I've been given a c api to work with and the minimum docs.
Developer is not around at the moment and his code is returning unexpected values (arrays not of expected length)
Im having problems with methods that return pointers to arrays and was wondering am I iterating over them correctly.
Q:does the following always return the correct len of an array?
int len=sizeof(sampleState)/sizeof(short);
int len=sizeof(samplePosition)/sizeof(int);
typedef unsigned char byte;
int len=sizeof(volume)/sizeof(byte);
And I iterate over the array using the pointer and pointer arithmetic (am I doing it correctly for all types below)
And last example below is multidimensional array? Whats the best way to iterate over this?
thanks
//property sampleState returns short[] as short*
short* sampleState = mixerState->sampleState;
if(sampleState != NULL){
int len=sizeof(sampleState)/sizeof(short);
printf("length of short* sampleState=%d\n", len);//OK
for(int j=0;j<len;j++) {
printf(" sampleState[%d]=%u\n",j, *(sampleState+j));
}
}else{
printf(" sampleState is NULL\n");
}
//same with int[] returned as int*
int* samplePosition = mixerState->samplePosition;
if(samplePosition != NULL){
int len=sizeof(samplePosition)/sizeof(int);
printf("length of int* samplePosition=%d\n", len);//OK
for(int j=0;j<len;j++) {
printf(" samplePosition[%d]=%d\n",j, *(samplePosition+j));
}
}else{
printf(" samplePosition is NULL\n");
}
Here byte is type def to
typedef unsigned char byte;
so I used %u
//--------------
byte* volume = mixerState->volume;
if(volume != NULL){
int len=sizeof(volume)/sizeof(byte);
printf("length of [byte* volume = mixerState->volume]=%d\n", len);//OK
for(int j=0;j<len;j++) {
printf(" volume[%d]=%u\n",j, *(volume+j));
}
}else{
printf(" volume is NULL\n");
}
Here is int[][] soundFXStatus.
do I just use same method above and have 2 loops?
//--------------
int** soundFXStatus = mixerState->soundFXStatus;
The sizeof(array)/sizeof(element) trick only works if you have an actual array, not a pointer. There's no way to know the size of an array if all you have is a pointer; you must pass an array length into a function.
Or better use a vector, which has a size function.
sizeof(sampleState)/sizeof(short);
This will only give the length of an array if sampleState is declared as an array, not a pointer:
short array[42];
sizeof(array)/sizeof(short); // GOOD: gives the size of the array
sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0]); // BETTER: still correct if the type changes
short * pointer = whatever();
sizeof(pointer)/sizeof(short); // BAD: gives a useless value
Also, beware that a function argument is actually pointer even if it looks like an array:
void f(short pointer[]) // equivalent to "short * pointer"
{
sizeof(pointer)/sizeof(short); // BAD: gives a useless value
}
In your code, sampleState is a pointer; there is no way to determine the length of an array given only a pointer to it. Presumably the API provides some way to get the length (since otherwise it would be unusable), and you'll need to use that.
In C++, this is one reason why you would prefer std::vector or std::array to a manually allocated array; although that doesn't help you since, despite the question tags, you are using C here.
int len=sizeof(sampleState)/sizeof(short);
int len=sizeof(samplePosition)/sizeof(int);
sizeof is done at compile time, so this approach doesnt work if the length of the arrays are not known at compile time (for example the memory is reserved using a malloc).
ok ignore the method I used above it was all wrong - though you do need to know the length of the array which I finally got from the API developer.
Related
Is it possible to determine the size of an array if it was passed to another function (size isn't passed)? The array is initialized like int array[] = { XXX } ..
I understand that it's not possible to do sizeof since it will return the size of the pointer .. Reason I ask is because I need to run a for loop inside the other function where the array is passed. I tried something like:
for( int i = 0; array[i] != NULL; i++) {
........
}
But I noticed that at the near end of the array, array[i] sometimes contain garbage values like 758433 which is not a value specified in the initialization of the array..
The other answers overlook one feature of c++. You can pass arrays by reference, and use templates:
template <typename T, int N>
void func(T (&a) [N]) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) a[i] = T(); // reset all elements
}
then you can do this:
int x[10];
func(x);
but note, this only works for arrays, not pointers.
However, as other answers have noted, using std::vector is a better choice.
If it's within your control, use a STL container such as a vector or deque instead of an array.
Nope, it's not possible.
One workaround: place a special value at the last value of the array so you can recognize it.
One obvious solution is to use STL. If it's not a possibility, it's better to pass array length explicitly.
I'm skeptical about use the sentinel value trick, for this particular case. It works
better with arrays of pointers, because NULL is a good value for a sentinel. With
array of integers, it's not that easy - you need to have
a "magic" sentinel value, which is
not good.
Side note: If your array is defined and initalized as
int array[] = { X, Y, Z };
in the same scope as your loop, then
sizeof(array) will return it's real size in bytes, not the size of the pointer. You can get the array length as
sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0])
However, in general case, if you get array as a pointer, you can't use this trick.
You could add a terminator to your int array then step through the array manually to discover the size within the method.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int howBigIsBareArray(int arr[]){
int counter = 0;
while (arr[counter] != NULL){
counter++;
}
return counter;
}
int main(){
int a1[6] = {1,2,3,4,5,'\0'};
cout << "SizeOfMyArray: " << howBigIsBareArray(a1);
}
This program prints:
SizeOfMyArray: 5
This is an O(n) time complexity operation which is bad. You should never be stepping through an array just to discover its size.
If you can't pass the size, you do need a distinguishable sentinel value at the end (and you need to put it there yourself -- as you've found, you can't trust C++ to do it automagically for you!). There's no way to just have the called function magically divine the size, if that's not passed in and there is no explicit, reliable sentinel in use.
Can you try appending a null character \0 to the array and then send it? That way, you can just check for \0 in the loop.
Actually Chucks listing of
for( int i = 0; array[i] != NULL; i++) {
........
}
A sizeof before each call is wasteful and is needed to know what you get.
Works great if you put a NULL at the end of the arrays.
Why?? With embedded designs passing a sizeof in each routine makes each call very large compared to a NULL with each array. I have a 2K PIC16F684 chip and it takes upto 10 percent of the chip with 12 calls using a passed sizeof along with the array. With just the array and Chucks code with NULLS om each array... I get 4 percent needed.
A true case in point.. thanks chuck good call.
I originally had this as an answer to this other question: When a function has a specific-size array parameter, why is it replaced with a pointer?, but just moved it here instead since it more-directly answers this question.
Building off of #Richard Corden's answer and #sbi's answer, here's a larger example demonstrating the principles of:
Enforcing a given function parameter input array size using a reference to an array of a given size, like this:
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
and:
Allowing a function parameter input array of any size, by using a function template with a reference to an input array of a given template parameter size N, like this:
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
Looking at the full example below:
Notice how this function prototype doesn't know the array size at all! (the 100 here is simply a visual hint/reminder to the human user, but has no bearing or influence on the compiler whatsoever!):
void foo(uint8_t array[100]) {}
...this function prototype allows only input arrays of a fixed size of 100:
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100]) {}
...and this function template prototype allows arrays of ANY input size AND knows their size statically at compile-time (as that is how templates work):
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N]) {}
Here's the full example:
You can run it yourself here: https://onlinegdb.com/rkyL_tcBv.
#include <cstdint>
#include <cstdio>
void foo(uint8_t array[100])
{
// is ALWAYS sizeof(uint8_t*), which is 8!
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
int main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
printf("\n");
uint8_t a1[10];
uint8_t a2[11];
uint8_t a3[12];
// Is `sizeof(array) = 8` for all of these!
foo(a1);
foo(a2);
foo(a3);
printf("\n");
// Fails to compile for these 3! Sample error:
// > main.cpp:49:12: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘uint8_t (&)[100]
// > {aka unsigned char (&)[100]}’ from expression of type ‘uint8_t [10] {aka unsigned char [10]}’
// > foo2(a1);
// > ^
// foo2(a1);
// foo2(a2);
// foo2(a3);
// ------------------
// Works just fine for this one since the array `a4` has the right length!
// Is `sizeof(array) = 100`
uint8_t a4[100];
foo2(a4);
printf("\n");
foo3(a1);
foo3(a2);
foo3(a3);
foo3(a4);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Sample output:
(compiler warnings, referring to the sizeof call inside foo()):
main.cpp:26:49: warning: ‘sizeof’ on array function parameter ‘array’ will return size of ‘uint8_t* {aka unsigned char*}’ [-Wsizeof-array-argument]
main.cpp:23:27: note: declared here
(stdout "standard output"):
Hello World
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 100
sizeof(array) = 10
sizeof(array) = 11
sizeof(array) = 12
sizeof(array) = 100
Shouldn't this work? for things like Arduino(AVR) c++ at least.
//rename func foo to foo_ then
#define foo(A) foo_(A, sizeof(A))
void foo_(char a[],int array_size){
...
}
Is it possible to determine the size of an array if it was passed to another function (size isn't passed)? The array is initialized like int array[] = { XXX } ..
I understand that it's not possible to do sizeof since it will return the size of the pointer .. Reason I ask is because I need to run a for loop inside the other function where the array is passed. I tried something like:
for( int i = 0; array[i] != NULL; i++) {
........
}
But I noticed that at the near end of the array, array[i] sometimes contain garbage values like 758433 which is not a value specified in the initialization of the array..
The other answers overlook one feature of c++. You can pass arrays by reference, and use templates:
template <typename T, int N>
void func(T (&a) [N]) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) a[i] = T(); // reset all elements
}
then you can do this:
int x[10];
func(x);
but note, this only works for arrays, not pointers.
However, as other answers have noted, using std::vector is a better choice.
If it's within your control, use a STL container such as a vector or deque instead of an array.
Nope, it's not possible.
One workaround: place a special value at the last value of the array so you can recognize it.
One obvious solution is to use STL. If it's not a possibility, it's better to pass array length explicitly.
I'm skeptical about use the sentinel value trick, for this particular case. It works
better with arrays of pointers, because NULL is a good value for a sentinel. With
array of integers, it's not that easy - you need to have
a "magic" sentinel value, which is
not good.
Side note: If your array is defined and initalized as
int array[] = { X, Y, Z };
in the same scope as your loop, then
sizeof(array) will return it's real size in bytes, not the size of the pointer. You can get the array length as
sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0])
However, in general case, if you get array as a pointer, you can't use this trick.
You could add a terminator to your int array then step through the array manually to discover the size within the method.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int howBigIsBareArray(int arr[]){
int counter = 0;
while (arr[counter] != NULL){
counter++;
}
return counter;
}
int main(){
int a1[6] = {1,2,3,4,5,'\0'};
cout << "SizeOfMyArray: " << howBigIsBareArray(a1);
}
This program prints:
SizeOfMyArray: 5
This is an O(n) time complexity operation which is bad. You should never be stepping through an array just to discover its size.
If you can't pass the size, you do need a distinguishable sentinel value at the end (and you need to put it there yourself -- as you've found, you can't trust C++ to do it automagically for you!). There's no way to just have the called function magically divine the size, if that's not passed in and there is no explicit, reliable sentinel in use.
Can you try appending a null character \0 to the array and then send it? That way, you can just check for \0 in the loop.
Actually Chucks listing of
for( int i = 0; array[i] != NULL; i++) {
........
}
A sizeof before each call is wasteful and is needed to know what you get.
Works great if you put a NULL at the end of the arrays.
Why?? With embedded designs passing a sizeof in each routine makes each call very large compared to a NULL with each array. I have a 2K PIC16F684 chip and it takes upto 10 percent of the chip with 12 calls using a passed sizeof along with the array. With just the array and Chucks code with NULLS om each array... I get 4 percent needed.
A true case in point.. thanks chuck good call.
I originally had this as an answer to this other question: When a function has a specific-size array parameter, why is it replaced with a pointer?, but just moved it here instead since it more-directly answers this question.
Building off of #Richard Corden's answer and #sbi's answer, here's a larger example demonstrating the principles of:
Enforcing a given function parameter input array size using a reference to an array of a given size, like this:
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
and:
Allowing a function parameter input array of any size, by using a function template with a reference to an input array of a given template parameter size N, like this:
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
Looking at the full example below:
Notice how this function prototype doesn't know the array size at all! (the 100 here is simply a visual hint/reminder to the human user, but has no bearing or influence on the compiler whatsoever!):
void foo(uint8_t array[100]) {}
...this function prototype allows only input arrays of a fixed size of 100:
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100]) {}
...and this function template prototype allows arrays of ANY input size AND knows their size statically at compile-time (as that is how templates work):
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N]) {}
Here's the full example:
You can run it yourself here: https://onlinegdb.com/rkyL_tcBv.
#include <cstdint>
#include <cstdio>
void foo(uint8_t array[100])
{
// is ALWAYS sizeof(uint8_t*), which is 8!
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
int main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
printf("\n");
uint8_t a1[10];
uint8_t a2[11];
uint8_t a3[12];
// Is `sizeof(array) = 8` for all of these!
foo(a1);
foo(a2);
foo(a3);
printf("\n");
// Fails to compile for these 3! Sample error:
// > main.cpp:49:12: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘uint8_t (&)[100]
// > {aka unsigned char (&)[100]}’ from expression of type ‘uint8_t [10] {aka unsigned char [10]}’
// > foo2(a1);
// > ^
// foo2(a1);
// foo2(a2);
// foo2(a3);
// ------------------
// Works just fine for this one since the array `a4` has the right length!
// Is `sizeof(array) = 100`
uint8_t a4[100];
foo2(a4);
printf("\n");
foo3(a1);
foo3(a2);
foo3(a3);
foo3(a4);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Sample output:
(compiler warnings, referring to the sizeof call inside foo()):
main.cpp:26:49: warning: ‘sizeof’ on array function parameter ‘array’ will return size of ‘uint8_t* {aka unsigned char*}’ [-Wsizeof-array-argument]
main.cpp:23:27: note: declared here
(stdout "standard output"):
Hello World
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 100
sizeof(array) = 10
sizeof(array) = 11
sizeof(array) = 12
sizeof(array) = 100
Shouldn't this work? for things like Arduino(AVR) c++ at least.
//rename func foo to foo_ then
#define foo(A) foo_(A, sizeof(A))
void foo_(char a[],int array_size){
...
}
I'm searching for an example or explanation why someone should (or should not) use triple-pointers in C/C++.
Are there any examples where triple-pointer arise?
I am especially looking for source-code which uses triple-pointers.
The best example that comes to mind is a sparse multi-level table. For instance one way to implement properties for Unicode characters might be:
prop_type ***proptable;
...
prop_type prop = proptable[c>>14][c>>7&0x7f][c&0x7f];
In this case proptable would need to have a triple-pointer type (and possibly quadruple pointer if the final resulting type is a pointer type). The reason for doing this as multiple levels rather than one flat table is that, at the first and second levels, multiple entries can point to the same subtable when the contents are all the same (e.g. huge CJK ranges).
Here's another example of a multi-level table that I implemented; I can't say I'm terribly proud of the design but given the constraints the code has to satisfy, it's one of the least-bad implementation choices:
http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/aio/aio.c?id=56fbaa3bbe73f12af2bfbbcf2adb196e6f9fe264
If you need to return an array of pointers to variable length strings via a function parameter:
int array_of_strings(int *num_strings, char ***string_data)
{
int n = 32;
char **pointers = malloc(n * sizeof(*pointers));
if (pointers == 0)
return -1; // Failure
char line[256];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n && fgets(line, sizeof(line), stdin) != 0; i++)
{
size_t len = strlen(line);
if (line[len-1] == '\n')
line[len-1] = '\0';
pointers[i] = strdup(line);
if (pointers[i] == 0)
{
// Release already allocated resources
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
free(pointers[j]);
free(pointers);
return -1; // Failure
}
}
*num_strings = i;
*string_data = pointers;
return 0; // Success
}
Compiled code.
If you use a linked list you have to store the address of the first element of the list ( first pointer ) .
If you need to change in that list you need another pointer ( two pointer)
If you need to pass your list that you are changing in two pointers and change it in another function you need another pointer ( three pointer )...
They are a lots of examples
I've used triple pointers in C++:
There is an interface written for a Java program:
https://github.com/BenLand100/SMART/blob/master/src/SMARTPlugin.h
and it takes an array of strings.
typedef void (*_SMARTPluginInit)(SMARTInfo *ptr, bool *replace, int *buttonc, char ***buttonv, int **buttonid, _SMARTButtonPressed *buttonproc);
Then in my program I do:
char* btnTexts[2] = {"Disable OpenGL_Enable OpenGL", "Enable Debug_Disable glDebug"}; //array of C-style strings.
void SMARTPluginInit(SMARTInfo* ptr, bool* ReplaceButtons, int* ButtonCount, char*** ButtonTexts, int** ButtonIDs, _SMARTButtonPressed* ButtonCallback)
{
*ButtonText = btnTexts; //return an array of strings.
}
but in C++, you can use a reference instead of pointer and it'd become:
void SMARTPluginInit(SMARTInfo* ptr, bool* ReplaceButtons, int* ButtonCount, char** &ButtonTexts, int** ButtonIDs, _SMARTButtonPressed* ButtonCallback)
{
ButtonText = btnTexts; //return an array of strings.
}
Notice now that "ButtonTexts" is a reference to an array of C-style strings now.
A char*** can be a pointer to an array of C-style strings and that's one time that you'd use it.
A very simple example is a pointer to an array of arrays of arrays.
Triple pointer is a pointer variable that points to a pointer which in turn points to another pointer. The use of this complex programming technique is that usually in which companies process tons and tons of data at one time .A single pointer would point to a single block of data (suppose in a large file) using the triple pointer would result in 3 times faster processing as different blocks of data(in the same file) can be pointed by different pointer and thus data could be accessed/processed faster (unlike 1 pointer going through the whole file).
//Prints out a given array
template <typename T>
void print(T t)
{
for(int i = 0; i < t.size(); i++)
{
cout << t[i] << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
I have an idea but it includes passing the size of the array. Is it possible to avoid this?
*Update
Thanks for all of the answers/ideas but this problem is getting way deeper than my snorkeler can handle. I wanted to rewrite my C++ code in C because it was horribly written and slow. I see now that I have an opportunity to make it even worse in C. I'll rewrite it from the ground up in Python(performance be damned). Thanks again
If you don't have ELEMENTS, it's
#define ELEMENTS(a) (sizeof(a)/sizeof(*a))
Then,
#define print_array(a, specifier) print_array_impl(a, specifier, ELEMENTS(a), sizeof(*a))
void print_array_impl(void* a, char* specifier, size_t asize, size_t elsize)
{
for(int i = 0; i < asize; i++)
{
// corrected based on comment -- unfortunately, not as general
if (strcmp(specifier, "%d") == 0)
printf(specifier, ((int*)a)[i]);
// else if ... // check other specifiers
printf(" ");
}
printf("\n");
}
Use like this
print_array(a, "%d") // if a is a int[]
and, a needs to be an array name, not a pointer (or else ELEMENTS won't work)
You cannot know what is the size of an array without passing the size of that array (except operating with sizeof in static arrays). This is because the a pointer to a block of memory will only point to the base of the block of memory, from which you can know where the array/block of memory starts, but as there is no end defined you cannot determine where it will end.
You either need to set your own length per array and preserve it, and use it with the array like as described:
You can make a new type like:
struct _my_array {
typename arr[MAX];
int n;
} my_array;
OR
struct _my_array {
typename *arr;
int n;
} my_array;
In this case you need to allocate the a block of memory dynamically with new or malloc , and when finished free the memory with delete or free (respectively).
Or you can simply pass the array number of elements through the function.
Another way is to use a special terminator value of your array type which if encountered will be determined as the end of the array. In this case you need not preserve the size. For example a string is '\0' terminated, so all the string functions know that when a '\0' character is encounter in the char array it will consider that the string has end.
UPDATE
Because this is a generic function and the array can be of any type, one thing which you can do is like this:
struct _my_generic_arr {
void *arr;
int n;
int type;
} my_generic_arr;
When populating this array you can use any type. To identify which type, pass an identified in the type component. Each unique value will determine which type does the arr pointer actually points to (was actually the intended type to be pointed). The n will define the length. Now, depending on different values of type make a switch - case or an if - else ladder or nest, and process the array as you need.
It is impossible in c to track the size of an array in other block,,
It would be a better option to pass the size of the array along..
The other option would be to declare a global variable that has the size and using that variable inside the function
Eg,,
int size=<some value>
void main()
{
int arr[<same value>];
}
void print(T t)
{
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
printf("%d ",t[i]) //assuming T as int
}
printf("\n");
}
In C, you would need to pass two additional parameters: the size of the array (as you mentioned), and some way of indicating how to convert t[i] into a string. To convert t[i] to a string, you could create a custom switch statement to decode possible types, pass a pointer to a function that will return the string pointer, or you could pass the printf format specifier (e.g. "%d" for integer).
The problem is larger than you think. If you have an array of size 12, how do you know what data is held in that array? It could be 3 char*'s (on 32 bit system), 3 int32_t's, or even 12 chars. You have no way of knowing how to interpret the data. The best you could do is to implement your own version of a v-table and putting a print or toString function into it.
typedef struct {
void *array;
size_t length;
int element_width;
printer_t to_string;
} container;
printer_t is a type that describes a function pointer that takes an element pointer and returns a string (or prints it, if you don't want to free the string). This is almost never worth doing in C. That doesn't mean it can't be done. I would emphasize, though, that none of this is intended to imply that it should be done.
The function itself would look something like this:
void print(container *thing)
{
size_t offset;
int width;
char *stringified;
width = thing->element_width;
for (offset = 0; offset * width < thing->length; offset += width)
{
stringified = thing->to_string(thing->array + offset);
printf("%s ", stringified);
free(stringified);
}
}
What this does is essentially turn a struct into a faux class with a function pointer for a method. You could be more object-oriented and put the method in the type being printed and make it an array of those instead. Either way, it's not a good idea. C is for writing C. If you try to write in a different language, you'll end up with all sorts of terrible stuff like this.
Is it possible to determine the size of an array if it was passed to another function (size isn't passed)? The array is initialized like int array[] = { XXX } ..
I understand that it's not possible to do sizeof since it will return the size of the pointer .. Reason I ask is because I need to run a for loop inside the other function where the array is passed. I tried something like:
for( int i = 0; array[i] != NULL; i++) {
........
}
But I noticed that at the near end of the array, array[i] sometimes contain garbage values like 758433 which is not a value specified in the initialization of the array..
The other answers overlook one feature of c++. You can pass arrays by reference, and use templates:
template <typename T, int N>
void func(T (&a) [N]) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) a[i] = T(); // reset all elements
}
then you can do this:
int x[10];
func(x);
but note, this only works for arrays, not pointers.
However, as other answers have noted, using std::vector is a better choice.
If it's within your control, use a STL container such as a vector or deque instead of an array.
Nope, it's not possible.
One workaround: place a special value at the last value of the array so you can recognize it.
One obvious solution is to use STL. If it's not a possibility, it's better to pass array length explicitly.
I'm skeptical about use the sentinel value trick, for this particular case. It works
better with arrays of pointers, because NULL is a good value for a sentinel. With
array of integers, it's not that easy - you need to have
a "magic" sentinel value, which is
not good.
Side note: If your array is defined and initalized as
int array[] = { X, Y, Z };
in the same scope as your loop, then
sizeof(array) will return it's real size in bytes, not the size of the pointer. You can get the array length as
sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0])
However, in general case, if you get array as a pointer, you can't use this trick.
You could add a terminator to your int array then step through the array manually to discover the size within the method.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int howBigIsBareArray(int arr[]){
int counter = 0;
while (arr[counter] != NULL){
counter++;
}
return counter;
}
int main(){
int a1[6] = {1,2,3,4,5,'\0'};
cout << "SizeOfMyArray: " << howBigIsBareArray(a1);
}
This program prints:
SizeOfMyArray: 5
This is an O(n) time complexity operation which is bad. You should never be stepping through an array just to discover its size.
If you can't pass the size, you do need a distinguishable sentinel value at the end (and you need to put it there yourself -- as you've found, you can't trust C++ to do it automagically for you!). There's no way to just have the called function magically divine the size, if that's not passed in and there is no explicit, reliable sentinel in use.
Can you try appending a null character \0 to the array and then send it? That way, you can just check for \0 in the loop.
Actually Chucks listing of
for( int i = 0; array[i] != NULL; i++) {
........
}
A sizeof before each call is wasteful and is needed to know what you get.
Works great if you put a NULL at the end of the arrays.
Why?? With embedded designs passing a sizeof in each routine makes each call very large compared to a NULL with each array. I have a 2K PIC16F684 chip and it takes upto 10 percent of the chip with 12 calls using a passed sizeof along with the array. With just the array and Chucks code with NULLS om each array... I get 4 percent needed.
A true case in point.. thanks chuck good call.
I originally had this as an answer to this other question: When a function has a specific-size array parameter, why is it replaced with a pointer?, but just moved it here instead since it more-directly answers this question.
Building off of #Richard Corden's answer and #sbi's answer, here's a larger example demonstrating the principles of:
Enforcing a given function parameter input array size using a reference to an array of a given size, like this:
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
and:
Allowing a function parameter input array of any size, by using a function template with a reference to an input array of a given template parameter size N, like this:
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
Looking at the full example below:
Notice how this function prototype doesn't know the array size at all! (the 100 here is simply a visual hint/reminder to the human user, but has no bearing or influence on the compiler whatsoever!):
void foo(uint8_t array[100]) {}
...this function prototype allows only input arrays of a fixed size of 100:
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100]) {}
...and this function template prototype allows arrays of ANY input size AND knows their size statically at compile-time (as that is how templates work):
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N]) {}
Here's the full example:
You can run it yourself here: https://onlinegdb.com/rkyL_tcBv.
#include <cstdint>
#include <cstdio>
void foo(uint8_t array[100])
{
// is ALWAYS sizeof(uint8_t*), which is 8!
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
void foo2(uint8_t (&array)[100])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
template<size_t N>
void foo3(uint8_t (&array)[N])
{
printf("sizeof(array) = %lu\n", sizeof(array));
}
int main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
printf("\n");
uint8_t a1[10];
uint8_t a2[11];
uint8_t a3[12];
// Is `sizeof(array) = 8` for all of these!
foo(a1);
foo(a2);
foo(a3);
printf("\n");
// Fails to compile for these 3! Sample error:
// > main.cpp:49:12: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘uint8_t (&)[100]
// > {aka unsigned char (&)[100]}’ from expression of type ‘uint8_t [10] {aka unsigned char [10]}’
// > foo2(a1);
// > ^
// foo2(a1);
// foo2(a2);
// foo2(a3);
// ------------------
// Works just fine for this one since the array `a4` has the right length!
// Is `sizeof(array) = 100`
uint8_t a4[100];
foo2(a4);
printf("\n");
foo3(a1);
foo3(a2);
foo3(a3);
foo3(a4);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Sample output:
(compiler warnings, referring to the sizeof call inside foo()):
main.cpp:26:49: warning: ‘sizeof’ on array function parameter ‘array’ will return size of ‘uint8_t* {aka unsigned char*}’ [-Wsizeof-array-argument]
main.cpp:23:27: note: declared here
(stdout "standard output"):
Hello World
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 8
sizeof(array) = 100
sizeof(array) = 10
sizeof(array) = 11
sizeof(array) = 12
sizeof(array) = 100
Shouldn't this work? for things like Arduino(AVR) c++ at least.
//rename func foo to foo_ then
#define foo(A) foo_(A, sizeof(A))
void foo_(char a[],int array_size){
...
}