c style string and dynamic allocation in c++ - c++

I must implement a bunch of methods that allocates, modify and free a 2D array of c-style string. I cannot use string nor vectors nor any stl container.
getNewMat :
char*** getNewMat(int w, int h){
char*** newMat = new char**[h];
for(int i = 0 ; i < h ; i++){
newMat[i] = new char*[w];
for(int j = 0 ; j < w ; j++)
newMat[i][j] = NULL;
}
return newMat;
}
fillMat
void fillMat(char***mat, int x, int y, char* newEl){
mat[y][x] = newEl; //this will produce a segfault (even with good index)
}
showMat :
void showMat(char*** mat, int w, int h){
for(int i = 0 ; i < h ; i++){
for(int j = 0 ; j < w ; j++)
cout << mat[i][j];
}
cout << endl;
}
so, can anyone please tell me what's wrong with this?

In your fillMat method you do this:
mat[y][x] = newEl;
Where x and y are the dimensions of the two ranks of the array. That line will cause a segmentation fault because you're going outside the bounds of the array. mat is indexed from 0 to length - 1 and setting by x and y is going 1 outside the bounds of the array.
Maybe you meant to loop through and set them:
for (int i = 0; i < y; ++i)
{
for (int k = 0; k < x; ++k)
mat[i][k] = newEl;
}
Moreover, inside your showMat function you have this:
cout << showMat[i][j];
I think you meant for that to be mat:
cout << mat[i][j];

newMat[i][j] = NULL - it's a bad idea. In showMat you will try to dereference a NULL pointer - this is UB and may cause a segfault.
char* - it's not a string - it's just a pointer to char, that may points to memory location, where can be beginning of string. If you want to work with it like with a string, you should allocate memory for it too.
mat[y][x] = newEl - it's a bad idea too. As I already said, char* is not a string, so, you can't just use assignment operator to copy data from one C-string into another. You should use std::copy or std::strncpy.
Do not forget to free allocated memory after using.
You should implement your own string class - it's the better solution, I can see there. At least, because it simpler and easier to understand.

I must implement a bunch of methods that allocates, modify and free a
2D array of c-style string. ...snip... so, can anyone please tell me
what's wrong with this?
A "c-style string" isn't a type. It's a representation of data within a type. '\0'-terminated strings are typically stored within char arrays, but you could store one just as easily in a unsigned int array. For example:
unsigned int message[32] = { 0 };
strcpy((char *) message, "Hello, world!");
printf("%s\n", (char *) message);
I discourage programming like this, however micro-optimistic the benefits may seem. It's also possible to store a string in something that isn't an array. Consider that a char might be suitable for storing an empty string:
char x = '\0';
printf("%s\n", &x);
It's reasonable to assume that you meant "an array of array of array of char", when you said "2D array of c-style string". Let us carry on in that direction.
I don't know a lot about C++, but there's a list of property of arrays which you probably haven't thought about in your quest to mimic actual arrays. I'll summarise these using assertions:
#define x 7
#define y 13
#define z 1
char foo[x][y][z] = { 0 };
assert((char *) foo == foo[0]);
assert(sizeof foo == (char *) &foo[1] - (char *) &foo[0]);
assert(sizeof foo == x * y * z);
I'm not sure if you'll be able to solve your problem with any of these assertions passing in C++, but I'm open for any input from others as to hints as to how one might...
Arrays are contiguous. This means that newMat[x] + w and newMat[x+1], for values of x in 0 .. h-1. In your code, this isn't a reality, because you allocate newMat[x] and newMat[x+1] separately. Similarly, it is expected that newMay[0][y] == newMat[0][y+1] + n, where n is the maximum length of your strings. This can be a problem when using generic array sorting algorithms, because they might rely upon your arrays being contiguous.
The closest you might come to solving this problem seems to involve allocating only once per dimension, rather than h times for the first dimension and w for the second. This would look something like this:
char ***getNewMat(size_t w, size_t h, size_t n){
char ***newMat = new char **[h];
newMat[0] = new char *[h*w];
newMat[0][0] = new char[h*w*n];
for(size_t i = 0; i < h; i++){
newMat[i] = newMat[0] + i * w;
for (size_t j = 0; j < w; j++) {
newMat[i][j] = newMat[0][0] + i * w * n + j * n;
}
}
return newMat;
}
One side-effect of arrays being contiguous is that you can't assign C-style strings by merely changing the pointer within the array to point to a different location. The pointer is the result of a conversion from an array expression to a pointer expression which isn't an lvalue. As I said earlier, I don't know much about C++, but in C that means the following code can't compile:
char foo[x][y][z] = { 0 };
foo[a][b] = "hello";
However, the following code can compile:
char *foo[x][y] = { 0 };
foo[a][b] = "hello";
The former might constitute an array of C-style strings, but the latter can't because of the contiguity rule we've covered, and the fact that it starts off with most if it's elements pointing to NULL, a pointer which can't point to anything let alone strings. There might be some operator overloading magic you can perform to permit the former to compile. I'm also open for any hints in the right direction to provide an example for the OP, here.

Related

Simulate 2D array to 1D [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Representing a 2D array as a 1D array [duplicate]
(5 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a jagged 2D array, the rows aren't all the same length:
int sizes[100];
//init sizes
unsigned char *p = [100];
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
p[i] = (unsigned char*)malloc(sizeof(char)*sizes[i]);
for(unsigned int j = 0; j < sizes[i]; j++)
p[i] = j;
}
I use the array like this:
p[x][y]
How can I simulate this array to 1D?
I assume that if you want to access your "2D array" as a one D matrix, you expect that as you increment your index by 1, you access the next element in the array (and will automatically go to the next line when you run off the edge). The right way to do this is by changing the way you allocate the array. I'll try to show how this is done - this is just C, not C++. It's probably more appropriate since you were using malloc anyway. I am also thinking that you have a pretty serious error in your code, in that you are creating a char * pointer p, yet expect to use it in
p[x][y];
for which you would need a char **, obviously. Let's try to make code that would do what you want:
int sizes[100];
//init sizes
unsigned char *p[100]; // without the == sign we create an array of 100 pointers
unsigned char *bigP; // the master pointer
int totalLength = 0;
int ii;
for(ii=0; ii<100; ii++) totalLength += sizes[ii];
bigP = malloc(sizeof(char) * totalLength);
int offset = 0;
// make pointers p point to places along this big memory block:
for(ii = 0; ii < 100; ii++) {
p[ii] = bigP + offset;
offset += sizes[ii];
}
Now you can either address your array with
p[x][y];
or with
bigP[z];
where z can go from 0 to the maximum number of elements. Of course, in the process you don't know (when you are using the "1D" paradigm) in what row/column of the jagged array you are - you can't know that if you are truly in one dimension.
The key here is that the memory is allocated as a single contiguous block, and the pointers p are pointing to places in that block. This means you MUST NOT FREE p. You must only ever free bigP.
I hope this makes sense.
If you're looking for a way to map a two dimensional array onto a one dimensional space, then try...
int sizes[width*height];
void setPoint(int x, int y, int val) {
sizes[x*width + y] = val;
}
Notably the x*width + y indexing will give you the appropriate element in the one dimensional array.
Unless it is homework just download boost and use Boost.Matrix.

Concatenate ints in an array?

As part of a homework assignment I need to concatenate certain values in an array in C++. So, for example if I have:
int v[] = {0,1,2,3,4}
I may need at some point to concatenate v[1] -> v[4] so that I get an int with the value 1234.
I got it working using stringstream, by appending the values onto the stringstream and then converting back to an integer. However, throughout the program there will eventually be about 3 million different permutations of v[] passed to my toInt() function, and the stringstream seems rather expensive (at least when dealing with that many values). it's working, but very slow and I'm trying to do whatever I can to optimize it.
Is there a more optimal way to concatenate ints in an array in C++? I've done some searching and nearly everywhere seems to just suggest using stringstream (which works, but seems to be slowing my program down a lot).
EDIT: Just clarifying, I do need the result to be an int.
Pseudo code for a simple solution:
int result = 0;
for (int i=0; i < len(v); i++)
{
result = result*10 + v[i];
}
Large arrays will bomb out due to int size overflow.
How about:
int result = (((v[1])*10+v[2])*10+v[3])*10+v[4];
If the number of elements is variable rather than a fixed number, I'm sure you can spot a pattern here that can be applied in a loop.
Remember ASCII codes?
char concat[vSize+1];
concat[vSize] = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < vSize; i++) {
concat[i] = (v[i] % 10) & 0x30;
}
All are integers. Shouldn't you do the following.
//if you want to concatenate v[1] and v[4]
int concatenated;
concatenated = v[1]*10+v[4];
//If you want to concatenate all
concatenated = 0;
for(int i=1;i<=4;i++)
concatenated = concatenated*10+v[i];
the output would be an integer ( not a string)
Things you can do:
Make sure that you compile with -O3 (Or equivalent compiler optimization).
Do you generate the values in the vector yourself? If so, try changing toInt() function to accept a simple pointer type.
Write the conversion yourself (Browser code : may not even compile - u get the idea though):
char* toInt(int* values, size_t length)
{
int *end = values + sizeof(int)*length;
int *cur = values;
char* buf = new char[length + 1]
for(char* out = buf;cur < end;++cur, ++buf)
{
*out = (char)*cur + '0';
}
*buf = '\0';
return buf;
}

Cannot Convert from int[][] to int*

I have a 3x3 array that I'm trying to create a pointer to and I keep getting this array, what gives?
How do I have to define the pointer? I've tried every combination of [] and *.
Is it possible to do this?
int tempSec[3][3];
int* pTemp = tempSec;
You can do int *pTemp = &tempSec[0][0];
If you want to treat a 3x3 array as an int*, you should probably declare it as an int[9], and use tempSec[3*x+y] instead of tempSec[x][y].
Alternatively, perhaps what you wanted was int (*pTemp)[3] = tempSec? That would then be a pointer to the first element of tempSec, that first element itself being an array.
You can in fact take a pointer to a 2D array:
int (*pTemp)[3][3] = &tempSex;
You'd then use it like this:
(*pTemp)[1][2] = 12;
That's almost certainly not what you want, but in your comment you did ask for it...
Its easyier to use a typedef
typedef int ThreeArray[3];
typedef int ThreeByThree[3][3];
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int data[3][3];
ThreeArray* dPoint = data;
dPoint[0][2] = 5;
dPoint[2][1] = 6;
// Doing it without the typedef makes the syntax very hard to read.
//
int(*xxPointer)[3] = data;
xxPointer[0][1] = 7;
// Building a pointer to a three by Three array directly.
//
ThreeByThree* p1 = &data;
(*p1)[1][2] = 10;
// Building a pointer to a three by Three array directly (without typedef)
//
int(*p2)[3][3] = &data;
(*p2)[1][2] = 11;
// Building a reference to a 3 by 3 array.
//
ThreeByThree& ref1 = data;
ref1[0][0] = 8;
// Building a reference to a 3 by 3 array (Without the typedef)
//
int(&ref2)[3][3] = data;
ref2[1][1] = 9;
return 0;
}
Oh. That's easy!
int aai[3][3];
int* pi = reinterpret_cast<int*>(aai);
You can actually use this awesome technique to cast it into other wonderful types. For example:
int aai[3][3];
int (__stdcall *pfi_lds)(long, double, char*) = reinterpret_cast<int (__stdcall *)(long, double, char*)>(aai);
Isn't that just swell? The question is whether it's meaningful.
You're asking how to lie to your compiler. So the first thing to know is: Why do you want to lie?
int a[20][30];
int* b=&a[0][0];
As Steve pointed out, the proper form is int *pTemp = &tempSec[0][0];. int** pTemp2 = tempSec; does not work. The error given is:
cannot convert 'int (*)[3]' to 'int**' in initialization
It's not stored as an array of pointers to arrays. It's stored as one big vector, and the compiler hides the [a][b] = [a*rowLength+b] from you.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
// Allocate on stack and initialize.
int tempSec[3][3];
int n = 0;
for(int x = 0; x < 3; ++x)
for(int y = 0; y < 3; ++y)
tempSec[x][y] = n++;
// Print some addresses.
cout << "Array base: " << size_t(tempSec) << endl;
for(int x = 0; x < 3; ++x)
cout << "Row " << x << " base: " << size_t(tempSec[x]) << endl;
// Print contents.
cout << "As a 1-D vector:" << endl;
int *pTemp = &tempSec[0][0];
for(int k = 0; k < 9; ++k)
cout << "pTemp[" << k << "] = " << pTemp[k] << endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Array base: 140734799802384
Row 0 base: 140734799802384
Row 1 base: 140734799802396
Row 2 base: 140734799802408
As a 1-D vector:
pTemp[0] = 0
pTemp[1] = 1
pTemp[2] = 2
pTemp[3] = 3
pTemp[4] = 4
pTemp[5] = 5
pTemp[6] = 6
pTemp[7] = 7
pTemp[8] = 8
Note that the Row 0 address is the same as the full array address, and consecutive rows are offset by sizeof(int) * 3 = 12.
Another way to go about doing this, is to first create an array of pointers:
int* pa[3] = { temp[0], temp[1], temp[2] };
Then create a pointer pointer to point to that:
int** pp = pa;
You can then use normal array syntax on that pointer pointer to get the element you're looking for:
int x = pp[1][0]; // gets the first element of the second array
Also, if the only reason you're trying to convert it to a pointer is so you can pass it to a function, you can do this:
void f(int v[3][3]);
As long as the size of the arrays are fixed, you can pass a two-dimensional array to a function like this. It's much more specific than passing a pointer.
Original post follows - please disregard, it is misinformed. Leaving it for posterity's sake ;)
However, here is a link I found regarding memory allocation of 2-dimensional arrays in c++. Perhaps it may be of more value.
Not sure it's what you want, and it's been a while since I've written c++, but the reason your cast fails is because you are going from an array of arrays to a pointer of ints. If, on the other hand, you tried from array to array to a pointer of pointers, it would likely work
int tempSec[3][3];
int** pTemp = tempSec;
remember, your array of arrays is really a contiguous block of memory holding pointers to other contiguous blocks of memory - which is why casting an array of arrays to an array of ints will get you an array of what looks like garbage [that garbage is really memory addresses!].
Again, depends on what you want. If you want it in pointer format, pointer of pointers is the way to go. If you want all 9 elements as one contiguous array, you will have to perform a linearization of your double array.
Let's ask cdecl.org to translate your declaration for us:
int tempSec[3][3]
returns
declare tempSec as array 3 of array 3 of int
Ok, so how do we create a pointer to that? Let's ask cdecl again:
declare pTemp as pointer to array 3 of array 3 of int
returns
int (*pTemp)[3][3]
Since we already have the array 3 of array 3 of int, we can just do:
int (*pTemp)[3][3] = &tempSec;
int tempSec[3][3];
int* pTemp = tempSec[0];

C++ two dimensional arrays with pointers

I have a problem with two dimensional arrays :( I feel very stupid and Visual C does not help me :( and I also think that my mistake is very stupid but still I can't find it :( I have this code:
double matrix[100][100]; //which is full with a matrix 3x4
double nVector[10000]; // for negative doubles
//I wanted to see if there are negative doubles in each row and column
//and I want this to happen with function
And this is my function:
double* negativeVector(double*nVector, double*fromVector, int m, int n){
int position = 0;
double *myNegArray = nVector;
double *myMatrix = fromVector;
for(int i = 0; i < m*n; i++)
if(*(*(myMatrix+i)) < 0){
*(myNegArray+position) = *(*(myMatrix+i));
position++;
}
return myNegArray;
}
//for double*nVector I'm passing nVector
//for double*fromVector I'm passing *matrix
Visual C tells me that I have an error C2100: illegal indirection here: *(*(myMatrix+i)) I hope someone can help me (happy)
Thanks in advance!
*(*(myMatrix+i)) is wrong. This is a common mistake.
2D matrix does not create an array of pointers which you can access this way. It is a different structure. Even though an array is a pointer, 2D array is not a pointer to pointer, and it cannot be dereferrenced twice. Nor you have any other way to access element at coordinates (x,y) without knowing the layout in memory, because pointers to every line are nowhere to be found. For instance, char **argv parameter of main() is not a 2D array. This is an array of pointers to arrays, which is something else.
There're two ways to fix it.
One is replace
double *myMatrix = fromVector;
by
double *myMatrix[100] = (appropriate cast)fromVector;
and index it as myMatrix[i/n][i%n]
But then remember that 100 is a constant expression, and it cannot be passed as a parameter. Alternatively, you can implement the indexing operation yourself:
Pass additional parameter: matrix line size (100)
Instead of *(*(myMatrix+i)), write:
int row = i/n;
int col = i%n;
*(myMatrix+row*line_size+col) is your element.
first you might wanna start a small struct like
struct tmp {
bool negative;
double value;
};
and make your own way up to the
tmp *myvars [100][100];
.
instead try using that struct and try the std::vectors instead of arrays if that's possible then try using pointers on decalring the variable "1 time only" when declaring the variable as i said above
then pass arguments
( tmp *mystructpointer )
mystructpointer->.......
access your matrix directly ... peice of cake :D
If you are passing *matrix, you are actually passing a double[100] (an array of 100 doubles), that happens to be passed as a pointer to its first element. If you advance further than those 100 doubles using i added to that pointer, you advance into the next array of 100 doubles, since the 100 arrays of 100 doubles are stored next to each other.
Background: A multi-dimensional array is an array whose element type is itself an array. An array like double a[100][100]; can be declared equivalently as typedef double aT[100]; aT a[100];. If you use an array like a pointer, a temporary pointer is created to the array's first element (which might be an array). The * operator is such an operation, and doing *a creates a pointer of type double(*)[100] (which is a pointer to an array of 100 doubles), and dereferences it. So what you end up with *matrix is a double[100]. Passing it to the negativeVector function will create a pointer to its first element, which is of type double*.
Your pointer parameters point to the start of each of two arrays of 100 doubles each. So you should rewrite the function as
double* negativeVector(double*nVector, double*fromVector, int m, int n){
int position = 0;
double *myNegArray = nVector;
double *myMatrix = fromVector;
for(int i = 0; i < m*n; i++)
if(*(myMatrix + i) < 0){
*(myNegArray + position) = *(myMatrix + i);
position++;
}
return myNegArray;
}
Notice that since your i iterates beyond the first of the 100 arrays stored in the 2d array, you will formally not be correct with this. But as it happens those arrays must be allocated next to each other, it will work in practice (and in fact, is recommended as a good enough work around for passing multi-dimensional arrays around as pointers to their first scalar element).
I have no clue why you are copying the arrays twice (once in the parameters of the function and a second time by declaring some new arrays)... You should also think of using the STL... std::vector will make the your life way easier ;)
double* negativeVector(double*nVector, double*fromVector, int m, int n){
int position = 0;
double *myNegArray = nVector;
double *myMatrix = fromVector;
for(int i = 0; i < m*n; i++)
if(*((myMatrix+i)) < 0){
*(myNegArray+position) = *((myMatrix+i));
position++;
}
return myNegArray;
}
is that homework? some templates - just for fun ;-)
double matrix[100][100];
double nVector[10000];
template< const int m, const int n >
double* negativeVector( double* myNegArray, const double (&myMatrix)[m][n] )
{
int position = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < m; ++i )
{
for( int j = 0; j < n; ++j )
{
const double value = myMatrix[ i ][ j ];
if ( value < 0 )
{
myNegArray[ position ] = value;
++position;
}
}
}
return myNegArray;
}
int main()
{
//...initialize matrix here...
negativeVector( nVector, matrix );
}
Perhaps rewrite this using std::vector to increase readability? (#):
#include <vector>
std::vector< std::vector<double> > matrix; //which is full with a matrix 3x4
std::vector<double> row;
row.resize(100,0);
matrix.resize(100,row);
std::vector<double> nVector; // for negative doubles, no size, we'll "push_back"
//I wanted to see if there are negative doubles in each row and column
//and I want this to happen with function
This is the stl enabled version of the function:
//I'm returning void because nvector contains the result,
//so I don't feel the need to return anything. vectors contain their
//own size so n and m are also not needed. Alsom pass in references
void negativeVector(std::vector<double>& nVector,
std::vector< std::vector<double> >& fromVector){
nVector.clear();
int i,j;
for(i = 0; i < fromVector.size(); i++) {
for(j = 0; j < fromVector[i].size(); j++) {
if(fromVector[i][j] < 0){
nVector.push_back(fromVector[i][j]);
}
}
}
}
call with:
negativeVector(nVector, matrix);
Once the function completes, nVector contains all negative numbers in matrix.
Read more about std::vector here.
(#) for people like me who are too lazy/stupid to comprehend code containing pointers.
Take a look at C++ Faq site:
How do I allocate multidimensional arrays using new?
link
And read until point [16.20] summarize all the answers you are getting and at the end you get a very useful Matrix template class.
Have a good read.

How do I treat a pointer as a multi array?

I have this loop which gives seg. fault.
s->c = malloc(width * height * sizeof(double));
if (s->c == NULL) { puts("malloc failed"); exit(1); }
for (int n = 0; n < width; n++) {
for (int m = 0; m < height; m++) {
d = (&s->c)[m][n];
printf("d %f\n", d);
printf("m %i\n", m);
printf("n %i\n", n);
}
}
Inside s->c is:
double* c;
When executed it just outputs:
d 27.000000
m 0
n 0
and then seg. fault.
It worked when I treated the s->c as a 1D array, but I would really like to treat it as a 2D array.
Is that possible, when the c pointer is in a struct?
If so, is (&s->c)[m][n] then the correct way to access the elements?
Sandra
The problem is that the compiler doesn't know the dimensions of your matrix.
When you have: double tab[m][n] you can access the element tab[row][col] as *(tab + (row * n) + col)
In your case you only have double *tab; that can be considered as the pointer to the element tab[0][0] with no information on the matrix dimensions and the compiler can't compute the right address.
You could compute the address yourself (for example using a macro) but would lose the nice tab[x][y] syntax.
I`m surprised it compiles. You should have received at least a warning about implicitly casting a double to a pointer.
I'm very surprised it even compiles. Apparently c is a double*, so (&s->c)[m] is the m'th double. Now, double doesn't have an operator[], so I don't see how the [n] part in (&s->c)[m][n] can be legal.
Presumably, you have declared c differently. There are different solutions: a pointer to a pointer, an pointer to an array of doubles, an array of pointers to doubles, etcetera. All might work, if the allocations match the declaration. In your case, the allocation will not match the declaration.
The correct way to access the array elements is
d = s->c[m * width + n];
Is that what you mean by treating it as a 1D array?
Access the elements using
double d = s->c[m*width+n];
Perhaps through an inline function, to avoid unexpected behaviour.
The compiler does not know about the width of your intended 2D array. It might possibly interpret (&s->c)[m][n] as s->c[m+n], or as something quite different.
Short answer: you can't treat it as a 2D array, at least not in the way you expect.
The reason writing
(&s->c)[m][n]
doesn't work can be shown as follows. Assume the address of s->c is 0x00080004, and the address of the dynamically allocated memory pointed to by s->c is 0x00001000.
The expression (&s->c)[m][n] is evaluated as *(*(&s->c + m) + n);
The expression &s->c evaluates to 0x00080004;
The expression (&s->c + m) evaluates to 0x00080004+m;
The expression *(&s->c + m) evaluates to the value of whatever is pointed to by 0x00080004+m. If m is 0, then 0x00080004+m points to 0x00001000, which is the address of your dynamically allocated memory (*(&x) == x). If m is any other value, then 0x00080004+m points somewhere random;
The expression (*(&s->c + m) + n) evaluates to whatever 0x00080004+m points to offset by n. If m is 0, then the value is 0x00001000+n, or an offset into your dynamically allocated memory. If m is not 0, then the value is something random;
The expression *(*(&s->c) + m) + n) attempts to dereference the above value. If m is 0, then the result is the value of an element in the dynamically allocated array. If m is not 0, then the result is ... something else. In your case, a segfault.
If you want to dynamically allocate a 2D array, you have to use a pointer to a pointer and allocate it in steps, like so:
struct {
...
double **c;
...
} *s;
...
/**
* Notes: type of s->c is double **
* type of *(s->c) and s->c[i] is double *
* type of *(s->c[i]) and s->c[i][j] is double
*/
s->c = malloc(sizeof *(s->c) * rows);
if (s->c)
{
for (i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
s->c[i] = malloc(sizeof *(s->c[i]) * columns);
if (s->c[i])
{
// initialize s->c[i][0] through s->c[i][columns-1]
}
}
}
If you want to allocate s->c as a 1D array, then you can define a macro that does the job for you (but you need to know the second dimension):
#define AR(M, X, Y) ((M)[(Y) + dimy * (X)])
I'm surprised nobody mentioned boost::multi_array_ref:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/multi_array.hpp>
int main()
{
int rows = 4, cols = 3;
// Allocate one big block of contiguous data for entire multi-array
double* arrayData = new double[rows*cols];
if (arrayData)
{
boost::multi_array_ref<double, 2>
arrayRef(arrayData, boost::extents[rows][cols]);
for (int row = 0; row < rows; ++row)
{
for (int col = 0; col < cols; ++col)
{
arrayRef[row][col] = row*cols + col;
std::cout << arrayRef[row][col] << " ";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
}
delete [] arrayData;
}
You can also just use boost::multi_array and resize it dynamically:
boost::multi_array_ref<double, 2> marray;
marray.resize(boost::extents[rows][cols]);