Dynamic Array. Size ignored. C++ - c++

I am new to C++. I try to understand Memory Management in C++ and also to work with pointers.
I have a question about dynamic array.
//This is the part of my code:
int *ptr;
ptr = new int[3];
ptr[0] = 1;
ptr[1] = 2;
ptr[2] = 3;
// Normally I would think I cannot add further elements to the array, but it is possible
ptr[3] = 4;
ptr[4] = 5;
ptr[5] = ...
So, my question is why am I able to add further elements to the array when I initialized the size of Array with size = 3 ?
On the one hand, it makes sense that my array can grow "dynamically". On the other hand it makes no sense because of this line:
ptr = new int[3];

You are not adding new elements into array, you are just overwriting some random patch of memory adjacent to your array.
Accessing an array element is merely accessing a shifted pointer to the first element:
int *ptr;
ptr = new int[3]; // This code allocates 12 bytes, say 0x12340000 - 0x1234000B. ptr = 0x12340000 (note 4 bytes for each integer)
ptr[2] = 5; // This code sets integer at 0x12340000+2*sizeof(int) = 0x12340008
ptr[3] = 6; // This code sets an "integer" at 0x12340000+3*sizeof(int) = 0x1234000C - which is outside your array
ptr[10000000] = 7; // This or something like this will crash your program
You are just lucky this does not lead to a crash - in other circumstances, it would.
General advice: you can't add elements to an array, if you need to change size of a collection later - use vector

I would suggest using vector instead of array.

Exceeding an array bounds is undefined behaviour. That's why.
In this case you are lucky to get the output. But undefined Behavior means that the program can explode your computer next time ;)
So, don't do that.

Related

Declaration and initialize pointer-to-pointer char-array

Concerning a pointer to pointer I wonder if its ok with the following:
char** _charPp = new char*[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
ยด _charPp[i] = new char[100];
That is - if I want a pointer to pointer that points to 10 char-arrays.
The question - is this ok now or do I have to make some kind of initializing of every char-arrays? Then - how do I do that?
I will later on in the program fill these arrays with certain chars but i suspect that the arrays should be initialized with values before such as "0"
Yes, it looks pretty much suitable,
int arraySizeX = 100;
int arraySizeY = 100;
char** array2d = new char*[arraySizeX] // you've just allocated memory that
// holds 100 * 4 (average) bytes
for(int i = 0; i < arraySizeX; ++i)
{
array2d[i] = new char[arraySizeY] // you've just allocated a chunk that
//holds 100 char values. It is 100 * 1 (average) bytes
memset(array2d[i], 0, arraySizeY) // to make every element NULL
}
I will later on in the program fill these arrays with certain chars
but i suspect that the arrays should be initialized with values before
such as "0"
No, there's no "default value" in C++. You need to assign 0 to the pointer to make it null, or use memset() to do it with arrays.
Netherwire's answer shows correctly how to initialize the chars to 0. I'll address the first part of your question.
There is no requirement to initialize them yet. As long as you initialize the chars before they're read, it's correct.
Depending on the structure of your code and how you use the arrays, it may be safer to do anyway since it can be hard to find the bug if you eventually do read some of them before initialization.
Also, remember to later delete[] the arrays that you've allocated. Or better yet, consider using std::vector instead (and possibly std::string depending on what you use those arrays for.)

C++ dynamically allocated 2D array overallocate memory?

I started learning C++ and I wanted to implement a simple 2D array and get its size without using std::vector. However I run into weird errors with my second dimension:
int **data= new int*[2];
for (int i = 0; i<2;i++){
data[i] = new int[3];
}
data[0][0] = 1;
data[0][1] = 2;
data[0][2] = 3;
data[1][0] = 4;
data[1][1] = 5;
data[1][2] = 6;
data[1][25] = 20; //Should segfault? AAAAA
cout << "Data[1][25] = " << data[1][25] << endl; //Should segfault, no?
int n = sizeof(data[0]) / sizeof(int);
int m = sizeof(data) / sizeof(int);
cout << "M is " << m << " N is " << n << endl;// Reports m = 2, n =2?!?!? BBBB
At AAAA I should be getting segfault, no? Instead I am able to assign a value and later read it. The value of data[1][any] is zero, like it has been initialized. This is only a problem in the second dimension, the first dimension behaves as expected.
Later at BBBB I am not getting an accurate size for n. Am I doing something wrong?
C++ does not do bound checking on arrays. Accessing data outside the bounds of an array is undefined behavior and anything can happen. It may cause a segfault it might not. If you have valid memory regions before or after the array you can end up accessing or modifying that memory instead. This can lead to corruption of other data used by your program.
Also you use of sizeof is incorrect. sizeof is a compile time construct. It cannot be used to determine the size of an array through a pointer value at runtime. If you need that type of functionality use std::array or std::vector.
char somearray[10];
int size = sizeof(somearray); // result is 10. Yay it works.
char *somearrayptr = new char[10];
int size = sizeof(somearrayptr); // size = the size of char* not char[10].
At AAAA you have undefined behavior. Just anything can happen from that point on -- and more interesting, even before.
In standard C++ there is no such behavior as 'segfault'. And implementation could define some operations to do that but I'm not aware if any ever bothered. It just happens by chance for some cases.
Accessing an array outside its boundaries is undefined behavior. So there is no reason to expect anything in particular will happen: it could crash, return the right answer, return the wrong answer, silently corrupt data in another part of the program, or a whole host of other possibilities.
data[1][25] = 20; //Should segfault? AAAAA
It would segfault if you are not allowed to access the location. There is no checking in C++ to see if the location you are accessing is valid frrm the code-point of view.
You obtained an output because that was stored at that location. It could have been anything. This is undefined behaviour and you may not get the same result everytime.
See this answer, though it talks abput local variables , but it gives nice examples about how such accessing of data can be undefined behaviour
data and data[0] are both pointers (doesn't matter single or double). They have a defined size for every implementation. In your case, size of pointer is twice that of size of int on your machine. Hence, the output. sizeof when used with pointers pointing to arrays (and not arrays i.e. ones declared as arrays char a[] etc) gives the size of the pointer
Both data[0] and data are pointers. Pointers will be size 4 on a 32-bit system, and 8 on a 64-bit system. Therefore, m and n are equal. Size of int is always 4.

C++ / Is it allowed to change size of an static array or not?

According to the correct answer in Static array vs. dynamic array in C++ static arrays have fixed sizes.
However, this compiles and runs just fine:
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
int myArray[2];
myArray[0] = 0;
myArray[1] = 1;
cout<<myArray[0]<<endl;
cout<<myArray[1]<<endl;
myArray[4];
myArray[2] = 2;
myArray[3] = 3;
cout<<myArray[2]<<endl;
cout<<myArray[3]<<endl;
return 0;
}
Does this mean a static array can be resized?
You're not actually enlarging the array. Let's see your code in detail:
int myArray[2];
myArray[0] = 0;
myArray[1] = 1;
You create an array of two positions, with indexes from 0 to 1. So far, so good.
myArray[4];
You're accessing the fifth element in the array (an element which surely does not exist in the array). This is undefined behaviour: anything can happen. You're not doing anything with that element, but that is not important.
myArray[2] = 2;
myArray[3] = 3;
Now you are accessing elements three and four, and changing their values. Again, this is undefined behaviour. You are changing memory locations near to the created array, but "nothing else". The array remains the same.
Actually, you could check the size of the array by doing:
std::cout << sizeof( myArray ) / sizeof( int ) << std::endl;
You'll check that the size of the array has not changed. BTW, this trick works in the same function in which the array is declared, as soon you pass it around it decays into a pointer.
In C++, the boundaries of arrays are not checked. You did not receive any error or warning mainly because of that. But again, accessing elements beyond the array limit is undefined behaviour. Undefined behaviour means that it is an error that may be won't show up immediately (something that is apparently good, but is actually not). Even the program can apparently end without problems.
No, not a chance in hell. All you've done is illegally access it outside it's bounds. The fact that this happens to not throw an error for you is utterly irrelevant. It is thoroughly UB.
First, this is not a static array, it is an array allocated in the automatic storage.
Next, the
myArray[4];
is not a new declaration, it is a discarded read from element #4 of the previously declared 2-element array - an undefined behavior.
Assignments that follow
myArray[2] = 2;
myArray[3] = 3;
write to the memory that is not allocated to your program - an undefined behavior as well.

How to use delete[] when pointer outside memory allocation?

Note that the question has been changed and no longer matches the answers
I'm trying to create memory to hold a buffer of floats (here, 4 floats).
I've allocated the memory, and all the 4 values in the memory are zero.
The loop of course iterates 4 times, but the 4th time moves ptr to outside the memory that I've allocated. So at the end of the loop I move ptr back to where I allocated the memory, and use delete[].
My question is: Is the entire 4-float buffer being deleted when I call delete[]? (this is obviously what I need!)
int inFramesToProcess = 4;
float *ptr = new float[inFramesToProcess]();
for(UInt32 i = 0; i < inFramesToProcess; ++i) {
ptr++;
}
ptr -= inFramesToProcess;
delete[] ptr;
Copy the pointer before you increment it.
int inFramesToProcess = 4;
float *ptr = new float[inFramesToProcess]();
float *ptr_copy = ptr;
for(UInt32 i = 0; i < inFramesToProcess; ++i) {
ptr_copy++;
}
delete[] ptr;
Or just don't use pointers for dynamic arrays, use a vector instead. Then you don't have to worry about deleting.
You can't.
You can only delete the value you get from new. Keep the original pointer.
General rule:
Try hard to avoid modifying pointers at all times, no matter how clever/professional/"brilliant" it looks. There's really no reason to (you're welcome to prove me wrong). Use subscripts instead; they're more readable and easier to debug, and they avoid these kinds of issues.

Dynamic Function Memory? C++

I've been reading through some books, and when it comes to Class/Functions using Pointers/Dynamic Memory (or heap or w/e they call it) I start to get confused.
Does anyone have a simple....like easy example they can show, because the books im using are using overly complex examples (large classes or multiple functions) and it makes it hard to follow. Pointers have always been my weak point anyways but I understand BASIC pointers, just classes/functions using them is a little bit confusing.
Also.....when would you use them is another question.
Stack allocation:
char buffer[1000];
Here the 1000 must be a constant. Memory is automatically freed when buffer goes out of scope.
Heap Allocation:
int bufsz = 1000;
char* buffer = new char[bufsz];
//...
delete [] buffer;
Here bufsz can be a variable. Memory must be freed explicitly.
When to use heap:
You don't know how much space you will need at compile time.
You want the memory/object to persist beyond the current scope.
You need a large chunk of memory (stack space is more limited than heap space)
Your computer's RAM is a big pile of bytes ordered one after another, and each one of those bytes can be accesed independently by it's address: an integer number startig from zero, upwards. A pointer is just a variable to hold that address of a single place in memory.
Since the RAM is a big chunk of bytes, the CPU ussually divides that big pile of bytes on several chunks. The most important ones are:
Code
Heap
Stack
The Code chunk is where the Assembly code lies. The Heap is a big pool of bytes used to allocate:
Global variables
Dynamic data, via the new operation on C++, or malloc() on C.
The stack is the chunk of memory that gets used to store:
Local variables
Function parameters
Return values (return statement on C/C++).
The main difference between the Stack and Heap is the way it is used. While the Heap is a big pool of bytes, the Stack "grows" like a stack of dishes: you can't remove the dish on the bottom unless there are no more dishes on it's top.
That's how recursion is implemented: every time you call a function recursively, memory grows on the stack, allocating parameters, local variables and storing return values of the returning functions, one on top of the others just like the stack of dishes.
Data living on the Stack have different "Life Span" than the data living on the Heap. Once a function exits, the data on the local variables get lost.
But if you allocate data on the Heap, that data won't get lost util you explicitly free that data with the delete or free() operations.
A pointer is basically a variable that contains the memory address of another variable (or in other cases to a function, but lets focus on the first).
That means that if I declare int[] x = {5,32,82,45,-7,0,123,8}; that variable will be allocated to memory at a certain address, lets say it got allocated on address 0x00000100 through 0x0000011F however we could have a variable which indicates a certain memory address and we can use that to access it.
So, our array looks like this
Address Contents
0x00000100 1
0x00000104 32
0x00000108 82
0x0000010B 45
0x00000110 -7
0x00000114 0
0x00000118 123
0x0000011B 8
If, for example, we were to create a pointer to the start of the array we could do this: int* p = &x; imagine this pointer variable got created a memory address 0x00000120 that way the memory at that address would contain the memory location for the start of array x.
Address Contents
0x00000120 0x00000100
You could then access the contents at that address through your pointer by dereferencing the pointer so that int y = *p would result in y = 1. We can also move the pointer, if we were to do p += 3; the pointer would be moved 3 addresses forward (note, however, that it moves 3 times the size of the type of object it is pointing to, here I am making examples with a 32 bit system in which an int is 32 bits or 4 bytes long, therefore the address would move by 4 bytes for each increment or 12 bytes in total so the pointer would end up pointing to 0x0000010B), if we were to dereference p again by doing y = *p; then we'd end up having y = 45. This is just the beginning, you can do a lot of things with pointers.
One of the other major uses is to pass a pointer as a parameter to a function so that it can do operations on certain values in memory without having to copy all of them over or make changes that will persist outside of the function's scope.
Warning: Don't do this. This is why we have vectors.
If you wanted to create an array of data, and return if from a function, how would you do it?
Obviously, this does not work:
int [10] makeArray(int val)
{
int arr[10];
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
arr[i] = val;
return arr;
}
You cannot return an array from a function. We can use pointers to refer to the first element of an array, like this:
int * makeArray(int val)
{
int arr[10];
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
arr[i] = val;
return &(arr[0]); // Return the address of the first element.
// Not strictly necessary, but I don't want to confuse.
}
This, however, also fails. arr is a local variable, it goes on the stack. When the function returns, the data is no longer valid, and now you have a pointer pointing to invalid data.
What we need to do is declare an array that will survive even after the function exits. For that, we use keyword new which creates that array, and returns the address to us, which needs to be stored in a pointer.
int * makeArray(int val)
{
int * arr = new int[10];
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
arr[i] = val;
return arr;
}
Then you can call that function and use that array like this:
int * a = makeArray(7);
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
std::cout << a[i] << std::endl;
delete [] a; // never forget this. Obviously you wouldn't do it right
// away like this, but you need to do it sometime.
Using pointers with new also gives you the advantage that you can determine the size of the array at runtime, something you can't do with local static arrays(though you can in C):
int * makeArray(int size, int val)
{
int * arr = new int[size];
for(int i=0; i<size; ++i)
arr[i] = val;
return arr;
}
That used to be one of the primary purposes for pointers. But like I said at the top, we don't do that anymore. We use vector.
One of the last vestiges of pointers is not for dynamic arrays. The only time I ever use them, is in classes where I want one object to have access to another object, without giving it ownership of that object. So, Object A needs to know about Object B, but even when Object A is gone, that doesn't affect Object B. You can also use references for this, but not if you need to give Object A the option to change which object it has access to.
(not tested, just writing down. and keeping things intentionally primitive, as requested.)
int* oneInt = new int; // allocate
*oneInt = 10; // use: assign a value
cout << *oneInt << endl; // use: retrieve (and print) the value
delete oneInt; // free the memory
now an array of ints:
int* tenInts = new int[10]; // allocate (consecutive) memory for 10 ints
tenInts[0] = 4353; // use: assign a value to the first entry in the array.
tenInts[1] = 5756; // ditto for second entry
//... do more stuff with the ints
delete [] tenInts; // free the memory
now with classes/objects:
MyClass* object = new MyClass(); // allocate memory and call class constructor
object->memberFunction("test"); // call a member function of the object
delete object; // free the object, calling the destructor
Is that what you wanted? I hope it helps.
I think this is what you're asking about:
Basically C++ doesn't allow variable-sized arrays. Any array in C++ has to be given a very specific size. But you can use pointers to work around that. Consider the following code:
int *arry = new int[10];
That just created an array of ints with 10 elements, and is pretty much the same exact thing as this:
int arry[] = int[10];
The only difference is that each one will use a different set of syntax. However imagine trying to do this:
Class class:
{
public:
void initArry(int size);
private:
int arry[];
};
void class::initArry(int size)
{
arry = int[size]; // bad code
}
For whatever reason C++ was designed to not allow regular arrays to be assigned sizes that are determined at runtime. Instead they have to be assigned sizes upon being coded. However the other way to make an array in C++ - using pointers - does not have this problem:
Class class:
{
public:
~class();
void initArry(int size);
private:
int *arry;
};
class::~class()
{
delete []arry;
}
void class::initArry(int size)
{
arry = new int[size]; // good code
}
You have to do some memory cleanup in the second example, hence why I included the destructor, but by using pointers that way you can size the array at runtime (with a variable size). This is called a dynamic array, and it is said that memory here is allocated dynamically. The other kind is a static array.
As far as 2-dimensional arrays go, you can handle it kind of like this:
Class class:
{
public:
~class();
void initArrays(int size1, int size2);
private:
int **arry;
};
class::~class()
{
delete [] arry[0];
delete [] arry[1];
delete [] arry;
}
void class::initArrays(int size1, int size2)
{
arry = new int*[2];
arry[0] = new int[size1];
arry[1] = new int[size2];
}
Disclaimer though: I haven't done much with this language in a while, so I may be slightly incorrect on some of the syntax.