Apologies or asking what is probably a very straightforward question, but I'm new to C-Syntax languages in general and have found something that confused me.
I've see a couple of example bits of code that create a CGFloat object and then seem to treat them as a implicit array of some kind, for example.
CGFloat newFloat[3] = {value1,value2,value};
Is this a generally valid concept in objective C to create arrays, or is it something built into CGFloat to hand 3D points in space?
Many thanks for any help.
This is called array initialisation and is a part of the language.
The {value1,value2,value} part is called an initialiser and can be used on the right side of the assignment whenever defining an array. When the number of elements in the initialiser corresponds to the specified size of the array, you don't actually need to explicitly specify the size:
CGFloat newFloat[] = {value1, value2, value};
This makes the maintenance easier since adding a new element at the end doesn't force you to update the size as well.
Such initialisers are supported for structs as well.
That's not an implicit array, the left hand side explicitly declares a variable that is a CGFloat array of length 3. The syntax is actually part of the C standard.
Related
I'm trying to do the following, but NSValue's creation method returns nil.
Are C bitfields in structs not supported?
struct MyThingType {
BOOL isActive:1;
uint count:7;
} myThing = {
.isActive = YES,
.count = 3,
};
NSValue *value = [NSValue valueWithBytes:&myThing objCType:#encode(struct MyThingType)];
// value is nil here
First and foremost, claptrap makes a very good point in his comment: why bother using bitfield specifiers (which are mainly used to either do micro-optimization or manually add padding bits where you need them), to then wrap it all up in an instance of NSValue).
It's like buying a castle, but then living in the kitchen to not ware out the carpets...
I don't think it is, a quick canter through the apple dev-docs came up with this... there are indeed several issues to take into account when it comes to bit fields.
I've also just found this, which explains why bit-fields + NSValue don't really play well together.
Especially in cases where the sizeof a struct can lead to NSValue reading the data in an... shall we say erratic manner:
The struct you've created is padded to 8 bits. Now these bits could be read as 2 int, or 1 long or something... From what I've read on the linked page, it's not unlikely that this is what is happening.
So, basically, NSValue is incapable of determining the actual types, when you're using bit fields. In case of ambiguity, an int (width 4 in most cases) is assumed and under/overflow occurs, and you have a mess on your hands.
Since the compiler still has some liberty as to where what member is actually stored, it doesn't quite suffice to pass the stringified typedef sort of thing (objCType: #encode(struct YourStruct), because there is a good chance that you won't be able to make sense of the actual struct itself, owing to compiler optimizations and such...
I'd suggest you simply drop the bit field specifiers, because structs should be supported... at least, last time I tried, a struct with simple primitive types worked just fine.
You can solve this with a union. Simply put the structure into union that has another member with a type supported by NSValue and has a size larger than your structure. In your case this is obvious for long.
union _bitfield_word_union
{
yourstructuretype bitfield;
long plain;
};
You can make it more robust against resizing the structure by using an array whose size is calculated at compile time. (Please remember that sizeof() is a compile time operator, too.)
char plain[(sizeof(yourstructuretype)/sizeof(char)];
Then you can store the structure with the bitfield into the union and read the plain member out.
union converter = { .bitfield = yourstructuretypevalue };
long plain = converter.plain;
Use this value for NSValue instance creation. Reading out you have to do the inverse way.
I'm pretty sure that through a technical correctum of C99 this became standard conforming (called type punning), because you can expect that reading out a member's value (bitfield) through another members value (plain) and storing it back is defined, if the member being read is at least as big as the member being written. (There might be undefined bits 9-31/63 in plain, but you do not have to care about it.) However it is real-world conforming.
Dirty hack? Maybe. One might call it C99. However using bitfields in combination with NSValue sounds like using dirty hacks.
I realize 99% of you think "what the h***…" But please help me to get my head around the this concept of using pointers. I'm sure my specific question would help lots of newbies.
I understand what pointers ARE and that they are a reference to an adress in memory and that by using the (*) operator you can get the value in that address.
Let's say:
int counter = 10;
int *somePointer = &counter;
Now I have the address in memory of counter, and I can indirectly point to its value by doing this:
int x = *somePointer;
Which makes x = 10, right?
But this is the most basic example, and for this case I could use int x = counter; and get that value, so please explain why pointers really are such an important thing in Objective-C and some other languages... in what case would only a pointer make sense?
Appreciate it.
Objective-C has pointers because it is an evolution of C, which used pointers extensively. The advantage of a pointer in an object-oriented language like Objective-C is that after you create an object, you can pass around a pointer to the object instead of passing around the object itself. In other words, if you have some object that takes up a large amount of storage space, passing around a pointer is a lot more memory-efficient than passing around a copy of the object itself. This may not be noticeable in simple cases when you’re only dealing with primitive types like ints, but when you start dealing with more complex objects the memory and time savings are enormous.
More importantly, pointers make it much easier for different parts of your code to talk to each other. If variables could only be passed to functions “by value” instead of “by reference” (which is what happens when you use pointers), then functions could never alter their inputs. They could only change the state of your program by either returning a value or by changing a global variable—the overuse of which generally leads to sloppy, unorganized code.
Here’s a concrete example. Suppose you have an Objective-C method that will parse a JSON string and return an NSDictionary:
+ (NSDictionary *)parseJsonString:(NSString *)json
error:(NSError **)error;
The method will do the parsing and return an NSDictionary if everything goes okay. But what if there’s some problem with the input string? We want a way to indicate to the user (or at least to the programmer) what happened, so we have a pointer to a pointer to an NSError, which will contain that information. If our method fails (probably returning nil), we can dereference the error parameter to see what went wrong. What we’ve effectively done is to give our method two different kinds of return values: usually, it will return an NSDictionary, but it could also return an NSError.
If you want to read more about this, you may have better luck searching for “pointers in C” rather than “pointers in Objective-C”; pointers are of course used extensively in Objective-C, but all of the underlying machinery is identical to that of C itself.
What is the biggest advantage of using pointers in ObjectiveC
I'd say the biggest advantage is that you can use Objective-C at all - all Objective-C objects are pointers are accessed using pointers (the compiler and the runtime won't let you create objects statically), so you wouldn't get any further without them...
Item:
What if I told you to write me a program that would maintain a set of counters, but the number of counters would be entered by the user when he started the program. We code this with an array of integers allocated on the heap.
int *counters = malloc(numOfCounters * sizeof(int));
Malloc works with memory directly, so it by nature returns a pointer. All Objective-C objects are heap-allocated with malloc, so these are always pointers.
Item:
What if I told you to write me a function that read a file, and then ran another function when it was done. However, this other function was unknown and would be added by other people, people I didn't even know.
For this we have the "callback". You'd write a function that looked like this:
int ReadAndCallBack(FILE *fileToRead, int numBytes, int whence, void(*callback)(char *));
That last argument is a pointer to a function. When someone calls the function you've written, they do something like this:
void MyDataFunction(char *dataToProcess);
ReadAndCallBack(myFile, 1024, 0, MyDataFunction);
Item:
Passing a pointer as a function argument is the most common way of returning multiple values from a function. In the Carbon libraries on OSX, almost all of the library functions return an error status, which poses a problem if a library function has to return something useful to the programmer. So you pass the address where you'd like the function to hand information back to you...
int size = 0;
int error = GetFileSize(afilePath,&size);
If the function call returns an error, it is in error, if there was no error, error will probably be zero and size will contain what we need.
The biggest advantage of pointers in Objective-C, or in any language with dynamic allocation, is that your program can handle more items than the names that you invent in your source code.
I'm sorry if this is a bit of a C-noob question: I know I need to swot up on my pointers. Unfortunately I'm on a deadline so don't have time to work through a whole book chapter, so I'm hoping for a bit more targeted advice.
I want to store some objective-C objects in a C array. I'm using ARC. If I were on the Mac I'd be able to use NSPointerArray instead, but I'm on iOS and that's not available.
I'll be storing a three-dimensional C array: conceptually my dimensions are day, height, and cacheNumber. Each element will either be a pointer to an objective-C object, or NULL.
The number of caches (i.e. the size of the cacheNumber dimension) is known at compile time, but the other two are not known. Also, the array could be very large, so I need to dynamically allocate memory for it.
Regarding ownership semantics, I need strong references to the objects.
I would like the whole three-dimensional array to be an instance variable on an objective-C object.
I plan to have a method that is - tableForCacheNumber:(int)num days:(int*)days height:(int*)height. That method should return a two-dimensional array, that is one specific cache number. (It also passes back by reference the size of the array it is returning.)
My questions:
What order should I put my dimensions so that I can easily return a pointer to the subarray for one specific cache number? (I think it should be first, but I'm not 100%.)
What should the return type of my method be, so that ARC doesn't complain? I don't mind if the returned array has an increased reference count or not, as long as I know which it's doing.
What type should my instance variable that holds the three dimensional array be? I think it should just be a pointer, since that ivar just represents the pointer to the first item that's in my array. Correct? If so, how do I specify that?
When I create the three-dimensional array (for my ivar), I guess I do something like calloc(X * Y * Z, sizeof(id)), and cast the result to the type for my ivar?
When accessing items from the three-dimensional array in the ivar, I believe I have to dereference the pointer each time, with something like (*myArray)[4][7][2]. Correct?
Will the two-dimensional array I return from the method be similarly accessed?
Do I need to tag the returned two-dimensional array with objc_returns_inner_pointer?
I'm sorry once again that this is a bit of a bad Stack Overflow question (it's too long and with too many parts). I hope the SO citizens will forgive me. To improve my interweb karma, maybe I'll write it up as a blog post when this project has shipped.
First off: while you don't have NSPointerArray, you do have CFMutableArrayRef and you can pass any callbacks you want for retain/release/description, including NULL. It may be easier (and performance is something you can measure later) to try that first.
Taking your points in order:
you should define your dimensions as [cacheNumber][days][height], as you expect. Then cache[cacheNumber] is a two-dimensional array of type id *[][]. As you've said performance is important, be aware that the fastest way to iterate this beast is:
for (/* cacheNumber loop */) {
for (/* days loop */) {
for (/* height loop */) {
//...
}
}
}
it should be of type __strong id ***: that's a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to id, which is the same as array of (array of (pointer to id)).
your ivar needs to be __strong id **** (!), because it's an array of the above things.
you guess incorrectly regarding allocating the array.. If you're using a multidimensional array, you need to do this (one dimension elided for brevity):
- (__strong id * * *)someArray {
__strong id * * *cache = (__strong id * * *)malloc(x*y*sizeof(void *));
id hello = #"Hello";
cache[0] = (__strong id * *)malloc(sizeof(void *)); //same for cache[1..x-1]
cache[0][0] = &hello; // for all cache[x][y]
return (__strong id * * *)cache;
}
correct, that is how you use such a pointer.
yeah, the two-D array works in the same way, sans the first dimension.
I don't think so, you're handing out __strong object pointers so you should be grand. That said, we're at about the limit of my ability with this stuff now so I could well be wrong.
Answering my own question because this web page gave me the missing bit of info I needed. I've also upvoted Graham's answer, since he was very helpful in getting my head round some of the syntax.
The trick I was missing is knowing that if I want to refer to items in the array via the array[1][5][2] syntax, and that I don't know the sizes of my array at compile time, I can't just calloc() a single block of data for it.
The easiest to read (although least efficient) method of doing that is just with a loop:
__strong Item ****cacheItems;
cacheItems = (__strong Item ****)calloc(kMaxZooms, sizeof(Item ***));
for (int k = 0; k < kMaxZooms; k++)
{
cacheItems[k] = (__strong Item ***)calloc((size_t)daysOnTimeline, sizeof(Item **));
for (int j = 0; j < daysOnTimeline; j++)
{
cacheItems[k][j] = (__strong Item **)calloc((size_t)kMaxHeight, sizeof(Item *));
}
}
I'm allocating a three dimensional array of Item *s, Item being an objective-C class. (I have of course left out the error handling code in this snippet.)
Once I've done that, I can refer to my array using the square brackets syntax:
cacheItems[zoom][day][heightToUse] = item;
The web page I linked to above also describes a second method for performing the memory allocations, that uses only one call to calloc() per dimension. I haven't tried that method yet, as the one I've just described is working well enough at the moment.
I would think of a different implementation. Unless it is a demonstrable (i.e. you have measured and quantified it) performance issue, trying to store Objective-C objects in plain C arrays is often a code smell.
It seems to me that you need an intermediate container object which we will call a Cache for now. One instance will exist for each cache number, and your object will hold an NS(Mutable)Array of them. Cache objects will have properties for the maximum days and height.
The Cache object would most easily be implemented with an NSArray of the objects in it, using simple arithmetic to simulate two dimensions. Your cache object would have a method -objectAtDay:Height: to access the object by its coordinates.
This way, there is no need at all to worry about memory management, ARC does it for you.
Edit
Given that performance is an issue, I would use a 1D array and roll my own arithmetic to calculate offsets. The type of your instance variable would be:
__strong id* myArray;
You can only use C multilevel subscripts (array[i][j][k]) if you know the range of all the dimensions (except the first one). This is because the actual offset is calculated as
(i * (max_j * max_k) + j * max_k + k) * sizeof(element type)
If the compiler doesn't know max_j and max_k, it can't do it. That's precisely the situation you are in.
Given that you have to use a 1D array and calculate the offsets manually, the Apple example will work fine for you.
I've been programming for a while in objective-c, but I've unfortunately never delved very deeply into C and memory pointers, although I do have a rudimentary understanding of them. I'm working with an array of CLLocationCoordinate2D structures, and I'm trying to figure out how to append to the array. First of all, I get the
NSString *aString; //a bunch of coordinates
CLLocationCoordinate2d *coordinates;
int length;
doSomethingCool(aString, &coordinates, &length);
after I do something cool, I want to preserve it in a class variable. If I simply do something like
points = newPoints
points contains the appropriate contents. However, if I try to do something like this:
points = malloc(sizeof(CLLocationCoordinate2D) * length);
points[0] = *newPoints;
points ends up with contents different from newPoints.
Ultimately my goal is to be able to append to points based on length, but I'm not going to be able to do that if I can't get the above code to work. What am I doing wrong?
Your code simply copies the first value of newPoints into the first value of points (*newPoints is equivalent to newPoints[0]).
One situation is to make a new array, copy all values, switch the arrays, and free() the old one. For example:
int* newvals = malloc(sizeof(int) * newcount);
memcpy(newvals, vals, sizeof(int) * oldcount);
free(vals);
vals = newvals;
You can also use realloc - its behavior is similar to the above (though it can fail!), but at times may be more efficient.
Note that you simply can't change the underlying pointer's size in a safe and portable fashion. You will need to update your instance ("class") variable with the new pointer.
The idea would be to copy all of the array into a temporary array, resize the original, and then copy them back. However, managing this could get hairy. You'd be better off using an std::vector and just appending it.
EDIT: I just realized you're using C, not C++. Disregard the second half of this.
I would like to know if there is any difference in performance between these:
- create an object with the value of an existing object, then assign itself = a modified version of it
AND
- create and object with the value = the modified value of an existing object
Code sample in Objective-C:
UIImage* img= img2;
img = [img apply:filter];
VS
UIImage* img=[img2 apply:filter];
Thanks
This:
UIImage* img= img2;
does not "create a new object", it simply makes "img" refer to the same object as "img2".
In either case, all you're doing is assigning a pointer, so there's no significant performance difference.
If the apply method always returns a new image, then no, there is not the slightest difference between those two things. The main difference is that in the first one, the first line is wasted: you assign img2 to img but then you throw away that assignment, replacing img's value a different image (the result of apply). But even that waste makes no performance difference, because object assignment is pointer assignment, which is trivial (no data copying takes place or anything like that).
At this level, you're dealing with something the compiler will optimize away anyway. There may be an additional assignment that occurs in the first that doesn't happen in the second (that would have a negligible impact on performance because you're simply dealing with pointers), but I imagine any compiler worth its salt would turn these two statements into the same assembly.