Inside a function, I make a 2d array that fills itself from a text file and needs to get returned to main. The array stays a constant size through the whole program.
I know this is something that gets asked a lot, but I always seem to get one of two answers:
Use std::vector or std::array or some other STD function. I don't really understand how these work, is there any site actually explaining them and how they act compared to normal arrays? Are there any special #includes that I need?
Or
Use a pointer to the array, and return the pointer. First, on some of the answers to this it apparently doesn't work because of local arrays. How do I tell when it does and doesn't work? How do I use this array back in the main function?
I'm having more trouble with the concept of pointers and std::things than with the actual code, so if there's a website you know explains it particularly well, feel free to just put that.
Not necessarily the best solution, but the easiest way to get it working with vectors. The advantages are that you don't need to delete memory (happens automatically) and the array is bounds-checked in debug mode on most compilers.
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
using array2D = std::vector< std::vector< int > >;
array2D MyFunc(int x_size, int y_size)
{
array2D array(y_size, vector< int >(x_size));
int i = 0;
for (int y = 0; y < array.size(); y++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < array[y].size(); x++)
{
// note the order of the index
array[y][x] = i++;
}
}
return array;
}
int main()
{
array2D bob = MyFunc(10, 5);
for (int y = 0; y < bob.size(); y++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < bob[y].size(); x++)
{
cout << bob[y][x] << "\n";
}
}
}
Live example:
http://ideone.com/K4ilfX
Sounds like you are new to C++. If this is indeed the case, I would suggest using arrays for now because you probably won't be using any of the stuff that STL containers give you. Now, let's talk about pointers.
You are correct that if you declare a local array in your function, the main function won't have access to it. However, this is not the case if you dynamically allocate the array using the new keyword. When you use new to allocate your array, you essentially tell the compiler to reserve a chunk of memory for your program. You can then access it using a pointer, which is really just the address of that chunk of memory you reserved. Therefore, instead of passing the entire array to the main function, all you need to do is pass a pointer (address) to that array.
Here are some relevant explanations. I will add to them as I find more:
Dynamic Memory
The easiest way to create a 2d array is as follows:
char (*array)[10];
array = new array[5][10];
Two dimensional arrays can be tricky to declare. The parenthesis above in the variable declaration are important to tell the compiler array is a pointer to an array of 10 characters.
It is really essential to understand pointers with C and C++ unless using the std:: collections. Even then, pointers are widely prevalent, and incorrect use can be devastating to a program.
Related
In the case I am creating an 'array' on stack in c++, is it better to initialise an empty vector with a reserved number of elements and then pass this to a function like foo() as a reference as below. Or is it better to set an array arrb of size nelems, then using a pointer p_arrb to the address of the first element increment the pointer and assign some value?
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
void foo(std::vector<int>& arr){
int nelems = arr.capacity();
for (int i = 0; i < nelems; i++){
arr[i] = i;
}
}
int main()
{
int nelems;
std::cout << "Type a number: "; // Type a number and press enter
std::cin >> nelems;
std::vector<int> arr;
arr.reserve(nelems); // Init std lib vector
foo(arr);
int arrb[nelems];
int* p_arrb = &(arrb[0]); // pointer to arrb
for (int i = 0; i < nelems; i ++){
*(p_arrb++) = i; // populate using pointer
}
p_arrb -= nelems; // decrement pointer
return 0;
}
It seems people prefer the use of vector as it is standardised and easier to read? Apart from that, is there any performance benefit to using vector instead of a basic pointer in this case where I do not need to change the size of my vector/array at any point in the code?
What you should use depends on the exact goal you have. In general the best approach is to avoid using "raw arrays" (both dynamic and static) wherever possible.
If you need dynamic array, use std::vector. If you need static array, use std::array.
You can't use the arrb variant because the size of an array must be a compile-time constant in C++, but you are trying to use a runtime size here.
If your compiler is compiling this, then it is doing so only because it supports these so-called variable-length arrays as a non-standard extension. Other compilers will not support them or have differing degree of support or behavior. These arrays are optionally-supported in C, but even there they are probably not worth the trouble they cause.
There is no way to allocate a runtime-dependent amount of memory on the stack in C++ (except if you misuse recursive function calls to simulate it).
So yes, you should use the vector approach. But as discussed in the comments under the question, what you are doing is wrong and causes undefined behavior. You need to either reserve memory and then emplace_back/push_back elements into the vector or you need to resize the vector to the expected size and then you may index it directly. Indexing a vector outside the the range of elements already created in it causes undefined behavior.
I want to malloc an array in my code, and its size should be defined at runtime.
I tried like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <array>
int main(){
int M=4,N=3,P=5;
M=N+P;
std::array<std::array<double,M>,N> arr;
}
But MSVC told me:
a variable with non-static storage duration cannot be used as a non-type argument
I don't find the answer to this in stackoverflow.(The existing question seem not to solve my problem...)
How to dynamically allocate a 2D std::array in C++?
I know I could use std::vector to solve this. But the vector memory size needs to be organized by myself and this would be used many times in my project. And I want to use C++ type code rather than C type...Maybe there is a method to turn a 2D array in C type to std::array, but I can't find it by Google...
So I ask this question...
I mean the M and N should be got dynamically(not changed,but I can only know it in runtime...),like:
#include <iostream>
int main(){
int a=3;
int b=4;
int rowCount=a+b;
int colCout=b-a;
int** a = new int*[rowCount];
for(int i = 0; i < rowCount; ++i)
{
a[i] = new int[colCount];
}
}
I know where is my mistake. I fell into a logical question... If I don't use push_back,the vector works well. If I use it, the array doesn't work, too.
I think the capcity of vector is bigger than its size, I want to avoid this. But another question: How to limit the capacity of std::vector to the number of element show I should use my allocator or std::vector::shrink_to_fit() to avoid it...(There is no guarantee in C++17 if you use reserve(n))
The dynamically allocated array container in C++ is std::vector. std::array is for specifically compile-time fixed-length arrays.
https://cppreference.com is your friend!
But the vector memory size needs to be organized by myself
Not quite sure what you mean with that, but you specify the size of your std::vector using the constructor.
std::vector<std::vector<int>> arr(N);
If you need some special allocator (not just new/malloc), then you can also specify a custom allocator.
Your whole program that you propose is not good C++. A C++ solution would look like:
#include <vector>
int main() {
int a = 3;
int b = 4;
unsigned int rowCount = a + b;
unsigned int colCount = b - a;
std::vector<std::vector<int>> matrix(rowCount);
for (auto& row : matrix) {
row.resize(colCount);
}
}
std::array, like an actual array in C++, requires a constant size. It's what gives it any advantage at all over std::vector.
For a technical explanation as to how that requirement is implemented, remember that template parameters are required to be compile-time constants (since it changes how the code is generated, again at compile-time).
Anyway, you want to use std::vector here. If you know the size you want, give it as a constructor parameter.
I have this main function and i want to get an multidimensional array out of this to generate a graph instead of cout
int main(){
zoro z;
std:ifstream k("ggg.grf");
z.getfromstream(k);
for(int i =0 ; i < z.nnodes; i++){
edge_iteratore s = z.begin(i);
while(s != z.end(i)){
std:cout << "(" << (*s).height << "," << (*s).weight << ")" << std::endl;
++s;
}
}
return 0;
}
I' trying to get std::out to a function to generate a multidimensional array
so i have implemented this function to get an array,
int createarr(height,width){
int** ary = new int*[height];
for(int i = 0; i < height; ++i)
ary[i] = new int[weight];
}
but nothing works, how can i return an multidimensional array to use it in another function call instead of outputting it to the screen.
If height and weight are constexpr values you know at compile time, declare std::array<<std::array<int>, weight>, height>. This gets you locality of reference. If they are values you compute at runtime or that could vary, use vector<vector<int>>(height) and initialize each row. Then the compiler takes care of freeing the memory for you. If only one is fixed, you can also do a vector of arrays or an array of vectors.
It’s unfortunate that, because of the legacy char** argv interface of main(), every beginning C and C++ programmer thinks that’s how you do a two-dimensional array. A ragged array like that is almost never what you really want. But if you do, use std::vector to manage the memory for you.
The problem with your createarr() as written is that it doesn’t return any array pointer, but RAII is more likely what you want. And if you do have a sparse matrix that would benefit from raggedness, you can use a format like Compressed Sparse Row.
You need to return a pointer to the created array.
But you'll need to somehow deal with the fact that this is dynamically allocated memory, ie, you need to release it when you're done.
And you'll need to somehow encapsulate the dimensions too, which then means it needs to be a struct.
When you finally get tired of dealing with memory leaks, and understand how pointers work, use std::vector like the other guy said.
In the meantime, don't try to implement complicated algorithms in C without understanding the basics first. Brush up hard on how pointers and arrays actually work, first.
I’m trying to store a shared pointer to a fixed size array in to a vector, I want to use a shared pointer because I must pass a pointer to the array to another class that will write in the array, and I want to have more than one array because I may have more instances of the writing class and each one needs an array to write to, they will write a lot of data in the arrays so moving them is not a good option.
std::shared_ptr<char> sp( new char [MAX_LENGTH], std::default_delete< char[] >() );
arrayVect.push_back(sp);
the vector is defined as class member like:
std::vector< std::shared_ptr< char [ MAX_LENGTH ] > > arrayVect;
I'm getting the error:
error: no matching function for call to ‘std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char [MAX_LENGTH]> >::push_back(std::shared_ptr<char []>&)’
I have tried different alternatives but none of them have worked, could you point out the correct way of doing it? or is there an alternative that I am missing? the writing class needs an array of chars for the write function so I think I’m stuck with array.
thanks!
I feel like shared ownership is the wrong model here. Conceptually, why would you want your workers to continue to work on an array if no one else is observing the result anymore?
So I'd have the arrayVect own the arrays and hand out pointers to the arrays to the workers. When it doesn't make sense to keep one of the arrays around, stop the worker first and then delete the array.
The easiest way to get that behavior is to make arrayVect a std::vector<std::unique_ptr<std::array<char, MAX_LENGTH>>>. Then the pointer to the underlying char[MAX_LENGTH] array that you can pass to a worker can be obtained by calling arrayVect[idx].get().data().
By having the additional indirection through the unique_ptr the pointers to the arrays remain valid even if the vector is resized.
EDIT: Here is an example how that can work with unique_ptrs even though your workers also need a pointer to the array:
class Worker {
public:
Worker(std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>* array)
: _array{array} {
}
void perform_work() {
function_that_requires_c_arrays(_array->data()); // maybe also a size parameter?
}
private:
std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>* _array;
};
int main() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>>> arrayVect;
arrayVect.emplace_back(std::make_unique<std::array<char, MAX_SIZE>>()));
Worker w{arrayVect.back().get()};
w.perform_work();
}
Try declaring vector like below,
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char> > arrayVect;
Actually, You are declaring vector incorrectly. Please try and check with above change. Hope it helps!
You can use std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char>> without the array notation. It is important that you then still use std::default_delete<char[]>() as the deleter.
Here is a complete example.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#define MAX_LENGTH 10
int main() {
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<char>> arrayVect;
std::shared_ptr<char> sp(new char[MAX_LENGTH], std::default_delete<char[]>());
arrayVect.push_back(sp);
arrayVect.push_back(std::shared_ptr<char>(new char[MAX_LENGTH], std::default_delete<char[]>()));
char q = 0;
for (size_t x = 0; x < arrayVect.size(); ++x)
for (size_t y = 0; y < MAX_LENGTH; ++y)
arrayVect.at(x).get()[y] = ++q;
for (size_t x = 0; x < arrayVect.size(); ++x)
for (size_t y = 0; y < MAX_LENGTH; ++y)
std::cout << int(arrayVect.at(x).get()[y]) << '\n'; // Int cast to print numbers, and not ASCII control characters
}
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