Store shared pointer to array in vector - c++

I’m trying to store a shared pointer to a fixed size array in to a vector, I want to use a shared pointer because I must pass a pointer to the array to another class that will write in the array, and I want to have more than one array because I may have more instances of the writing class and each one needs an array to write to, they will write a lot of data in the arrays so moving them is not a good option.
std::shared_ptr<char> sp( new char [MAX_LENGTH], std::default_delete< char[] >() );
arrayVect.push_back(sp);
the vector is defined as class member like:
std::vector< std::shared_ptr< char [ MAX_LENGTH ] > > arrayVect;
I'm getting the error:
error: no matching function for call to ‘std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char [MAX_LENGTH]> >::push_back(std::shared_ptr<char []>&)’
I have tried different alternatives but none of them have worked, could you point out the correct way of doing it? or is there an alternative that I am missing? the writing class needs an array of chars for the write function so I think I’m stuck with array.
thanks!

I feel like shared ownership is the wrong model here. Conceptually, why would you want your workers to continue to work on an array if no one else is observing the result anymore?
So I'd have the arrayVect own the arrays and hand out pointers to the arrays to the workers. When it doesn't make sense to keep one of the arrays around, stop the worker first and then delete the array.
The easiest way to get that behavior is to make arrayVect a std::vector<std::unique_ptr<std::array<char, MAX_LENGTH>>>. Then the pointer to the underlying char[MAX_LENGTH] array that you can pass to a worker can be obtained by calling arrayVect[idx].get().data().
By having the additional indirection through the unique_ptr the pointers to the arrays remain valid even if the vector is resized.
EDIT: Here is an example how that can work with unique_ptrs even though your workers also need a pointer to the array:
class Worker {
public:
Worker(std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>* array)
: _array{array} {
}
void perform_work() {
function_that_requires_c_arrays(_array->data()); // maybe also a size parameter?
}
private:
std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>* _array;
};
int main() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>>> arrayVect;
arrayVect.emplace_back(std::make_unique<std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>>()));
Worker w{arrayVect.back().get()};
w.perform_work();
}

Try declaring vector like below,
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char> > arrayVect;
Actually, You are declaring vector incorrectly. Please try and check with above change. Hope it helps!

You can use std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char>> without the array notation. It is important that you then still use std::default_delete<char[]>() as the deleter.
Here is a complete example.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#define MAX_LENGTH 10
int main() {
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char>> arrayVect;
std::shared_ptr<char> sp(new char[MAX_LENGTH], std::default_delete<char[]>());
arrayVect.push_back(sp);
arrayVect.push_back(std::shared_ptr<char>(new char[MAX_LENGTH], std::default_delete<char[]>()));
char q = 0;
for (size_t x = 0; x < arrayVect.size(); ++x)
for (size_t y = 0; y < MAX_LENGTH; ++y)
arrayVect.at(x).get()[y] = ++q;
for (size_t x = 0; x < arrayVect.size(); ++x)
for (size_t y = 0; y < MAX_LENGTH; ++y)
std::cout << int(arrayVect.at(x).get()[y]) << '\n'; // Int cast to print numbers, and not ASCII control characters
}

Related

Const vector query in C++

#include < vector >
using namespace std;
class Rclass
{
public:
vector<int> ir0T;
vector<int> ir1T;
private:
int f();
}
int Rclass::f()
{
ir0T.clear();
ir1T.clear();
ir0T.push_back(1);
ir1T.push_back(2);
}
this throws error
"Rclass.cpp:90: error: member function 'clear' not viable: 'this' argument has type 'const vector', but function is not marked const
ir0T.clear();
^~~~"
Rclass.cpp:91: error: member function 'clear' not viable: 'this' argument has type 'const vector', but function is not marked const
ir1T.clear();"
why?
^~~~
I tried adding "const vector ir0T;"
You cannot set the matrix member variable to a local varable created in a local member function - the local variable will be destroyed when the function ends and then the matrix member variable won't be pointing to anything. So instead, if you insist on using a raw pointer, use calloc() because it allocates the memory like malloc and then it sets it all to zero. The main problem with this is that then you need a copy constructor, assignment operator and destructor - That's not the way to go if you can help it. It would be better to use a std::vector<std::vector<int>> because all the dynamic allocation and deallocation is hidden from you. Plus you can reserve the size if you know it ahead of time. How to initializ the "vector"-ized version to zero can be seen here: Initializing a two dimensional std::vector
#include <vector>
class CS
{
private:
std::vector<std::vector<int> > Rightalpha;
public:
void CreateMtrx(int a, int b)
{
// Defaults to zero initial value
Rightalpha = std::vector<std::vector<int> >(a, std::vector<int>(b));
}
};
int main()
{
CS cs;
cs.CreateMtrx(4,4);
return 0;
};
A better alternative if it is fixed and you know ahead of time how big the matrix is: you can just use a plain array directly as a member variable instead of using a pointers to dynamically allocated memory. If the matrix is small (like 4x4) this will give you cache locality and a performance improvement. Plus if you are using c++11 you can clear the array at the declaration and you don't need a CreateMatrix() member variable at all - something like this:
class CS
{
private:
int Rightalpha[4][4] = {};
};
int main()
{
CS cs;
return 0;
};
Or like one of the comments suggested you could use std::array instead of a plain array, if you want a nice STL-like interface to the array. There are some advantages listed here: Replace fixed size arrays with std::array?
Firstly a few fundamentals.
When CreateMtrx() returns Rightalpha will become invalid as a will destruct.
And I would recommend using lower camel case naming for variables and upper camel case for types. i.e. rightAlpha instead of Rightalpha, to avoid confusion with types.
As for your actual question you can initialise a 2D array with a nested loop:
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
for(unsigned int j = 0; j < 4; j++)
{
rightAlpha[i][j] = 0;
}
}
Finally, when asking for help 'craps up' is not conducive to constructive answers. It is important to be clear on what your expected behaviour is and what results you are actually seeing.
If Rightalpha is a data member of your class it doesn't need to be an int**. You probably just want it to be an int[4][4] and skip using a local variable 'a' in your create function.
If you really want it to be a pointer, just make it an int*, and use it with 2D-array syntax. Instead of: int a[4][4]; Do: int* a = new [4*4];
I see from the comment that you can't change the type of Rightalpha. You will then need to do manual memory management. You will need to initialize you int** with the new operator.
You will need to allocate each array in the 2D array.
rightAlpha = new int*[4];
for (int i = 0 ; i < 4 ; i++) {
rightAlpha[i] = new int[4];
}
You can read more about initialisation of a multi-dimentional arrays here:
How do I declare a 2d array in C++ using new?
Even if that works, you will need to free and manage memory and deal carefully with all the pitfalls of manual memory management. That's why I strongly suggest to use a std::vector<int>:
struct CS {
createMatrix() {
rightAlpha = std::vector<int>(4*4);
}
private:
std::vector<int> rightAlpha;
With this solution, you don't need to worry about memory stuff as the std::vector will do it for you.
If you need matrix semantics, you can add a function that returns the right element according to a j i position.
int operator()(int i, int j) const {
return rightAlpha[j+4*i];
}
It may be used like this:
CS myCs;
myCs(3, 2);

Return 2d array from C++

Inside a function, I make a 2d array that fills itself from a text file and needs to get returned to main. The array stays a constant size through the whole program.
I know this is something that gets asked a lot, but I always seem to get one of two answers:
Use std::vector or std::array or some other STD function. I don't really understand how these work, is there any site actually explaining them and how they act compared to normal arrays? Are there any special #includes that I need?
Or
Use a pointer to the array, and return the pointer. First, on some of the answers to this it apparently doesn't work because of local arrays. How do I tell when it does and doesn't work? How do I use this array back in the main function?
I'm having more trouble with the concept of pointers and std::things than with the actual code, so if there's a website you know explains it particularly well, feel free to just put that.
Not necessarily the best solution, but the easiest way to get it working with vectors. The advantages are that you don't need to delete memory (happens automatically) and the array is bounds-checked in debug mode on most compilers.
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
using array2D = std::vector< std::vector< int > >;
array2D MyFunc(int x_size, int y_size)
{
array2D array(y_size, vector< int >(x_size));
int i = 0;
for (int y = 0; y < array.size(); y++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < array[y].size(); x++)
{
// note the order of the index
array[y][x] = i++;
}
}
return array;
}
int main()
{
array2D bob = MyFunc(10, 5);
for (int y = 0; y < bob.size(); y++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < bob[y].size(); x++)
{
cout << bob[y][x] << "\n";
}
}
}
Live example:
http://ideone.com/K4ilfX
Sounds like you are new to C++. If this is indeed the case, I would suggest using arrays for now because you probably won't be using any of the stuff that STL containers give you. Now, let's talk about pointers.
You are correct that if you declare a local array in your function, the main function won't have access to it. However, this is not the case if you dynamically allocate the array using the new keyword. When you use new to allocate your array, you essentially tell the compiler to reserve a chunk of memory for your program. You can then access it using a pointer, which is really just the address of that chunk of memory you reserved. Therefore, instead of passing the entire array to the main function, all you need to do is pass a pointer (address) to that array.
Here are some relevant explanations. I will add to them as I find more:
Dynamic Memory
The easiest way to create a 2d array is as follows:
char (*array)[10];
array = new array[5][10];
Two dimensional arrays can be tricky to declare. The parenthesis above in the variable declaration are important to tell the compiler array is a pointer to an array of 10 characters.
It is really essential to understand pointers with C and C++ unless using the std:: collections. Even then, pointers are widely prevalent, and incorrect use can be devastating to a program.

proper memory allocation for a 2D array in a class in C++

I am writing a C++ class that uses some fixed arrays, as well as some dynamically allocated arrays.
I was wondering if anybody can guide me for the proper way to allocate memory for the dynamic arrays , probably in the constructor/deconstructor, and also if I need to explicitly call them to make sure I don't get a seg fault.
Here is a simplified version of the related part of my code:
class Network {
public:
int n_nodes;
int user_index[MAX_USERS]; //a fixed array
int adjacency_matrix[][MAX_ITEMS];
//Network(int n_node, int** adjacency); //I would rather to set the element s in a function other than the constructor
Initializer(int n_node, int** adjacency);
~Netowrk();
}
So here are my specific question for this class:
1 - Can I have the 2D array adjacency_matrix[][] with undecided number of rows and columns until it's set by the user in the initializer function?
2 - where should I delete the 2D array? should I write it in the deconstructor? Should I call the deconstructor explicitly? Is there anything else I need to destroy in the deconstructor?
1 - Can I have the 2D array adjacency_matrix[][] with undecided number of rows and columns until it's set by the user in the initializer function?
Yes. The best way to do this, however, is not to use arrays at all. Instead, use std::vector, which manages the memory for you. There are two ways that you can do this. If you actually want to be able to use the [row][column] syntax to access elements, you'll need to use two dimensions of std::vectors:
std::vector<std::vector<int> > adjacency_matrix;
Once you know the dimensions, you can populate it:
adjacency_matrix.assign(rows, std::vector<int>(columns));
It is often easier to use a single-dimensional array (or a std::vector<int>) containing all of the elements and use row * row_count + column to access the element at index (row, column). This way, there are fewer dynamic allocations. You can wrap up the logic of accessing elements into a couple of helper functions.
2 - where should I delete the 2D array? should I write it in the deconstructor?
You don't have to delete anything if you use a std::vector. It cleans itself up.
Should I call the [destructor] explicitly?
No.
Is there anything else I need to destroy in the [destructor]?
Ideally, no. If you use the Standard Library containers, like std::vector and smart pointers, you shouldn't have to clean anything up. You should avoid trying to manage resources on your own in C++: there are library facilities to do this tedious task for you and you should take advantage of them.
1 - Can I have the 2D array adjacency_matrix[][] with undecided number of rows and columns until it's set by the user in the initializer function?
Yes you can. For example:
int* adjacency_matrix_;
int* getAdjacency(int i, int j)
{
if (!adjacency_matrix_)
return 0;
else
return adjacency_matrix_ + i*n_nodes + j;
}
Network()
: n_nodes(0),
adjacency_matrix_(0)
{}
void Initializer(int n_node, int** adjacency)
{
adjacency_matrix_ = new int[n_nodes * n_nodes];
// Copy over data.
}
As to whether you should, that depends on whether you have a reason for not using std::vector<>.
2 - where should I delete the 2D array? should I write it in the deconstructor?
Should I call the deconstructor explicitly?
Is there anything else I need to destroy in the deconstructor?
Yes, definitely free in the destructor using array operator delete:
~Network()
{
delete [] adjacency_matrix_;
}
No, your destructor will be called whenever the Network object itself goes out of scope. It is (very) rarely necessary to make an explicit destructor call.
No, all a destructor needs to explicitly release is whatever your explicitly acquire.
You may like the example matrix class I wrote in an answer to another question
The question itself was about good C++ design practices, but the chosen example was a multi-dimensional array.
There are several ways to do this.
The easiest way is to use vectors, and if you don't like to manage your own memory, this is perfect for you. However, because I like to manage my own memory, and I have found this method to be slow and cumbersome at times, I have learned of other ways.
The fastest way is to allocated a one dimensional array and treat it as you would a two dimensional array. Here is an example:
int *array = new int[width*height];
int get_array(int column, int row)
{
return array[row*width + column];
}
delete [] array;
This can be generalized to the nth-dimension:
int *array = new int[w1*w2*...*wn];
int get_array(int i1, int i2, ..., int in)
{
return array[in*(w1*w2*...*w(n-1)) + i(n-1)*(w1*w2*...*w(n-2)) + ... + i2*w1 + i1];
}
delete [] array;
If you want to be able to have different widths for each row, then you can make an array of pointers. This solution is slow to initialize and clean up, but flexible, tunable, and has relatively fast execution time. It can also be extremely dangerous if you make a mistake though.
int **array = new int*[height];
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++)
array[i] = new int[width(i)];
at which point, to access it, all you have to do is the customary
array[i][j]
however, to free this array you have to do it row by row
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++)
delete [] array[i];
delete [] array;
This can also generalize to the nth dimension.
int **....*array = new int**...*[w1];
for (int i1 = 0; i1 < w1; i1++)
{
array[i1] = new int**..*[w2];
for (int i2 = 0; i2 < w2; i2++)
{
array[i1][i2] = new int**.*[w3];
...
for (int in = 0; in < wn; in++)
array[i1][i2]...[in] = new int[wn];
}
}
for (int i1 = 0; i1 < w1; i1++)
{
for (int i2 = 0; i2 < w2; i2++)
{
...
for (int in = 0; in < wn; in++)
delete [] array[i1][i2]...[in];
...
delete [] array[i1][i2];
}
delete [] array[i1];
}
delete [] array;
This kind of setup tends to wreak havoc on memory. Just a two dimensional array of these would result in width+1 separate arrays to be malloc-ed. It would be faster to just malloc one big array and figure out the indices yourself.

elegant way to create&pass multi-dimensional array in c++?

first question:
for known dimensions, we don't need new/malloc for the creation
const int row = 3;
const int col = 2;
int tst_matrix[row][col] ={{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}}
however, there is no easy to pass this two-dimensional array to another function, right? because
int matrix_process(int in_matrix[][])
is illegal, you have to specify all the dimensions except the first one. if I need to change the content of in_matrix, how could I easily pass tst_matrix to the function matrix_process?
second question:
what's the standard way to create 2-dimensional array in c++ with new? I dont wanna use std::vector etc.. here.
here is what I come up with, is it the best way?
int **tst_arr = new int*[5];
int i=0, j=0;
for (i=0;i<5;i++)
{
tst_arr[i] = new int[5];
for (j=0;j<5;j++)
{
tst_arr[i][j] = i*5+j;
}
}
In addition, if I pass tst_array to another function, like:
int change_row_col( int **a)
{
.....................
//check which element is 0
for (i=0; i<5; i++)
for(j=0;j<5;j++)
{
if (*(*(a+i)+j)==0) //why I can not use a[i][j] here?
{
row[i]=1;
col[j]=1;
}
}
.....................
}
In addition, if I use ((a+i)+j), the result is not what I want.
Here is the complete testing code I had:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
//Input Matrix--a: Array[M][N]
int change_row_col( int **a)
{
int i,j;
int* row = new int[5];
int* col = new int[5];
//initialization
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
{
row[i]=0;
}
for(j=0;j<5;i++)
{
col[j]=0;
}
//check which element is 0
for (i=0; i<5; i++)
for(j=0;j<5;j++)
{
if (*(*(a+i)+j)==0) //why I can not use a[i][j] here?
{
row[i]=1;
col[j]=1;
}
}
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
for (j=0;j<5;j++)
{
if (row[i] || col[j])
{
*(*(a+i)+j)=0;
}
}
return 1;
}
int main ()
{
int **tst_arr = new int*[5];
int i=0, j=0;
for (i=0;i<5;i++)
{
tst_arr[i] = new int[5];
for (j=0;j<5;j++)
{
tst_arr[i][j] = i*5+j;
}
}
for (i=0; i<5;i++)
{
for(j=0; j<5;j++)
{
cout<<" "<<tst_arr[i][j];
}
cout<<endl;
}
change_row_col(tst_arr);
for (i=0; i<5;i++)
{
for(j=0; j<5;j++)
{
cout<<" "<<tst_arr[i][j];
}
cout<<endl;
}
for (i=0;i<5;i++)
{
delete []tst_arr[i];
}
delete []tst_arr;
}
For multidimensional arrays were all the bounds are variable at run time, the most common approach that I know of is to use a dynamically allocated one dimensional array and do the index calculations "manually". In C++ you would normally use a class such as a std::vector specialization to manage the allocation and deallocation of this array.
This produces essentially the same layout as a multidimensional array with fixed bounds and doesn't have any real implied overhead as, without fixed bounds, any approach would require passing all bar one of the array dimensions around at run time.
I honestly think the best idea is to eschew raw C++ arrays in favor of a wrapper class like the boost::multi_array type. This eliminates all sorts of weirdness that arises with raw arrays (difficulty passing them S parameters to functions, issues keeping track of the sizes of the arrays, etc.)
Also, I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on std::vector. It's so much safer than raw arrays that there really isn't a good reason to use dynamic arrays over vectors in most circumstances. If you have a C background, it's worth taking the time to make the switch.
My solution using function template:
template<size_t M,size_t N>
void Fun(int (&arr)[M][N])
{
for ( int i = 0 ; i < M ; i++ )
{
for ( int j = 0 ; j < N ; j++ )
{
/*................*/
}
}
}
1)
template < typename T, size_t Row_, size_t Col_>
class t_two_dim {
public:
static const size_t Row = Row_;
static const size_t Col = Col_;
/* ... */
T at[Row][Col];
};
template <typename T>
int matrix_process(T& in_matrix) {
return T::Row * T::Col + in_matrix.at[0][0];
}
2) use std::vector. you're adding a few function calls (which may be inlined in an optimized build) and may be exporting a few additional symbols. i suppose there are very good reasons to avoid this, but appropriate justifications are sooooo rare. do you have an appropriate justification?
The simple answer is that the elegant way of doing it in C++ (you tagged C and C++, but your code is C++ new/delete) is by creating a bidimensional matrix class and pass that around (by reference or const reference). After that, the next option should always be std::vector (and again, I would implement the matrix class in terms of a vector). Unless you have a very compelling reason for it, I would avoid dealing with raw arrays of arrays.
If you really need to, but only if you really need to, you can perfectly work with multidimensional arrays, it is just a little more cumbersome than with plain arrays. If all dimensions are known at compile time, as in your first block this are some of the options.
const unsigned int dimX = ...;
const unsigned int dimY = ...;
int array[dimY][dimX];
void foo( int *array[dimX], unsigned int dimy ); // [1]
void foo( int (&array)[dimY][dimX] ); // [2]
In [1], by using pass-by-value syntax the array decays into a pointer to the first element, which means a pointer into an int [dimX], and that is what you need to pass. Note that you should pass the other dimension in another argument, as that will be unknown by the code in the function. In [2], by passing a reference to the array, all dimensions can be fixed and known. The compiler will ensure that you call only with the proper size of array (both dimensions coincide), and thus no need to pass the extra parameter. The second option can be templated to accomodate for different sizes (all of them known at compile time):
template <unsigned int DimX, unsigned int DimY>
void foo( int (&array)[DimY][DimX] );
The compiler will deduct the sizes (if a real array is passed to the template) and you will be able to use it inside the template as DimX and DimY. This enables the use of the function with different array sizes as long as they are all known at compile time.
If dimensions are not known at compile time, then things get quite messy and the only sensible approach is encapsulating the matrix in a class. There are basically two approaches. The first is allocating a single contiguous block of memory (as the compiler would do in the previous cases) and then providing functions that index that block by two dimensions. Look at the link up in the first paragraph for a simple approach, even if I would use std::vector instead of a raw pointer internally. Note that with the raw pointer you need to manually manage deletion of the pointer at destruction or your program will leak memory.
The other approach, which is what you started in the second part of your question is the one I would avoid at all costs, and consists in keeping a pointer into a block of pointers into integers. This complicates memory management (you moved from having to delete a pointer into having to delete DimY+1 pointers --each array[i], plus array) and you also need to manually guarantee during allocation that all rows contain the same number of columns. There is a substantial increase in the number of things that can go wrong and no gain, but some actual loss (more memory required to hold the intermediate pointers, worse runtime performance as you have to double reference, probably worse locality of data...
Wrapping up: write a class that encapsulates the bidimensional object in terms of a contiguous block of memory (array if sizes are known at compile time --write a template for different compile time sizes--, std::vector if sizes are not known until runtime, pointer only if you have a compelling reason to do so), and pass that object around. Any other thing will more often than not just complicate your code and make it more error prone.
For your first question:
If you need to pass a ND array with variable size you can follow the following method to define such a function. So, in this way you can pass the required size arguments to the function.
I have tested this in gcc and it works.
Example for 2D case:
void editArray(int M,int N,int matrix[M][N]){
//do something here
}
int mat[4][5];
editArray(4,5,mat); //call in this way

Why is this giving me a segfault?

This:
bool grid[1280][1024];
for (int x = 0; x<1280; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y<1024; y++)
{
grid[x][y] = false;
}
}
works fine, but
bool grid[1280][1024];
bool grid2[1280][1024];
for (int x = 0; x<1280; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y<1024; y++)
{
grid[x][y] = false;
grid2[x][y] = false;
}
}
gives me a segfault. Why?
Probably not enough stack space, your second example also crashes on my PC. Try allocating on the heap, or even better, use a proper container class:
#include <array>
#include <vector>
typedef std::array<bool, 1280> line;
int main()
{
std::vector<line> grid(1024);
std::vector<line> grid2(1024);
// no initialization to false necessary
}
Note how I switched the width and the height. You probably want your elements aligned this way to ensure fast linear access.
I think sizeof(bool) is defined as being the same as sizeof(char). Assuming a char takes one byte on the system you're on, that second example attempts to allocate 2*1280*1024 bytes on the stack. That's 2.5MB. Your system might not provide that much stack space.
Use one of the contaienrs from the standard library which use heap space to store their data.
Works fine for me, no segfaults on either using g++ 4.2.1, have you tried these examples alone?
Probably stack overflow. Create the array dynamically, it will work (because it will be created on the heap). Or, use std::vector< std::vector< char > >, instead. ( be very careful, if you decide to use std::vector< bool >.. unless you don't know what exactly you're doing (it's not normal STL container, containing just bools), use it with char ).
Using std::vector< std::vector< char > > will let you use the object as normal two-dimensional array.
EDIT:
std::vector< bool >: "This specialization is provided to optimize for space allocation: In this template specialization, each element occupies only one bit (which is eight times less than the smallest type in C++: char).
The references to elements of a bool vector returned by the vector members are not references to bool objects, but a special member type which is a reference to a single bit, defined inside the vector class specialization as". CPlusPlus