How do I cast or convert an int* into an int[x]?
First, I know that pointers can be indexed. So I know that I can loop through the pointer and array and manually convert the pointer. (eg. a for loop with arr[i] = p[i]). I want to know if the same result can be achieved in fewer lines of code.
As an example I tried to cast pointer int* c = new int[x] to an array int b[2]
int a = 1;
int b[2] = { 2, 3 };
int* c = new int[b[1]];
c[0] = b[0];
c[1] = b[1];
c[2] = a;
I wanted to see what values were where, so I made a simple program to output addresses and values. The output is just below:
Address of {type: int} &a = 0031FEF4; a = 1
Address of {type: int[2]} &b = 0031FEE4; b = 0031FEE4
Address of {type: int[2]} &b[0] = 0031FEE4; b[0] = 2
Address of {type: int[2]} &b[1] = 0031FEE8; b[1] = 3
Address of {type: int*} &c = 0031FED8; c = 008428C8
Address of {type: int*} &c[0] = 008428C8; c[0] = 2
Address of {type: int*} &c[2] = 008428D0; c[2] = 1
Once I made sure I knew what was where I tried a few things. The first idea that came to mind was to get the address of the second element to the pointer's allocation, then replace the array's memory address with it (see the code just below). Everything I did try ultimately failed, usually with syntax errors.
This is what I tried. I really want this to work, since it would be the simplest solution.
b = &c[1];
This did not work obviously.
Edit: Solution:
Don't do it!
If it's necessary create a pointer to an array and then point to the array; this is pointless for any purposes I can fathom.
For more detailed information see the answer by rodrigo below.
First of all b is an array, not a pointer, so it is not assignable.
Also, you cannot cast anything to an array type. You can, however, cast to pointer-to-array.
Note that in C and C++ pointer-to-arrays are rather uncommon. It is almost always better to use plain pointers, or pointer-to-pointers and avoid pointer-to-arrays.
Anyway, what you ask can be done, more or less:
int (*c)[2] = (int(*)[2])new int[2];
But a typedef will make it easier:
typedef int ai[2];
ai *c = (ai*)new int[2];
And to be safe, the delete should be done using the original type:
delete [](int*)c;
Which is nice if you do it just for fun. For real life, it is usually better to use std::vector.
Though you can't reassign an array identifier.. sometimes the spirit of what you're doing allows you to simply create a reference and masquerade yourself as an array. Note: this is just a slight extension of rodrigo's answer... and it is still worth mentioning that there is probably a better way to accomplish whatever the task is.
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int x[1000] = {0};
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
int (&sub_x)[100] = *(int(*)[100])(&x[i*100]);
//going right to left basically:
// 1. x[i*100] -- we take an element of x
// 2. &x[N] -- we take the address
// 3. (int(*)[100]) -- we cast it to a pointer to int[100]
// 4. *(...) -- lastly we dereference the pointer to get an lvalue
// 5. int (&sub_x)[100] -- we create the reference `sub_x` of type int[100]
for(int j = 0; j < 100; ++j) {
sub_x[j] = (i*100)+j;
}
}
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
if(i != 0) {
std::cout << ", ";
}
std::cout << x[i];
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
As you'd expect the output just ends up printing 0-999 with no gaps
output:
0, 1, 2, ..., 999
Related
I think it is a trivial question, but I couldn't find a specific solution to it. I'm trying to append array into a vector, using push_back() function. Here is the code:
int main()
{
std::vector<int*> matchVector;
int msmTemp[3];
msmTemp[0] = 1;
msmTemp[1] = 2;
msmTemp[2] = 3;
matchVector.push_back(msmTemp);
msmTemp[0] = 4;
msmTemp[1] = 7;
msmTemp[2] = 0;
matchVector.push_back(msmTemp);
for(auto i : matchVector)
{
for(int j = 0; j<3; j++)
{
cout<<i[j]<<", ";
}
cout<<"\n";
}
return 0;
}
The output I'm getting is 4,7,0 two times. I don't understand as to why I'm not able to see the previous values, namely 1,2,3? Is it because of the type of vector matchVector defined above? I think it needs to be array only.
A int* is a pointer to an integer.
An int[3] is an array of 3 integers.
An array of 3 integers "decays" at the drop of a hat to a pointer to the first element.
When you do push_back(msmTemp), you push a pointer to the first element of msmTemp into the vector.
Pointers in C++ do not own what they point to. The vector afte the two push_backs contains two pointers, both to the same array msmTemp.
When you later iterate over the vector, you get two pointers in turn. Each points to msmTemp.
You then use [] to index those pointers. When you have a pointer to the first element of an array, you can use [] to access the other elements of the array. [0] is the first element, [1] the second, etc.
So you look at the 3 elements in msmTemp (luckily it has 3) and look at them twice, because you have two pointers into it in the vector.
You can inject elements like this:
std::vector<int> matchVector;
int msmTemp[3];
msmTemp[0]={1};
msmTemp[1]={2};
msmTemp[2]={3};
matchVector.insert( matchVector.end(), std::begin(msmTemp), std::end(msmTemp) );
etc. This ends up with a vector containing 6 elements, not two arrays.
If you want arrays as values you need std::array:
std::vector< std::array<int,3> > matchVector;
std::array<int, 3> msmTemp;
and then your code works as written. std::array is a library type that acts sort of like a raw array, but it doesn't have the decay-to-pointer problems of a raw array.
Forget that int[3] names a type. C arrays don't behave like sensible values. Arrays are named std::array<type, count>.
#include <vector>
#include <array>
int main()
{
std::vector<std::array<int, 3>> matchVector;
std::array<int, 3> msmTemp;
msmTemp[0] = 1;
msmTemp[1] = 2;
msmTemp[2] = 3;
matchVector.push_back(msmTemp);
msmTemp[0] = 4;
msmTemp[1] = 7;
msmTemp[2] = 0;
matchVector.push_back(msmTemp);
for(auto & arr : matchVector)
{
for(auto i : arr)
{
std::cout << i <<", ";
}
std::cout<<"\n";
}
return 0;
}
The other answers already explain how to fix your code. I think it's also good to explain why your code behaves the way it does:
Here you tell your compiler to create an std::vector that holds pointers to int:
std::vector<int*> matchVector;
Here you tell your compiler to allocate some space on the stack that fits 3 ints:
int msmTemp[3];
Here you tell your compiler to write the values 1, 2 and 3 into the memory previously allocated:
msmTemp[0] = 1;
msmTemp[1] = 2;
msmTemp[2] = 3;
Here you tell your compiler to take the address of that allocated space, treat it as a pointer and pass it to push_back. This is called array decaying:
matchVector.push_back(msmTemp);
Your matchVector now contains 1 element, which is a pointer to the address of the memory on your stack that was allocated to hold 3 ints.
Here you tell your compiler to write the values 4, 7 and 0 in the memory previously allocated. Note that this is still the same memory block as before:
msmTemp[0] = 4;
msmTemp[1] = 7;
msmTemp[2] = 0;
Here you tell your compiler to again take the address of the allocated space, treat it as a pointer and pass it to push_back:
matchVector.push_back(msmTemp);
Thus matchVector now contains 2 identical values, each a pointer to the same memory location. Specifically the memory location that you last wrote 4, 7 and 0 into.
I was trying to code something like this
....
mpz_class *x = NULL;
mpz_class *lValue = NULL;
....
for(int k = 0; k < 2; k++) {
x = NULL;
lValue = NULL;
x = (mpz_class*) malloc(sizeof(mpz_class) * exponentForFactors[k]);
lValue = (mpz_class*) malloc(sizeof(mpz_class) * exponentForFactors[k]);
rValue = 0;
mpz_class exp = (p-1)/q[k];
mpz_powm(lValue[0].get_mpz_t(), B.get_mpz_t(),exp.get_mpz_t(), p.get_mpz_t()); <- this part
exponentForFactors[k] = {3, 1}
this code will loop twice as k is less than 2.
At first loop, it is ok. there is no error but when it is the second loop, it has this error message where I pointed. malloc: *** error for object 0x6000000000000000: pointer being realloc'd was not allocated
*** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
I do not understand why this thing takes place only at the second loop?
Any suggestion would be grateful. Thanks.
////////////////////////////
even this code(when the second loop)
cout << "lvalue = " << lValue[0] << endl;
has the problem.
Since mpz_class is a class, and you are clearly coding in C++ (not C, I have changed your language tag accordingly), using the C allocator is improper. You should instead use new[] or better yet, use std::vector<> to allocate your array. Although you have allocated memory for your arrays, the objects within them are uninitialized, because their constructors have not been called.
I created a function that returns an error code (ErrCode enum) and pass two output parameters. But when I print the result of the function, I don't get the correct values in the array.
// .. some codes here ..
ErrCode err;
short lstCnt;
short lstArr[] = {};
err = getTrimmedList(lstArr, &lstCnt);
// list returned array (for comparison)
for (int i=0; i<lstCnt; ++i)
printf("lstArr[%3d] = %d", i, lstArr[i]);
// .. some codes here ..
The getTrimmedList function is like this:
ErrCode getTrimmedList(short* vList, short* vCnt)
{
short cnt;
ErrCode err = foo.getListCount(FOO_TYPE_1, &cnt);
if (NoError!=err) return err;
short* list = new short [cnt];
short total = 0;
for (short i=0; i<cnt; ++i)
{
FooBar bar = foo.getEntryByIndex(FOO_TYPE_1, i);
if (bar.isDeleted) continue;
list[total] = i;
++total;
}
*vCnt = total;
//vList = (short*)realloc(index, sizeof(short)*total);
vList = (short*)malloc(sizeof(short)*total);
memcpy(vList, list, sizeof(short)*total)
// list returned array (for comparison)
for (int i=0; i<lstCnt; ++i)
printf("lstArr[%3d] = %d", i, lstArr[i]);
return NoError;
}
where:
foo is an object that holds arrays of FooBar objects
foo.getListCount() returns the number of objects with type FOO_TYPE_1
FOO_TYPE_1 is the type of object we want to take/list
foo.getEntryByIndex() returns the ith FooBar object with type FOO_TYPE_1
bar.isDeleted is a flag that tells if bar is considered as 'deleted' or not
What's my error?
Edit:
Sorry, I copied a wrong line. I commented it above and put the correct line.
Edit 2
I don't have control over the returns of foo and bar. All their function returns are ErrCode and the outputs are passed through parameter.
Couple of questions before I can answer your post...
Where is "index" defined in:
vList = (short*)realloc(index, sizeof(short)*total);
Are you leaking the memory associated with:
short* list = new short [cnt];
Is it possible you have accidentally confused your pointers in memory allocation? In any case, here is an example to go from. You have a whole host of problems, but you should be able to use this as a guide to answer this question as it was originally asked.
WORKING EXAMPLE:
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
int getTrimmedList(short** vList, short* vCnt);
int main ()
{
// .. some codes here ..
int err;
short lstCnt;
short *lstArr = NULL;
err = getTrimmedList(&lstArr, &lstCnt);
// list returned array (for comparison)
for (int i=0; i<lstCnt; ++i)
printf("lstArr[%3d] = %d\n", i, lstArr[i]);
// .. some codes here ..
return 0;
}
int getTrimmedList(short** vList, short* vCnt)
{
short cnt = 5;
short* list = new short [cnt];
short* newList = NULL;
short total = 0;
list[0] = 0;
list[1] = 3;
list[2] = 4;
list[3] = 6;
total = 4;
*vCnt = total;
newList = (short*)realloc(*vList, sizeof(short)*total);
if ( newList ) {
memcpy(newList, list, sizeof(short)*total);
*vList = newList;
} else {
memcpy(*vList, list, sizeof(short)*total);
}
delete list;
return 0;
}
You have serious problems.
For starters, your function has only one output param as you use it: vCnt.
vList you use as just a local variable.
realloc is called with some index that we kow nothing about, not likely good. It must be something got from malloc() or realloc().
The allocated memory in vList is leaked as soon as you exit getTrimmedList.
Where you call the function you pass the local lstArr array as first argument that is not used for anything. Then print the original, unchanged array, to bounds in cnt, while it has 0 size still -- behavior is undefined.
Even if you managed to pass that array by ref, you could not reassign it to a different value -- C-style arrays can't do that.
You better use std::vector that you can actually pass by reference and fill in the called function. eliminating the redundant size and importantly the mess with memory handling.
You should use std::vector instead of raw c-style arrays, and pass-by-reference using "&" instead of "*" here. Right now, you are not properly setting your out parameter (a pointer to an array would look like "short **arr_ptr" not "short *arr_ptr", if you want to be return a new array to your caller -- this API is highly error-prone, however, as you're finding out.)
Your getTrimmedList function, therefore, should have this signature:
ErrCode getTrimmedList(std::vector<short> &lst);
Now you no longer require your "count" parameters, as well -- C++'s standard containers all have ways of querying the size of their contents.
C++11 also lets you be more specific about space requirements for ints, so if you're looking for a 16-bit "short", you probably want int16_t.
ErrCode getTrimmedList(std::vector<int16_t> &lst);
It may also be reasonable to avoid requiring your caller to create the "out" array, since we're using smarter containers here:
std::vector<int16_t> getTrimmedList(); // not a reference in the return here
In this style, we would likely manage errors using exceptions rather than return-codes, however, so other things about your interface would evolve, as well, most likely.
Is there a way to cross over all elements in integer array using pointer ( similiar to using pointer to cross over string elements).I know that integer array is not NULL terminated so when I try to cross over array using pointer it overflows.So I added NULL as a last element of an array and it worked just fine.
int array[7]={1,12,41,45,58,68,NULL};
int *i;
for(i=array;*i;i++)
printf("%d ",*i);
But what if one of the elements in array is 0 ,that will behave just as NULL.Is there any other way that will implement pointer in crossing over all elements in integer array?
In general, no unless you pick a sentinel value that's not part of the valid range of the data. For example, the valid range might be positive numbers, so you can use a negative number like -1 as a sentinel value that indicates the end of the array. This how C-style strings work; the NULL terminator is used because it's outside of the valid range of integers that could represent a character.
However, it's usually better to somehow pair up the array pointer with another variable that indicates the size of the array, or another pointer that points one-past-the-end of the array.
In your specific case, you can do something like this:
// Note that you don't have to specify the length of the array.
int array[] = {1,12,41,45,58,68};
// Let the compiler count the number of elements for us.
int arraySize = sizeof(array)/sizeof(int);
// or int arraySize = sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0]);
int main()
{
int* i;
for(i = array; i != array + arraySize; i++)
printf("%d ",*i);
}
You can also do this:
int arrayBegin[] = {1,12,41,45,58,68};
int* arrayEnd = arrayBegin + sizeof(arrayBegin)/sizeof(arrayBegin[0]);
int main()
{
int* i;
for(i = arrayBegin; i != arrayEnd; i++)
printf("%d ",*i);
}
But given only a pointer, no you can't know how long the array it points to is. In fact, you can't even tell if the pointer points to an array or a single object! (At least not portably.)
If you have functions that must accept an array, either have your function require:
the pointer and the size of the array pointed by the pointer,
or two pointers with one pointing to the first element of the array and one pointing one-past-the-end of the array.
I'd like to give some additional advice: Never use some kind of sentinel/termination value in arrays for determining their bounds. This makes your programs prone to error and is often the cause for security issues. You should always store the length of arrays to limit all operations to their bounds and test against that value.
In C++ you have the STL and its containers.
In C you'll effectively end up using structures like
typedef struct t_int_array
{
size_t length;
int data[1]; /* note the 1 (one) */
} int_array;
and a set of manipulation functions like this
int_array * new_int_array(size_t length)
{
int_array * array;
/* we're allocating the size of basic t_int_array
(which already contains space for one int)
and additional space for length-1 ints */
array = malloc( sizeof(t_int_array) + sizeof(int) * (length - 1) );
if(!array)
return 0;
array->length = length;
return array;
}
int_array * concat_int_arrays(int_array const * const A, int_array const * const B);
int_array * int_array_push_back(int_array const * const A, int const value);
/* and so on */
This method will make the compiler align the t_int_array struct in a way, that it's optimal for the targeted architecture (also with malloc allocation), and just allocating more space in quantities of element sizes of the data array element will keep it that way.
The reason that you can iterate across a C-style string using pointers is that of the 256 different character values, one has been specifically reserved to be interpreted as "this is the end of the string." Because of this, C-style strings can't store null characters anywhere in them.
When you're trying to use a similar trick for integer arrays, you're noticing the same problem. If you want to be able to stop at some point, you'll have to pick some integer and reserve it to mean "this is not an integer; it's really the end of the sequence of integers." So no, there is no general way to take an array of integers and demarcate the end by a special value unless you're willing to pick some value that can't normally appear in the string.
C++ opted for a different approach than C to delineate sequences. Instead of storing the elements with some sort of null terminator, C++-style ranges (like you'd find in a vector, string, or list) store two iterators, begin() and end(), that indicate the first element and first element past the end. You can iterate over these ranges by writing
for (iterator itr = begin; itr != end; ++itr)
/* ... visit *itr here ... */
This approach is much more flexible than the C-string approach to defining ranges as it doesn't rely on specific properties of any values in the range. I would suggest opting to use something like this if you want to iterate over a range of integer values. It's more explicit about the bounds of the range and doesn't run into weird issues where certain values can't be stored in the range.
Apart from the usual suggestion that you should go and use the STL, you can find the length of a fixed array like this:
int array[6]={1,12,41,45,58,68};
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]); ++i)
{ }
If you use a templated function, you can implicitly derive the length like this:
template<size_t len> void func(int (&array)[len])
{
for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { }
}
int array[6]={1,12,41,45,58,68};
func(array);
If 0 is a value that may occur in a normal array of integers, you can specify a different value:
const int END_OF_ARRAY = 0x80000000;
int array[8]={0,1,12,41,45,58,68,END_OF_ARRAY};
for (int i = 0; array[i] != END_OF_ARRAY; ++i)
{ }
If every value is a possibility, or if none of the other approaches will work (for example, a dynamic array) then you have to manage the length separately. This is how strings that allow embedded null characters work (such as BSTR).
In your example you are using (or rather abusing) the NULL macro as a sentinel value; this is the function of the NUL('\0') character in a C string, but in the case of a C string NUL is not a valid character anywhere other than as the terminal (or sentinel) value .
The NULL macro is intended to represent an invalid pointer not an integer value (although in C++ when implicitly or explicitly cast to an int, its value is guaranteed to be zero, and in C this is also almost invariably the case). In this case if you want to use zero as the sentinel value you should use a literal zero not NULL. The problem is of course that if in this application zero is a valid data value it is not suitable for use as a sentinel.
So for example the following might suit:
static const int SENTINEL_VALUE = -1 ;
int array[7] = { 1, 12, 41, 45, 58, 68, SENTINEL_VALUE } ;
int* i ;
for( i = array; *i != SENTINEL_VALUE; i++ )
{
printf( "%d ", *i ) ;
}
If all integer values are are valid data values then you will not be able to use a sentinel value at all, and will have to use either a container class (which knows its length) or iterate for the known length of the array (from sizeof()).
Just to pedanticize and expand a little on a previous answer: in dealing with integer arrays in C, it's vanishingly rare to rely on a sentinel value in the array itself. No(1) sane programmer does that. Why not? Because by definition an integer can hold any value within predefined negative/positive limits, or (for the nowadays-not-unusual 32-bit integer) 0 to 0xffffff. It's not a good thing to redefine the notion of "integer" by stealing one of its possible values for a sentinel.
Instead, one always(1) must(1) rely on a controlling up-to-date count of integers that are in the array. Suppose we are to write a C function
that returns an int pointer to the first array member whose value is greater than the function's argument or, if there's no such member, returns NULL (all code is untested):`
int my_int_array[10]; // maximum of 10 integers in my_int_array[], which must be static
int member_count = 0; // varies from 0 to 10, always holds number of ints in my_int_array[]
int *
first_greater_than ( int val ) {
int i;
int *p;
for ( i = 0, p = my_int_array; i < member_count; ++i, ++p ) {
if ( *p > val ) {
return p;
}
}
return NULL;
}
Even better is also to limit the value of i to never count past the last possible member of my_int_array[], i.e., it never gets bigger than 9, and p never points at my_int_array[10] and beyond:
int my_int_array[10]; // maximum of 10 integers in my_int_array[], which must be static
int member_count = 0; // varies from 0 to 10, always holds number of ints in my_int_array[]
int *
first_greater_than ( int val ) {
#define MAX_COUNT sizeof(my_int_array)/sizeof(int)
int i;
int* p;
for ( i = 0, p = my_int_array; i < member_count && i < MAX_COUNT; ++i, ++p ) {
if ( *p > val ) {
return p;
}
}
return NULL;
}
HTH and I apologize if this is just too, too elementary.
--pete
Not strictly true but believe it for now
In ANSI C it's very easy and shorter than solution before:
int array[]={1,12,41,45,58,68}, *i=array;
size_t numelems = sizeof array/sizeof*array;
while( numelems-- )
printf("%d ",*i++);
Another way is to manage array of pointers to int:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define MAX_ELEMENTS 10
int main() {
int * array[MAX_ELEMENTS];
int ** i;
int k;
// initialize MAX_ELEMENTS,1 matrix
for (k=0;k<MAX_ELEMENTS;k++) {
array[k] = malloc(sizeof(int*));
// last element of array will be NULL pointer
if (k==MAX_ELEMENTS-1)
array[k] = NULL;
else
array[k][0] = k;
}
// now loop until you get NULL pointer
for (i=array;*i;i++) {
printf("value %i\n",**i);
}
// free memory
for (k=0;k<MAX_ELEMENTS;k++) {
free(array[k]);
}
return 0;
}
In this way loop condition is totally independent from the values of integers. But... for this to work you must use 2D array (matrix) instead of ordinary 1D array. Hope that helps.
I wrote a little test to check for null pointer, I simplified it with int and 0, 1, instead of real classes, what I'm trying to test is something like this: return p ? 1 : 0;
which in real world would be return p ? p->callmethod() : 0;
bool TestTrueFalse();
void main()
{
int i = TestTrueFalse();
}
bool TestTrueFalse()
{
int one = 1;
int * p =&one;
*p = 0;
return p ? 1 : 0;
}
now, you can see, that once the pointer becomes 0 again, the test fails, why?
what's wrong with this? what's the solution?
*p = 0;
you probably meant
p = 0;
*p = 0 sets what the pointer points to, not the pointer
When testing a pointer value with a conditional in C++, it will return true if the value is non-zero and false if the value is 0. In your sample p is slated to point at the local one and hence has a non-zero address (even though the value at the address is 0). Hence you get true
A null pointer is a pointer which points to the address 0, not the value 0.
To set a pointer to null, do:
p = 0;
To elaborate, your code sets the pointed-to-int to 0. For example:
int i = 1;
int *p = &i;
assert(*p == 1); //p points to 1
*p = 0;
assert(*p == 0 && i == 0); //p points to the same location, but that location now contains 0
The code *p = 0; does not set the pointer to null. It sets what p is pointing to zero.
A pointer is an address in memory. int *p = &one; takes the address of the variable one, and stores it in p. *p = 0; stores 0 in the memory pointed to by p, meaning that the value of one is now 0. So, you have changed what p points to, but not p itself. TestTrueFalse() will return 1.
to test it for a null pointer before inspecting the value pointed to you might use code like
if(ip != NULL)
taken from http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cclass/notes/sx10d.html
NULL might be safer in your code, as it is more compiler independent than just writing 0. and it might also be more clear for others to read in your code.