This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When would you use an array rather than a vector/string?
What is the difference between std::array and std::vector? When do you use one over other?
I always use vectors (dynamic arrays) for everything, I never use normal arrays, is there any downside to this, for example, will there ever be a time when a vector will not suit, and a normal array will suit a function?
According to Bjarne Stroustrup, you should use vector over Array unless you have a really good reason to use an array.
In nearly all situations, vector is preferable. Its memory is allocated from the free store (designed for large allocations) and managed automatically; and you can easily get a pointer to the array itself if you need it.
You would use an array (either built-in or std::array) if:
The array size is known at compile time and not so large that it might blow the stack; and
The array has a fixed scope; and
Dynamic allocation is causing issues such as excessive run-time cost or heap fragmentation, and you don't want to use custom allocators to address these issues.
Vector is a dynamically growing array. Whereas arrays are static. You have to define a array at the beginning and cannot be reallocated.
With vectors you do not have the limitation of declaring a fixed size. You can start with a empty vector and keep it growing as long as you want.
Till date I have never found any situation where array is more suited. In fact I have found using vectors solves many of many problems which I face with an array.
I think its a very good practice to use vectors always.
Keep doing it!!!!
Use whatever best fits your situation, I have outlined one of my favourite benefits of a fixed size array below with a little example.
If you have an unknown size or may require an increase in storage at runtime you would be looking for a vector.
If you have a predetermined size you can use a std::array or even a raw C array (int foo[256]) which has benefits in code simplicity and speed. One of the best benefits here is if the data to be stored in the array is known then you can use a C style initialiser list removing any of the setup costs which would occur with a vector and open up space for the optimizer to make things faster while also being simpler to debug:
struct KeyPair { int key; string name; };
const KeyPair kFoo[] = { { 0, "0" }, { 1, "1" }, { 2, "2" } };
const string& getName( unsigned int key )
{
assert( key < (sizeof(kFoo)/sizeof(*kFoo)) ); // Check key is a valid index
assert( kFoo[key].key == key ); //< Sanity check - useful is key is an enum which could change
return kFoo[key];
}
Related
If I have a struct instanceData:
struct InstanceData
{
unsigned usedInstances;
unsigned allocatedInstances;
void* buffer;
Entity* entity;
std::vector<float> *vertices;
};
And I allocate enough memory for an Entity and std::vector:
newData.buffer = size * (sizeof(Entity) + sizeof(std::vector<float>)); // Pseudo code
newData.entity = (Entity *)(newData.buffer);
newData.vertices = (std::vector<float> *)(newData.entity + size);
And then attempt to copy a vector of any size to it:
SetVertices(unsigned i, std::vector<float> vertices)
{
instanceData.vertices[i] = vertices;
}
I get an Access Violation Reading location error.
I've chopped up my code to make it concise, but it's based on Bitsquid's ECS. so just assume it works if I'm not dealing with vectors (it does). With this in mind, I'm assuming it's having issues because it doesn't know what size the vector is going to scale to. However, I thought the vectors might increase along another dimension, like this?:
Am I wrong? Either way, how can I allocate memory for a vector in a buffer like this?
And yes, I know vectors manage their own memory. That's besides the point. I'm trying to do something different.
It looks like you want InstanceData.buffer to have the actual memory space which is allocated/deallocated/accessed by other things. The entity and vertices pointers then point into this space. But by trying to use std::vector, you are mixing up two completely incompatible approaches.
1) You can do this with the language and the standard library, which means no raw pointers, no "new", no "sizeof".
struct Point {float x; float y;} // usually this is int, not float
struct InstanceData {
Entity entity;
std::vector<Point> vertices;
}
This is the way I would recommend. If you need to output to a specific binary format for serialization, just handle that in the save method.
2) You can manage the memory internal to the class, using oldschool C, which means using N*sizeof(float) for the vertices. Since this will be extremely error prone for a new programmer (and still rough for vets), you must make all of this private to class InstanceData, and do not allow any code outside InstanceData to manage them. Use unit tests. Provide public getter functions. I've done stuff like this for data structures that go across the network, or when reading/writing files with a specified format (Tiff, pgp, z39.50). But just to store in memory using difficult data structures -- no way.
Some other questions you asked:
How do I allocate memory for std::vector?
You don't. The vector allocates its own memory, and manages it. You can tell it to resize() or reserve() space, or push_back, but it will handle it. Look at http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector
How do I allocate memory for a vector [sic] in a buffer like this?
You seem to be thinking of an array. You're way off with your pseudo code so far, so you really need to work your way up through a tutorial. You have to allocate with "new". I could post some starter code for this, if you really need, which I would edit into the answer here.
Also, you said something about vector increasing along another dimension. Vectors are one dimensional. You can make a vector of vectors, but let's not get into that.
edit addendum:
The basic idea with a megabuffer is that you allocate all the required space in the buffer, then you initialize the values, then you use it through the getters.
The data layout is "Header, Entity1, Entity2, ..., EntityN"
// I did not check this code in a compiler, sorry, need to get to work soon
MegaBuffer::MegaBuffer() {AllocateBuffer(0);}
MegaBuffer::~MegaBuffer() {ReleaseBuffer();}
MegaBuffer::AllocateBuffer(size_t size /*, whatever is needed for the header*/){
if (nullptr!=buffer)
ReleaseBuffer();
size_t total_bytes = sizeof(Header) + count * sizeof(Entity)
buffer = new unsigned char [total_bytes];
header = buffer;
// need to set up the header
header->count = 0;
header->allocated = size;
// set up internal pointer
entity = buffer + sizeof(Header);
}
MegaBuffer::ReleaseBuffer(){
delete [] buffer;
}
Entity* MegaBuffer::operator[](int n) {return entity[n];}
The header is always a fixed size, and appears exactly once, and tells you how many entities you have. In your case there's no header because you are using member variables "usedInstances" and "allocatednstances" instead. So you do sort of have a header but it is not part of the allocated buffer. But you don't want to allocate 0 bytes, so just set usedInstances=0; allocatedInstances=0; buffer=nullptr;
I did not code for changing the size of the buffer, because the bitsquid ECS example covers that, but he doesn't show the first time initialization. Make sure you initialize n and allocated, and assign meaningful values for each entity before you use them.
You are not doing the bitsquid ECS the same as the link you posted. In that, he has several different objects of fixed size in parallel arrays. There is an entity, its mass, its position, etc. So entity[4] is an entity which has mass equal to "mass[4]" and its acceleration is "acceleration[4]". This uses pointer arithmetic to access array elements. (built in array, NOT std::Array, NOT std::vector)
The data layout is "Entity1, Entity2, ..., EntityN, mass1, mass2, ..., massN, position1, position2, ..., positionN, velocity1 ... " you get the idea.
If you read the article, you'll notice he says basically the same thing everyone else said about the standard library. You can use an std container to store each of these arrays, OR you can allocate one megabuffer and use pointers and "built in array" math to get to the exact memory location within that buffer for each item. In the classic faux-pas, he even says "This avoids any hidden overheads that might exist in the Array class and we only have a single allocation to keep track of." But you don't know if this is faster or slower than std::Array, and you're introducing a lot of bugs and extra development time dealing with raw pointers.
I think I see what you are trying to do.
There are numerous issues. First. You are making a buffer of random data, telling C++ that a Vector sized piece of it is a Vector. But, at no time do you actually call the constructor to Vector which will initialize the pointers and constructs inside to viable values.
This has already been answered here: Call a constructor on a already allocated memory
The second issue is the line
instanceData.vertices[i] = vertices;
instanceData.vertices is a pointer to a Vector, so you actually need to write
(*(instanceData.vertices))[i]
The third issue is that the contents of *(instanceData.vertices) are floats, and not Vector, so you should not be able to do the assignment there.
int * a;
a = new int[10];
cout << sizeof(a)/sizeof(int);
if i would use a normal array the answer would be 10,
alas, the lucky number printed was 1, because sizeof(int) is 4 and iszeof(*int) is 4 too. How do i owercome this? In my case keeping size in memory is a complicated option. How do i get size using code?
My best guess would be to iterate through an array and search for it's end, and the end is 0, right? Any suggestions?
--edit
well, what i fear about vectors is that it will reallocate while pushing back, well you got the point, i can jus allocate the memory. Hoever i cant change the stucture, the whole code is releevant. Thanks for the answers, i see there's no way around, so ill just look for a way to store the size in memory.
what i asked whas not what kind of structure to use.
Simple.
Use std::vector<int> Or std::array<int, N> (where N is a compile-time constant).
If you know the size of your array at compile time, and it doens't need to grow at runtime, then use std::array. Else use std::vector.
These are called sequence-container classes which define a member function called size() which returns the number of elements in the container. You can use that whenever you need to know the size. :-)
Read the documentation:
std::array with example
std::vector with example
When you use std::vector, you should consider using reserve() if you've some vague idea of the number of elements the container is going to hold. That will give you performance benefit.
If you worry about performance of std::vector vs raw-arrays, then read the accepted answer here:
Is std::vector so much slower than plain arrays?
It explains why the code in the question is slow, which has nothing to do with std::vector itself, rather its incorrect usage.
If you cannot use either of them, and are forced to use int*, then I would suggest these two alternatives. Choose whatever suits your need.
struct array
{
int *elements; //elements
size_t size; //number of elements
};
That is self-explanatory.
The second one is this: allocate memory for one more element and store the size in the first element as:
int N = howManyElements();
int *array = int new[N+1]; //allocate memory for size storage also!
array[0] = N; //store N in the first element!
//your code : iterate i=1 to i<=N
//must delete it once done
delete []array;
sizeof(a) is going to be the size of the pointer, not the size of the allocated array.
There is no way to get the size of the array after you've allocated it. The sizeof operator has to be able to be evaluated at compile time.
How would the compiler know how big the array was in this function?
void foo(int size)
{
int * a;
a = new int[size];
cout << sizeof(a)/sizeof(int);
delete[] a;
}
It couldn't. So it's not possible for the sizeof operator to return the size of an allocated array. And, in fact, there is no reliable way to get the size of an array you've allocated with new. Let me repeat this there is no reliable way to get the size of an array you've allocated with new. You have to store the size someplace.
Luckily, this problem has already been solved for you, and it's guaranteed to be there in any implementation of C++. If you want a nice array that stores the size along with the array, use ::std::vector. Particularly if you're using new to allocate your array.
#include <vector>
void foo(int size)
{
::std::vector<int> a(size);
cout << a.size();
}
There you go. Notice how you no longer have to remember to delete it. As a further note, using ::std::vector in this way has no performance penalty over using new in the way you were using it.
If you are unable to use std::vector and std::array as you have stated, than your only remaning option is to keep track of the size of the array yourself.
I still suspect that your reasons for avoiding std::vector are misguided. Even for performance monitoring software, intelligent uses of vector are reasonable. If you are concerned about resizing you can preallocate the vector to be reasonably large.
I really need some help... I detail my problem, I need an array of a certain type, but I don't know its length before having retrieving values from other arrays, using for structures. In fact, I don't want to spend time passing again the several loops, and i wonder the best way to do this. Should I use a stack and a counter, and after filling it, instanciate and fill the array ?
RelAttr *tab;
//need to initialize it but how
/*several for loops retrieving values*/
tab[i] = value;
/*end for loops*/
Obviously this code is incomplete, but it is how stuff is done. And i know i can't do the affectation without having specified the array length before...
Thanks for your help
Just use a std::vector.
std::vector<RelAttr> vec;
vec.push_back(a);
vec.push_back(b);
...
It manages its own growth transparently. Every time it grows, all the items are copied, but the amortized cost of this is O(1).
The storage is also guaranteed to be contiguous, so if you really need a raw C-style array, then you can simply do this:
const RelAttr *p = &vec[0];
However, you should really only do this if you have a legacy C API that you need to satisfy.
As this is C++, suggest using a std::vector (std::vector<RelAttr>) as the number of objects is not required to be known beforehand. You can use std::vector::push_back() to add new elements as required.
The easiest way (assuming nothing exceptionally performance critical) is to use a std::vector to assemble the values and (if needed) convert the vertor to an array. Something like;
std::vector<RelAttr> vec;
...
vec.push_back(value);
...
and if you want to convert it to an array afterwards;
RelAttr *tab = new RelAttr[vec.size()];
copy( vec.begin(), vec.end(), a);
If you don't know length at compiling time you can use
function malloc, operator new, vector or another type of container
I have an array of values that is passed to my function from a different part of the program that I need to store for later processing. Since I don't know how many times my function will be called before it is time to process the data, I need a dynamic storage structure, so I chose a std::vector. I don't want to have to do the standard loop to push_back all the values individually, it would be nice if I could just copy it all using something similar to memcpy.
There have been many answers here and just about all of them will get the job done.
However there is some misleading advice!
Here are the options:
vector<int> dataVec;
int dataArray[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
unsigned dataArraySize = sizeof(dataArray) / sizeof(int);
// Method 1: Copy the array to the vector using back_inserter.
{
copy(&dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize], back_inserter(dataVec));
}
// Method 2: Same as 1 but pre-extend the vector by the size of the array using reserve
{
dataVec.reserve(dataVec.size() + dataArraySize);
copy(&dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize], back_inserter(dataVec));
}
// Method 3: Memcpy
{
dataVec.resize(dataVec.size() + dataArraySize);
memcpy(&dataVec[dataVec.size() - dataArraySize], &dataArray[0], dataArraySize * sizeof(int));
}
// Method 4: vector::insert
{
dataVec.insert(dataVec.end(), &dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize]);
}
// Method 5: vector + vector
{
vector<int> dataVec2(&dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize]);
dataVec.insert(dataVec.end(), dataVec2.begin(), dataVec2.end());
}
To cut a long story short Method 4, using vector::insert, is the best for bsruth's scenario.
Here are some gory details:
Method 1 is probably the easiest to understand. Just copy each element from the array and push it into the back of the vector. Alas, it's slow. Because there's a loop (implied with the copy function), each element must be treated individually; no performance improvements can be made based on the fact that we know the array and vectors are contiguous blocks.
Method 2 is a suggested performance improvement to Method 1; just pre-reserve the size of the array before adding it. For large arrays this might help. However the best advice here is never to use reserve unless profiling suggests you may be able to get an improvement (or you need to ensure your iterators are not going to be invalidated). Bjarne agrees. Incidentally, I found that this method performed the slowest most of the time though I'm struggling to comprehensively explain why it was regularly significantly slower than method 1...
Method 3 is the old school solution - throw some C at the problem! Works fine and fast for POD types. In this case resize is required to be called since memcpy works outside the bounds of vector and there is no way to tell a vector that its size has changed. Apart from being an ugly solution (byte copying!) remember that this can only be used for POD types. I would never use this solution.
Method 4 is the best way to go. It's meaning is clear, it's (usually) the fastest and it works for any objects. There is no downside to using this method for this application.
Method 5 is a tweak on Method 4 - copy the array into a vector and then append it. Good option - generally fast-ish and clear.
Finally, you are aware that you can use vectors in place of arrays, right? Even when a function expects c-style arrays you can use vectors:
vector<char> v(50); // Ensure there's enough space
strcpy(&v[0], "prefer vectors to c arrays");
If you can construct the vector after you've gotten the array and array size, you can just say:
std::vector<ValueType> vec(a, a + n);
...assuming a is your array and n is the number of elements it contains. Otherwise, std::copy() w/resize() will do the trick.
I'd stay away from memcpy() unless you can be sure that the values are plain-old data (POD) types.
Also, worth noting that none of these really avoids the for loop--it's just a question of whether you have to see it in your code or not. O(n) runtime performance is unavoidable for copying the values.
Finally, note that C-style arrays are perfectly valid containers for most STL algorithms--the raw pointer is equivalent to begin(), and (ptr + n) is equivalent to end().
If all you are doing is replacing the existing data, then you can do this
std::vector<int> data; // evil global :)
void CopyData(int *newData, size_t count)
{
data.assign(newData, newData + count);
}
std::copy is what you're looking for.
Since I can only edit my own answer, I'm going to make a composite answer from the other answers to my question. Thanks to all of you who answered.
Using std::copy, this still iterates in the background, but you don't have to type out the code.
int foo(int* data, int size)
{
static std::vector<int> my_data; //normally a class variable
std::copy(data, data + size, std::back_inserter(my_data));
return 0;
}
Using regular memcpy. This is probably best used for basic data types (i.e. int) but not for more complex arrays of structs or classes.
vector<int> x(size);
memcpy(&x[0], source, size*sizeof(int));
int dataArray[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };//source
unsigned dataArraySize = sizeof(dataArray) / sizeof(int);
std::vector<int> myvector (dataArraySize );//target
std::copy ( myints, myints+dataArraySize , myvector.begin() );
//myvector now has 1,2,3,...10 :-)
Yet another answer, since the person said "I don't know how many times my function will be called", you could use the vector insert method like so to append arrays of values to the end of the vector:
vector<int> x;
void AddValues(int* values, size_t size)
{
x.insert(x.end(), values, values+size);
}
I like this way because the implementation of the vector should be able to optimize for the best way to insert the values based on the iterator type and the type itself. You are somewhat replying on the implementation of stl.
If you need to guarantee the fastest speed and you know your type is a POD type then I would recommend the resize method in Thomas's answer:
vector<int> x;
void AddValues(int* values, size_t size)
{
size_t old_size(x.size());
x.resize(old_size + size, 0);
memcpy(&x[old_size], values, size * sizeof(int));
}
avoid the memcpy, I say. No reason to mess with pointer operations unless you really have to. Also, it will only work for POD types (like int) but would fail if you're dealing with types that require construction.
In addition to the methods presented above, you need to make sure you use either std::Vector.reserve(), std::Vector.resize(), or construct the vector to size, to make sure your vector has enough elements in it to hold your data. if not, you will corrupt memory. This is true of either std::copy() or memcpy().
This is the reason to use vector.push_back(), you can't write past the end of the vector.
Assuming you know how big the item in the vector are:
std::vector<int> myArray;
myArray.resize (item_count, 0);
memcpy (&myArray.front(), source, item_count * sizeof(int));
http://www.cppreference.com/wiki/stl/vector/start
suppose I declare a dynamic array like
int *dynArray = new int [1];
which is initialized with an unknown amount of int values at some point.
How would I iterate till the end of my array of unknown size?
Also, if it read a blank space would its corresponding position in the array end up junked?
Copying Input From users post below:
Thing is:
a) I'm not allowed to use STL (means: no )
b) I want to decompose a string into its characters and store them. So far I wanted to use a function like this:
string breakLine (string line){
int lineSize = line.size();
const char *aux;
aux=line.data();
int index=0;
while (index<=lineSize){
mySynonyms[index]=aux[index];
index++;
}
I thought that the array aux would end up junked if there was a large blank space between the two numbers to be stored (apparently not). And I was wondering if there was a way to iterate till an undefined end in this type of array. Thanks for you answers.
You don't: wrap the array into a structure that remembers its length: std::vector.
std::vector v(1);
std::for_each( v.begin(), v.end(), ... );
No portable way of doing this. Either pass the size together with the array, or, better, use a standard container such as std::vector
Short answer is that you can't. If you have a pointer to the first element of an array, you can't know what the size of the array is. Why do you want to use a array in the first place. You would be much better off using a std::vector if your array can change size dynamically, or a boost::Array if it will be a fixed size.
I don't understand your second question.
Your code needs to keep to track of the array, so the size would never be unknown. (Or you would have to use some library with code that does this.)
I don't understand the last part of your quesiton. Could you elaborate?
You explained in your post below that you want to look at the guts of a std::string.
If you are expecting your stirng to be like a c-string (aka doesn't contain NULLs), then use line.c_str() instead of line.data(). This will guarantee that aux points to a null terminates c-style string.
After that you can iterate until aux[index] == '\0';
Otherwise, you can use line.data() and string.length/size to get it's size like in your example.
However, "decomposing a string into its characters" is pretty pointless, a string is an array of characters. Just make of copy of the string and store that. You are allowed to do:
char ch = line[index];
Better yet, use iterators on the original string!
for(std::string::const_iterator it = line.begin(); it != line.end(); ++it) {
const char ch = *it;
// do whatever with ch
}
a) I'm not allowed to use STL (means:
no )
What?? Who's moronic idea was that?
std::vector isn't part of the "STL" (which is a copyrighted product of HP), but is (and has been for nearly a decade) part of the C++ Language Standard.
If you're not allowed to use the STL (for whatever reason), the first thing you want to do is actually to implement your own version of it – at least the parts you need, with the level of customizability you need. For example, it's probably overkill to make your own vector class parametrizable with a custom allocator. But nevertheless do implement your own lightweight vector. Everything else will result in a bad, hardly maintainable solution.
This smells like homework, and the teacher's objective is to give you a feeling of what it takes to implement dynamic arrays. So far you're getting an F.
You need to realize that when you allocate memory like this
int *dynArray = new int [1];
you allocate precisely one integer, not an indefinite number of integers to be expanded by some unidentified magic. Most importantly, you can only say
dynArray[0] = 78;
but you cannot say
dynArray[1] = 8973;
The element at index 1 does not exist, you're stepping into memory that was not reserved for you. This particular violation will result in a crash later on, when you deallocate the array, because the memory where you stored 8973 belongs to the heap management data structures, and you corrupted your heap.
As many other responders mention, you must know how many elements you have in the array at all times. So, you have to do something along the lines of
int arraySize = 1;
int *dynArray = new int [arraySize];
arraySize goes together with the array, and is best combined with dynArray in one C++ object.
Now, before you assign to dynarray[1], you have to re-allocate the array:
if (index > arraySize) {
int newSize = index+1;
int *newArray = new int[newSize]
// don't forget to copy the data from old array to new
memcpy(newarray dynArray, sizeof *newArray * arraySize);
arraySize = newSize;
dynArray = newArray;
}
// now you're ready!
dynArray[index] = value;
Now, if you want to make it a bit more efficient, you allocate more than you need, so you don't have to allocate each time you add an element. I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
And after doing all this, you get to submit your homework and you get to appreciate the humble std::vector that does all of this for you, plus a lot more.
Use a vector, which has a vector.size() function that returns an integer and a vector.end() function that returns an iterator.
You could create a simple Vector class that has only the methods you need. I actually had to recreate the Vector class for a class that I took this year, it's not very difficult.
If there's a value that cannot be valid, you can use that as a sentinel, and make sure all of your arrays are terminated with that. Of course, it's error-prone and will cause hard-to-find bugs when you happen to miss doing it once, but that's what we used to do while reading files in FORTRAN (back in the all-caps days, and before END= became standard).
Yes, I'm dating myself.