From the Qt documentation about QMap::iterator :
Unlike QHash, which stores its items in an arbitrary order, QMap
stores its items ordered by key. Items that share the same key
(because they were inserted using QMap::insertMulti(), or due to a
unite()) will appear consecutively, from the most recently to the
least recently inserted value.
What I want is to interate a map by inserted index. For example this map.
const static QMap<QString, int> MEASUREMENT_COLUMNS{{"ID", MY_SQL_BIGINT}, {"logging_id", MY_SQL_INT}, {"calibration_id", MY_SQL_INT}, {"logging_comment", MY_SQL_VARCHAR255}, {"measurement_date_time", MY_SQL_DATETIME}, {"ADC0", MY_SQL_FLOAT},
{"ADC0", MY_SQL_FLOAT},
{"ADC1", MY_SQL_FLOAT},
{"ADC2", MY_SQL_FLOAT},
But the problem is as the documentation says above about QMap and QHashmap. They will not work for be if I want to iterate a map by inserted index.
For example, first ID, then logging_id, then calibration_id etc.
So I need to select something else than QMap and QHash.
Question:
Is there a map-like tool in QT that can be iterated over inserted index?
You can use two QVector, or use QVector<QPair<QString, int> > instead.
Here's the start of a QHash derivative which provides this functionality. DISCLAIMER: This is not entirely perfected! Not every function / feature of QHash has yet been accounted for. As long as you only use the functions / operator overloads provided here, you'll be fine for sure. If someone wants to keep developing this and repost a truly "finished" class, that would be great!
Note that performance will of course be degraded a bit, and memory consumption will increase, using this vs the natural QHash, but for small data sets that should be negligible.
OrderedHash.h
#ifndef ORDEREDHASH_H
#define ORDEREDHASH_H
#include <QHash>
#include <QVector>
#include <QDataStream>
#include <QDebug>
template<class K, class V>
class OrderedHash : public QHash<K,V>
{
public:
using QHash<K,V>::QHash;
#ifdef Q_COMPILER_INITIALIZER_LISTS
OrderedHash( std::initializer_list<std::pair<K, V>> list )
: QHash<K,V>::QHash()
{ foreach( auto p, list ) insert( std::get<0>(p), std::get<1>(p) ); }
#endif
// Returns the keys in the order they were inserted.
// If the ordered keys vector is blatantly out of sync with the hash
// (as may occur via the use of QHash functions not accounted for
// by this override!), this returns UNordered keys, since those are at
// least accurate.
QList<K> orderedKeys() const {
if( QHash<K,V>::size() != orderedKeys_.size() )
{
qWarning() << "OrderedHash keys are out of sync!";
return QHash<K,V>::keys();
}
return orderedKeys_.toList();
}
// This insert override "appends" to the "end" of the hash. If the key is
// already present, the entry is "moved" to the new end.
typename QHash<K,V>::iterator insert( const K &key, const V &value )
{
//qDebug() << "OrderedHash insert: " << key << ":" << value;
orderedKeys_.removeAll( key );
orderedKeys_.push_back( key );
return QHash<K,V>::insert( key, value );
}
// This additional update function perseveres the "key order" while
// modifying the value. If the key is not yet present, the entry is
// appended to the "end" of the hash.
typename QHash<K,V>::iterator update( const K &key, const V &value )
{
if( !QHash<K,V>::contains( key ) ) return insert( key, value );
return QHash<K,V>::insert( key, value );
}
int remove( const K &key )
{
orderedKeys_.removeAll( key );
return QHash<K,V>::remove( key );
}
void clear()
{
orderedKeys_.clear();
QHash<K,V>::clear();
}
private:
QVector<K> orderedKeys_;
};
// COPIED AND TWEAKED QT SOURCE FOR THESE STREAM OPERATOR OVERLOADS
template <class Key, class T>
Q_OUTOFLINE_TEMPLATE QDataStream &operator>>(QDataStream &in, OrderedHash<Key, T> &hash)
{
QDataStream::Status oldStatus = in.status();
in.resetStatus();
hash.clear();
quint32 n;
in >> n;
for (quint32 i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (in.status() != QDataStream::Ok)
break;
Key k;
T t;
in >> k >> t;
/* ORGINAL QT SOURCE
hash.insertMulti(k, t);
*/
//---------------------------------
hash.insert(k, t);
//---------------------------------
}
if (in.status() != QDataStream::Ok)
hash.clear();
if (oldStatus != QDataStream::Ok)
in.setStatus(oldStatus);
return in;
}
template <class Key, class T>
Q_OUTOFLINE_TEMPLATE QDataStream &operator<<(QDataStream &out, const OrderedHash<Key, T>& hash)
{
out << quint32(hash.size());
/* ORGINAL QT SOURCE
typename QHash<Key, T>::ConstIterator it = hash.end();
typename QHash<Key, T>::ConstIterator begin = hash.begin();
while (it != begin) {
--it;
out << it.key() << it.value();
}
*/
//---------------------------------
const QList<Key> keys( hash.orderedKeys() );
foreach( auto key, keys ) out << key << hash.value(key);
//---------------------------------
return out;
}
#endif // ORDEREDHASH_H
Not in QT (to my knowledge, at least).
Can you use Boost, e.g. boost::multiindex? Another option is to combine map with vector in a class +- like this (this is likely to contain errors; it's supposed to illustrate the general idea, not to be a fully working piece of code):
template<typename K, typename V>
class indexed_map
{
map<K, V> m_map;
vector<K> m_insertionOrder;
public:
void insert(const K& k, const V& v)
{
m_map.insert(k,v);
m_insertionOrder.push_back(k);
}
V byKey(const K& k) const {return m_map.at(k)};
V byOrder(size_t n) const {return m_map.at(m_insertionOrder.at(n));}
};
Of course you'll have to write some boilerplate (ok, lots of it in fact), iterators might be also tricky.
I don't know why in last line it is printing data of first element instead of last element. I want explanation.
// A simple C program for traversal of a linked list
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Node {
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
// This function prints contents of linked list starting from
// the given node
void printList(struct Node* n)
{
while (n != NULL) {
printf(" %d ", n->data);
n = n->next;
}
}
int main()
{
struct Node* head = NULL;
struct Node* second = NULL;
struct Node* third = NULL;
// allocate 3 nodes in the heap
head = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
second = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
third = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
head->data = 1; // assign data in first node
head->next = second; // Link first node with second
second->data = 2; // assign data to second node
second->next = third;
third->data = 3; // assign data to third node
third->next = NULL;
printList(head);
printf("%d",head->data);
return 0;
}
As the function is accepting pointers so it should be call by reference.
And in last loop of function when n pointer is equal to NULL.
But in last line of this code is printing data of first list of my linked list.
Actually what you are doing is not being done in the actual linked list, it not pass by reference
void printList(struct Node* n)
{
/* some code here */
}
void main()
{
/* all your code here */
printList(head);
}
so if you want to change the head in the actual linked list you will have to pass the address of the pointer head to the function
something like this
int append_list(node **head, int data)
{
while((*head)->next!=NULL)
{
(*head) = (*head)->next;
}
}
int main()
{
struct node *head = NULL;
/* add nodes */
print_list(&head);
}
so here is the modification in your code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Node {
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
// This function prints contents of linked list starting from
// the given node
void printList(struct Node** n)
{
while ((*n)->next != NULL) {
printf(" %d ", (*n)->data);
(*n) = (*n)->next;
}
}
int main()
{
struct Node* head = NULL;
struct Node* second = NULL;
struct Node* third = NULL;
// allocate 3 nodes in the heap
head = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
second = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
third = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
head->data = 1; // assign data in first node
head->next = second; // Link first node with second
second->data = 2; // assign data to second node
second->next = third;
third->data = 3; // assign data to third node
third->next = NULL;
printList(&head);
printf("%d",head->data);
return 0;
}
here the output will be
1 2 3
since you have used (*head) for the traversal you no longer have the access to your list and hence will get segmentation fault if you try to access
(*head)->next
But I would not suggest to do this since now you will not be able to deallocate the memory
There is no pass-by-reference in C, everything is pass-by-value. People use pointers to emulate pass-by-reference, and this works because you can use the passed-in pointer to get at the same underlying data item.
In other words, even though the passed-in pointer is a pass-by-value copy within the function, the fact that it has the same value as the original means that both point to the same thing.
However, if the thing you're trying to change is a pointer already, you need a pointer to a pointer to do this emulation.
I could give you the code to do this but, believe me, it's not want you want. It would mean that the list printing code would be destructive to the list itself, since the head would now point to NULL.
Here is some code instead which shows how to do something similar, one that uses this double-pointer method to change the pointer outside of the function:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void allocateSomeMem(void **pPtr, size_t sz) {
*pPtr = malloc(sz);
}
int main(void) {
void *x = NULL;
printf("%p\n", x);
allocateSomeMem(&x, 42);
printf("%p\n", x);
}
You can see by the output that the pointer is being changed:
(nil)
0x55f9ce5f96b0
Now, obviously, you wouldn't do this for the simple example shown, it would be far easier just to return the new pointer and have it assigned to x. But this is just illustrative of the method to use.
I am writing a serial command interpreter. The user will send a text string to the interpreter and it will do stuff and return an integer (either data or a code depending on what the user requested). But I want to expand the interpreter and allow the user to get an array of data or other structure in response to their query.
Can I use the integer return value to return a pointer to EEPROM (or global variable) address? And have the user follow the pointer to the memory location? Based on the query they sent, they would know if the return value is a pointer or data integer.
for example if I want to return
struct curve_t {
int type; // (2 bytes) calibration type indicator
int ref[2]; // (4 bytes) calibration reference point2
float param[11]; // (11*4 bytes) curve fitting parameters
} theCurve;
can I use a function like this?
int serialResponse(char * command) {
// interpret command here
return &theCurve;
}
Can you send a memory address through serial interface?
YES
Can your user access EEPROM through serial interface, using that address?
Not directly. Your MCU has to relay the data between your user and the EEPROM.
I wrote a small test program and confirmed that it is possible. I can pass the address from the function as an integer and then re-cast it in my calling function. It needs to address a global variable or at least on that is available in the calling function.
char res[10];
void loop {
b = function();
Serial.println((char *)b);
}
int function() {
return int(&res[0]);
}
I would not recommend casting a pointer into an integer because it won't work on computer architectures where an int has fewer bits than a pointer.
Lexical Parsers - like what you're writing - often arrange to return a token type, and place the token value in a union that the caller can access. The nice thing about structuring your code in that way is that it's extensible to whatever data types you want, and it will work no matter what C++ platform you're running on.
Here's an example of a token parser that can parse integers and your curve_t:
struct curve_t {
int type; // (2 bytes) calibration type indicator
int ref[2]; // (4 bytes) calibration reference point2
float param[11]; // (11*4 bytes) curve fitting parameters
};
union TokenValue {
int i; // type = TOKEN_TYPE_INT
struct curve_t *pCurve; // type = TOKEN_TYPE_P_CURVE
};
enum TokenType {
TOKEN_TYPE_UNKNOWN = 0,
TOKEN_TYPE_INT,
TOKEN_TYPE_P_CURVE
};
curve_t theCurve;
TokenValue tokenValue;
/*
* Parses the given command,
* setting the parsed value in tokenValue,
* returning the type of value (a TOKEN_TYPE_*).
*/
TokenType serialResponse(char * command) {
if (command[0] == 'a') { // TO DO: your code will test something else.
// We want to return an integer
tokenValue.i = 1234; // TO DO: in your code, instead set the integer value from command
return TOKEN_TYPE_INT;
}
if (command[0] == 'b') { // TO DO: your code will test something else.
// We want to return a pointer to theCurve.
// TO DO: Fill in the values of theCurve, for example theCurve.param[0]
tokenValue.pCurve = &theCurve;
return TOKEN_TYPE_P_CURVE;
}
// Else
return TOKEN_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
}
void setup() {
//TO DO: move this code to where it belongs in your Sketch
//TO DO: parse a command
char command[10] = "and so...";
// TO DO: read the command.
// Process the command
enum TokenType t;
t = serialResponse(command);
if (t == TOKEN_TYPE_INT) {
// The command result is an integer
int i = tokenValue.i;
// TO DO: process the integer.
} else if (t == TOKEN_TYPE_P_CURVE) {
// The command result is a curve
curve_t *pCurve = tokenValue.pCurve;
// TO DO: process the Curve.
} else {
// unrecognized command. TO DO: handle the error.
}
}
void loop() {
// put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
}
If you insist on using the cast of an int to a pointer (which I admit is a lot simpler), you could add a test for int size problems to your setup():
void setup() {
Serial.begin(9600);
if (sizeof(int) < sizeof(curve_t *)) {
Serial.println("cast won't work");
for (;;) {} // hang here forever.
}
}
First off, here is some code:
int main()
{
int days[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int *ptr = days;
printf("%u\n", sizeof(days));
printf("%u\n", sizeof(ptr));
return 0;
}
Is there a way to find out the size of the array that ptr is pointing to (instead of just giving its size, which is four bytes on a 32-bit system)?
No, you can't. The compiler doesn't know what the pointer is pointing to. There are tricks, like ending the array with a known out-of-band value and then counting the size up until that value, but that's not using sizeof().
Another trick is the one mentioned by Zan, which is to stash the size somewhere. For example, if you're dynamically allocating the array, allocate a block one int bigger than the one you need, stash the size in the first int, and return ptr+1 as the pointer to the array. When you need the size, decrement the pointer and peek at the stashed value. Just remember to free the whole block starting from the beginning, and not just the array.
The answer is, "No."
What C programmers do is store the size of the array somewhere. It can be part of a structure, or the programmer can cheat a bit and malloc() more memory than requested in order to store a length value before the start of the array.
For dynamic arrays (malloc or C++ new) you need to store the size of the array as mentioned by others or perhaps build an array manager structure which handles add, remove, count, etc. Unfortunately C doesn't do this nearly as well as C++ since you basically have to build it for each different array type you are storing which is cumbersome if you have multiple types of arrays that you need to manage.
For static arrays, such as the one in your example, there is a common macro used to get the size, but it is not recommended as it does not check if the parameter is really a static array. The macro is used in real code though, e.g. in the Linux kernel headers although it may be slightly different than the one below:
#if !defined(ARRAY_SIZE)
#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof((x)) / sizeof((x)[0]))
#endif
int main()
{
int days[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int *ptr = days;
printf("%u\n", ARRAY_SIZE(days));
printf("%u\n", sizeof(ptr));
return 0;
}
You can google for reasons to be wary of macros like this. Be careful.
If possible, the C++ stdlib such as vector which is much safer and easier to use.
There is a clean solution with C++ templates, without using sizeof(). The following getSize() function returns the size of any static array:
#include <cstddef>
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
size_t getSize(T (&)[SIZE]) {
return SIZE;
}
Here is an example with a foo_t structure:
#include <cstddef>
template<typename T, size_t SIZE>
size_t getSize(T (&)[SIZE]) {
return SIZE;
}
struct foo_t {
int ball;
};
int main()
{
foo_t foos3[] = {{1},{2},{3}};
foo_t foos5[] = {{1},{2},{3},{4},{5}};
printf("%u\n", getSize(foos3));
printf("%u\n", getSize(foos5));
return 0;
}
Output:
3
5
As all the correct answers have stated, you cannot get this information from the decayed pointer value of the array alone. If the decayed pointer is the argument received by the function, then the size of the originating array has to be provided in some other way for the function to come to know that size.
Here's a suggestion different from what has been provided thus far,that will work: Pass a pointer to the array instead. This suggestion is similar to the C++ style suggestions, except that C does not support templates or references:
#define ARRAY_SZ 10
void foo (int (*arr)[ARRAY_SZ]) {
printf("%u\n", (unsigned)sizeof(*arr)/sizeof(**arr));
}
But, this suggestion is kind of silly for your problem, since the function is defined to know exactly the size of the array that is passed in (hence, there is little need to use sizeof at all on the array). What it does do, though, is offer some type safety. It will prohibit you from passing in an array of an unwanted size.
int x[20];
int y[10];
foo(&x); /* error */
foo(&y); /* ok */
If the function is supposed to be able to operate on any size of array, then you will have to provide the size to the function as additional information.
For this specific example, yes, there is, IF you use typedefs (see below). Of course, if you do it this way, you're just as well off to use SIZEOF_DAYS, since you know what the pointer is pointing to.
If you have a (void *) pointer, as is returned by malloc() or the like, then, no, there is no way to determine what data structure the pointer is pointing to and thus, no way to determine its size.
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM_DAYS 5
typedef int days_t[ NUM_DAYS ];
#define SIZEOF_DAYS ( sizeof( days_t ) )
int main() {
days_t days;
days_t *ptr = &days;
printf( "SIZEOF_DAYS: %u\n", SIZEOF_DAYS );
printf( "sizeof(days): %u\n", sizeof(days) );
printf( "sizeof(*ptr): %u\n", sizeof(*ptr) );
printf( "sizeof(ptr): %u\n", sizeof(ptr) );
return 0;
}
Output:
SIZEOF_DAYS: 20
sizeof(days): 20
sizeof(*ptr): 20
sizeof(ptr): 4
There is no magic solution. C is not a reflective language. Objects don't automatically know what they are.
But you have many choices:
Obviously, add a parameter
Wrap the call in a macro and automatically add a parameter
Use a more complex object. Define a structure which contains the dynamic array and also the size of the array. Then, pass the address of the structure.
You can do something like this:
int days[] = { /*length:*/5, /*values:*/ 1,2,3,4,5 };
int *ptr = days + 1;
printf("array length: %u\n", ptr[-1]);
return 0;
My solution to this problem is to save the length of the array into a struct Array as a meta-information about the array.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Array
{
int length;
double *array;
};
typedef struct Array Array;
Array* NewArray(int length)
{
/* Allocate the memory for the struct Array */
Array *newArray = (Array*) malloc(sizeof(Array));
/* Insert only non-negative length's*/
newArray->length = (length > 0) ? length : 0;
newArray->array = (double*) malloc(length*sizeof(double));
return newArray;
}
void SetArray(Array *structure,int length,double* array)
{
structure->length = length;
structure->array = array;
}
void PrintArray(Array *structure)
{
if(structure->length > 0)
{
int i;
printf("length: %d\n", structure->length);
for (i = 0; i < structure->length; i++)
printf("%g\n", structure->array[i]);
}
else
printf("Empty Array. Length 0\n");
}
int main()
{
int i;
Array *negativeTest, *days = NewArray(5);
double moreDays[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
for (i = 0; i < days->length; i++)
days->array[i] = i+1;
PrintArray(days);
SetArray(days,10,moreDays);
PrintArray(days);
negativeTest = NewArray(-5);
PrintArray(negativeTest);
return 0;
}
But you have to care about set the right length of the array you want to store, because the is no way to check this length, like our friends massively explained.
This is how I personally do it in my code. I like to keep it as simple as possible while still able to get values that I need.
typedef struct intArr {
int size;
int* arr;
} intArr_t;
int main() {
intArr_t arr;
arr.size = 6;
arr.arr = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int) * arr.size);
for (size_t i = 0; i < arr.size; i++) {
arr.arr[i] = i * 10;
}
return 0;
}
No, you can't use sizeof(ptr) to find the size of array ptr is pointing to.
Though allocating extra memory(more than the size of array) will be helpful if you want to store the length in extra space.
int main()
{
int days[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int *ptr = days;
printf("%u\n", sizeof(days));
printf("%u\n", sizeof(ptr));
return 0;
}
Size of days[] is 20 which is no of elements * size of it's data type.
While the size of pointer is 4 no matter what it is pointing to.
Because a pointer points to other element by storing it's address.
In strings there is a '\0' character at the end so the length of the string can be gotten using functions like strlen. The problem with an integer array, for example, is that you can't use any value as an end value so one possible solution is to address the array and use as an end value the NULL pointer.
#include <stdio.h>
/* the following function will produce the warning:
* ‘sizeof’ on array function parameter ‘a’ will
* return size of ‘int *’ [-Wsizeof-array-argument]
*/
void foo( int a[] )
{
printf( "%lu\n", sizeof a );
}
/* so we have to implement something else one possible
* idea is to use the NULL pointer as a control value
* the same way '\0' is used in strings but this way
* the pointer passed to a function should address pointers
* so the actual implementation of an array type will
* be a pointer to pointer
*/
typedef char * type_t; /* line 18 */
typedef type_t ** array_t;
int main( void )
{
array_t initialize( int, ... );
/* initialize an array with four values "foo", "bar", "baz", "foobar"
* if one wants to use integers rather than strings than in the typedef
* declaration at line 18 the char * type should be changed with int
* and in the format used for printing the array values
* at line 45 and 51 "%s" should be changed with "%i"
*/
array_t array = initialize( 4, "foo", "bar", "baz", "foobar" );
int size( array_t );
/* print array size */
printf( "size %i:\n", size( array ));
void aprint( char *, array_t );
/* print array values */
aprint( "%s\n", array ); /* line 45 */
type_t getval( array_t, int );
/* print an indexed value */
int i = 2;
type_t val = getval( array, i );
printf( "%i: %s\n", i, val ); /* line 51 */
void delete( array_t );
/* free some space */
delete( array );
return 0;
}
/* the output of the program should be:
* size 4:
* foo
* bar
* baz
* foobar
* 2: baz
*/
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
array_t initialize( int n, ... )
{
/* here we store the array values */
type_t *v = (type_t *) malloc( sizeof( type_t ) * n );
va_list ap;
va_start( ap, n );
int j;
for ( j = 0; j < n; j++ )
v[j] = va_arg( ap, type_t );
va_end( ap );
/* the actual array will hold the addresses of those
* values plus a NULL pointer
*/
array_t a = (array_t) malloc( sizeof( type_t *) * ( n + 1 ));
a[n] = NULL;
for ( j = 0; j < n; j++ )
a[j] = v + j;
return a;
}
int size( array_t a )
{
int n = 0;
while ( *a++ != NULL )
n++;
return n;
}
void aprint( char *fmt, array_t a )
{
while ( *a != NULL )
printf( fmt, **a++ );
}
type_t getval( array_t a, int i )
{
return *a[i];
}
void delete( array_t a )
{
free( *a );
free( a );
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define array(type) struct { size_t size; type elem[0]; }
void *array_new(int esize, int ecnt)
{
size_t *a = (size_t *)malloc(esize*ecnt+sizeof(size_t));
if (a) *a = ecnt;
return a;
}
#define array_new(type, count) array_new(sizeof(type),count)
#define array_delete free
#define array_foreach(type, e, arr) \
for (type *e = (arr)->elem; e < (arr)->size + (arr)->elem; ++e)
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
array(int) *iarr = array_new(int, 10);
array(float) *farr = array_new(float, 10);
array(double) *darr = array_new(double, 10);
array(char) *carr = array_new(char, 11);
for (int i = 0; i < iarr->size; ++i) {
iarr->elem[i] = i;
farr->elem[i] = i*1.0f;
darr->elem[i] = i*1.0;
carr->elem[i] = i+'0';
}
array_foreach(int, e, iarr) {
printf("%d ", *e);
}
array_foreach(float, e, farr) {
printf("%.0f ", *e);
}
array_foreach(double, e, darr) {
printf("%.0lf ", *e);
}
carr->elem[carr->size-1] = '\0';
printf("%s\n", carr->elem);
return 0;
}
#define array_size 10
struct {
int16 size;
int16 array[array_size];
int16 property1[(array_size/16)+1]
int16 property2[(array_size/16)+1]
} array1 = {array_size, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
#undef array_size
array_size is passing to the size variable:
#define array_size 30
struct {
int16 size;
int16 array[array_size];
int16 property1[(array_size/16)+1]
int16 property2[(array_size/16)+1]
} array2 = {array_size};
#undef array_size
Usage is:
void main() {
int16 size = array1.size;
for (int i=0; i!=size; i++) {
array1.array[i] *= 2;
}
}
Most implementations will have a function that tells you the reserved size for objects allocated with malloc() or calloc(), for example GNU has malloc_usable_size()
However, this will return the size of the reversed block, which can be larger than the value given to malloc()/realloc().
There is a popular macro, which you can define for finding number of elements in the array (Microsoft CRT even provides it OOB with name _countof):
#define countof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof((x)[0]))
Then you can write:
int my_array[] = { ... some elements ... };
printf("%zu", countof(my_array)); // 'z' is correct type specifier for size_t
I cannot get this code to work properly. When I try to compile it, one of three things will happen: Either I'll get no errors, but when I run the program, it immediately locks up; or it'll compile fine, but says 'Segmentation fault' and exits when I run it; or it gives warnings when compiled:
"conflicting types for ‘addObjToTree’
previous implicit declaration of ‘addObjToTree’ was here"
but then says 'Segmentation fault' and exits when I try to run it.
I'm on Mac OS X 10.6 using gcc.
game-obj.h:
typedef struct itemPos {
float x;
float y;
} itemPos;
typedef struct gameObject {
itemPos loc;
int uid;
int kind;
int isEmpty;
...
} gameObject;
internal-routines.h:
void addObjToTree (gameObject *targetObj, gameObject *destTree[]) {
int i = 0;
int stop = 1;
while (stop) {
if ((*destTree[i]).isEmpty == 0)
i++;
else if ((*destTree[i]).isEmpty == 1)
stop = 0;
else
;/*ERROR*/
}
if (stop == 0) {
destTree[i] = targetObj;
}
else
{
;/*ERROR*/
}
}
/**/
void initFS_LA (gameObject *target, gameObject *tree[], itemPos destination) {
addObjToTree(target, tree);
(*target).uid = 12981;
(*target).kind = 101;
(*target).isEmpty = 0;
(*target).maxHealth = 100;
(*target).absMaxHealth = 200;
(*target).curHealth = 100;
(*target).skill = 1;
(*target).isSolid = 1;
(*target).factionID = 555;
(*target).loc.x = destination.x;
(*target).loc.y = destination.y;
}
main.c:
#include "game-obj.h"
#include "internal-routines.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
gameObject abc;
gameObject jkl;
abc.kind = 101;
abc.uid = 1000;
itemPos aloc;
aloc.x = 10;
aloc.y = 15;
gameObject *masterTree[3];
masterTree[0] = &(abc);
initFS_LA(&jkl, masterTree, aloc);
printf("%d\n",jkl.factionID);
return 0;
}
I don't understand why it doesn't work. I just want addObjToTree(...) to add a pointer to a gameObject in the next free space of masterTree, which is an array of pointers to gameObject structures. even weirder, if I remove the line addObjToTree(target, tree); from initFS_LA(...) it works perfectly. I've already created a function that searches masterTree by uid and that also works fine, even if I initialize a new gameObject with initFS_LA(...) (without the addObjToTree line.) I've tried rearranging the functions within the header file, putting them into separate header files, prototyping them, rearranging the order of #includes, explicitly creating a pointer variable instead of using &jkl, but absolutely nothing works. Any ideas? I appreciate any help
If I see this correctly, then you don't initialize elements 1 and 2 of the masterTree array anywhere. Then, your addObjToTree() function searches the - uninitialized - array for a free element.
Declaring a variable like gameObject *masterTree[3]; in C does not zero-initialize the array. Add some memset (masterTree, 0, sizeof (masterTree)); to initialize.
Note that you're declaring an array of pointers to structs here, not an array of structs (see also here), so you also need to adjust your addObjToTree() to check for a NULL-pointer instead of isEmpty.
It would also be good practice to pass the length of that array to that function to avoid buffer overruns.
If you want an array of structs, then you need to declare it as gameObject masterTree[3]; and the parameter in your addObjToTree() becomes gameObject *tree.