hii,
m initialising a pointer to pointer like this:
// i = the number of items the pointer will point to....
m counting the number of conditions that are present in a sql query and den storing these
conditions in a structure (struct condition)..
so i = no of conditions in the query
// the last item i set it to NULL dats why (i+1) in the malloc statement..
// following is the declaration of COND...
struct condition **COND;
// initialisation of COND
SQL_INS->s.COND = malloc((i+1)*sizeof(struct condition *));
// after doing this m initialising the individual elements of the variable COND like this
so that each will point to a new structure object
SQL_INS->s.COND[j] = malloc(sizeof(struct condition));
i just want to know that is this the right way to do what m doing.. or is htere any better way...
Thanks.... :)
Please spell correctly and make your question a little more clear and you won't get answers like this...
SQL_INS->s.COND = malloc(((i+1)*sizeof(struct condition *))+(i*sizeof(struct condition)))
struct condition **ptr = SQL_INS->s.COND;
struct condition *cur = (struct condition *)(ptr+i+1);
int j = 0;
for( ; j<i; j++)
*(ptr+j) = cur++;
*(ptr+j) = NULL;
This keeps all the memory in one block instead of mallocing individual chunks for each struct condition. I thought it might make your code more readable dats why ii done it :)
Related
I am trying to copy a 2 dimensional array to another 2 dimensional array. Since the name (srcAry) is the address of the first element of the source array, I have been able to print out all the values in the source array using pointer arithmetic in a for loop. I am using the number of rows times the number of columns as the condition to stop looping. If I try to assign the values to the new array using this method I get an error message (error: assignment to expression with array type). Is this possible to do this or am I limited to using two nested for loops with indexes?
...
void copyAry(double *pAry, int numRows, int numCols)
{
double newAry[numRows][numCols];
int end = numRows * numCols;
int ctr = 0;
for( ; ctr < end; ctr++)
// printf("*(pAry + %d) = %.1f\n", ctr, *(pAry + ctr)); //this works fine
{
*(newAry + ctr) = *(pAry + ctr); //this is where I receive error
}
return;
}
...
Thanks in advance.
I would assume that the type of newAry + ctr is not double* as your code assumes, but rather double*[numCols] i.e. a pointer to an array of numCols elements. Which also means that you would advance not one element at a time, but numCols.
Usually you would use memcpy for this kind of low level data copying. Barring that, you might start with double* pNewAry = &newAry[0][0] or some such in order to test the 2d array as a linear sequence of doubles.
I have two rand arrays: pointer and value. Whatever values in the pointer should also come in value with same number of times. For eg: if pointer[i] == 2, then value should have a value 2 which occur two times and should be after 1.
Expected result is shown below.
Sample code:
class ABC;
rand int unsigned pointer[$];
rand int unsigned value[20];
int count;
constraint c_mode {
pointer.size() == count;
solve pointer before value;
//======== Pointer constraints =========//
// To avoid duplicates
unique {pointer};
foreach(pointer[i]) {
// Make sure pointer is inside 1 to 4
pointer[i] inside {[1:4]};
// Make sure in increasing order
if (i>0)
pointer[i] > pointer[i-1];
}
//======== Value constraints =========//
//Make sure Pointer = 2 has to come two times in value, but this is not working as expected
foreach(pointer[i]) {
value.sum with (int'(item == pointer[i])) == pointer[i];
}
// Ensure it will be in increasing order but not making sure that pointers are not grouping together
// For eg: if pointer = 2, then 2 has to come two times together and after 1 in the array order. This is not met with the below constraint
foreach(value[i]) {
foreach(value[j]) {
((i>j) && (value[i] inside pointer) && (value[j] inside pointer)) -> value[i] >= value[j];
}
}
}
function new(int num);
count = num;
endfunction
endclass
module tb;
initial begin
int unsigned index;
ABC abc = new(4);
abc.randomize();
$display("-----------------");
$display("Pointer = %p", abc.pointer);
$display("Value = %p", abc.value);
$display("-----------------");
end
endmodule
I would implement this using a couple of helper arrays:
class pointers_and_values;
rand int unsigned pointers[];
rand int unsigned values[];
local rand int unsigned values_dictated_by_pointers[][];
local rand int unsigned filler_values[][];
// ...
endclass
The values_dictated_by_pointers array will contain the groups of values that your pointers mandate. The other array will contain the dummy values that come between these groups. So, the values array will contain filler_values[0], values_dictated_by_pointers[0], filler_values[1], values_dictated_by_pointers[1], etc.
Computing the values mandated by the pointers is easy:
constraint compute_values_dicated_by_pointers {
values_dictated_by_pointers.size() == pointers.size();
foreach (pointers[i]) {
values_dictated_by_pointers[i].size() == pointers[i];
foreach (values_dictated_by_pointers[i,j])
values_dictated_by_pointers[i][j] == pointers[i];
}
}
You need as many groups as you need pointers. In each group you have as many elements as the pointer value for that group. Also, each element of a group has the same value as the group's pointer value.
For the filler values you didn't mention what they should look like. I interpreted your problem description to say that the values in the pointers array should only come in the patters described above. This means that they are not allowed as filler values. Depending on whether you want to allow filler values before the first value, you will need either as many filler groups as you have pointers or one extra. In the following code I allowed filler values before the "real" values:
constraint compute_filler_values {
filler_values.size() == pointers.size() + 1;
foreach (filler_values[i, j])
!(filler_values[i][j] inside { pointers });
}
You'll also need to constrain the size of each of the filler value groups, otherwise the solver will leave them as 0. Here you can change the constraints to match your requirements. I chose to always insert filler values and to never insert more than 3 filler values.
constraint max_number_of_filler_values {
foreach (filler_values[i]) {
filler_values[i].size() > 0;
filler_values[i].size() <= 3;
}
}
For the real values array, you can compute its value in post_randomize() by interleaving the other two arrays:
function void post_randomize();
values = filler_values[0];
foreach (pointers[i])
values = { values, values_dictated_by_pointers[i], filler_values[i] };
endfunction
If you need to be able to constrain values as well, then you'll have to implement this interleaving operation using constraints. I'm not going to show this, as this is probably pretty complicated in itself and warrants an own question.
Be aware that the code above might not work on all EDA tools, because of spotty support for random multi-dimensional arrays. I only got this to work on Aldec Riviera Pro on EDA Playground.
I have got this code:
import std.stdio;
import std.string;
void main()
{
char [] str = "aaa".dup;
char [] *str_ptr;
writeln(str_ptr);
str_ptr = &str;
*(str_ptr[0].ptr) = 'f';
writeln(*str_ptr);
writeln(str_ptr[0][1]);
}
I thought that I am creating an array of pointers char [] *str_ptr so every single pointer will point to a single char. But it looks like str_ptr points to the start of the string str. I have to make a decision because if I am trying to give access to (for example) writeln(str_ptr[1]); I am getting a lot of information on console output. That means that I am linking to an element outside the boundary.
Could anybody explain if it's an array of pointers and if yes, how an array of pointers works in this case?
What you're trying to achieve is far more easily done: just index the char array itself. No need to go through explicit pointers.
import std.stdio;
import std.string;
void main()
{
char [] str = "aaa".dup;
str[0] = 'f';
writeln(str[0]); // str[x] points to individual char
writeln(str); // faa
}
An array in D already is a pointer on the inside - it consists of a pointer to its elements, and indexing it gets you to those individual elements. str[1] leads to the second char (remember, it starts at zero), exactly the same as *(str.ptr + 1). Indeed, the compiler generates that very code (though plus range bounds checking in D by default, so it aborts instead of giving you gibberish). The only note is that the array must access sequential elements in memory. This is T[] in D.
An array of pointers might be used if they all the pointers go to various places, that are not necessarily in sequence. Maybe you want the first pointer to go to the last element, and the second pointer to to the first element. Or perhaps they are all allocated elements, like pointers to objects. The correct syntax for this in D is T*[] - read from right to left, "an array of pointers to T".
A pointer to an array is pretty rare in D, it is T[]*, but you might use it when you need to update the length of some other array held by another function. For example
int[] arr;
int[]* ptr = &arr;
(*ptr) ~= 1;
assert(arr.length == 1);
If ptr wasn't a pointer, the arr length would not be updated:
int[] arr;
int[] ptr = arr;
ptr ~= 1;
assert(arr.length == 1); // NOPE! fails, arr is still empty
But pointers to arrays are about modifying the length of the array, or maybe pointing it to something entirely new and updating the original. It isn't necessary to share individual elements inside it.
I am in trouble passing values between host code and kernel code due to some vector data types. The following code/explanation is just for referencing my problem, my code is much bigger and complicated. With this small example, hopefully, I will be able to explain where I am having a problem. I f anything more needed please let me know.
std::vector<vector<double>> output;
for (int i = 0;i<2; i++)
{
auto& out = output[i];
sum =0;
for (int l =0;l<3;l++)
{
for (int j=0;j<4; j++)
{
if (some condition is true)
{ out[j+l] = 0.;}
sum+= .....some addition...
}
out[j+l] = sum
}
}
Now I want to parallelize this code, from the second loop. This is what I have done in host code:
cl::buffer out = (context,CL_MEM_READ_ONLY | CL_MEM_COPY_HOST_PTR, output.size(), &output, NULL)
Then, I have set the arguments
cl::SetKernelArg(0, out);
Then the loop,
for (int i = 0,i<2, i++)
{
auto& out = output[i];
// sending some more arguments(which are changing accrding to loop) for sum operations
queue.enqueueNDRangeKernel(.......)
queue.enqueuereadbuffer(.....,&out,...)
}
In Kernel Code:
__kernel void sumout(__global double* out, ....)
{
int l = get_global_id(0);
int j = get_global_id(1);
if (some condition is true)
{ out[j+l] = 0.; // Here it goes out of the loop then
return}
sum+= .....some addition...
}
out[j+l] = sum
}
So now, in if condition out[j+l] is getting 0 in the loop. So out value is regularly changing. In normal code, it is a reference pointer to a vector. I am not able to read the values in output from out during my kernel and host code. I want to read the values in output[i] for every out[j+l]. But I am confused due this buffer and vector.
just for more clarification,output is a vector of vector and out is reference vector to output vector. I need to update values in output for every change in out. Since these are vectors, I passed out as cl buffer. I hope it is clear.
Please let me know, if the code is required, I will try to provide as much as I can.
You are sending pointers of vectors to opencl(ofcourse they are contiguous on pointer level) but whole data is not contiguous in memory since each inner vector points to different memory area. Opencl cannot map host pointers to device memory and there is no such command in this api.
You could use vector of arrays(latest version) or pure arrays.
I want to append a 2D array to my 3D array. I expect it should be same as int[] arr; arr ~= 3;
void readInput()
{
char[][][] candidate;
char[] buff;
size_t counter = 0;
while ( stdin.readln(buff) )
{
char[][] line = buff.chomp().split();
writeln(line);
candidate ~= line;
writeln(candidate);
if (++counter > 1 ) break;
}
}
And I send the inputs below
201212?4 64
20121235 93
I expect a output like
[["201212?4", "64"], ["20121235", "93"]]
But instead I see
[["20121235", "93"], ["20121235", "93"]]
=~ replaces all the elements in the array with the last added. Where am I doing wrong? How can I meet my expectation?
The problem here is that byLine is reusing buf (that's actually one reason why it asks for a mutable buffer and returns mutable - as a warning that it might change on you).
So when you ~= it, it is really appending the one array multiple times all with a pointer to the same data, so when it changes, that change is seen each time.
You can fix it by adding a .dup to the array you are appending.