The variable e
is a pointer to an array of n + 1
elements of type double
.
Using the dereference operator on e
gives you the base-type of e
which is " array of n + 1
elements of type double
".
The malloc
call simply takes the base-type of e
(explained above) and gets its size, multiplies it by n + 1
, and passing that size to the malloc
function. Essentially allocating an array of n + 1
arrays of n + 1
elements of double
.
This is the typical way you should allocate 2D arrays dynamically.
e
is an array pointer to an array of type double [n+1]
.sizeof(*e)
therefore gives the type of the pointed-at type, which is the size of one double [n+1]
array.n+1
such arrays.e
to point at the first array in this array of arrays.e
as e[i][j]
to access individual items in the 2D array.Personally I think this style is much easier to read:
double (*e)[n+1] = malloc( sizeof(double[n+1][n+1]) );
This idiom falls naturally out of 1D array allocation. Let's start with allocating a 1D array of some arbitrary type T
:
T *p = malloc( sizeof *p * N );
Simple, right? The expression *p
has type T
, so sizeof *p
gives the same result as sizeof (T)
, so we're allocating enough space for an N
-element array of T
. This is true for any type T
.
Now, let's substitute T
with an array type like R [10]
. Then our allocation becomes
R (*p)[10] = malloc( sizeof *p * N);
The semantics here are exactly the same as the 1D allocation method; all that's changed is the type of p
. Instead of T *
, it's now R (*)[10]
. The expression *p
has type T
which is type R [10]
, so sizeof *p
is equivalent to sizeof (T)
which is equivalent to sizeof (R [10])
. So we're allocating enough space for an N
by 10
element array of R
.
We can take this even further if we want; suppose R
is itself an array type int [5]
. Substitute that for R
and we get
int (*p)[10][5] = malloc( sizeof *p * N);
Same deal - sizeof *p
is the same as sizeof (int [10][5])
, and we wind up allocating a contiguous chunk of memory large enough to hold a N
by 10
by 5
array of int
.
So that's the allocation side; what about the access side?
Remember that the []
subscript operation is defined in terms of pointer arithmetic: a[i]
is defined as *(a + i)
1. Thus, the subscript operator []
implicitly dereferences a pointer. If p
is a pointer to T
, you can access the pointed-to value either by explicitly dereferencing with the unary *
operator:
T x = *p;
or by using the []
subscript operator:
T x = p[0]; // identical to *p
Thus, if p
points to the first element of an array, you can access any element of that array by using a subscript on the pointer p
:
T arr[N];
T *p = arr; // expression arr "decays" from type T [N] to T *
...
T x = p[i]; // access the i'th element of arr through pointer p
Now, let's do our substitution operation again and replace T
with the array type R [10]
:
R arr[N][10];
R (*p)[10] = arr; // expression arr "decays" from type R [N][10] to R (*)[10]
...
R x = (*p)[i];
One immediately apparent difference; we're explicitly dereferencing p
before applying the subscript operator. We don't want to subscript into p
, we want to subscript into what p
points to (in this case, the array arr[0]
). Since unary *
has lower precedence than the subscript []
operator, we have to use parentheses to explicitly group p
with *
. But remember from above that *p
is the same as p[0]
, so we can substitute that with
R x = (p[0])[i];
or just
R x = p[0][i];
Thus, if p
points to a 2D array, we can index into that array through p
like so:
R x = p[i][j]; // access the i'th element of arr through pointer p;
// each arr[i] is a 10-element array of R
Taking this to the same conclusion as above and substituting R
with int [5]
:
int arr[N][10][5];
int (*p)[10][5]; // expression arr "decays" from type int [N][5][10] to int (*)[10][5]
...
int x = p[i][j][k];
This works just the same if p
points to a regular array, or if it points to memory allocated through malloc
.
This idiom has the following benefits:
T **arr = malloc( sizeof *arr * N );
if ( arr )
{
for ( size_t i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
arr[i] = malloc( sizeof *arr[i] * M );
}
}
free
. Again, not true with the piecemeal allocation method, where you have to deallocate each arr[i]
before you can deallocate arr
.
Sometimes the piecemeal allocation method is preferable, such as when your heap is badly fragmented and you can't allocate your memory as a contiguous chunk, or you want to allocate a "jagged" array where each row can have a different length. But in general, this is the better way to go.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With