this code generates a nice loop :
for i in range(self.ix):
__pyx_t_3 = __pyx_v_self->ix;
__pyx_t_4 = __pyx_t_3;
for (__pyx_t_5 = 0; __pyx_t_5 < __pyx_t_4; __pyx_t_5+=1) {
__pyx_v_i = __pyx_t_5;
but i want to be able to pass this iterator as argument (so i can have different iterators/generators)
if i try this :
cdef ixrange(self): return range(self.ix)
already is too unwieldy and the loop is no longer a simple loop. :
static PyObject *__pyx_f_3lib_10sparse_ary_9SparseAry_ixrange(struct __pyx_obj_3lib_10sparse_ary_SparseAry *__pyx_v_self) {
PyObject *__pyx_r = NULL;
__Pyx_RefNannyDeclarations
__Pyx_RefNannySetupContext("ixrange", 0);
__Pyx_XDECREF(__pyx_r);
__pyx_t_1 = __Pyx_PyInt_From_unsigned_int(__pyx_v_self->ix); if (unlikely(!__pyx_t_1)) __PYX_ERR(0, 139, __pyx_L1_error)
__Pyx_GOTREF(__pyx_t_1);
__pyx_t_2 = __Pyx_PyObject_CallOneArg(__pyx_builtin_range, __pyx_t_1); if (unlikely(!__pyx_t_2)) __PYX_ERR(0, 139, __pyx_L1_error)
__Pyx_GOTREF(__pyx_t_2);
__Pyx_DECREF(__pyx_t_1); __pyx_t_1 = 0;
__pyx_r = __pyx_t_2;
__pyx_t_2 = 0;
goto __pyx_L0;
/* function exit code */
__pyx_L1_error:;
__Pyx_XDECREF(__pyx_t_1);
__Pyx_XDECREF(__pyx_t_2);
__Pyx_AddTraceback("lib.sparse_ary.SparseAry.ixrange", __pyx_clineno, __pyx_lineno, __pyx_filename);
__pyx_r = 0;
__pyx_L0:;
__Pyx_XGIVEREF(__pyx_r);
__Pyx_RefNannyFinishContext();
return __pyx_r;
}
any way i can make it simple loop again ?
I don't think it is possible.
The effect of for i in range(self.ix): is to generate a range object, and then call next on that range object until a StopIteration exception is raised. That's also the behaviour that Cython takes for general for loops.
There's actually a fairly long list of conditions that have to be met for Cython to transform that into an optimized loop:
range must be used directly - i.e. it = range(...); for i in it won't work because you might need the range object after the loop.
the types of the start and stop point must be integers.
the type of the loop variable must be an integer (Cython can infer this, but if you assign something of a different type to the loop variable then it won't work)
Cython must know that you haven't reassigned range
The sign of the stop variable must be known.
In your case I think you're hoping for Cython to look inside the cdef function and pick out the range. This is beyond what the current optimizer can do. But also, you can override cdef functions in a derived class (in C++ terms, they're "virtual"), so Cython could almost never safely make the optimization.
Cython is usually able to optimize best when you really restrict the types it's working with. The request that it should generate a fast C for loop but also be able to handle arbitrary iterators does not seem realistically achievable.
I have two arrays of pointers, and I want to use gtest/gmock to assert that they contain the same content, possibly in different order. I tried things like
vector<unique_ptr<int>> a;
vector<unique_ptr<int>> b;
a.push_back(make_unique<int>(42));
a.push_back(make_unique<int>(142));
b.push_back(make_unique<int>(142));
b.push_back(make_unique<int>(42));
// I want this to compile & pass
ASSERT_THAT(a, Pointwise(UnorderedElementsAreArray(), b));
But that didn't work.
Gmock does not provide directly what you want. The problem is that as your arrays contain pointers, you cannot compare their elements directly and have to use matchers for that. You can construct an array of matchers from one of your source arrays, but that will not make things simpler for you.
But you have some options, depending on what your actual needs are. If you have two arrays and need is to compare whether they the same after sorting, just sort the arrays:
auto sorted_a = std::sort(a.begin(), a.end(), [](auto x, auto y) {
return *x < *y;
});
auto sorted_b = std::sort(b.begin(), b.end(), [](auto x, auto y) {
return *x < *y;
});
and then define a helper matcher and compare them using it:
MATCHER(PointeesAreEqual, "") {
return *std::get<0>(arg) == *std::get<1>(arg);
}
EXPECT_THAT(a, Pointwise(PointeesAreEqual, b))
But if you simply want to check that an array consists of certain elements, in an arbitrary order, you can write something like this:
EXPECT_THAT(a, UnorderedElementsAre(Pointee(42), Pointee(142));
I wrote a function containing array as argument,
and call it by passing value of array as follows.
void arraytest(int a[])
{
// changed the array a
a[0] = a[0] + a[1];
a[1] = a[0] - a[1];
a[0] = a[0] - a[1];
}
void main()
{
int arr[] = {1, 2};
printf("%d \t %d", arr[0], arr[1]);
arraytest(arr);
printf("\n After calling fun arr contains: %d\t %d", arr[0], arr[1]);
}
What I found is though I am calling arraytest() function by passing values, the original copy of int arr[] is changed.
Can you please explain why?
When passing an array as a parameter, this
void arraytest(int a[])
means exactly the same as
void arraytest(int *a)
so you are modifying the values in main.
For historical reasons, arrays are not first class citizens and cannot be passed by value.
For passing 2D (or higher multidimensional) arrays instead, see my other answers here:
How to pass a multidimensional [C-style] array to a function in C and C++, and here:
How to pass a multidimensional array to a function in C++ only, via std::vector<std::vector<int>>&
Passing 1D arrays as function parameters in C (and C++)
1. Standard array usage in C with natural type decay (adjustment) from array to ptr
#Bo Persson correctly states in his great answer here:
When passing an array as a parameter, this
void arraytest(int a[])
means exactly the same as
void arraytest(int *a)
Let me add some comments to add clarity to those two code snippets:
// param is array of ints; the arg passed automatically "adjusts" (frequently said
// informally as "decays") from `int []` (array of ints) to `int *`
// (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[])
// ptr to int
void arraytest(int *a)
However, let me add also that the above two forms also:
mean exactly the same as
// array of 0 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [0]`
// (array of zero ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[0])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 1 int; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [1]`
// (array of 1 int) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[1])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 2 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [2]`
// (array of 2 ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[2])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 1000 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [1000]`
// (array of 1000 ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[1000])
etc.
In every single one of the array examples above, and as shown in the example calls in the code just below, the input parameter type adjusts (decays) to an int *, and can be called with no warnings and no errors, even with build options -Wall -Wextra -Werror turned on (see my repo here for details on these 3 build options), like this:
int array1[2];
int * array2 = array1;
// works fine because `array1` automatically decays from an array type
// to a pointer type: `int *`
arraytest(array1);
// works fine because `array2` is already an `int *`
arraytest(array2);
As a matter of fact, the "size" value ([0], [1], [2], [1000], etc.) inside the array parameter here is apparently just for aesthetic/self-documentation purposes, and can be any positive integer (size_t type I think) you want!
In practice, however, you should use it to specify the minimum size of the array you expect the function to receive, so that when writing code it's easy for you to track and verify. The MISRA-C-2012 standard (buy/download the 236-pg 2012-version PDF of the standard for £15.00 here) goes so far as to state (emphasis added):
Rule 17.5 The function argument corresponding to a parameter declared to have an array type shall have an appropriate number of elements.
...
If a parameter is declared as an array with a specified size, the corresponding argument in each function call should point into an object that has at least as many elements as the array.
...
The use of an array declarator for a function parameter specifies the function interface more clearly than using a pointer. The minimum number of elements expected by the function is explicitly stated, whereas this is not possible with a pointer.
In other words, they recommend using the explicit size format, even though the C standard technically doesn't enforce it--it at least helps clarify to you as a developer, and to others using the code, what size array the function is expecting you to pass in.
2. Forcing type safety on arrays in C
(Not recommended (correction: sometimes recommended, especially for fixed-size multi-dimensional arrays), but possible. See my brief argument against doing this at the end. Also, for my multi-dimensional-array [ex: 2D array] version of this, see my answer here.)
As #Winger Sendon points out in a comment below my answer, we can force C to treat an array type to be different based on the array size!
First, you must recognize that in my example just above, using the int array1[2]; like this: arraytest(array1); causes array1 to automatically decay into an int *. HOWEVER, if you take the address of array1 instead and call arraytest(&array1), you get completely different behavior! Now, it does NOT decay into an int *! This is because if you take the address of an array then you already have a pointer type, and pointer types do NOT adjust to other pointer types. Only array types adjust to pointer types. So instead, the type of &array1 is int (*)[2], which means "pointer to an array of size 2 of int", or "pointer to an array of size 2 of type int", or said also as "pointer to an array of 2 ints". So, you can FORCE C to check for type safety on an array by passing explicit pointers to arrays, like this:
// `a` is of type `int (*)[2]`, which means "pointer to array of 2 ints";
// since it is already a ptr, it can NOT automatically decay further
// to any other type of ptr
void arraytest(int (*a)[2])
{
// my function here
}
This syntax is hard to read, but similar to that of a function pointer. The online tool, cdecl, tells us that int (*a)[2] means: "declare a as pointer to array 2 of int" (pointer to array of 2 ints). Do NOT confuse this with the version withOUT parenthesis: int * a[2], which means: "declare a as array 2 of pointer to int" (AKA: array of 2 pointers to int, AKA: array of 2 int*s).
Now, this function REQUIRES you to call it with the address operator (&) like this, using as an input parameter a POINTER TO AN ARRAY OF THE CORRECT SIZE!:
int array1[2];
// ok, since the type of `array1` is `int (*)[2]` (ptr to array of
// 2 ints)
arraytest(&array1); // you must use the & operator here to prevent
// `array1` from otherwise automatically decaying
// into `int *`, which is the WRONG input type here!
This, however, will produce a warning:
int array1[2];
// WARNING! Wrong type since the type of `array1` decays to `int *`:
// main.c:32:15: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from
// incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
// main.c:22:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
arraytest(array1); // (missing & operator)
You may test this code here.
To force the C compiler to turn this warning into an error, so that you MUST always call arraytest(&array1); using only an input array of the corrrect size and type (int array1[2]; in this case), add -Werror to your build options. If running the test code above on onlinegdb.com, do this by clicking the gear icon in the top-right and click on "Extra Compiler Flags" to type this option in. Now, this warning:
main.c:34:15: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
main.c:24:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
will turn into this build error:
main.c: In function ‘main’:
main.c:34:15: error: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
arraytest(array1); // warning!
^~~~~~
main.c:24:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
void arraytest(int (*a)[2])
^~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Note that you can also create "type safe" pointers to arrays of a given size, like this:
int array[2]; // variable `array` is of type `int [2]`, or "array of 2 ints"
// `array_p` is a "type safe" ptr to array of size 2 of int; ie: its type
// is `int (*)[2]`, which can also be stated: "ptr to array of 2 ints"
int (*array_p)[2] = &array;
...but I do NOT necessarily recommend this (using these "type safe" arrays in C), as it reminds me a lot of the C++ antics used to force type safety everywhere, at the exceptionally high cost of language syntax complexity, verbosity, and difficulty architecting code, and which I dislike and have ranted about many times before (ex: see "My Thoughts on C++" here).
For additional tests and experimentation, see also the link just below.
References
See links above. Also:
My code experimentation online: https://onlinegdb.com/B1RsrBDFD
See also:
My answer on multi-dimensional arrays (ex: 2D arrays) which expounds upon the above, and uses the "type safety" approach for multi-dimensional arrays where it makes sense: How to pass a multidimensional array to a function in C and C++
If you want to pass a single-dimension array as an argument in a function, you would have to declare a formal parameter in one of following three ways and all three declaration methods produce similar results because each tells the compiler that an integer pointer is going to be received.
int func(int arr[], ...){
.
.
.
}
int func(int arr[SIZE], ...){
.
.
.
}
int func(int* arr, ...){
.
.
.
}
So, you are modifying the original values.
Thanks !!!
Passing a multidimensional array as argument to a function.
Passing an one dim array as argument is more or less trivial.
Let's take a look on more interesting case of passing a 2 dim array.
In C you can't use a pointer to pointer construct (int **) instead of 2 dim array.
Let's make an example:
void assignZeros(int(*arr)[5], const int rows) {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
*(*(arr + i) + j) = 0;
// or equivalent assignment
arr[i][j] = 0;
}
}
Here I have specified a function that takes as first argument a pointer to an array of 5 integers.
I can pass as argument any 2 dim array that has 5 columns:
int arr1[1][5]
int arr1[2][5]
...
int arr1[20][5]
...
You may come to an idea to define a more general function that can accept any 2 dim array and change the function signature as follows:
void assignZeros(int ** arr, const int rows, const int cols) {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
*(*(arr + i) + j) = 0;
}
}
}
This code would compile but you will get a runtime error when trying to assign the values in the same way as in the first function.
So in C a multidimensional arrays are not the same as pointers to pointers ... to pointers. An int(*arr)[5] is a pointer to array of 5 elements,
an int(*arr)[6] is a pointer to array of 6 elements, and they are a pointers to different types!
Well, how to define functions arguments for higher dimensions? Simple, we just follow the pattern!
Here is the same function adjusted to take an array of 3 dimensions:
void assignZeros2(int(*arr)[4][5], const int dim1, const int dim2, const int dim3) {
for (int i = 0; i < dim1; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < dim2; j++) {
for (int k = 0; k < dim3; k++) {
*(*(*(arr + i) + j) + k) = 0;
// or equivalent assignment
arr[i][j][k] = 0;
}
}
}
}
How you would expect, it can take as argument any 3 dim arrays that have in the second dimensions 4 elements and in the third dimension 5 elements. Anything like this would be OK:
arr[1][4][5]
arr[2][4][5]
...
arr[10][4][5]
...
But we have to specify all dimensions sizes up to the first one.
You are not passing the array as copy. It is only a pointer pointing to the address where the first element of the array is in memory.
You are passing the address of the first element of the array
You are passing the value of the memory location of the first member of the array.
Therefore when you start modifying the array inside the function, you are modifying the original array.
Remember that a[1] is *(a+1).
Arrays in C are converted, in most of the cases, to a pointer to the first element of the array itself. And more in detail arrays passed into functions are always converted into pointers.
Here a quote from K&R2nd:
When an array name is passed to a function, what is passed is the
location of the initial element. Within the called function, this
argument is a local variable, and so an array name parameter is a
pointer, that is, a variable containing an address.
Writing:
void arraytest(int a[])
has the same meaning as writing:
void arraytest(int *a)
So despite you are not writing it explicitly it is as you are passing a pointer and so you are modifying the values in the main.
For more I really suggest reading this.
Moreover, you can find other answers on SO here
In C, except for a few special cases, an array reference always "decays" to a pointer to the first element of the array. Therefore, it isn't possible to pass an array "by value". An array in a function call will be passed to the function as a pointer, which is analogous to passing the array by reference.
EDIT: There are three such special cases where an array does not decay to a pointer to it's first element:
sizeof a is not the same as sizeof (&a[0]).
&a is not the same as &(&a[0]) (and not quite the same as &a[0]).
char b[] = "foo" is not the same as char b[] = &("foo").
Arrays are always passed by reference if you use a[] or *a:
int* printSquares(int a[], int size, int e[]) {
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
e[i] = i * i;
}
return e;
}
int* printSquares(int *a, int size, int e[]) {
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
e[i] = i * i;
}
return e;
}
An array can also be called as a decay pointer.
Usually when we put a variable name in the printf statement the value gets printed in case of an array it decays to the address of the first element, Therefore calling it as a decay pointer.
And we can only pass the decay pointer to a function.
Array as a formal parameter like Mr.Bo said int arr[] or int arr[10] is equivalent to the int *arr;
They will have there own 4 bytes of memory space and storing the decay pointer received.and we do pointer arithmetic on them.
I'm starting to play around with some C code within Objective-C programs. The function I'm trying to write sorts all of the lat/long coordinates from a KML file into clusters based on 2D arrays.
I'm using three 2D arrays to accomplish this:
NSUInteger **bucketCounts refers to the number of CLLocationCoordinate2Ds in a cluster.
CLLocationCoorindate2D **coordBuckets is an array of arrays of coordinates
NSUInteger **bucketPointers refers to an index in the array of coordinates from coordBuckets
Here's the code that is messing me up:
//Initialize C arrays and indexes
int n = 10;
bucketCounts = (NSUInteger**)malloc(sizeof(NSUInteger*)*n);
bucketPointers = (NSUInteger**)malloc(sizeof(NSUInteger*)*n);
coordBuckets = (CLLocationCoordinate2D **)malloc(sizeof(CLLocationCoordinate2D*)*n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
bucketPointers[i] = malloc(sizeof(NSUInteger)*n);
bucketCounts[i] = malloc(sizeof(NSUInteger)*n);
}
NSUInteger nextEmptyBucketIndex = 0;
int bucketMax = 500;
Then for each CLLocationCoordinate2D that needs to be added:
//find location to enter point in matrix
int latIndex = (int)(n * (oneCoord.latitude - minLat)/(maxLat-minLat));
int lonIndex = (int)(n * (oneCoord.longitude - minLon)/(maxLon-minLon));
//see if necessary bucket exists yet. If not, create it.
NSUInteger positionInBucket = bucketCounts[latIndex][lonIndex];
if (positionInBucket == 0) {
coordBuckets[nextEmptyBucketIndex] = malloc(sizeof(CLLocationCoordinate2D) * bucketMax);
bucketPointers[latIndex][lonIndex] = nextEmptyBucketIndex;
nextEmptyBucketIndex++;
}
//Insert point in bucket.
NSUInteger bucketIndex = bucketPointers[latIndex][lonIndex];
CLLocationCoordinate2D *bucketForInsert = coordBuckets[bucketIndex];
bucketForInsert[positionInBucket] = oneCoord;
bucketCounts[latIndex][lonIndex]++;
positionInBucket++;
//If bucket is full, expand it.
if (positionInBucket % bucketMax == 0) {
coordBuckets[bucketIndex] = realloc(coordBuckets[bucketIndex], (sizeof(CLLocationCoordinate2D) * (positionInBucket + bucketMax)));
}
Things seem to be going well for about 800 coordinates, but at the same point a value in either bucketCounts or bucketPointers gets set to an impossibly high number, which causes a reference to a bad value and crashes the program. I'm sure this is a memory management issue, but I don't know C well enough to troubleshoot it myself. Any helpful pointers for where I'm going wrong? Thanks!
It seems to me each entry in bucketPointers can potentially have its own "bucket", requiring a unique element of coordBuckets to hold the pointer to that bucket.
The entries in bucketPointers are indexed by bucketPointers[latIndex][lonIndex], so there can be n*n of them, but you allocated only n places in coordBuckets.
I think you should allocate for n*n elements in coordBuckets.
Two problems I see:
You don't initialize bucketCounts[] in the given code. It may well happen to all 0s but you should still initialize it with calloc() or memset():
bucketCounts[i] = calloc(n, sizeof(NSUInteger));
if oneCoord.latitude == maxLat then latIndex == n which will overflow your arrays which have valid indexes from 0 to n-1. Same issue with lonIndex. Either allocate n+1 elements and/or make sure latIndex and lonIndex are clamped from 0 to n-1.
In code using raw arrays like this you can solve a lot of issues with two simple rules:
Initialize all arrays (even if you technically don't need to).
Check/verify all array indexes to prevent out-of-bounds accesses.
I have a function that returns a variable and I want to know how to return an array the issue is it isn't an NSArray it is just an average C array like this...
-(b2Fixture*) addFixturesToBody:(b2Body*)body forShapeName:(NSString*)shape
{
BodyDef *so = [shapeObjects objectForKey:shape];
assert(so);
FixtureDef *fix = so->fixtures;
int count = -1;
b2Fixture *Fixi[4];
while(fix)
{
count++;
NSLog(#"count = %d",count);
Fixi[count]= body->CreateFixture(&fix->fixture);
if (Fixi[count]!=0) {
NSLog(#"Fixi %d is not 0",count);
}
if (body->CreateFixture(&fix->fixture)!=0) {
NSLog(#"body %d is not 0",count);
}
fix = fix->next;
}
return *Fixi;
}
If you see some variable types you don't know it's because I'm using cocos2d framework to make a game but I'm returning a variable of b2Fixture... This code compiles however only saves the value of the first block of the array "fixi[0]" not the whole array like I want to pass
anyhelp :) thankyou
You can't return a local array. You'll need to do some kind of dynamic allocation or pull a trick like having the array inside a structure.
Here is a link to an in-depth article that should help you out.
In general returning C arrays by value is a bad idea, as arrays can be very large. Objective-C arrays are by-reference types - they are dynamically allocated and a reference, which is small, is what is passed around. You can dynamically allocate C arrays as well, using one of the malloc family for allocation and free for deallocation.
You can pass C structures around by value, and this is common, as in general structures tend to be small (or smallish anyway).
Now in your case you are using a small array, it has just 4 elements. If you consider passing these 4 values around by value is reasonable and a good fit for your design then you can do so simply by embedding the C array in a C structure:
typedef struct
{
b2Fixture *elements[4];
} b2FixtureArray;
...
-(b2FixtureArray) addFixturesToBody:(b2Body*)body forShapeName:(NSString*)shape
{
BodyDef *so = [shapeObjects objectForKey:shape];
assert(so);
FixtureDef *fix = so->fixtures;
int count = -1;
b2FixtureArray Fixi;
while(fix)
{
count++;
NSLog(#"count = %d", count);
Fixi.elements[count]= body->CreateFixture(&fix->fixture);
if (Fixi.elements[count] != 0)
{
NSLog(#"Fixi %d is not 0",count);
}
if (body->CreateFixture(&fix->fixture) != 0)
{
NSLog(#"body %d is not 0", count);
}
fix = fix->next;
}
return Fixi;
}
...
// sample call outline
b2FixtureArray result = [self addFixturesToBody...]
Whether this standard C "trick" for passing arrays by value is appropriate for your case you'll have to decide.
Note: If b2fixture is an Objective-C object make sure you understand the memory management implications of having a C array of objects references depending on the memory management model (MRC, ARC, GC) you are using.
If you need to design function or method that has to return a fixed or limited size array, one possibility is to pass a pointer to the result array to the function or method as a parameter. Then the caller can take care of allocating space, or just use a local or instance variable array. You might want the called function to sanity check that the array parameter isn't NULL before using the array.