views:

224

answers:

7

Is there any way to malloc a large array, but refer to it with 2D syntax? I want something like:

int *memory = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int)*400*200);
int MAGICVAR = ...;
MAGICVAR[20][10] = 3; //sets the (200*20 + 10)th element


UPDATE: This was important to mention: I just want to have one contiguous block of memory. I just don't want to write a macro like:

#define INDX(a,b) (a*200+b);

and then refer to my blob like:

memory[INDX(a,b)];

I'd much prefer:

memory[a][b];


UPDATE: I understand the compiler has no way of knowing as-is. I'd be willing to supply extra information, something like:

int *MAGICVAR[][200] = memory;

Does no syntax like this exist? Note the reason I don't just use a fixed width array is that it is too big to place on the stack.


UPDATE: OK guys, I can do this:

void toldyou(char MAGICVAR[][286][5]) {
  //use MAGICVAR
}

//from another function:
  char *memory = (char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*1820*286*5);
  fool(memory);

I get a warning, passing arg 1 of toldyou from incompatible pointer type, but the code works, and I've verified that the same locations are accessed. Is there any way to do this without using another function?

A: 

int** memory = malloc(sizeof(*memory)*400);
for (int i=0;i<400;i++)
{
memory[i] = malloc(sizeof(int)*200);
}

Sean Nilan
Two things... (1) I think this is backwards; every index increment in the first dimension for `memory` will jump by 400, whereas the OP specified 200. (2) You should put your code statements on separate lines and indent using four spaces at the beginning of each line to create a <pre> fixed-width environment.
Platinum Azure
Thanks, didn't even notice
Sean Nilan
+1  A: 

The compiler and runtime have no way of knowing your intended dimension capacities with only a multiplication in the malloc call.

You need to use a double pointer in order to achieve the capability of two indices. Something like this should do it:

#define ROWS 400
#define COLS 200

int **memory = malloc(ROWS * sizeof(*memory));

int i;
for (i = 0; i < COLS; ++i)
{
    memory[i] = malloc(COLS * sizeof(*memory[i]);
}

memory[20][10] = 3;

Make sure you check all your malloc return values for NULL returns, indicating memory allocation failure.

Platinum Azure
exactly, but can I just *tell* it somehow? There are plenty of things in C you can tell the compiler to do, even if it might know you are wrong =P.
Claudiu
You could just use fixed-width arrays in that case. :-P
Platinum Azure
@Platinum: wrong, it is too big! See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3144135/why-do-i-get-a-segfault-in-c-from-declaring-a-large-array-on-the-stack . that's why i have to malloc in the first place
Claudiu
Well, that's my point then: Sometimes you just can't have everything. Especially with a low-level language. You can't just declare an array to be fixed-width unless you're using compile-time constants. And if you want SOME heap benefits, or all, you need to work within the constraints of the heap and the language. It sucks, I know, but what you want is just not possible in portable ANSI C.
Platinum Azure
@Platinum: see latest update, I can get it to work when passing things to a function.. really there's nothing that inherently restricts the compiler from doing this. it's not as if memory on the heap is inherently any different than memory on the stack.. but I can see that this particular feature is probably not supported.
Claudiu
You don't need to use a double pointer at all, you can use a pointer to an array, which does *exactly* what the OP wants.
caf
+3  A: 

If extra indirection isn't a concern, you can use an array of pointers.

Edit

Here's a variation on @Platinum Azure's answer that doesn't make so many calls to malloc. Besides faster allocation, all the elements are guaranteed to be contiguous:

#define ROWS 400
#define COLS 200

int **memory = malloc(ROWS * sizeof(*memory));
int *arr = malloc(ROWS * COLS * sizeof(int));

int i;
for (i = 0; i < ROWS; ++i)
{
    memory[i] = &arr[i * COLS];
}

memory[20][10] = 3;
Cogwheel - Matthew Orlando
hmm interesting... a bit more setup than i'd like (which is 1 line of special syntax), but this is probably closest that can be done... sadly w/ some overhead for the array of pointers.
Claudiu
Ooh, fewer mallocs? I like it. I should take note of this and use it myself. (+1)
Platinum Azure
This works, but a pointer-to-array is simpler (doesn't require the setup loop) and is exactly what the OP is after.
caf
+2  A: 
#define ROWS 400
#define index_array_2d(a,i,j) (a)[(i)*ROWS + (j)]
...
index_array_2d( memory, 20, 10 ) = -1;
int x = index_array_2d( memory, 20, 10 );

Edit:

Arrays and pointers look very much the same, but the compiler treats them very differently. Let's see what needs to be done for an array indexing and de-referencing a pointer with offset:

  1. Say we declared a static array (array on the stack is just a bit more complicated, fixed offset from a register, but essentially the same):

    static int array[10];

  2. And a pointer:

    static int* pointer;

  3. We then de-deference each as follows:

    x = array[i];
    x = pointer[i];

The thing to note is that address of the beginning of array, as well as, address of pointer (not its contents) are fixed at link/load time. Compiler then does the following:

  1. For array de-reference:
    • loads value of i,
    • adds it to the value of array, i.e. its fixed address, to form target memory address,
    • loads the value from calculated address
  2. For pointer de-reference:
    • loads the value of i,
    • loads the value of pointer, i.e. the contents at its address,
    • adds two values to form the effective address
    • loads the value from calculated address.

Same happens for 2D array with additional steps of loading the second index and multiplying it by the row size (which is a constant). All this is decided at compile time, and there's no way of substituting one for the other at run-time.

Edit:

@caf here has the right solution. There's a legal way within the language to index a pointer as two-dimentional array after all.

Nikolai N Fetissov
yeah but the compiler is smart enough to do this in syntax when I declare a 2D array. is there no way to tell it to treat a single pointer like this?
Claudiu
As platinum azure said, the compiler has no way of knowing (read: there is no way to tell it).
Cogwheel - Matthew Orlando
When you declare 2D array you have to tell the compiler the outer dimension - that's how it's "smart enough". There's no way to figure that out without this information.
Nikolai N Fetissov
I know, but I'm willing to supply this information for the sake of convenience. e.g I can imagine syntax like "int *arrayptr[][200] = memory", then it knows what the outer dimension is. but i take it there's no way to do this? (Also it needs the inner dimension, not the outer)
Claudiu
Yes, you are right, the row size.
Nikolai N Fetissov
@Nikolai: no way of doing it for pointers, except for the function trick in my update =)
Claudiu
Yes, you are tricking the compiler, it warns you, but lets you get away with it. It's C - go ahead and shoot yourself in the ... foot :)
Nikolai N Fetissov
yes that's all I wanted to know.. if I could trick the compiler in this situation. turns out it's a bit difficult. much easier to make it think floats are ints or something like that.
Claudiu
There *is* a way to do this with pointers - you simply want to declare a pointer-to-an-array variable. These are seldom used, but perfectly legal, and exactly what the OP wants.
caf
Nikolai N Fetissov
+6  A: 

Use a pointer to arrays:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main()
{
    int (*arr)[10];

    arr = malloc(10*10*sizeof(int));
    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        for(int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
            arr[i][j] = i*j;

    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        for(int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
            printf("%d\n", arr[i][j]);
    return 0;
}
Tim Schaeffer
+1 to be fair :)
Nikolai N Fetissov
+2  A: 

In the same vein as Cogwheel's answer, here's a (somewhat dirty) trick that makes only one call to malloc():

#define ROWS 400
#define COLS 200
int** array = malloc(ROWS * sizeof(int*) + ROWS * COLS * sizeof(int));
int i;
for (i = 0; i < ROWS; ++i)
    array[i] = (int*)(array + ROWS) + (i * COLS);

This fills the first part of the buffer with pointers to each row in the immediately following, contiguous array data.

Jon Purdy
This has the advantage of working even when the size of neither dimension is known at compile-time. Also see: http://c-faq.com/aryptr/dynmuldimary.html
jamesdlin
+7  A: 

Yes, you can do this, and no, you don't need another array of pointers like most of the other answers are telling you. The invocation you want is just:

int (*MAGICVAR)[200] = malloc(400 * sizeof *MAGICVAR);
MAGICVAR[20][10] = 3; // sets the (200*20 + 10)th element
caf
+1 for legal solution!
Nikolai N Fetissov
No fair! I did it first.
Tim Schaeffer
ah I knew it was possible! take that, nay-sayers... @Tim: Sorry, but I didn't realize your solution did what I wanted, caf's made it blatantly obvious.
Claudiu
@Tim: Aye, I upvoted yours when I saw it, too - but I figured I might as well leave my answer, since it seemed to be only two of us against the world ;)
caf
@Claudiu: It's probably worth pointing out that `foo[]` in function parameter declarations is just syntactic sugar for `(*foo)` - it's just that `[]` means something different in actual variable declarations (where it means an array whose size is determined by the initialiser).
caf
@caf: You are a true gentleman, sir.
Tim Schaeffer