++)
{
arr3->A[k++]=arr1->A[i];
}
for(;j<arr2->length;j++)
{
arr3->A[k++]=arr1->A[j];
}
}
int main()
{
Array arr1{{1,3,5,7},4,4};
Array arr2{{2,4,6,8},4,4};
Array *arr3;
arr3=Merge(&arr1,&arr2);
display(*arr3);
return 0;
}
The root cause of all your problems is that you use C-Style array with a magical size 10. Like in int A[10];. This is a major problem and should be avoided in C++.
Additionally, and the same, In C++ we usually do not use raw pointer for owned memories or newand such stuff.
Anyway. The design will never work, if the number of elements in both Array classes is greater then 5. Because then you will definitely get an out of bounds problem.
You must use a std::vector.
So, all bad. But I know that I will hear now, that the teacher said, no vector but new. The teacher should be fired or begin to teach C instead of C++.
Anyway again, I will fix the major bugs for you. But the sorting algorithm will work neither.
So,
If you want to return an Array, then change the signature of your function aand return an Array.
You do want to have a new Array, not new intes. So, please allocate a new Array instead.
Do not forget to release the newed Arrary at then end.
Set size and length of the new array.
Refactor your complete code.
Code example with some fixes:
#include <iostream>
class Array
{
public:
int A[10];
int length;
int Size;
};
void display(Array arr)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
{
std::cout << arr.A[i] << " ";
}
}
Array* Merge(Array* arr1, Array* arr2)
{
int i, j, k;
i = j = k = 0;
Array *arr3 = new Array;
while (i < arr1->length && j < arr2->length)
{
if (arr1->A[i] < arr2->A[j])
arr3->A[k++] = arr1->A[i++];
else
arr3->A[k++] = arr2->A[j++];
}
for (; i < arr1->length; i++)
{
arr3->A[k++] = arr1->A[i];
}
for (; j < arr2->length; j++)
{
arr3->A[k++] = arr1->A[j];
}
arr3->length = arr1->length + arr2->length;
return arr3;
}
int main()
{
Array arr1{ {1,3,5,7},4,4 };
Array arr2{ {2,4,6,8},4,4 };
Array* arr3;
arr3 = Merge(&arr1, &arr2);
display(*arr3);
delete[]arr3;
return 0;
}
This question already has answers here:
How do I define variable of type int[][26]?
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I have written a small program that passes a 2D array to 2 separate functions that store and display the pattern of a chessboard. While the program works perfectly fine, I would like to ask a more technical question that I have not been able to answer myself through my searches.
I am wondering how it is possible that my program compiles and runs when passing the 2D array with ONLY the columns variable specified, but not the rows. For instance void setBoard(char chessboard[][cols]);
Here is the link to the program: https://codecatch.net/post/54969994-76d7-414b-aab6-997d3fef895c
Here is the same code for those of you that don't want to click the link:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
const int rows = 8;
const int cols = 8;
char chessboard[rows][cols];
void setBoard(char chessboard[][cols]);
void printBoard(char chessboard[][cols]);
void setBoard(char chessboard[][cols]) {
for(int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for(int j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
if(i % 2 == 0 && j % 2 == 0) {
chessboard[i][j] = 'x';
} else {
if(i % 2 != 0 && j % 2 == 1) {
chessboard[i][j] = 'x';
} else {
chessboard[i][j] = '-';
}
}
}
}
return;
}
void printBoard(char chessboard[][cols]) {
for(int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for(int j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
cout << chessboard[i][j] << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
return;
}
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
setBoard(chessboard);
printBoard(chessboard);
return 0;
}
To answer the question directly: in C and C++ passing static array as an argument needs all dimensions except the outermost. So, if you have N-dimensional array, you need to specify the sizes of N-1 dimensions, except the leftmost one: int array[][4][7][2]...[3].
Now, to the gory details.
So, let's say you have int a[3];. What is the type of a? It is int [3]. Now, you want to pass it into function. How do you do this? There are two ways: you can either pass the array by pointer to the first element (works in C and C++), or you can pass the array by reference (references are a C++ thing). Let's consider these examples:
#include <iostream>
void foo(int* array, std::size_t len) { // same as foo(int array[],...)
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < len; i++)
std::cout << array[i] << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
void bar(int (&array)[3]) {
for (int n : array)
std::cout << n << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
template <std::size_t N>
void baz(int (&array)[N]) {
for (int n : array)
std::cout << n << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
int main () {
int a[3] = {1, 2, 3};
int b[4] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
foo(a, 3); // BAD: works, but have to specify size manually
foo(b, 4); // BAD: works, but have to specify size manually
bar(a); // BAD: works, but bar() only accepts arrays of size 3
bar(b); // DOESN'T COMPILE: bar() only accepts arrays of size 3
baz(a); // OK: size is part of type, baz() accepts any size
baz(b); // OK: size is part of type, baz() accepts any size
}
Let's consider foo().
foo()'s signature could also be written as void foo(int array[], ...). This is purely syntactic sugar and int array[] means the same as int* array. Note, however, that this only applies to function signatures, everywhere else these syntaxes are not equivalent.
When you call it as foo(a, 3), it's signature is set to accept a pointer to int as first parameter: int* array. But you know that a is of type int [3], so how does it work? What happens is, the pointer to the first element of the array is passed by value. Which means, it is the same as writing foo(&a[0],...). We take the address of the first element, which is then copied into int* array. As you might notice, having a pointer to the first array doesn't tell us anything about the size of the array, we lost this information during conversion from array type int [3] to int *. Which is why we have to supply the second argument that specifies the length of a. We call this implicit conversion an "array to pointer decay". Decay specifically because we were forced to lose important information -- we had it right there in the type, but now we have to have another argument that describes how many elements the array has. A bit stupid and inconvenient, isn't it?
Now consider bar().
In bar() we pass the array type by reference. This is something that C++ has improved upon C. I will not explain what references are, but in general, you can think of them as something that allows you to get the object the way it is defined, without using any convertions to pointers. In this case, the type of array remains int [3], so we have passed in an array and haven't lost any type information. Great! This means, we can use idiomatic C++ syntax to further improve our code. I have replaced the normal for loop, as found in foo(), with a for-each loop, where we just need to supply a variable to store the element (n) and the array (array). Note that this is possible only because array preserves type information! Trying to do this in foo() would result in a compilation error.
However, there is still a problem with this. bar() has to have the array size as part of its signature! This means that if a was any different size, let's say 4 elements, trying to use bar() would result in a compilation error because int [3] and int [4] are incompatible types.
Consider baz(), which solves the above problem.
Just a little bit of templates will make baz() usable on arrays of any size, while the usage stays the same as in bar().
Now, let's take it to multiple dimensions:
#include <iostream>
void foo2d(int (*array)[3], std::size_t rows, std::size_t cols) {
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < rows; i++)
for (std::size_t j = 0; j < cols; j++)
std::cout << array[i][j] << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
void bar2d(int (&array)[2][3]) {
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < 2; i++)
for (std::size_t j = 0; j < 3; j++)
std::cout << array[i][j] << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
template <std::size_t N, std::size_t M>
void baz2d(int (&array)[N][M]) {
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; i++)
for (std::size_t j = 0; j < M; j++)
std::cout << array[i][j] << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
int main () {
int c[2][3] = { {1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6} };
foo2d(c, 2, 3);
bar2d(c);
baz2d(c);
}
And again, only baz2d() doesn't require hardcoded size information.
One more example, of foo3d(), just to demonstrate what I mean when I say only the outermost dimension doesn't need to be specified:
void foo3d(int (*array)[2][1], std::size_t rows, std::size_t cols, std::size_t K) {
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < rows; i++)
for (std::size_t j = 0; j < cols; j++)
for (std::size_t k = 0; k < K; k++)
std::cout << array[i][j][k] << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
int main () {
int d[3][2][1] = { {{1}, {2}}, {{3}, {4}}, {{5}, {6}} };
foo3d(d, 3, 2, 1);
}
Pay attention to how it's called vs. how it's declared in the signature. So, why do you not need to declare the outermost size? Because only the first pointer decays, due to passing it to the function. d[0][0][0] stores element of type int, d[0][0] stores element of type int [1], d[0] stores element of type int [2][1]. Which are all themselves are arrays! Well, except d[0][0][0], obviously. So, what is the type of the array in foo3d()? It's int (*)[2][1]: pointer to array of size 2, each element of which is an array of size 1.
Parameter of a function is never an array type in C++ (nor in C).
You can declare a function that has an array parameter (as is done in the example program), but that declaration is adjusted so that the parameter is not an array as was written, but it is instead a pointer to element of such array. Example:
void f(int[]); // will be adjusted
void f(int[42]); // will be adjusted
void f(int*); // declarations above are adjusted to this
All of the above three declarations declare the same function. If the type of parameter is "array of int", then the type of the element of such array is "int" and pointer to such element is "pointer to int". Notice that the size of the array has no effect on the type of the element. As such, the size has no effect on the declaration in any way, and indeed arrays of unknown bound are allowed in parameter declaration.
Note that this adjustment occurs only in function parameters, and nowhere else. An array is not a pointer.
So, when you declare a function void setBoard(char chessboard[][cols], the parameter chessboard is not an array, because a parameter is never an array. It has been adjusted to be a pointer to element of char [][cols]. Element of such array is char[cols] i.e. array of cols number of char, therefore the adjustead parameter type is pointer to array of cols number of char i.e. char(*)[cols].
You cannot have pointer type to an array of unknown bound, so you cannot leave out cols. But you can leave out rows because as noted above, the size of the declared array parameter is ignored when the type is adjusted to be a pointer to the element of that array.
You may be wondering "if the parameter is actually not an array, then why can an array be passed as argument?". The answer is that there is another rule complementing the parameter adjustment (in simple words): Arrays implicitly convert to the pointer to element type. The result of the conversion is pointer to the first element of that array. Such conversion is called "decaying". This conversion happens automatically whenever the value of an array is used. Example:
printBoard(&chessboard[0]);
printBoard(chessboard);
The above function calls do exactly the same thing. The former explicitly passes pointer to first element, while the latter does the same thing by implicit "decay".
I need to implement a function that modifies an array. The new array may be a different size. cout prints 1. I understand what's wrong with this code but I just cannot figure out what the syntax is.
//tried this..
int reduce(int *array[])
{
*array = new int[1];
(*array)[0] = 6;
return 0;
}
//also tried this..
int reduce(int array[])
{
array = new int [1];
array[0] = 6;
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int a[1] = {1};
int *p = a;
reduce(&p);
cout << a[0];
return 0;
}
Don't understand your question correctly, but this is what you may do:
void reduce(int *a, int size)
{
for (int i =0; i < size; ++i) {
*(a+i) = 6; // or whatever value to want to
}
}
Call it this way:
int main(){
int a[5] = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1};
int *p = a;
reduce(p, 5);
for (int i =0; i < 5; ++i) { cout << a[i]<<endl; }
return 0;
}
EDIT
What you are trying to do can be vaguely done this way:
int * reduce (int **b, int size) {
*b = new int[size];
for (int i =0; i < size; ++i) {
*(*b + i) = 6;
}
return *b;
}
int main(){
int a[5] = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1};
int *p = a;
p = reduce(&p, 5);
cout << p[0];
cout << p[1];
cout << p[2];
cout << p[3];
cout << p[4];
delete [] p;
return 0;
}
But it still wont change where a is pointing to.
What you are trying to do is not possible with statically defined arrays.
When you use an array like
int a[1] = {1};
you cannot change the size of the array at run time, you cannot make it point to dynamically allocated memory. You may only access and modify the elements the array. That's it.
The function reduce changes where p points to but it does not change the elements of a.
If you want to modify the contents of a, you can simply use a as an argument, and set the values.
MODIFIED:
You want to modify array a, try this :
int reduce(int **array)
{
*array = new int[1];
(*array)[0] = 6;
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int *a = new int[1];
reduce(&a);
cout << a[0];
return 0;
}
First of all, the formal parameter int* array[] actually is the same as int** array (you can think of it as a two-dimensional array). This is probably not what you want.
The answer of #everettjf will only work if you do not change the size of the array. A possible solution (that completely replaces the array) would be
#include <iostream>
void print_array(int[],int);
int* reduce(int array[]) {
// get rid of the old array
delete[] array;
// create a new one
array = new int[7]{8,4,6,19,3,56,23};
// need to return the new address, so that
// the main function is informed on the new
// address
return array;
}
int main() {
// initialize array
int *a = new int[1]{4};
print_array(a,1);
// "change" array by completely replacing it
a=reduce(a);
print_array(a,7);
return 0;
}
// simply prints out the array; no error checking!
void print_array(int array[], int length) {
std::cout << "[";
for (int i = 0; i < length ; ++i) {
std::cout << array[i] << " ";
}
std::cout << "]" << std::endl;
}
In the reduce function, the initial array is completely deleted. Afterwards, you can create a new one (I chose to just use 7 random numbers). It is important to return that pointer back to the caller (the main method). Otherwise the a pointer in the main method would point to invalid
If you are not forced (by some kind of excercise, for example) to use arrays, you should look into http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector
The premise of your question is invalid. It is not possible to resize an array of automatic storage duration (aka a in main()) after its definition by ANY means in standard C++.
Dynamic memory allocations in either of your reduce() functions will not cause a in main() to be resized.
reduce(&p) will calls the first version of reduce() , which will then change p (so it points at the dynamically allocated memory) but not affect a.
If main() calls reduce(a) or reduce(p) (the two are equivalent, given the initialisation int *p = a) will change neither a nor p, but instead cause a memory leak.
The underlying problem, I suspect, is that you believe - incorrectly - that pointers and arrays are the same thing. They are actually different things, but can be used in the same way in various contexts. And your code is one of the contexts in which they cannot be used interchangeably.
If you want a resizeable array, use a static container (like std::vector<int>) and - if you want a function to resize it, pass it by reference. It manages its own memory dynamically, so is able to dynamically resize itself.
How should an array of constant size:
const int m = 5, n = 3;
int arr[m][n];
be passed to a function in a way which is both C89 and C++-compatible?
void func(const int m, const int n, int arr[][n]) { }
isn't valid C++ (giving errors such as "A parameter is not allowed" and "Variable 'n' was not declared in this scope"), even though the size of arr is determinate at compile-time. (It is valid C, however.) #defineing m and n works but is not preferred due to scope issues. Passing a pointer to the first element of the array leads to ugly code in the function body.
Feel free to take a look at this FAQ for context.
In C++, you can pass an array to a function with full type information intact by utilizing a template and an array reference function argument:
template <unsigned M, unsigned N>
void func (int (&arr)[M][N]) {
//...
}
The function prototype you are using is using a C99 feature called VLA to provide a dynamic binding of the array dimension. This is not a C++ feature, although some C++ compilers will allow it as an extension to the C++ language.
The C-FAQ was written before C99 was ratified, so the variable length array feature was not yet a standard feature of C. With a modern C compiler with VLA support, the function prototype you provided works just fine.
There is another alternative to use if you have an older compiler for which VLA support is not available. That is to treat the 2-D array as a flattened 1-D array, and use manual calculations to index the correct integer:
void func(const int m, const int n, void *p) {
int *a = p;
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < m; ++i) {
for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
printf(" %d", a[i*n + j]);
}
puts("");
}
}
Then you call func(m, n, arr). In side the function, the expression
a[i*n + j]
steps over n ints i times, then steps over j ints. Since each row is n ints long, the calculation returns the ith row and the jth column, which corresponds precisely to arr[i][j].
I have tried this code:
void func(const int m, const int n, int arr[][n])
{
printf("%d\n", arr[4][2]);
}
int main()
{
const int m = 5, n = 3;
int arr[m][n];
arr[4][2] = 10;
func(m, n, arr);
}
and this work with no warnings
Your array arr[m][n] is not constant. However you have constant variables M and N. You should also define the arr[m][n] as a constant and not just an int array.
You may want to consider dynamicaly allocating your array so that you can just pass the pointer address down.
const int m = 5, n = 3;
int i = 0;
int* *arr; //Pointer to an integer pointer (Note can also be int **arr or int** arr)
arr = malloc(sizeof(int*)*(m+1)); //I add one because I am assuming that 'm' does not account for the terminating null character. But if you do not need a terminating null then you can remove this and the perantheses around the 'm'.
for(i = 0; i < m; i++)
{
arr[i] = malloc(sizeof(int*)*(n+1)); //Same as before
}
The inital malloc() call allocates memory for an array of integer arrays or said in another way, it allocates a pointer to a series of other pointers. The for loop will allocate an integer array of 'm' size for each element of the original array or said another way it will allocate space for every pointer address pointed to by the original pointer address. I left out error checking in order to simplfy my example but here is the same example with error checking.
const int m = 5, n = 3;
int i = 0;
int* *arr = NULL;
if((arr = malloc(sizeof(int*)*(m+1))) == NULL)
{
perror("ERROR(1): Failed to allocate memory for the initial pointer address ");
return 1;
}
for(i = 0; i < m; i++)
{
if((arr = malloc(sizeof(int*)*(m+1))) == NULL)
{
perror("ERROR(2): Failed to allocate memory for a subsequent pointer address ");
return 2;
}
}
Now that you have dynamicaly allocated your array you can just pass the pointer address.
int* *arr in the following the way.
void fun(const int n, const int m, int* *arr) {}
Also you don't necessarily have to keep track of the size of your arrays if the sizes are constant and if you use null terminated arrays. You just have to malloc the array using the constant integer variable's actual value and then check for the terminating null byte when iterating threw the array.
int* *arr = NULL;
if((arr = malloc(sizeof(int*)*6)) == NULL)'m'+1 = 6;
{
perror("ERROR(1): Failed to allocate memory for the initial pointer address ");
return 1;
}
for(i = 0; i < m; i++)
{
if((arr = malloc(sizeof(int*)*4) == NULL)//'n'+1 = 4
{
perror("ERROR(2): Failed to allocate memory for a subsequent pointer address ");
return 2;
}
}
You can then display the entire two dimensional array in the following way. Note that '\000' is the octagonal value for a null byte(00000000).
int i, j;
for(i = 0; arr[i] != '\000'; i++)
{
for(j = 0; arr[i][j] != '\000'; j++)
{
printf("%i ", arr[i][j]); //Prints the current element of the current array
}
printf("\n"); //This just ends the line so that each of the arrays is printed on it's own line.
}
Of course the above mentioned loops would have the same result as the following.
int i, j;
int m = 5;
int n = 3;
for(i = 0; i < m; i++)
{
for(j = 0; i < n; j++)
{
printf("%i ", arr[i][j]); //Prints the current element of the current array
}
printf("\n"); //This just ends the line so that each of the arrays is printed on it's own line.
}
Which means, in most situations there is no need for keeping track of an array's size but there are situations in which it is necessary. For example if one your arrays could possible contain a null byte other than the terminating null byte. The new null byte would shorten the array's size to the index of the new null byte. If you have any questions or comments feel free to comment below or message me.
The problem here is the "missing" support for dynamic arrays in C++.
const int m = 5, n = 3;
int arr[m][n];
Works since m and n are compile time constant and accessible directly at the declaration of the array.
void func(const int m, const int n, int arr[][n]) { }
The compiler handles your function regardless of where it is called in first place.
Therefore n is unknown/variable and thus prohibited as a array dimensionality.
The following example won't work too because of the very same reason:
void foo (const int n)
{
int arr[n]; // error, n is const but not compile time constant
}
int main (void)
{
foo(4);
}
jxh answered what to do about it.
I have created 2 dynamic arrays in the main function. I have passed both of them to the function by reference. Then I copy data from smaller dynamic array to the larger dynamic array. I delete the smaller dynamic array. Assign the address of the larger dynamic array to the smaller dynamic array. Now ideally the arr array should have size of 10. However, when I try to print the 6th element of the array in the main, it crashes. Please have a look at the code below:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
void func(string * arr, string * brr);
int main()
{
string* arr = new string[5];
arr[0] = "hello0";
arr[1] = "hello1";
arr[2] = "hello2";
arr[3] = "hello3";
arr[4] = "hello4";
string* brr = new string[10];
func(arr, brr);
for(int i = 0; i < 6; i++)
cout << arr[i] << endl;
return 0;
}
void func(string * arr, string * brr)
{
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
brr[i] = arr[i];
for(i = 0; i < 5; i++)
cout << brr[i] << endl;
delete []arr;
arr = brr;
arr[5] = "hello5";
}
This line has absolutely no effect for the caller:
arr = brr;
So after the call, arr points exactly where it used to point before - to a now invalid memory area (because you deleted it).
If this would be a C question, I would advise you to use a pointer to a pointer (string **arr). However, I feel this is nasty in a C++ program. Maybe you want to use a reference somewhere ?
Set this signature for the function
void func(string * & arr, string * & brr)
#cnicutar correctly diagnosed the problem; you'll either need to pass arr by reference (reference to the POINTER, not the array), of have fund return the new value of arr, which the caller can assign.