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;
};
Related
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;
}
}
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working with a list of array in C++, each in an object and wanted to split some of them.
These are allocated dynamically.
I wanted to do the split in constant time as it is theoretically possible:
from
[ pointer, size1 ]
to
[ pointer, size2 ]; [ other array ]; [ pointer + size2, size1-size2 ]
(+ other data each time)
I tried to use malloc and simply create a new pointer incremented with the size.
As it could be expected, I got error due to the automatic freeing of the memory.
I tried a realloc starting at the second address, but as in "what is the difference between malloc and calloc" on this site already told me it is not possible.
Is there a way to avoid recopying the second part and define correctly the pointer?
Having a linear cost where I know I can have constant time is frustrating.
class TableA
{
public:
(constructor)
void divide(int size); // the one i am trying to implement
(other, geteur, seteur)
private
Evenement* _el;
vector<bool>** _old;//said arrays
int _size;
}
nothing really complicated
Basically, the malloc library can't cope with mallocing a chunk of memory and then freeing it slices.
You can do what you want, but you must only free the memory all at once right at the end using the original pointer that malloc handed you.
e.g.
int* p = malloc(9 * sizeof(int));
int* q = p + 3;
int* r = p + 6;
// Now we have three pointers to three arrays of three integers.
// Do stuff with p, q, r
free(p); // p is the only pointer it is valid to free.
By the way, if this is really about C++, there are probably standard C++ data structures you can use.
I don't think you can have only part of a dynamic array freed by keeping track of pointers and length. However, you can fake this by making a new class to manage the starting array, allocate it however you want and have it managed by a std::shared_ptr.
You simply return a Class containing a shared_ptr to memory, plain pointer to first element, and array size. When the current Array class goes out of scope, the shared_ptr gets decremented, and when no slices of the memory are used anymore, the memory gets freed.
You need to be careful with this though, as there may be multiple objects referencing the same memory, but there's ways around that (marking the original invalid after splitting with a bool for example).
[Edit] Below is a very basic implementation of this idea. A split() operator can very easily be implemented in terms of 2 slice() operations. I'm not sure how you want to implement this in terms of your example above, as I'm not sure how you manage your vector<bool> **, but if you wanted the possibility of splitting your vector<bool>, you could instantiate a ShareVector<bool>, or if you have an array of vector<bool>, your make a SharedVector<vector<bool>> instead.
#ifndef __SharedVector__
#define __SharedVector__
#include <memory>
#include <assert.h>
template <typename T>
class SharedVector {
std::shared_ptr<T> _data;
T *_begin;
size_t _size;
// perhaps add size_t capacity if need for limited resizing arises.
public:
SharedVector<T>(size_t const size)
: _data(std::shared_ptr<T>(new T[size], []( T *p ) { delete[] p; })), _begin(_data.get()), _size(size)
{}
// standard copy and move constructors work fine
// pass shared_ptr by reference to avoid unnecessary refcount changes
SharedVector<T>(std::shared_ptr<T> &data, T *begin, size_t size)
: _data(data), _begin(begin), _size(size)
{}
T& operator[] (const size_t nIndex) {
assert(nIndex < _size);
return _begin[nIndex];
}
T const & operator[] (const size_t nIndex) const {
assert(nIndex < _size);
return _begin.get()[nIndex];
}
size_t size(){
return _size;
}
SharedVector<T> slice(size_t const begin, size_t const end) {
assert(begin + end < _size);
return SharedVector<T>(_data, _begin + begin, end - begin);
}
T *begin() {
return _begin;
}
T *end() {
return _begin + _size;
}
};
#endif
I think the malloc and create new pointer idea is good. But you need to free the memory manually I think.
Maybe you can use std::copy.
int* p = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int) * 5);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
p[i] = i;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
std::cout << p[i];
// tmp will hold 3 values
// p2 will hold 2 values
// so we want to copy first 3 into tmp
// and last 2 into p2
int tmp[3];
std::copy(p, p+3, tmp);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
std::cout << tmp[i];
int p2[2];
std::copy(p+3, p+5, p2);
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
std::cout << p2[i];
// get rid of original when done
free(p);
Output:
0123401234
The question is relatively unclear
But according to your topic
splitting dynamically allocated array without linear time copy
i would suggest you to use linked list instead of an array, you don't need to copy anything (and therefore no need to free anything UNLESS you wanna delete one of the item), manipulating the pointers would be sufficient for splitting a linked list
const int ADJ_MATRIX[VERTEX_NUM][VERTEX_NUM]={
{0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0},
{1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0},
{1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0},
{0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1},
{0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1},
{0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0},
{0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0},
{0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0}
};
typedef struct {
int vertex;
int matrix[VERTEX_NUM][VERTEX_NUM];
int vNum;
int eNum;
}Graph;
void buildGraph(Graph *graph){
graph->vNum = VERTEX_NUM;
graph->eNum = EDGE_NUM;
graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX;
}
The error occurs in this sentence:
graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX;
I am new to c++. please tell me why this problem occur and how to solve it?
I want to assign ADJ_MATRIX to the matrix in struct.
As was said, you can't assign arrays in C++. This is due to the compiler being a meanie, because the compiler can. It just won't let you do it...
... unless you trick it ;)
template <typename T, int N>
struct square_matrix {
T data[N][N];
};
square_matrix<int, 10> a;
square_matrix<int, 10> b;
a = b; // fine, and actually assigns the .data arrays
a.data = b.data; // not allowed, compiler won't let you assign arrays
The catch? Now the code needs some little things:
const square_matrix<int, VERTEX_NUM> ADJ_MATRIX={{
// blah blah
}}; // extra set of braces
typedef struct {
int vertex;
square_matrix<int, VERTEX_NUM> matrix;
int vNum;
int eNum;
}Graph;
void buildGraph(Graph *graph){
graph->vNum = VERTEX_NUM;
graph->eNum = EDGE_NUM;
graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX; // no change
}
And to access the cells, now we need to use graph->matrix.data[1][2]. This can be mitigated by overloading operator[] or operator() for square_matrix. However, this is now getting terribly close to the new std::array class, or the Boost equivalent boost::array, so it might be wise to consider those instead.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, who knows...) you can't just assign one array to another in C++.
If you want to copy an array, you will need to either copy each of it's elements into a new array one by one, or use the memcpy() function:
for( int i = 0; i < VERTEX_NUM; i++ )
for( int j = 0; j < VERTEX_NUM; j++ )
graph->matrix[i][j] = ADJ_MATRIX[i][j];
or
memcpy( graph->matrix, ADJ_MATRIX, VERTEX_NUM * VERTEX_NUM * sizeof(int) );
Arrays are not assignable. You can use memcpy:
memcpy(graph->matrix, ADJ_MATRIX, sizeof(graph->matrix));
You cannot assign an array to another array. You will need to copy the elements from the source to the destination index by index, or use memcpy to copy the data. Array assignment like this is not allowed
You are trying to assign your variable address of a constant data,
try using
memcpy(graph->matrix,ADJ_MATRIX,sizeof(ADJ_MATRIX));//using sizeof(graph->matrix) is safer.
You can't use an array in assignments. You may use cycles or memcpy instead
memcpy(graph->matrix, ADJ_MATRIX, VERTEX_NUM * VERTEX_NUM * sizeof(int));
or
for(int i = 0; i < VERTEX_NUM; ++i){
for(int j = 0; j < VERTEX_NUM; ++j){
graph->matrix[i][j] = ADJ_MATRIX[i][j];
}
}
The error is thrown, because int matrix[VERTEX_NUM][VERTEX_NUM] in a structure definition means that each structure will have a 2D array of integers of the predefined size and matrix is going to be pointing to its first element. The thing is that matrix cannot be assigned to an arbitrary address, because it's a const pointer i.e. its value (the address it's pointing to) cannot change.
You have 2 options here: you can either use memcpy or some stl algorithms to copy the ADJ_MATRIX into matrix directly or you can declare matrix as a pointer and do the assignment that is currently produces an error.
The latter can be done in the following way:
typedef struct {
int vertex;
const int (*matrix)[VERTEX_NUM];
int vNum;
int eNum;
}Graph;
Thus you can do graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX assignment, but you won't be able to modify the individual items in matrix due to constness. This means, graph->matrix[0][1] = 3; is not allowed, while you can read the elements freely.
It is possible to give an initializer list to the definition of a static array. Example:
int main()
{
int int_static[2] = {1,2};
}
Is a similar initializer list possible for a dynamic array?
int main()
{
int* int_ptr = new int[2];
}
This is closer to what I am trying to do:
struct foo
{
foo(){}
foo(void * ptr): ptr_(ptr) {}
void * ptr_;
};
int main()
{
foo* foo_ptr = new foo[10];
}
At initialization time not the default constructor should be called, but foo:foo(void*).
The point of having a static initializer list for a dynamic array might come handy in the case of Just-In-Time compilation for accelerator cores which do have only a limited amount of stack available, but at the same time you construct your objects with a (accelerator compile time = host run time) static initializer list.
I assume not (since this would require the compiler to generate additional code, namely to copy the values of the arguments to the heap location). I think c++0x supports some of this, but I cannot use it.
Right now I could use such a construct. Maybe someone knows a trick..
Best!
At the time the OP posted this question, C++11 support may not have been very prevalent yet, which is why the accepted answer says this is not possible. However, initializing a dynamic array with an explicit initializer list should now be supported in all major C++ compilers.
The syntax new int[3] {1, 2, 3} was standardized in C++11. Quoting the new expression page on cppreference.com:
The object created by a new-expression is initialized according to the following rules:
...
If type is an array type, an array of objects is initialized:
...
If initializer is a brace-enclosed list of arguments, the array is aggregate-initialized. (since C++11)
So, given the OP's example, the following is perfectly legal when using C++11 or newer:
foo * foo_array = new foo[2] { nullptr, nullptr };
Note that by providing pointers in the initializer list, we're actually coaxing the compiler to apply the foo(void * ptr) constructor (rather than the default constructor), which was the desired behavior.
No, you cannot do that.
I think C++ doesn't allow this because allowing such thing doesn't add any nice-to-have feature to the language. In other words, what would be the point of dynamic array if you use a static initializer to initialize it?
The point of dynamic array is to create an array of size N which is known at runtime, depending on the actual need. That is, the code
int *p = new int[2];
makes less sense to me than the following:
int *p = new int[N]; //N is known at runtime
If that is so, then how can you provide the number of elements in the static initializer because N isn't known until runtime?
Lets assume that you're allowed to write this:
int *p = new int[2] {10,20}; //pretend this!
But what big advantage are you getting by writing this? Nothing. Its almost same as:
int a[] = {10,20};
The real advantage would be when you're allowed to write that for arrays of N elements. But then the problem is this:
int *p = new int[N] {10,20, ... /*Oops, no idea how far we can go? N is not known!*/ };
No, you will have to create the elements dynamically.
Alternatively, you can use a local array and copy its elements over those of the dynamically allocated array:
int main() {
int _detail[] = { 1, 2 };
int * ptr = new int[2];
std::copy( _detail, _detail+(sizeof detail / sizeof *detail), ptr );
delete [] ptr;
}
In the limited version of setting all elements to 0, you can use an extra pair of parenthesis in the new call:
int * ptr = new int[2](); // will value initialize all elements
But you seem to be looking for a different thing.
Given that you're real class is more complex than an int, and constructed from differing values, it's complicated.
A vector can be constructed with iterators if you have an existing array/vector with the correct values to default from, or you have to use placement new.
//vector
int main()
{
int int_static[2] = {1,2};
std::vector<int> int_dynamic(int_static, int_static+2);
//this is what everyone else is saying. For good reason.
}
//placement new
int function_that_returns_constructed_from_values() {
return rand();
}
int main()
{
int count = 2;
char *char_dynamic = new char[count * sizeof(int)];
int *int_dynamic = char_dynamic;
for(int i=0; i<count; ++i)
new(int_dynamic+i)int(function_that_returns_constructed_from_values());
//stuff
for(int i=0; i<count; ++i)
(int_dynamic+i)->~int(); //obviously not really int
delete []char_dynamic;
}
Obviously, the vector is the preferred way to do this.
The initializer data must be somewhere anyway. Simply name it.
E.g.,
#include <stddef.h>
#include <algorithm> // std::copy
#include <vector>
typedef ptrdiff_t Size;
template< class Type, Size n >
Size countOf( Type (&)[n] ) { return n; }
int main()
{
using namespace std;
static int const initData[] = {1,2};
static Size const n = countOf( initData );
// Initialization of a dynamically allocated array:
int* pArray = new int[n];
copy( initData, initData + n, pArray );
// Initialization of a vector:
vector<int> v( initData, initData + n );
}
EDIT: fixed a thinko in above code. I hastened to add example on request. So what I put did erroneously use return value from std::copy.
Cheers & hth.,
as in the title is it possible to join a number of arrays together without copying and only using pointers? I'm spending a significant amount of computation time copying smaller arrays into larger ones.
note I can't used vectors since umfpack (some matrix solving library) does not allow me to or i don't know how.
As an example:
int n = 5;
// dynamically allocate array with use of pointer
int *a = new int[n];
// define array pointed by *a as [1 2 3 4 5]
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
a[i]=i+1;
}
// pointer to array of pointers ??? --> this does not work
int *large_a = new int[4];
for(int i=0;i<4;i++) {
large_a[i] = a;
}
Note: There is already a simple solution I know and that is just to iteratively copy them to a new large array, but would be nice to know if there is no need to copy repeated blocks that are stored throughout the duration of the program. I'm in a learning curve atm.
thanks for reading everyone
as in the title is it possible to join a number of arrays together without copying and only using pointers?
In short, no.
A pointer is simply an address into memory - like a street address. You can't move two houses next to each other, just by copying their addresses around. Nor can you move two houses together by changing their addresses. Changing the address doesn't move the house, it points to a new house.
note I can't used vectors since umfpack (some matrix solving library) does not allow me to or i don't know how.
In most cases, you can pass the address of the first element of a std::vector when an array is expected.
std::vector a = {0, 1, 2}; // C++0x initialization
void c_fn_call(int*);
c_fn_call(&a[0]);
This works because vector guarantees that the storage for its contents is always contiguous.
However, when you insert or erase an element from a vector, it invalidates pointers and iterators that came from it. Any pointers you might have gotten from taking an element's address no longer point to the vector, if the storage that it has allocated must change size.
No. The memory of two arrays are not necessarily contiguous so there is no way to join them without copying. And array elements must be in contiguous memory...or pointer access would not be possible.
I'd probably use memcpy/memmove, which is still going to be copying the memory around, but at least it's been optimized and tested by your compiler vendor.
Of course, the "real" C++ way of doing it would be to use standard containers and iterators. If you've got memory scattered all over the place like this, it sounds like a better idea to me to use a linked list, unless you are going to do a lot of random access operations.
Also, keep in mind that if you use pointers and dynamically allocated arrays instead of standard containers, it's a lot easier to cause memory leaks and other problems. I know sometimes you don't have a choice, but just saying.
If you want to join arrays without copying the elements and at the same time you want to access the elements using subscript operator i.e [], then that isn't possible without writing a class which encapsulates all such functionalities.
I wrote the following class with minimal consideration, but it demonstrates the basic idea, which you can further edit if you want it to have functionalities which it's not currently having. There should be few error also, which I didn't write, just to make it look shorter, but I believe you will understand the code, and handle error cases accordingly.
template<typename T>
class joinable_array
{
std::vector<T*> m_data;
std::vector<size_t> m_size;
size_t m_allsize;
public:
joinable_array() : m_allsize() { }
joinable_array(T *a, size_t len) : m_allsize() { join(a,len);}
void join(T *a, size_t len)
{
m_data.push_back(a);
m_size.push_back(len);
m_allsize += len;
}
T & operator[](size_t i)
{
index ix = get_index(i);
return m_data[ix.v][ix.i];
}
const T & operator[](size_t i) const
{
index ix = get_index(i);
return m_data[ix.v][ix.i];
}
size_t size() const { return m_allsize; }
private:
struct index
{
size_t v;
size_t i;
};
index get_index(size_t i) const
{
index ix = { 0, i};
for(auto it = m_size.begin(); it != m_size.end(); it++)
{
if ( ix.i >= *it ) { ix.i -= *it; ix.v++; }
else break;
}
return ix;
}
};
And here is one test code:
#define alen(a) sizeof(a)/sizeof(*a)
int main() {
int a[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6};
int b[] = {11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18};
joinable_array<int> arr(a,alen(a));
arr.join(b, alen(b));
arr.join(a, alen(a)); //join it again!
for(size_t i = 0 ; i < arr.size() ; i++ )
std::cout << arr[i] << " ";
}
Output:
1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6
Online demo : http://ideone.com/VRSJI
Here's how to do it properly:
template<class T, class K1, class K2>
class JoinArray {
JoinArray(K1 &k1, K2 &k2) : k1(k1), k2(k2) { }
T operator[](int i) const { int s = k1.size(); if (i < s) return k1.operator[](i); else return k2.operator[](i-s); }
int size() const { return k1.size() + k2.size(); }
private:
K1 &k1;
K2 &k2;
};
template<class T, class K1, class K2>
JoinArray<T,K1,K2> join(K1 &k1, K2 &k2) { return JoinArray<T,K1,K2>(k1,k2); }
template<class T>
class NativeArray
{
NativeArray(T *ptr, int size) : ptr(ptr), size(size) { }
T operator[](int i) const { return ptr[i]; }
int size() const { return size; }
private:
T *ptr;
int size;
};
int main() {
int array[2] = { 0,1 };
int array2[2] = { 2,3 };
NativeArray<int> na(array, 2);
NativeArray<int> na2(array2, 2);
auto joinarray = join(na,na2);
}
A variable that is a pointer to a pointer must be declared as such.
This is done by placing an additional asterik in front of its name.
Hence, int **large_a = new int*[4]; Your large_a goes and find a pointer, while you've defined it as a pointer to an int. It should be defined (declared) as a pointer to a pointer variable. Just as int **large_a; could be enough.