Variable structure, constant length allocations

[Andrew Smallshaw]

I'm working on a data structure that began life as a skip list
derivative, but has evolved to the point that it now only has a
passing resemblance to them. Each node of this structure has a
few constant size variables (ints and the like), an array holding
the actual data (chars in this case) and a random number of pointers
to other nodes in the structure.

At the moment my code uses a fixed size array for the contents
(which may or may not be filled) and the call to malloc for each
node is adjusted to allow for the number of the pointers in the
node. Nothing too special there.

However, I am using a _lot_ of these structures and a significant
proportion have comparatively short average lifetimes. With the
expection of a few configuration tables that rarely, if ever, change
once initialised they are my app's only dynamically allocated memory
and I'm slightly concerned about memory fragmentation because they
are of differing lengths. Simply allocating the maximum amount of
memory that could be needed is an unacceptable waste of memory
since the balance is skewed strongly towards low numbers of pointers
- 50% have only a single pointer, 25% two pointers, 12.5% three
and so on up to a maximum of about 25 pointers.

It occurs to me that it is possible to define a fixed sized structure
with a variable number of pointer if the length of the character
length varies in inverse proportion to the number of pointers.
The question is how to do it cleanly. Unions are out of the question
because the number of possible structure types. I considered having
the character buffer start at the same point as the second pointer
and computing the real start of the buffer as needed. However, I
am now leaning towards defining the character array as a maximum
buffer size and having a single pointer array at the end. That
is:

struct structure {
char buffer[MAX_BUFFER_LEN];
struct structure *ptr[1];
};

and using _negative_ array indices to store the extra pointers. I
can easily determine how many pointers are expected algorithmically
- it is something I need to keep track of in any case - and define
a macro to calculate the buffer's real maximum length when it is
needed (not very often). This should work fine but I can't help
feeling it seems a little messy. Does anyone have any better
solutions, or even any views on whether this is worth bothering
about?

--
Andrew Smallshaw
an*****@sdf.lon estar.org

[jameskuyper]

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
....

It occurs to me that it is possible to define a fixed sized structure
with a variable number of pointer if the length of the character
length varies in inverse proportion to the number of pointers.
The question is how to do it cleanly. Unions are out of the question
because the number of possible structure types. I considered having
the character buffer start at the same point as the second pointer
and computing the real start of the buffer as needed. However, I
am now leaning towards defining the character array as a maximum
buffer size and having a single pointer array at the end. That
is:

struct structure {
char buffer[MAX_BUFFER_LEN];
struct structure *ptr[1];
};

and using _negative_ array indices to store the extra pointers.

Negative array indices are a constraint violation. It might work on
some systems, but it's not going to be portable. One safer approach
would be to simply store an array of 25 pointers in your structure, or
MAX_BUFFER_LEN/sizeof(struct structure *), whichever is larger. Insert
new pointers starting from the top of the array and working toward the
bottom, while accessing the unused bytes for use as your buffer at the
bottom by treating the entire structure as an array of char. It's
tricky and dangerous, I certainly would prefer a method that was
safer, even at the expense of a little extra space. You have to be
very careful to avoid overlap between the portion used for pointers
and the portion used for your buffer. However, if done right, it would
not violate any constraints and would have defined behavior.

[Richard Heathfield]

jameskuyper said:

<snip>

Negative array indices are a constraint violation.

Which constraint do they violate?

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Eric Sosman]

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:

[...]
It occurs to me that it is possible to define a fixed sized structure
with a variable number of pointer if the length of the character
length varies in inverse proportion to the number of pointers.
The question is how to do it cleanly. Unions are out of the question
because the number of possible structure types. I considered having
the character buffer start at the same point as the second pointer
and computing the real start of the buffer as needed. However, I
am now leaning towards defining the character array as a maximum
buffer size and having a single pointer array at the end. That
is:

struct structure {
char buffer[MAX_BUFFER_LEN];
struct structure *ptr[1];
};

and using _negative_ array indices to store the extra pointers. I
can easily determine how many pointers are expected algorithmically
- it is something I need to keep track of in any case - and define
a macro to calculate the buffer's real maximum length when it is
needed (not very often). This should work fine but I can't help
feeling it seems a little messy. Does anyone have any better
solutions, or even any views on whether this is worth bothering
about?

A cleaner approach might use a union instead of a struct:

union onion {
char buffer[MAX_BUFFER_LEN];
union onion *ptr[
(MAX_BUFFER_LEN + sizeof(union onion*) - 1)
/ sizeof(union onion*)];
};

(The ugly arithmetic could be beautified by defining MAX_BUFFER_LEN
as a multiple of sizeof(union onion*).)

Another possibility is to store the characters just after the
struct itself, possibly with a convenient pointer to them in the
fixed portion of the struct. This snippet uses "the struct hack;"
you could also use C99's flexible array member:

struct structure {
char *buffer;
int this;
double that;
struct structure *ptr[1];
} *p;
p = malloc(offsetof (struct structure, ptr)
+ POINTER_CENSUS * sizeof(struct structure*)
+ strlen(the_stri ng) + 1);
if (p == NULL) ...
p->buffer = (char*)p
+ offsetof(struct structure, ptr)
+ POINTER_CENSUS * sizeof(struct structure*);
p->this = 42;
p->that = sqrt(42.0);
strcpy (p->buffer, the_string);

"Is it worth bothering about?" Dunno. If MAX_BUFFER_LEN is
small and the number of structs/unions is large, then maybe. If
MAX_BUFFER_LEN is large and/or the population is small, probably
not. You'll need to measure in the context of your own program.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[jameskuyper]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jameskuyper said:

....

Negative array indices are a constraint violation.

Which constraint do they violate?

Sorry - that was undefined behavior (6.5.6p8), not a constraint
violation.

I knew there was something wrong with that message, but I couldn't
figure out what. I've got to stop answering these questions too
quickly.

[Richard Heathfield]

jameskuyper said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jameskuyper said:

...

Negative array indices are a constraint violation.

Which constraint do they violate?

Sorry - that was undefined behavior (6.5.6p8), not a constraint
violation.

Note that, whilst negative array indices do indeed invoke undefined
behaviour, that doesn't mean that x[-1] is necessarily undefined. It isn't
the negative index that's the problem. The problem is that the underlying
pointer arithmetic ends up pointing before the beginning of the array. The
following code is well-defined:

int array[20];
void foo(void)
{
int *p = array + 10;
p[-5] = 42; /* linguistically: perfectly okay;
stylistically: vile
*/
}

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Gene]

On Nov 10, 4:25*pm, Andrew Smallshaw <[e-mail] nestar.orgwrote :

I'm working on a data structure that began life as a skip list
derivative, but has evolved to the point that it now only has a
passing resemblance to them. *Each node of this structure has a
few constant size variables (ints and the like), an array holding
the actual data (chars in this case) and a random number of pointers
to other nodes in the structure.

At the moment my code uses a fixed size array for the contents
(which may or may not be filled) and the call to malloc for each
node is adjusted to allow for the number of the pointers in the
node. *Nothing too special there. *

However, I am using a _lot_ of these structures and a significant
proportion have comparatively short average lifetimes. *With the
expection of a few configuration tables that rarely, if ever, change
once initialised they are my app's only dynamically allocated memory
and I'm slightly concerned about memory fragmentation because they
are of differing lengths. *Simply allocating the maximum amount of
memory that could be needed is an unacceptable waste of memory
since the balance is skewed strongly towards low numbers of pointers
- 50% have only a single pointer, 25% two pointers, 12.5% three
and so on up to a maximum of about 25 pointers.

It occurs to me that it is possible to define a fixed sized structure
with a variable number of pointer if the length of the character
length varies in inverse proportion to the number of pointers.
The question is how to do it cleanly. *Unions are out of the question
because the number of possible structure types. *I considered having
the character buffer start at the same point as the second pointer
and computing the real start of the buffer as needed. *However, I
am now leaning towards defining the character array as a maximum
buffer size and having a single pointer array at the end. *That
is:

* *struct structure {
* * * char buffer[MAX_BUFFER_LEN];
* * * struct structure *ptr[1];
* *};

and using _negative_ array indices to store the extra pointers. *I
can easily determine how many pointers are expected algorithmically
- it is something I need to keep track of in any case - and define
a macro to calculate the buffer's real maximum length when it is
needed (not very often). *This should work fine but I can't help
feeling it seems a little messy. *Does anyone have any better
solutions, or even any views on whether this is worth bothering
about?

Suggest you try something simple first. Implement an allocator that
maintains N free lists for your N distinct possible node sizes. For
skip lists, N ought to be no more than 50 or so. Replenish these free
lists when empty by allocating standard-size blocks of a few pages (at
least) to contain a bunch of equal-sized nodes. Alloc and free are
now just a few instructions each to unchain and chain from the
respective free list. Average fragmentation can't exceed half a node
per block. If a given size goes dormant, its free list will be
swapped out. This costs little, but if it's still too much, you can
recycle blocks containing only free nodes: not hard to do with an
allocation counter stored in each block header.

[Andrew Smallshaw]

On 2008-11-11, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>
Note that, whilst negative array indices do indeed invoke undefined
behaviour, that doesn't mean that x[-1] is necessarily undefined. It isn't
the negative index that's the problem. The problem is that the underlying
pointer arithmetic ends up pointing before the beginning of the array. The
following code is well-defined:

I was pretty sure that they were. I should be OK in this instance
though? Although this is a 'real' negative index going past the
beginning of an array, I know in advance it is going to clobber
another array and thus won't hit any undefined memory.

Of course, I'll have to be careful to respect the 'real' length of
the preceding array but looking at my code it is easily refactored
so that only comes up at one point. This code is going to be a
little on the messy side but I think all things considered it will
be an acceptable trade off.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
an*****@sdf.lon estar.org

[James Kuyper]

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:

On 2008-11-11, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Note that, whilst negative array indices do indeed invoke undefined
behaviour, that doesn't mean that x[-1] is necessarily undefined. It isn't
the negative index that's the problem. The problem is that the underlying
pointer arithmetic ends up pointing before the beginning of the array. The
following code is well-defined:

I was pretty sure that they were. I should be OK in this instance
though? ...

No.

... Although this is a 'real' negative index going past the
beginning of an array, I know in advance it is going to clobber
another array and thus won't hit any undefined memory.

The wording of the standard makes it legal for an implementation to
implement pointers in such a way as to enable run-time bounds checking.
That would be sufficient to make your program blow up. However,
implementations which do that by default are rare, possibly
non-existent, so you're extremely unlikely to run into a problem for
that reason.

A far more realistic worry is that, because access memory through
negative offsets from an array has undefined behavior, an implementation
is allowed to optimize code in ways that depend upon the assumption that
such accesses will never be attempted. Your code will presumably access
the same memory through ptr[i] for negative values of 'i', and also
through positive offsets from buffer[]. I presume that it will carefully
synchronize the two uses of that memory so that they don't interfere
with each other. However, all of that careful synchronization will be
wasted: an implementation can legally optimize your code to delay reads
or writes to that memory in ways that will mess up your careful
synchronization . Such optimizations are allowed, because you're not
supposed to access buffer[] through ptr[], and vice versa.