I'm having a issue getting the size of a struct pointer after allocating the memory using malloc or realloc. I've worked around this by keeping track of the memory in a separate counter, but I would like to know if this is a bug or if there is a way to properly query the size of a struct pointer.
Sample code demonstrates that no matter how much memory I allocate to the struct pointer it always returns 4 when querying using the sizeof() method.
typedef struct {
int modelID;
int bufferPosition;
int bufferSize;
} Model;
Model *models = malloc(10000 * sizeof(Model));
NSLog(#"sizeof(models) = %lu", sizeof(models)); //this prints: sizeof(models) = 4
4 is the correct answer, because "models" is a pointer, and pointers are 4 bytes. You will not be able to find the length of an array this way. Any reason you're not using NSArray?
If I understand you correctly you want to get at the size of the allocated buffer.
sizeof if the wrong way to go since it is evaluated at compile time. The size of the buffer is a runtime concept.
You would need a way to query you C library to return the allocation size for the pointer to the buffer.
Some systems have a way to get that kind of information, for instance malloc_size on Mac OS.
4 is the correct answer.
Pointers point to a memory location which could contain anything. When you are querying the size of a pointer, it gives the size of the memory location which holds the pointer, which in your case is 4.
For example
int *a = pointing to some large number;
int *b = pointing to a single digit number;
In the above case, both a and b have the same size irrespective of where they are pointing to.
For more information, have a look at this post size of a pointer
sizeof(myvar) will return size of pointer. in 32bit environment it equals to 4(bytes).
why don't you use sizeof (Model) instead?
Related
I've got a question about what I think boils down to C syntax and memory considerations. I have a callback in an Objective-C class that processes some audio, and one of the arguments is bufferListInOut. It represents a mono audio signal that I'd like to convert to stereo. Here's my code:
static void tap_ProcessCallback(MTAudioProcessingTapRef tap,
CMItemCount numberFrames,
MTAudioProcessingTapFlags flags,
AudioBufferList *bufferListInOut,
CMItemCount *numberFramesOut,
MTAudioProcessingTapFlags *flagsOut){
// Retrieve mono audio data into bufferListInOut
MTAudioProcessingTapGetSourceAudio(tap, numberFrames, bufferListInOut, NULL, NULL, NULL);
// Copy the mono channel's data
float *channelLeft = malloc(numberFrames * sizeof(float));
channelLeft = bufferListInOut->mBuffers[0].mData;
// Attempt to create a second channel which is (currently) a copy of the first
bufferListInOut->mNumberBuffers = 2; // 2 for stereo, 1 for mono
bufferListInOut->mBuffers[1].mNumberChannels = 1;
bufferListInOut->mBuffers[1].mDataByteSize = numberFrames * sizeof(Float32);
bufferListInOut->mBuffers[1].mData = channelLeft;
// Set number of frames out
*numberFramesOut = numberFrames;
}
Some notes:
In this code, the new channel is just a copy of the original, but in practice it will undergo some processing.
The naming is a little weird, but mNumberBuffers is indeed meant to be 2 and mNumberChannels is meant to be 1.
This crashes with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error on a rendering thread down the line. So, my question is what is the right way to add a new buffer to this struct? I don't delve into C too often, so I'm sure I'm missing some basics here. Any pointers on this would be great. Thanks for reading.
You cannot do what you are attempting, at least in the way you are trying to do it. The type AudioBufferList is declared as:
struct AudioBufferList { UInt32 mNumberBuffers; AudioBuffer mBuffers[1]; };
This is a classic C pattern for a variable sized struct. To create a struct for N buffers a single block of memory is allocated with the size:
sizeof(UInt32) + N * sizeof(AudioBuffer)
The address of that block is assigned to a AudioBufferList * variable and the field mNumberBuffers set to N. You cannot simply increase the mNumberBuffers to increase the size of the array, instead you must either allocate a new complete struct, or realloc the existing one - realloc increases the size of memory block if possible or allocates a new one and copies the existing data into it if not.
Given your tap_ProcessCallback() function is passed a AudioBuuferList * value and does not return one, there is no way it can change the size of the struct (i.e. the number of buffers) it is passed.
As pointed out in comments you are also doing pointer assignment when you intend to copy memory - see memcpy and friends.
So you need a redesign - your goal is possible, just not how and where you've attempted it.
HTH
Sorry for my newbie question. Please refrain from down voting me because I am learning C. I am an experienced programmer on other languages, but not on C. I am trying to learn C at the same time I am trying to understand a library for iOS called Novaine, on Github.
This library has a module with the following signature:
Novocaine *audioManager = [Novocaine audioManager];
[audioManager setInputBlock:^(float *newAudio, UInt32 numSamples, UInt32 numChannels) {
}];
So, the internal block is receiving numSamples, numChannels and newAudio and newAudio is of kind float pointer?
What kind of object is this? an array of floats? if this is an array, how do I access its values? How do I know the number of elements it has?
This is a pointer to float value. Nothing strange here. It is often use to point some area in memory. You don't know the size of this are. Might be a single float but also can be larger, continuous space in memory.
You don't know what type of object is stored there. float doesn't mean that floats are stored there. It could be declared as void * as well. Again, it is just a space in memory. By typing float * you just give the compile a hint that when you move newAudio pointer (doing or example newAudio ++) it will move a pointer by a sizeof(float) number of bytes.
Based on method fingerprint I assume that this is a pointer to the first element of some buffer which size is probably numSamples * numChannels * size of single sample
This part of memory should be allocated first, to make sure that it's reserved for you:
float *newAudio = calloc(numSamples * numChannels, sizeof(float));
I've been reading about sizeof, malloc, and malloc_size, but for some reason I cannot get it to work properly in objective c.
What I'm trying to do is to dynamically allocate memory and then check the size of the pointer.
I tried doing this:
void *pointer = malloc( sizeof(void) * 8 );
long test1 = malloc_size(pointer); // Its value is 16
long test2 = sizeof(pointer); // Its value is 8
The link below answer exactly the same question but it doesn't work for me.
EDIT:
I also tried using
char *malloc( sizeof(char) * 8)
but it didn't work either.
malloc_size is returning the correct answer - malloc returns a block of at least the size you request, but it may be (a little) larger. This is just a facet of the way dynamic memory is managed, it parallels the way disk files are made up of allocation blocks. A quick test on 64-bit Intel suggests malloc's allocation unit is probably 16 bytes.
pointer is of type of *, so no matter what memory is malloced to pointer, sizeof(pointer) should be fixed value, it's 4 (32bit sys) or 8 (64bit sys).
I have an OpenGL program, but can't alloc correctly.
m_VertexData = (GLfloat*)malloc(sizeof(m_TempVertexData));
m_NormalData = (GLfloat*)malloc(sizeof(m_TempNormalData));
NSLog(#"sizeOfTempVertex: %d sizeOfTempNormal: %d", sizeof(m_TempVertexData),sizeof(m_TempNormalData));
NSLog(#"sizeOfVertex: %d sizeOfNormal: %d",sizeof(m_VertexData),sizeof(m_NormalData));
NSLog:
sizeOfTempVertex: 432 sizeOfTempNormal: 432
sizeOfVertex: 4 sizeOfNormal: 4
sizeof tells you the size of the type (calculated at compile-time). It tells you nothing about how much memory was allocated dynamically.1
1. Except in the special case of C99's variable-length arrays.
m_VertexData and m_normalData are pointers, so their size is sizeof (whatever type it has *), so it allocates the correct amount of memory. You need to allocate sizeof(member of the array) * number of items bytes of memory. By the way, a few things related to malloc:
Don't cast the return value of malloc. It makes code unreadable and it's unnecessary as void * is implicitly promoted to whatever pointer type it is assigned to.
Don't use sizeof(type), rather sizeof(variable). If you ever change the type of the variable, it's gonna cause hard-to-track-down errors.
Considering these points, use the following code:
m_VertexData = malloc(sizeof(*m_VertexData) * numberOfItems);
According to the C standard, Section 6.5.3.4.2:
The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which may be an
expression or the parenthesized name of a type. The size is determined from the type of
the operand. The result is an integer. If the type of the operand is a variable length array
type, the operand is evaluated; otherwise, the operand is not evaluated and the result is an
integer constant.
In your case, the operands m_VertexData and m_NormalData are pointers (which makes sense, because you have just assigned to them the result of calling malloc). Therefore, their size is the same as the size of any other pointer on your system - 4 bytes.
In case you are wondering, there is no standard way to determine how much memory you have malloc-ed; if you need that size for future reference, you need to store that number in a separate variable.
sizeof may not work how you think it works. sizeOfVertex and sizeOfNormal are both 32-bit pointers, so 4 is the correct size for both of them. There's no portable way to determine the actual size of the allocated memory; see determine size of dynamically allocated memory in c.
Out of pure curiosity, I started playing with array's in ways that I have never used before. I tried making a data structure array, and set it equal to another:
typedef struct _test {
float value;
} test;
Simple enough struct, so I tried this:
test struct1[10];
test struct2[20];
struct1 = struct2;
I didn't think this would work, and it didn't even compile. But, this interests me a lot. Is it possible to take an array of 10 and increase the size to 20, while copying the data?
Objective-C
I am actually doing this with Objective-C, so I'd like to hear from the Objective-C people as well. I want to see if it is possible to change the size of struct1 in this file.
#interface Object : NSObject {
test struct1;
}
Remember: This is only out of curiosity, so everything is open to discussion.
Something else that is not exactly pertinent to your question but is interesting nonetheless, is that although arrays cannot be assigned to, structs containing arrays can be assigned to:
struct test
{
float someArray[100];
};
struct test s1 = { /* initialise with some data*/ };
struct test s2 = { /* initialise with some other data */ };
s1 = s2; /* s1's array now contains contents of s2's array */
This also makes it possible to return fixed-length arrays of data from functions (since returning plain arrays is not allowed):
struct test FunctionThatGenerates100Floats(void)
{
struct test result;
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
result.someArray[i] = randomfloat();
return result;
}
As others have said, arrays allocated like that are static, and can not be resized. You have to use pointers (allocating the array with malloc or calloc) to have a resizable array, and then you can use realloc. You must use free to get rid of it (else you'll leak memory). In C99, your array size can be calculated at runtime when its allocated (in C89, its size had to be calculated at compile time), but can't be changed after allocation. In C++, you should use std::vector. I suspect Objective-C has something like C++'s vector.
But if you want to copy data between one array and another in C, use memcpy:
/* void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
note that the arrays must not overlap; use memmove if they do */
memcpy(&struct1, &struct2, sizeof(struct1));
That'll only copy the first ten elements, of course, since struct1 is only ten elements long. You could copy the last ten (for example) by changing &struct2 to struct2+10 or &(struct2[10]). In C, of course, not running off the end of the array is your responsibility: memcpy does not check.
You can also you the obvious for loop, but memcpy will often be faster (and should never be slower). This is because the compiler can take advantage of every trick it knows (e.g., it may know how to copy your data 16 bytes at a time, even if each element is only 1 byte wide)
You can't do this in C with static arrays, but you can do it with dynamically allocated arrays. E.g.,
float *struct1, *struct2, *struct3;
if(!(struct1 = malloc(10 * sizeof(float))) {
// there was an error, handle it here
}
if(!(struct2 = realloc(struct1, 20 * sizeof(float))) {
// there was an error, handle it here
// struct1 will still be valid
}
if(!(struct3 = reallocf(struct2, 40 * sizeof(float))) {
// there was an error, handle it here
// struct2 has been free'd
}
In C, I believe that's a good place to use the realloc function. However, it will only work with dynamically allocated arrays. There's no way to change the memory allocated to struct1 by the declaration test struct1[10];.
In C arrays are constants, you can't change their value (that is, their address) at all, and you can't resize them.
Clearly if you declare your array with a fixed size, test struct1[10] then it cannot be resized. What you need to do is to declare it as a pointer:
test *struct1;
Then you must use malloc to allocate the array and can use realloc to resize it whilst preserving the contents of the original array.
struct1 = malloc(10*sizeof(*struct1));
//initialize struct1 ...
test *struct2 = realloc(struct1, 20*sizeof(*struct1));
If you're using Objective C, you know you can just use NSMutableArray, which automatically does the realloc trick to reallocate itself to store however many objects you put in it, up the limit of your memory.
But you're trying to do this with struct? What would that even mean? Suppose you increase the amount of memory available to struct1 in Object. It's still a struct with one member, and doesn't do anything more.
Is the idea to make Object be able to contain an expanded struct?
typedef struct _test2 {
float value;
NSObject *reference;
} test2;
But then you still can't access reference normally, because it's not a known part of Object.
Object *object2;
...
NSLog(#"%#", object2.struct1.reference); // does not compile
If you knew you had one of your modified objects, you could do
Object *object2;
...
NSLog(#"%#", ((test2)(object2.struct1)).reference);
And also you could still presumably pass object2 to anything that expects an Object. It only has any chance of working if struct1 is the last member of Object, and don't mess with subclassing Object either.
Some variety of realloc trick might then work, but I don't think realloc in particular, because that's intended to be used on objects that are allocated with malloc, and the details of what C function is used to allocate objects in not exposed in Objective C, so you shouldn't assume it's malloc. If you override alloc then you might be able to make sure malloc is used.
Also you have to watch out for the fact that it's common in Objective C for more than one pointer to an object to exist. realloc might move an object, which won't be semantically correct unless you correct all the pointers.