This question already has answers here:
How to get size c++ dynamic array
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Code for dynamic array by entering size and storing it into "n" variable, but I want to get the array length from a template method and not using "n".
int* a = NULL; // Pointer to int, initialize to nothing.
int n; // Size needed for array
cin >> n; // Read in the size
a = new int[n]; // Allocate n ints and save ptr in a.
for (int i=0; i<n; i++) {
a[i] = 0; // Initialize all elements to zero.
}
. . . // Use a as a normal array
delete [] a; // When done, free memory pointed to by a.
a = NULL; // Clear a to prevent using invalid memory reference.
This code is similar, but using a dynamic array:
#include <cstddef>
#include <iostream>
template< typename T, std::size_t N > inline
std::size_t size( T(&)[N] ) { return N ; }
int main()
{
int a[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
const void* b[] = { a, a+1, a+2, a+3 };
std::cout << size(a) << '\t' << size(b) << '\n' ;
}
You can't. The size of an array allocated with new[] is not stored in any way in which it can be accessed. Note that the return type of new [] is not an array - it is a pointer (pointing to the array's first element). So if you need to know a dynamic array's length, you have to store it separately.
Of course, the proper way of doing this is avoiding new[] and using a std::vector instead, which stores the length for you and is exception-safe to boot.
Here is what your code would look like using std::vector instead of new[]:
size_t n; // Size needed for array - size_t is the proper type for that
cin >> n; // Read in the size
std::vector<int> a(n, 0); // Create vector of n elements initialised to 0
. . . // Use a as a normal array
// Its size can be obtained by a.size()
// If you need access to the underlying array (for C APIs, for example), use a.data()
// Note: no need to deallocate anything manually here
Related
I am just trying to initialize a huge array. My code is given below:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int T;
cin >> T;
while (T--)
{
int d;
cin >> d;
int arr[d + 1];
for (int i = 0; i <= d; i++)
arr[i] = 0;
}
return 0;
}
Now when I input
1 502334160
then I got error Runtime Error - SIGSEGV.
I want to know how to initialize this type of array.
The array may be too big to fit in your program's stack address space. If you allocate the array on the heap you should be fine.
int* arr = new int[d + 1];
But remember that this will require you to delete[] the array. A better solution would be to use std::vector<int> and resize it to d + 1 elements.
First: Variable length arrays (VLA) are illegal in C++. It might be an extension (as it is in gcc), but it won't build on all compilers.
Second: You can initialize an array with brace initialization. If you don't specify all elements, the others will get default value of 0 (in case of int). So:
int arr[SIZE] {} //specify 0 elements -> all initialized to value 0
Third thing: you allocate your array on stack, so when you create an array of length 1502334160 than it's stack overflow. This amount of ints (assuming 4 bytes each) is almost 6GB of memory while stack is usually 1-2MB.
I have this function:
void reverse(int* nums, unsigned int size)
This function is supposed to reverse the values in the array it is getting.
Now for reversing I thought to create another array with the size of the array passed in. Assigning this new one from the end of the original array to the start.
But I am a kind of new in C++, So I don't know how to create dynamic array in the size of the parameter of the function.
It's actually not necessary to allocate a new array here. See if you can find a way to solve this problem just by rearranging the existing elements in-place.
Given that this seems like it's an exercise with pointers, you can allocate space by using the new[] operator:
int* auxiliaryArray = new int[size];
You'd then free it by writing
delete[] auxiliaryArray;
However, this isn't the preferred way of doing this in C++. The better route is to use std::vector, which does all its own memory management. That would look like this:
std::vector<int> auxSpace(size);
You can then access elements using the square brackets as you could in a real array. To do this, you'll need to #include <vector> at the top of your program.
In C++, the recommended way to create an array of variable size would be to use an std::vector
#include <vector>
void reverse(int* nums, unsigned int size)
{
std::vector<int> V(size);
...
}
But that approach isn't the best here for performance because it requires additional memory to be allocated of the size of the array, which could be big. It would be better to start from the outside of the array and swap members one by one that are at mirroring positions (so if the size is 5, swap 0 and 4, then swap 1 and 3 and leave 2 alone). This only requires temporary storage of a single int.
You can do it without the need to create another array:
void reverse(int* array, const int size){
for(int i = 0; i < size / 2; i++){
int tmp = array[i];
array[i] = array[size - 1 - i];
array[size - 1 - i] = tmp;
}
}
int main(){
int array[] = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11};
const int size = sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]);
reverse(array, size);
for(int i(0); i < size; i++)
std::cout << array[i] << ", ";
}
As you can see above in the loop you only need to swap the first element (element 0) with the n-1 element and the second one with n-1-1 and son on...
Remember arrays are indexed from 0 through n-1.
If you want to allocate new array which is not practical:
int* reverse2(int* array, const int size){
int* tmp = new int[size];
for(int i(size - 1), j(0); j < size; j++, i--)
tmp[j] = array[i];
return tmp;
}
int main(){
int array[] = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11};
for(int i(0); i < size; i++)
std::cout << array[i] << ", ";
std::cout << std::endl;
int* newArray = reverse2(array, size);
for(int i(0) ; i < size; i++)
std::cout << newArray[i] << ", ";
std::cout << std::endl;
delete[] newArray;
return 0;
}
If you want to use a new array you can, but I think is to kill flies with a cannon.
Looks like you are using plain C code and not C++. I say that because of the signature of the function. The signature of the function in a common C++ code could be something like this other:
void reverse(std::vector& items);
You can reverse the current array without a new array, using the current one. You are passing the pointer to the first item of the array, and the content is not constant so that you can modify it. A better signature for the function could be:
void reverse(int* const nums, const unsigned int size);
Looks like a pointer problem. Think about the boundaries to iterate the positions of the array. Would you need to iterate the whole array? Maybe only half array? ;)
As bonus track, what about to exchange the values without an auxiliar variable? (this is true into this case that we are using the fundamental type int... remember the binary arithmetic).
array[pos_head] ^= array[pos_tail];
array[pos_tail] ^= array[pos_head];
array[pos_head] ^= array[pos_tail];
I am a Fortran user and do not know C++ well enough. I need to make some additions into an existing C++ code. I need to create a 2d matrix (say A) of type double whose size (say m x n) is known only during the run. With Fortran this can be done as follows
real*8, allocatable :: A(:,:)
integer :: m, n
read(*,*) m
read(*,*) n
allocate(a(m,n))
A(:,:) = 0.0d0
How do I create a matrix A(m,n), in C++, when m and n are not known at the time of compilation? I believe the operator new in C++ can be useful but not not sure how to implement it with doubles. Also, when I use following in C++
int * x;
x = new int [10];
and check the size of x using sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]), I do not have 10, any comments why?
To allocate dynamically a construction similar to 2D array use the following template.
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int m, n;
std::cout << "Enter the number of rows: ";
std::cin >> m;
std::cout << "Enter the number of columns: ";
std::cin >> n;
double **a = new double * [m];
for ( int i = 0; i < m; i++ ) a[i] = new double[n]();
//...
for ( int i = 0; i < m; i++ ) delete []a[i];
delete []a;
}
Also you can use class std::vector instead of the manually allocated pointers.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main()
{
int m, n;
std::cout << "Enter the number of rows: ";
std::cin >> m;
std::cout << "Enter the number of columns: ";
std::cin >> n;
std::vector<std::vector<double>> v( m, std::vector<double>( n ) );
//...
}
As for this code snippet
int * x;
x = new int [10];
then x has type int * and x[0] has type int. So if the size of the pointer is equal to 4 and the size of an object of type int is equal also to 4 then sizeof( x ) / sizeof( x[0] ) will yields 1. Pointers do not keep the information whether they point to only a single object or the first object pf some sequence of objects.
I would recommend using std::vector and avoid all the headache of manually allocating and deallocating memory.
Here's an example program:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
typedef std::vector<double> Row;
typedef std::vector<Row> Matrix;
void testMatrix(int M, int N)
{
// Create a row with all elements set to 0.0
Row row(N, 0.0);
// Create a matrix with all elements set to 0.0
Matrix matrix(M, row);
// Test accessing the matrix.
for ( int i = 0; i < M; ++i )
{
for ( int j = 0; j < N; ++j )
{
matrix[i][j] = i+j;
std::cout << matrix[i][j] << " ";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
}
int main()
{
testMatrix(10, 20);
}
The formal C++ way of doing it would be this:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> a;
This creates container which contains a zero size set of sub-containers. C++11/C++13 provide std::array for fixed-sized containers, but you specified runtime sizing.
We now have to impart our dimensions on this and, unfortunately. Lets assign the top-level:
a.resize(10);
(you can also push or insert elements)
What we now have is a vector of 10 vectors. Unfortunately, they are all independent, so you would need to:
for (size_t i = 0; i < a.size(); ++i) {
a[i].resize(10);
}
We now have a 10x10. We can also use vectors constructor:
std::vector<std::vector<int>> a(xSize, std::vector<int>(ySize)); // assuming you want a[x][y]
Note that vectors are fully dynamic, so we can resize elements as we need:
a[1].push_back(10); // push value '10' onto a[1], creating an 11th element in a[1]
a[2].erase(2); // remove element 2 from a[2], reducing a[2]s size to 9
To get the size of a particular slot:
a.size(); // returns 10
a[1].size(); // returns 11 after the above
a[2].size(); // returns 9 after teh above.
Unfortunately C++ doesn't provide a strong, first-class way to allocate an array that retains size information. But you can always create a simple C-style array on the stack:
int a[10][10];
std::cout << "sizeof a is " << sizeof(a) <<'\n';
But using an allocator, that is placing the data onto the heap, requires /you/ to track size.
int* pointer = new int[10];
At this point, "pointer" is a numeric value, zero to indicate not enough memory was available or the location in memory where the first of your 10 consecutive integer storage spaces are located.
The use of the pointer decorator syntax tells the compiler that this integer value will be used as a pointer to store addresses and so allow pointer operations via the variable.
The important thing here is that all we have is an address, and the original C standard didn't specify how the memory allocator would track size information, and so there is no way to retrieve the size information. (OK, technically there is, but it requires using compiler/os/implementation specific information that is subject to frequent change)
These integers must be treated as a single object when interfacing with the memory allocation system -- you can't, for example:
delete pointer + 5;
to delete the 5th integer. They are a single allocation unit; this notion allows the system to track blocks rather than individual elements.
To delete an array, the C++ syntax is
delete[] pointer;
To allocate a 2-dimensional array, you will need to either:
Flatten the array and handle sizing/offsets yourself:
static const size_t x = 10, y = 10;
int* pointer = new int[x * y];
pointer[0] = 0; // position 0, the 1st element.
pointer[x * 1] = 0; // pointer[1][0]
or you could use
int access_2d_array_element(int* pointer, const size_t xSize, const size_t ySize, size_t x, size_t y)
{
assert(x < xSize && y < ySize);
return pointer[y * xSize + x];
}
That's kind of a pain, so you would probably be steered towards encapsulation:
class Array2D
{
int* m_pointer;
const size_t m_xSize, m_ySize;
public:
Array2D(size_t xSize, size_t ySize)
: m_pointer(new int[xSize * ySize])
, m_xSize(xSize)
, m_ySize(ySize)
{}
int& at(size_t x, size_t y)
{
assert(x < m_xSize && y < m_ySize);
return m_pointer[y * m_xSize + x];
}
// total number of elements.
size_t arrsizeof() const
{
return m_xSize * m_ySize;
}
// total size of all data elements.
size_t sizeof() const
{
// this sizeof syntax makes the code more generic.
return arrsizeof() * sizeof(*m_pointer);
}
~Array2D()
{
delete[] m_pointer;
}
};
Array2D a(10, 10);
a.at(1, 3) = 13;
int x = a.at(1, 3);
Or,
For each Nth dimension (N < dimensions) allocate an array of pointers-to-pointers, only allocating actual ints for the final dimension.
const size_t xSize = 10, ySize = 10;
int* pointer = new int*(x); // the first level of indirection.
for (size_t i = 0; i < x; ++i) {
pointer[i] = new int(y);
}
pointer[0][0] = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < x; ++i) {
delete[] pointer[i];
}
delete[] pointer;
This last is more-or-less doing the same work, it just creates more memory fragmentation than the former.
-----------EDIT-----------
To answer the question "why do I not have 10" you're probably compiling in 64-bit mode, which means that "x" is an array of 10 pointers-to-int, and because you're in 64-bit mode, pointers are 64-bits long, while ints are 32 bits.
The C++ equivalent of your Fortran code is:
int cols, rows;
if ( !(std::cin >> cols >> rows) )
// error handling...
std::vector<double> A(cols * rows);
To access an element of this array you would need to write A[r * rows + c] (or you could do it in a column-major fashion, that's up to you).
The element access is a bit clunky, so you could write a class that wraps up holding this vector and provides a 2-D accessor method.
In fact your best bet is to find a free library that already does this, instead of reinventing the wheel. There isn't a standard Matrix class in C++, because somebody would always want a different option (e.g. some would want row-major storage, some column-major, particular operations provided, etc. etc.)
Someone suggested boost::multi_array; that stores all its data contiguously in row-major order and is probably suitable. If you want standard matrix operations consider something like Eigen, again there are a lot of alternatives out there.
If you want to roll your own then it could look like:
struct FortranArray2D // actually easily extensible to any number of dimensions
{
FortranArray2D(size_t n_cols, size_t n_rows)
: n_cols(n_cols), n_rows(n_rows), content(n_cols * n_rows) { }
double &operator()(size_t col, size_t row)
{ return content.at(row * n_rows + col); }
void resize(size_t new_cols, size_t new_rows)
{
FortranArray2D temp(new_cols, new_rows);
// insert some logic to move values from old to new...
*this = std::move(temp);
}
private:
size_t n_rows, n_cols;
std::vector<double> content;
};
Note in particular that by avoiding new you avoid the thousand and one headaches that come with manual memory management. Your class is copyable and movable by default. You could add further methods to replicate any functionality that the Fortran array has which you need.
int ** x;
x = new int* [10];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
x[i] = new int[5];
Unfortunately you'll have to store the size of matrix somewhere else.
C/C++ won't do it for you. sizeof() works only when compiler knows the size, which is not true in dynamic arrays.
And if you wan to achieve it with something more safe than dynamic arrays:
#include <vector>
// ...
std::vector<std::vector<int>> vect(10, std::vector<int>(5));
vect[3][2] = 1;
int main()
{
int arraySize;
int arrayMain[arraySize-1];
cout << "\n\nEnter Total Number of Elements in Array.\n\n";
cin >> arraySize;
arrayMain[arraySize-1]={0};
cout <<"\n\n" <<arrayMain;
return 0;
}
my compiler freezes when I compile the above code. I am confused on how to set a dynamic array to 0?
You use a std::vector:
std::vector<int> vec(arraySize-1);
Your code is invalid because 1) arraySize isn't initialized and 2) you can't have variable length arrays in C++. So either use a vector or allocate the memory dynamically (which is what std::vector does internally):
int* arrayMain = new int[arraySize-1] ();
Note the () at the end - it's used to value-initialize the elements, so the array will have its elements set to 0.
if you want to initialize whole array to zero do this ,
int *p = new int[n]{0};
If you must use a dynamic array you can use value initialization (though std::vector<int> would be the recommended solution):
int* arrayMain = new int[arraySize - 1]();
Check the result of input operation to ensure the variable has been assigned a correct value:
if (cin >> arraySize && arraySize > 1) // > 1 to allocate an array with at least
{ // one element (unsure why the '-1').
int* arrayMain = new int[arraySize - 1]();
// Delete 'arrayMain' when no longer required.
delete[] arrayMain;
}
Note the use of cout:
cout <<"\n\n" <<arrayMain;
will print the address of the arrayMain array, not each individual element. To print each individual you need index each element in turn:
for (int i = 0; i < arraySize - 1; i++) std::cout << arrayMain[i] << '\n';
I read to get the length of array in C++, you do this:
int arr[17];
int arrSize = sizeof(arr) / sizeof(int);
I tried to do the same for a string:
where I have
string * arr;
arr = new (nothrow) string [213561];
And then I do
arr[k] = "stuff";
where I loop through each index and put "stuff" in it.
Now I want the size of the array which should be 213561, what's the correct way to do it and why is it so complex in C++?
What you are trying to do cannot work because sizeof works on types at compile-time (and pointer types never hold the size of the array they may be pointing to).
In your case, computing sizeof(arr) returns the size taken in memory by the pointer, not
size of the array * size of a std::string
I suggest you use one of these two options
either use fixed-size arrays (sizeof works)
or vectors (myVector.size() returns what you need)
... unless you have a good reason not to.
The correct way of doing this in C++ is to use a vector. That way you can either specify a size up-front, or resize it as you go.
Specifying size up-front:
using namespace std;
vector<string> arr(213561);
for (vector<string>::iterator p = arr.begin(); p != arr.end(); ++p)
{
*p = "abc";
}
Expanding the vector as you go:
using namespace std;
vector<string> arr; // <-- note, default constructor
for (int i = 0; i < 213561; ++i)
{
// add elements to the end of the array, automatically reallocating memory if necessary
arr.push_back("abc");
}
Either way, the size of the array is found with:
size_t elements = arr.size(); // = 213561
The sizeof method only works as long as your array is really an array, i.e. an object that has the array type. In your first example object arr has type int[17]. It is an array type, which means that you can use the sizeof method and get 17 as the result.
Once you convert your array type T[N] to a pointer type T *, you basically lose your array type. The sizeof method applied to a pointer will not evaluate to the size of the original array.
When you allocate array of type T[N] with new[], the result is a pointer of type T * right away. It is not an array type from the very beginning. The information about array size is lost right away and trying to use the sizeof method with such a pointer will not work. In order to preserve the size information about a dynamically allocated run-time sized array, you have to store it in a separate variable yourself.
Here is how you find the size of an array:
const size_t ARRAY_SIZE = 17;
int array[ARRAY_SIZE];
//...
std::cout << "My array size is: " << ARRAY_SIZE << "\n";
You can put ARRAY_SIZE into a header so that other translation units can access the array size.
If you want a dynamic array, that will grow as needed, try std::vector.
You need to keep track of the length using a separate variable. There is no way of getting the length of an area that you only have a pointer to, unless you store that length somewhere.
You cannot get the length of the allocated array.
What you can do is save it seperately at the time of allocation..
Also, you could check the length of the string (which isn't what you're asking, but still..) using strlen()
In c++ here arr is simply a reference to the first element of the array. In case of dynamic arrays it is not possible.
There is a subtle nuance in both C and C++ with memory allocation. Neither language supports dynamic arrays. Here is what you are seeing:
int ary[17];
int arrSize = sizeof(ary) / sizeof(ary[0]);
Here ary is a true array of 17 integers. The array size calculation works because sizeof(ary) returns the size of the memory block allocated for the entire array. You divide this by the size of each element and violà you have the number of elements in the array.
std::string * arr;
arr = new (std::nothrow) std::string[213561];
In this case arr is a pointer to some memory. The new operator allocates a block of memory large enough to hold 213,561 contiguous std::string objects and constructs each of them into the memory. The arr variable simply points to the beginning of the block of memory. C++ does not track the number of elements that you have allocated. You didn't really create a dynamic array - instead, you have allocated enough memory for a bunch of contiguous objects.
C and C++ both allow you to apply the subscripting operator to a pointer as syntactical sugar. You will see a lot of comments about how arr[0] translates into *(arr + 0). The reality is that allocating memory using the new operator results in a block of memory that is not an array at all. The syntactical sugar makes it look like one. The next thing that you will encounter is that multi-dimensional arrays are similar sugar.
Consider the following snippet. Once you understand what is going on there, you will be a lot closer to understanding how memory works. This is the primary reason why C and C++ cannot tell you how large an array is if it is dynamically allocated - it does not know the size, all that it has is a pointer to the allocated memory.
#include <iostream>
int
main()
{
//
// The compiler translates array subscript notation into
// pointer arithmetic in simple cases so "hello"[3] is
// is translated into *("hello" + 3). Since addition is
// commutative, the order of "hello" and 3 are irrelevant.
//
std::cout
<< "\"hello\"[3] = '" << "hello"[3] << "'\n"
<< "3[\"hello\"] = " << 3["hello"] << "\n"
<< std::endl;
//
// All memory is linear in C or C++. So an 3x3 array of
// integers is a contiguous block of 9 integers in row
// major order. The following snippet prints out the 3x3
// identity matrix using row and column syntax.
//
int ary[3][3] = { { 1, 0, 0 },
{ 0, 1, 0 },
{ 0, 0, 1 } };
for (int r=0; r<3; ++r) {
for (int c=0; c<3; ++c) {
std::cout << "\t" << ary[r][c];
}
std::cout << "\n";
}
std::cout << "\n";
//
// Since memory is linear, we can also access the same
// 3x3 array linearly through a pointer. The inner loop
// is what the compiler is doing when you access ary[r][c]
// above - "ary[r][c]" becomes "*(ptr + (r * 3) + c)"
// since the compiler knows the dimensions of "ary" at
// compile time.
//
int *ptr = &ary[0][0];
for (int i=0; i<9; ++i) {
ptr[i] = i;
}
for (int r=0; r<3; ++r) {
for (int c=0; c<3; ++c) {
std::cout << "\t" << *(ptr + (r * 3) + c);
}
std::cout << "\n";
}
return 0;
}