I am developing a program in which one of the task is to read points (x,y and z) from a text file and then store them in an array. Now the text file may contain 10^2 or even 10^6 points, depending upon the text file user selects. Therefore I am defining a dynamic array.
For allocating a dynamic 2D array, I wrote as below and it works fine:
const int array_size = 100000;
float** array = new float* [array_size];
for(int i = 0; i < array_size; ++i){
ary[i] = new float[2]; // 0,1,2 being the columns for x,y,z co-ordinates
}
After the points are saved in the array, I write the following to deallocate the unallocated memory :
for (int i = 0; i < array_size; i++){
delete [] array[i];
}
delete [] array;
and then my program stops working and shows "Project.exe stopped working".
If I don't deallocate, the program works just fine.
In your comment you say 0,1,2 being the columns for x,y,z co-ordinates, if that's the case, you need to be allocating as float[3]. When you allocate an array of float[N], you are allocating a chunk of the memory of the size N * sizeof(float), and you will index them in the array from 1 to N - 1. Therefore if you need indeces 0,1,2, you will need to allocate a memory of the size 3 * sizeof(float), which makes it float[3].
Because other than that, I can compile and run the code without an error. If you fix it and still get an error, it might be your compiler problem. Then try to decrease 100000 to a small number and try again.
You are saying that you are trying to implement a dynamic array, this is what std::vector does and I would highly recommend that you use it. This way you are using something from the standard library that's extremely well tested and you won't run into issues by essentially trying to roll your own version of std::vector. Additionally this approach wraps memory better as it uses RAII which leverages the language to solve a lot of memory management issues. This has other benefits too like making your code more exception safe.
Also if you are storing x,y,z coordinates consider using a struct or a tuple, I think that enhances readability a lot. You can typedef the coordinate type too. Something like std::vector< coord_t > is more readable to me.
(Thanx a lot for suggestions!!)
Finally I am using vectors for the stated problem for reasons as below:
1.Unlike Arrays (not array object ofcourse), I don't need to manually deallocate unallocated memory.
2.There are numerous built in methods defined under vector class
Vector size can be extended at later stages
Below is how I used 2D Vector to store points (x,y,z co-ordinates)
Initialized (allocated memory) a 2D vector:
vector<vector<float>> array (1000, vector<float> array (3));
Where 1000 is the number of rows, and 3 is the number of columns
Once declared, values can be passed simply as:
array[i][j] = some value;
Also, at later stage I declared functions taking vector arguments and returning vectors as:
vector <vector <float>> function_name ( vector <vector <float>>);
vector <vector <float>> function_name ( vector <vector <float>> input_vector_name)
{
return output_vector_name_created_inside_function
}
Note: This method crates a copy of vector while returning, use pointer to return by reference. Even though mine is not working when I return vector by reference :(
For multi arrays I recommended use boost::multi_array.
Example:
typedef boost::multi_array<double, 3> array_type;
array_type A(boost::extents[3][4][2]);
A[0][0][0] = 3.14;
Related
First of all, happy new year!
So, I'd like to ask if I could use some input values as the size of a bidimensional array, for example:
I'd like to know, if instead of doing this:
const int N = 10;
const int M = 10;
typedef int IntMatrix[N][M];
Let's say that would be the max size of the array I could create, but then the user inputs that the size must have a size of 5x5. I know I could then use 5x5 as a limit when doing stuff, but could I do like the same, but using the input values as the dimension of the Matrix?
Something like:
cin >> N >> M;
And then use that as the MAX size of each dimension.
Thanks for your help!
No. The size of an array must be known at compile time and can not be determined at runtime as described in this tutorial for example. Therefore, the size of the array cannot depend on user input.
What you can do, is allocate an array dynamically and store it's address in a pointer. The size of a dynamic array can be determined at runtime. However, there is a problem. Only the outermost dimension of a dynamically allocated 2D array may be determined at runtime. You have 2 options: Either you allocate a flat array of size NxM where the rows are stored continuously one after the other and you calculate the index using maths. Or, you use an array of pointers and assign each pointer to a dynamically allocated array column. The first option is more efficient.
There is another problem. Dynamic memory management is hard, and it's never a good idea to do it manually even if you know what you're doing. Much less if you don't. There is a container class in the standard library which takes care of memory management of dynamic arrays. It's std::vector. Always use it when you need a dynamic array. Your options stay similar. Either use a flat, NxM size vector, or a vector of vectors.
The array should be dynamically allocatedn because array size should be known at compile-time. You can do this way:
int N,M; // Dimensions
int** intMatrix; // Array of array
std::cin << N << M;
intMatrix = new int*[N]; // Allocate N the row
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
intMatrix[i] = new int[M]; // For each row, allocate the col
}
// aaaand don't forget to free memory like this:
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
delete [] intMatrix[i];
}
delete [] intMatrix;
CUDA documentation recommends the use of cudaMemCpy2D() for 2D arrays (and similarly cudaMemCpy3D() for 3D arrays) instead of cudaMemCpy() for better performance as the former allocates device memory more appropriately. On the other hand, all cudaMemCpy functions, just like memcpy(), require contiguous allocation of memory.
This is all fine if I create my (host) array as, for example, float myArray[h][w];. However, it most likely will not work if I use something like:
float** myArray2 = new float*[h];
for( int i = 0 ; i < h ; i++ ){
myArray2[i] = new float[w];
}
This is not a big problem except when one is trying to implement CUDA into an existing project, which is the problem I am facing. Right now, I create a temporary 1D array, copy the contents of my 2D array into it and use cudaMemCpy() and repeat the whole process to get the results after the kernel launch, but this does not seem an elegant/efficient way.
Is there a better way to handle this situation? Specifically, is there a way to create a genuine 2D array on the heap with contiguously allocated rows so that I can use cudaMemCpy2D()?
P.S: I couldn't find the answer to this question the following previous similar posts:
Allocate 2D array with cudaMallocPitch and copying with
cudaMemcpy2D
Assigning memory for contiguous 2D array
Dynamic 2d Array non contiguous memory c++ (The second answer in
this one is rather puzzling.)
Allocate the big array, then use pointer arithmetic to find the actual beginnings of the rows.
float* bigArray = new float[h * w]
float** myArray2 = new float*[h]
for( int i = 0 ; i < h ; i++ ){
myArray2[i] = &bigArray[i * w];
}
Your myArray2 array of pointers gives you C/C++ style two dimensional arrays behavior, bigArray gives you the contiguous block of memory needed by CUDA.
void prob6 (int n)
{
int f,c,z=0, mat[n][n]; //error because of mat[n][n]
for(int f=1;f<=n;f++)
{
z=f*n;
for(int c=1;c<=n;c++)
{ ............
I am creating various number patterns in matrices, where their dimensions are [n][n] (square).
You can't statically allocate a variable amount of memory. You may want to allocate memory on the heap. You also need to remember to delete them when you're done. This is tedious, so use a std::vector.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> myVector; //Vector inside vector.
(Note the space between the two ">"s. >> is a different operator)
A simple example of vector can be found at: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/push_back
More: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector
I have a for-loop that needs to incrementally add columns to a matrix. The size of the rows is known before entering the for-loop, but the size of the columns varies depending on some condition. Following code illustrates the situation:
N = getFeatureVectorSize();
float **fmat; // N rows, dynamic number of cols
for(size_t i = 0; i < getNoObjects(); i++)
{
if(Object[i] == TARGET_OBJECT)
{
float *fv = new float[N];
getObjectFeatureVector(fv);
// How to add fv to fmat?
}
}
Edit 1 This is how I temporary solved my problem:
N = getFeatureVectorSize();
float *fv = new float[N];
float *fmat = NULL;
int col_counter = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < getNoObjects(); i++)
{
if(Object[i] == TARGET_OBJECT)
{
getObjectFeatureVector(fv);
fmat = (float *) realloc(fmat, (col_counter+1)*N*sizeof(float));
for(int r=0; r<N; r++) fmat[col_counter*N+r] = fv[r];
col_counter++;
}
}
delete [] fv;
free(fmat);
However, I'm still looking for a way to incrementally allocate memory of a two-dimensional array in C/C++.
To answer your original question
// How to add fv to fmat?
When you use float **fmat you are declaring a pointer to [an array of] pointers. Therefore you have to allocate (and free!) that array before you can use it. Think of it as the row pointer holder:
float **fmat = new float*[N];
Then in your loop you simply do
fmat[i] = fv;
However I suggest you look at the std::vector approach since it won't be significantly slower and will spare you from all those new and delete.
better - use boost::MultiArray as in the top answer here :
How do I best handle dynamic multi-dimensional arrays in C/C++?
trying to dynamically allocate your own matrix type is pain you do not need.
Alternatively - as a low-tech, quick and dirty solution, use a vector of vectors, like this :
C++ vector of vectors
If you want to do this without fancy data structures, you should declare fmat as an array of size N of pointers. For each column, you'll probably have to just guess at a reasonable size to start with. Dynamically allocate an array of that size of floats, and set the appropriate element of fmat to point at that array. If you run out of space (as in, there are more floats to be added to that column), try allocating a new array of twice the previous size. Change the appropriate element of fmat to point to the new array and deallocate the old one.
This technique is a bit ugly and can cause many allocations/deallocations if your predictions aren't good, but I've used it before. If you need dynamic array expansion without using someone else's data structures, this is about as good as you can get.
To elaborate the std::vector approach, this is how it would look like:
// initialize
N = getFeatureVectorSize();
vector<vector<float>> fmat(N);
Now the loop looks the same, you access the rows by saying fmat[i], however there is no pointer to a float. You simply call fmat[i].resize(row_len) to set the size and then assign to it using fmat[i][z] = 1.23.
In your solution I suggest you make getObjectFeatureVector return a vector<float>, so you can just say fmat[i] = getObjectFeatureVector();. Thanks to the C++11 move constructors this will be just as fast as assigning the pointers. Also this solution will solve the problem of getObjectFeatureVector not knowing the size of the array.
Edit: As I understand you don't know the number of columns. No problem:
deque<vector<float>> fmat();
Given this function:
std::vector<float> getObjectFeatureVector();
This is how you add another column:
fmat.push_back(getObjectFeatureVector());
The number of columns is fmat.size() and the number of rows in a column is fmat[i].size().
I am trying to make a 3-d integer array where I know the number of columns is 2.
I am initializing the array sequentially using malloc. Please suggest what could be wrong?
int **output_vertex[2];
for(int j=0;j<4;j++)
output_vertex[j]= (int **)malloc(sizeof(int **));
output_vertex[1][0]==(int*)malloc(2*sizeof(int));
output_vertex[1][0][0] =11;
//also tried *output_vertex[1][0] =11;
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what your error is (or which one you'd be referring to). Firstly I don't know why you're statically creating an array and then using malloc. Secondly, I don't understand why you're iterating through your for loop four times (0, 1, 2, 3). Shouldn't your allocation be something like this:
int **output_vertex;
output_vertex = (int **)malloc(2*(sizeof(int **)));
The array declaration you have is not what you intended. You have a two-element array of pointers to pointers to int. This page is a good guide to reading those declarations.
Personally, I prefer to use typedefs and build a complex type like this from the ground up:
typedef int[2] element_type; // this is the 2-element array of ints
typedef element_type* inner_type; // this is the array of unknown size
typedef inner_type[5] outer_type; // this is the actual type we want to use
outer_type output_vertex; // we now have an array of 5 inner_type variables on the stack
// The output_vertex is *uninitialized* so we have to initialize each of its elements
for (int i=0; i < 5; ++i) {
output_vertex[i] = new inner_type[SOME_SIZE];
}
// do stuff with output_vertex now that it's initialized
// then, to prevent memory leaks, delete the memory you allocated
for (int i=0; i < 5; ++i) {
delete[] output_vertex[i];
}
There are probably ways to simplify, but that should be a start.
If you want the inner_type to be appendable, I would strongly recommend using std::vector instead of raw arrays. There is far much bookkeeping to be done with raw arrays, so I won't give an example of that; however, here's more-or-less what you would do with std::vector:
typedef std::pair<int,int> element_type; // this is the 2-element array of ints as a pair
typedef std::vector<element_type> inner_type; // dynamic vector this time
inner_type output_vertex[5]; // we now have an array of 5 inner_type variables on the stack
// do stuff with output_vertex
std::vector is just as fast as a dynamically-allocated array, but you don't have to do any of the bookkeeping yourself. You also have the benefit of not needing to manage as many heap-allocated objects.
Note that raw arrays aren't compatible with containers (e.g. std::vector), so I use std::pair here instead.
If you're able to use C++11 (or boost) and you need a fixed-size array of greater than two items that can fit into a standard container, use std::array.