I have created a dynamic matrix of class objects but i have made a big mess with handling the returned pointers.
My intention is to create a matrix of class Point( Int x,Int y) and later to use it in different ways in the program.
Everything is working but i can't figure out the returned pointers game between the functions.
class Point
{
private:
int x;
int y;
public:
Point(int x,int y);
void SetPoint(int x,int y);
};
In a second class I use a Point object as class member.
Init_Pallet() is used to Initialize the Matrix.
class Warehouse
{
private:
Robot r1,r2;
Point *Pallet_Matrix;
public:
Point* Init_Pallet();
};
This is the Init function
Point* Warehouse::Init_Pallet()
{
int rows =10,cols =10;
Point** Pallet_Matrix = new Point*[rows];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++)
Pallet_Matrix[i] = new Point[cols];
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < cols; j++) //Pallet matrix Init, x point for robots amount in position and y for box amount
Pallet_Matrix[i][j].SetPoint(0,0);
return *Pallet_Matrix;
}
The Init function is called by WareHouse C'Tor (ignore the other vars)
Warehouse::Warehouse(Robot p_r1,Robot p_r2): r1(p_r1),r2(p_r2)
{
this->r1=p_r1;
this->r2=p_r2;
Point *p =Init_Pallet();
this->Pallet_Matrix=p;
}
My question is: How do I return the address to the beginning of the matrix from the Init function to the C'Tor who called it?
And second question: how do i access the matrix different locations in the format of Matrix[i][j] after returning the matrix adress to the C'Tor.
Thank you in advance for all the help and your time.
You should just have Init_Pallet return a Point** and then do return Pallet_Matrix;. Currently you're copying one of the Point*s that you allocated out of the function, so the copy is no longer part of a contiguous array that you can index.
Don't forget to delete[] the dynamically arrays in your destructor.
However, you should much prefer to use the standard library containers like std::array or std::vector. Then you don't need to worry about the dynamic allocation yourself and no pointers to get in a mess with.
If I were doing it, I would just have:
class Warehouse
{
public:
Warehouse() : Pallet_Matrix() { }
private:
Robot r1,r2;
std::array<std::array<Point, 10>, 10> Pallet_Matrix;
};
And that's it. No init needed. No dynamic allocation. No assigning 0 to every element (if you give Point a default constructor that zero-initialises). Done.
How do I return the address to the beginning of the matrix from the Init function to the C'Tor?
In case you would really need just an address of first element, pretty straightforward would be:
return &Pallet_Matrix[0][0];
how do i access the matrix different locations in the format of Matrix[i][j] after returning the matrix address
Init_Pallet is a member function, which could simply work with the Pallet_Matrix member directly. Otherwise, the Init_Pallet function could actually return Point**, which should however make you feel that something's wrong with this code.
Better[1] solution would be:
Define the default constructor for Point:
class Point
{
public:
Point() : x(0), y(0){}
...
Use std::vectors instead of dynamically allocated arrays:
class Warehouse
{
private:
std::vector< std::vector<Point> > Pallet_Matrix;
and instead of:
Point *p =Init_Pallet();
this->Pallet_Matrix=p;
you would simply use std::vector's constructor:
int rows = 10, cols = 10;
Pallet_Matrix = std::vector< std::vector<Point> >(rows, cols);
[1] Better = You don't want to handle the memory management on your own.
The problem is that the returned type of Init_Pallet() is wrong — its a row, not a matrix. And in the last line of Warehouse::Init_Pallet() you dereference the proper pointer to matrix obtaining the pointer to the first row of the matrix.
You need to write Point **Pallet_Matrix; in Warehouse, use Point** Warehouse::Init_Pallet() definition of Init_pallet(), and return Pallet_Matrix in the last line of Init_Pallet().
The notation Point *row means the row is "the array of points" or "the pointer to the beginning of the array of points". The notation Point **matrix means the matrix is "the array of pointers to the beginnings of the arrays of points" or "the pointer to the beginning of such an array".
First: are the dimensions really constant, or is this just an
artifact of your having simplified the code for posting? If
they are really constant, there's no need for dynamic
allocation: you can just write:
Point palletMatrix[10][10];
and be done with it. (If you have C++11, it's even better; you
can use std::array, and palletMatrix will have full object
semantics.)
If you do need dynamic indexes, the only reasonable way of
doing this is to write a simple matrix class, and use it:
class Matrix
{
int m_rows;
int m_columns;
std::vector<Point> m_data;
public:
Matrix( int rows, int columns )
: m_rows( rows )
, m_columns( columns )
, m_data( rows * columns, Point( 0, 0 ) )
{
}
Point& operator()( int i, int j )
{
return m_data[ i * m_columns + j ];
}
// ...
};
Trying to maintain a table of pointers to tables is not a good
solution: it's overly complex, it requires special handling to
ensure that each row has the same number of columns, and it
generally has poor performance (on modern machines, at least,
where locality is important and multiplication is cheap).
Note too that the actual data is in an std::vector. There are
practically no cases where a new[] is a good solution; if you
didn't have std::vector (and there was such a time), you'd
start by implementing it, or something similar. (And
std::vector does not use new[] either.)
EDIT:
One other thing: if you're putting Point in a matrix, you might
want to give it a default constructor; this often makes the code
simpler.
Related
I only found solutions for 1d arrays, but couldn't apply them to 2d arrays.
The possible solutions included "vectors", "templates", and "pointers to arrays".
I know I can get vectors to work, but I would rather use either of the other 2. Preferably templates because I don't want to manually destruct, but pointers work too. (the pointer would be pointed to an array created in the constructor).
The class contains an empty 2d array called screen. The constructor is supposed to set its size. I tried too many things for me to list them all here, but I'll show what I currently have. (last thing i tried were pointers to arrays created in the constructor. in this case screen was a char pointer)
Screen::Screen(const int w, const int h) : screen(new char[h][w]) {} {
width = w;
height = h;
}
array size in new-expression must be constant
I failed implementing either of those strategies and received many kinds of errors while trying to make it work. How would I solve this problem? (primarily I want to know how to do this with templates. if not possible then with pointers to arrays created in the constructor)
The question was a little ambiguous, but it sounds like you want to dynamically allocate an array given some input.
Edit I changed the answer to match the code you provided. This creates a 2d array of chars given the height and width.
class Screen {
private:
char **data;
int rows;
int columns;
public:
Screen(int num_rows, int num_cols);
};
Screen::Screen(int num_rows, int num_cols) {
data = new char * [num_rows];
for (int i = 0; i < num_rows; ++i) {
data[i] = new char[num_cols];
}
rows = num_rows;
columns = num_cols;
}
This creates an empty 2D array of chars.
Explanation: All arrays in c are just pointers to the first block in memory of the type you have declared. By having the member variable as double pointer, you have an array of char pointers, which each point to the first value in each of their respective arrays.
BUT be careful, you WILL need to free the data variable to avoid memory leaks, by declaring a destructor.
Screen::~Screen() {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i) {
delete[] data[i];
}
delete[] data;
}
I have to write a constructor for implementing a function for initializing an internally allocated matrix. The given code looks like (only constructor):
Matrix(const float* m, size_t n) : _n(n), _m(0lu)
{
//Missing
}
So, my first question is: What does the part behind the ':' mean (_n(n), _m(0lu))?
Furthermore, as far as I know, I need a return pointer to the memory I am allocating. Is this correct? My first idea was to use posix_memalign(...). Would this be correct?
Thank you very much!
I am assuming this basic object:
class Matrix
{
// stuff
private:
size_t _n;
float* _m;
}
The part of the constructor is an initialization list. It is synonymous to wiring:
Matrix(const float* m, size_t n)
{
_n = n;
_m = 0lu;
}
Here is a good decription, why you want to use them: [10.6] Should my constructors use "initialization lists" or "assignment"?
But that does not solve your initial problem: "function for initializing an internally allocated matrix"
What the constructor does is copy the size (n) and initialize the pointer to NULL. (NULL is synonymous with 0 [1]) So you need some way to internally allocate and initialize.
I have one problem with the Matrix class. Normally a matrix has 2 dimension, so either it is a NxN matrix or n is the element count and we have no idea what dimension the matrix is. I will assume that it is NxN matrix, since this is quite often used in computer graphics.
Step 1: internally allocated
So, allocate some memory:
_m = new float[n*n];
This can replace the assignment to NULL, since why should it be first set to NULL and then change right after.
Step2: initialized
Assuming that the calling code put sufficient data into m, just use memcpy:
std::memcpy(_m, m, n*n*sizeof(float));
If you feel masochistic, you can also copy the elements each:
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n*n; i++)
{
_m[i] = m[i];
}
So your final constructor looks like so:
#include <cstring>
Matrix(const float* m, size_t n)
: _n(n), _m(new float[n*n])
{
std::memcpy(_m, m, n*n*sizeof(float));
}
Finally, since you allocated memory you should not forget to delete it in the destructor:
Matrix::~Matrix()
{
delete [] _m;
}
Note the array deleting operator.
[1] In C++11 and C99 this is not fully true under certain circumstances, but these are details and irrelevant.
:_n(n), _m(0lu)
is member internalizer list. Means _n(which seems to be member variable) is assing n to it and simialr for _m
More details here
Given a struct like
struct Square
{
Square(Color p_color): color_(p_color) {}
Color color_;
};
how can i declare a two dimensional array and later initialize it. For example,
typedef Square (&Square8x8)[8][8];
Square8x8 initSquares()
{
Square board[ROWS][COLS]; //declare the array
for(int row=0;row<ROWS;row++)
for(int col=0;col<COLS;col++)
{
if(col%2 == 0)
board[row][col]= Square(WHITE); //actual initlization
else
board[row][col] = Square(BLACK);
}
return board;
}
You misunderstand the point of a constructor, which is to ensure an object is always initialized and valid during its entire lifecycle. Thus the invocation of a constructor cannot be in any way delayed or postponed.
It's a typical XY-problem though - you're asking for help with an intended solution, not a problem. The real problem is that you don't want to postpone the constructor, but initialize it later on. Construction and initialization are related subjects, but not identical.
The best solution is to give your class a setColor or initialize function, separate from the constructor. An alternative solution (which is closer to your question) is to declare the array not as objects, but as pointers, and then really instantiate the object later on with new Square(WHITE). I'd go for the first though, the second requires a lot more lifecycle control with explicit deletion.
You need a default constructor for Square which is able to call without parameters. For example:
struct Square
{
Square() {} // <------------------------- For example
Square(Color p_color): color_(p_color) {}
Color color_;
};
Otherwise, you should use pointer to Square and new them later. For example:
struct Square
{
Square(Color p_color): color_(p_color) {}
Color color_;
};
const int ROWS = 8;
const int COLS = 8;
In this case, you should use pointers:
std::unique_ptr<Square> board[ROWS][COLS];
for (int i=0; i<ROWS; i++)
for (int j=0; j<COLS; j++)
board[i][j] = std::unique_ptr<Square>(new Square(RED));
or (for bare pointers)
Square* board[ROWS][COLS];
for (int i=0; i<ROWS; i++)
for (int j=0; j<COLS; j++)
board[i][j] = new Square(RED);
....
// Be careful, you should delete them all
In case you don't want to use a default constructor you can use the constructor you already have.
This solution uses std::vector, which I also recommend you use.
std::vector<Square> myVector( ROWS*COLS, Square(WHITE) );
this will create an array of ROWS * COLS elements, each initialized to the value of Square(WHITE).
You could create a Board class, which uses such a vector inside and offers functionalities such as initializing a board of arbitrary size and indexing a Square in the linear vector based on Row and Column information.
You can also do:
Square board[2][2] = {Square(WHITE), Square(WHITE), Square(WHITE), Square(WHITE) };
but it doesn't really scale well.
Create an array of (smart) pointers instead of an array. One purpose of pointers is so objects can be initialized later.
I need to have a 2D array of double.
Its width is around 900. Its height as well (the same width value).
Dealing with two loops (one for the width and one for the height), I really need to get access to all the pixels of the 900X900 image that I will process.
The size of the array is too big (error when specifying the number of raw and column).
I thought about establishing that with a dynamic array to optimize the time of calculation and to free the memory everytime I deal with one pixel on the two loops.
But I really cannot find the syntax I would like to have to declare a 2D dynamic array (malloc, setting array element values and freeing the memory).
Wrap it in a class:
class Matrix2D {
typedef std::vector<double> Column;
std::vector<Column> columns;
public:
Matrix2D(unsigned int width, unsigned int height) :
columns(width, Column(height)) {
}
double& at(unsigned int i, unsigned int j) {
return columns[i][j];
}
};
Matrix2D matrix(900, 900);
matrix.at(45, 65) = 1234.5678;
I need to have a 2D array of double
Since you are using C++ you should use STL classes that will take care of ugly memory management for you. So you are actually looking for std::vector< std::vector<double> >, or for the sake of the readability of your code:
#include <vector>
typedef std::vector<double> DVector; // row represented by vector of doubles
typedef std::vector<DVector> MyVector; // 2D array as a vector of these rows
And then avoid using dynamic allocation wherever it's possible to do so. Take advantage of RAII idiom:
{
MyVectorarr; // vector object with automatic storage duration
} // <-- vector is automatically destructed when execution goes out of scope
Questions that might help you:
Multi-dimensional vector
Initialization of a vector of vectors?
vector of vector
I associate malloc with pure C, not C++ (as the prior answer points yout, you should use std::vector). However, if you really want to:
// allocate the memory in a block
double* block = (double *) malloc(sizeof(double) * xSize * ySize);
// allocate memory for the accessor array
double* accessor = (double*) malloc(sizeof(double*) * xSize);
// assign memory addresses
double* curPtr = block;
for (int i = 0; i < xSize; ++i) {
accessor[i] = curPtr;
curPtr += ySize;
}
// you can now access the array via accessor[x][y]
// now need to free malloced memory:
free(accessor);
free(block);
If you do it this way, I highly suggest tying it to the RAII pattern, otherwise you'll eventually get a memory leak. Using the STL's containers is a better approach.
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