Multi-dimensional array allocation with single 'new' call

[ip4ram]

I used to work with C and have a set of libraries which allocate
multi-dimensional arrays(2 and 3) with single malloc call.

data_type **myarray
= (data_type**)ma lloc(widht*heig ht*sizeof(data_ type)+ height*
sizeof(data_typ e*));

//allocate individual addresses for row pointers.

Now that I am moving to C++,am looking for something by which I can
allocate a
multi-dimensional array with one (and only one) 'new' call.

Does my old libraries (with malloc calls) work in C++.Yes.

Then why do I want to use 'new'.Some books encourage usage of new to
malloc(I assume new is much safer than malloc). Anyways,can this be
done?Has anybody done it ?

Thanks,in advance, for all your help.

Ram

[Gianni Mariani]

ip****@yahoo.co m wrote:

I used to work with C and have a set of libraries which allocate
multi-dimensional arrays(2 and 3) with single malloc call.

data_type **myarray
= (data_type**)ma lloc(widht*heig ht*sizeof(data_ type)+ height*
sizeof(data_typ e*));

//allocate individual addresses for row pointers.

Now that I am moving to C++,am looking for something by which I can
allocate a
multi-dimensional array with one (and only one) 'new' call.

Does my old libraries (with malloc calls) work in C++.Yes.

Then why do I want to use 'new'.Some books encourage usage of new to
malloc(I assume new is much safer than malloc). Anyways,can this be
done?Has anybody done it ?

Thanks,in advance, for all your help.

In C++, you don't need any new calls. Consider this:

#include <vector>

template <typename w_elem_type>
class matrix
{
public:
typedef int t_Size;

t_Size m_columns;
t_Size m_rows;

std::vector<w_e lem_type> m_data;

matrix( t_Size i_columns = 0, t_Size i_rows = 0 )
: m_columns( i_columns ),
m_rows( i_rows ),
m_data( i_columns * i_rows )
{
}

w_elem_type * operator[]( t_Size i_index )
{
return & ( m_data[ i_index * m_rows ] );
}

template <typename w_Type, int w_columns, int w_rows>
matrix( const w_Type (&i_array)[w_columns][w_rows] )
: m_columns( w_columns ),
m_rows( w_rows ),
m_data( & (i_array[0][0]), & (i_array[w_columns-1][w_rows]) )
{
}

};

#include <iostream>

double array[3][4] = {
{ 1.0, 2.0, 3.3, 4.4 },
{ 1.0, 2.0, 3.3, 4.4 },
{ 1.0, 2.0, 3.3, 4.5 },
};

int main()
{
matrix<float> mat1( 3, 4 );
matrix<float> mat2;
// convert a double array to a float matrix (on the fly!)
matrix<float> mat3( array );

mat2 = mat3;

std::cout << mat2[2][3] << "\n";
}
How would you do this with malloc ?

[Dietmar Kuehl]

ip****@yahoo.co m wrote:

I used to work with C and have a set of libraries which allocate
multi-dimensional arrays(2 and 3) with single malloc call.

data_type **myarray
= (data_type**)ma lloc(widht*heig ht*sizeof(data_ type)+ height*
sizeof(data_typ e*));
Note that you are allocating two separate data structures at once:
- the data area for your multi-dimensional array
- an array of pointers to the beginning of the rows

I assume you are then computing and storing the start addresses of the
individual rows. Without measuring the effect, I would actually guess
that the on-the-fly computation of the addresses is not slower than the
pointer look-up. In C++ this can neatly be encapsulated by a suitable
function of an multi-dimensional array class. This is just a separate
issue you might want to consider.
Now that I am moving to C++,am looking for something by which I can
allocate a multi-dimensional array with one (and only one) 'new' call.
It is important to understand the motivation of replacing 'malloc()' by
'new': other than 'malloc()', 'new' calls the constructor of the
respective objects. For POD-types (ie. for built-in types and C-like
structs), this actually does nothing (... and the calls to any form of
constructors are elided, ie. it is in no way a performance hit) but for
class types the necessary initialization is performed. You can use
'malloc()' or its moral C++ equivalent, ie. 'operator new()' or
'operator new[]()', in C++, too, but you have to make sure to call the
relevant constructors and, at destruction time, the relevant
destructors.
Does my old libraries (with malloc calls) work in C++.Yes.
Considering my previous paragraph, I would seriously question your
statement that use of 'malloc()' works properly - unless you are only
using multi-dimensional arrays with POD-types in which case there is
no good reason to rewrite your library to use 'new', IMO.
Then why do I want to use 'new'.Some books encourage usage of new to
malloc(I assume new is much safer than malloc).
Understanding the motivation of any advice is quite important to
understand when to follow the advice. 'new' is no way "safer" than
'malloc()'. For non-POD types 'malloc()' without later explicit
constructor calls (see below) simply does not work!
Anyways,can this be done?Has anybody done it ?

The answers to these questions are "kind of" and "yes". The purpose of
using 'new' is to invoke the constructors for the objects. Likewise,
the purpose of 'delete' is to invoke the destructors for the objects.
That is, in addition to the memory management operations, of course.
Although C++ does not provide an immediate approach to the creation of
inhomogenous areas of memory, it provides a manual approach under the
name of "placement new". The idea is to split the operation into its
two components:

- memory management (memory allocation of 'new' and memory release for
'delete')
- object life-time maintenance, ie. construction of 'new' and
destruction for 'delete'.

Whether you are using 'operator new()' and 'operator delete()' (or, if
you prefe, 'operator new[]()' and 'operator delete[]()') or 'malloc()'
and 'free()' for the memory management, does not really matter. However,
you need to use placement-new and placement-delete for the other
component.

Here is some code to illustrate this (normally, this code would be
encapsulated into an appropriate class):

// header for placement-new function:
#include <new>

// obtain the memory with just one call:
void* mem = operator new(width * height * sizeof(data_typ e)
+ height * sizeof(data_typ e*));

// initialize the data area:
data_type* array = static_cast<dat a_type*>(mem);
// the C++ approach to initialization is actually this:
// std::uninitiali zed_fill(array, width * height, data_type());
// ... but for demonstraction here is a similar, though semantically
// slightly different approach (*):
for (data_type* cur = array, end = array + width * height;
cur != end; ++cur)
new(cur) T();

// initialize the row pointers:
typedef data_type* data_type_ptr; // (**)
data_type** rows = reinterpret_cas t<data_type**> (
reinterpret_cas t<char*>(mem) + width * height * sizeof(data_typ e);
for (std::size_type i = 0; i != height; ++i)
new(rows[i]) data_type_ptr(a rray + i);

// use the array

// destroy the row pointers:
for (std::size_type i = height; --i; )
row[i].~data_type_ptr ();

// destroy the data area:
for (data_type* cur = array + width * height; array != cur; )
(--cur)->~data_type() ;

// release the memory:
operator delete(mem);

Comments:
* The semantic difference is that 'uninitialized_ fill()' uses the
copy constructor on the passed object while the explicit loop
uses the default constructor for each object.
** I'm not sure whether this typedef is necessary for the construction
(I think it is not) but it is necessary for the destruction.

Conclusions:
- Yes, it is possible.
- I don't think it is worth the hassel:
- the array of row pointers is probably only good to decrease
performance, both during construction and use
- even if you insist in using this array, it is easier to use
multiple allocations and I seriously doubt that you will be
able to measure the difference for any reasonable sized array.
--
<mailto:di***** ******@yahoo.co m> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<http://www.contendix.c om> - Software Development & Consulting