Clearing an array

[Terry Andersen]

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
a whole for loop?

Best Regards
Terry

[Robert Stankowic]

"Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bk**********@news.net.uni-c.dk...

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running a whole for loop?

memset(Buffer, 0x00, sizeof Buffer);

Robert

[pete]

Terry Andersen wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more?
Without running a whole for loop?

A loop might be best.
There's no single operation that will do it.

[pete]

Robert Stankowic wrote:

"Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bk**********@news.net.uni-c.dk...

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more?

Without running a whole for loop?

memset(Buffer, 0x00, sizeof Buffer);

Not knowing the representation of ((*Buffer)0),
memset() might or might not work right.

[Lew Pitcher]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:26:35 +0200, "Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
a whole for loop?
#include <string.h>

memset(Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);
Best Regards
Terry

--
Lew Pitcher
IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

[Ed Morton]

Terry Andersen wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
a whole for loop?

Best Regards
Terry

If you can put it inside a structure, you could create a zero-filled
instance and assign your buffer to that, e.g. this:

#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>

#define BUFFSIZE 9

typedef struct {
int Buffer[BUFFSIZE];
} BUFFSTRUCT;

static const BUFFSTRUCT ZeroBuffStruct;

void prtBuf(int buf[])
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<BUFFSIZE; i++)
printf("%d",buf[i]);
printf("\n");
}

int main()
{
BUFFSTRUCT BufStruct;
int *Buffer = BufStruct.Buffer;

BufStruct = ZeroBuffStruct;
prtBuf(Buffer);

Buffer[3] = 4;
prtBuf(Buffer);

BufStruct = ZeroBuffStruct;
prtBuf(Buffer);

return 1;
}

produces the output:

Buffer="00000000"
Buffer="00040000"
Buffer="00000000"

If that's non-portable or has other problems, I'm sure someone will let
us know....

Regards,

Ed.

[Thomas Pfaff]

Le*********@td.com (Lew Pitcher) writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:26:35 +0200, "Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
a whole for loop?

#include <string.h>

memset(Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);

That's not guaranteed to work unless `Buffer' is of type unsigned char, is it?

[Robert Stankowic]

"pete" <pf*****@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F**********@mindspring.com...

Robert Stankowic wrote:

"Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bk**********@news.net.uni-c.dk...

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more?

Without running a whole for loop?

memset(Buffer, 0x00, sizeof Buffer);

Not knowing the representation of ((*Buffer)0),
memset() might or might not work right.

You are ritght, of course. Somehow the 0x00 made me think of unsigned char.
Shame on me.
Robert

[Thomas Matthews]

Thomas Pfaff wrote:

Le*********@td.com (Lew Pitcher) writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:26:35 +0200, "Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
a whole for loop?

#include <string.h>

memset(Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);

That's not guaranteed to work unless `Buffer' is of type unsigned char, is it?

It will work on any platform where the data type of buffer can be set
to zero in all bytes. If the platform has a data type where the value
of zero is not zeros in all bytes, then it won't work.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> spoke thus:

Not knowing the representation of ((*Buffer)0),
memset() might or might not work right.

Why is this so? Are you saying that if Buffer were

long Buffer[300];

that memset wouldn't work, even if you did

memset( Buffer, 0, 300 * sizeof(long) );

?

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | Jumonji giri, for honour.
ataru(at)cyberspace.org |

[Thomas Pfaff]

Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> spoke thus:

Not knowing the representation of ((*Buffer)0),
memset() might or might not work right.

Why is this so? Are you saying that if Buffer were

long Buffer[300];

that memset wouldn't work, even if you did

memset( Buffer, 0, 300 * sizeof(long) );

See `Defect Report #263':
http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG1...ocs/dr_263.htm

[Lew Pitcher]

On 15 Sep 2003 17:13:24 +0200, Thomas Pfaff <th**********@tiscali.no> wrote:

Le*********@td.com (Lew Pitcher) writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:26:35 +0200, "Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> wrote:

>I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:
>
>Buffer[300] = {0x00};
>
>How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
>a whole for loop?

#include <string.h>

memset(Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);

That's not guaranteed to work unless `Buffer' is of type unsigned char, is it?

You are correct, of course.

--
Lew Pitcher
IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

[Joe Wright]

Ed Morton wrote:

Terry Andersen wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without running
a whole for loop?

Best Regards
Terry

If you can put it inside a structure, you could create a zero-filled
instance and assign your buffer to that, e.g. this:

#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>

#define BUFFSIZE 9

typedef struct {
int Buffer[BUFFSIZE];
} BUFFSTRUCT;

static const BUFFSTRUCT ZeroBuffStruct;

void prtBuf(int buf[])
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<BUFFSIZE; i++)
printf("%d",buf[i]);
printf("\n");
}

int main()
{
BUFFSTRUCT BufStruct;
int *Buffer = BufStruct.Buffer;

BufStruct = ZeroBuffStruct;
prtBuf(Buffer);

Buffer[3] = 4;
prtBuf(Buffer);

BufStruct = ZeroBuffStruct;
prtBuf(Buffer);

return 1;
}

produces the output:

Buffer="00000000"
Buffer="00040000"
Buffer="00000000"

If that's non-portable or has other problems, I'm sure someone will let
us know....

Regards,

Ed.

You're crazy! I love the way your mind works. Really! How about this..

#include <stdio.h>

#define SA 10

typedef struct arr {
int arr[SA];
} arr;

arr st_arr;
int main(void) {
int array[SA] = { 0 }; /* initialize array */
printf("%5d\n", array[0]); /* show that array[0] == 0 */
array[0] = SA; /* change it to something else */
printf("%5d\n", array[0]); /* show the change */
printf("%5d\n", st_arr.arr[0]); /* show that the struct was 0 */
printf("%5lu%5lu\n", sizeof array, sizeof st_arr);
*((arr *)array) = st_arr; /* assign the struct to the local array */
printf("%5d\n", array[0]); /* show that it worked */
return 0;
}
C makes arrays difficult. Their expression results in a pointer to its
first element, they cannot be passed by value. Shucks. But what of a
struct consisting of an array? You can do anything with the struct that
you can with the array. What I have not realized until today is, you can
assign the 'value' of a struct (the whole thing) to a local array of the
same size (carefully), as above.

*((arr *)array) = st_arr; /* assign the struct to the local array */

This works (I think) because array in this context is pointer. Casting
it to a struct pointer and dereferencing it creates perfect lvalue
target for the assignment of a struct.

Have I been asleep all these years? Have I made a new discovery? Thanks
Ed.
--
Joe Wright mailto:jo********@earthlink.net
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Thomas Pfaff]

Joe Wright <jo********@earthlink.net> writes:

C makes arrays difficult. Their expression results in a pointer to its
first element, they cannot be passed by value.

Well since the value of an array is a pointer to its initial element,
I'd say arrays are indeed being passed by value ;-)

[Martin Dickopp]

Thomas Pfaff <th**********@tiscali.no> writes:

Le*********@td.com (Lew Pitcher) writes:

#include <string.h>

memset(Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);

That's not guaranteed to work unless `Buffer' is of type unsigned char, is it?

As you correctly point out elsewhere in this thread, it is guaranteed to
work for all integer types according to Defect Report #263. :)

Martin

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

In 'comp.lang.c', "Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without
running a whole for loop?

The portable way for any type is:

static mytype_s const z[300] = {0};
memcpy(Buffer, z, sizeof Buffer); /* <string.h> */

If the array is of type unsigned char, you can use:

memset (Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);

With other types, the result is undefined.

--
-ed- em**********@noos.fr [remove YOURBRA before answering me]
The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
<blank line>
FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

In 'comp.lang.c', Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org>
wrote:

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> spoke thus:

Not knowing the representation of ((*Buffer)0),
memset() might or might not work right.

Why is this so? Are you saying that if Buffer were

long Buffer[300];

that memset wouldn't work, even if you did

memset( Buffer, 0, 300 * sizeof(long) );

This is nuts. You want 'sizeof Buffer'. BTW, it's still wrong, because
nothing in the standard says that all-bits-to-0 is the correct representation
of 0.0 (or -0.0, +0.0, who knows...)

--
-ed- em**********@noos.fr [remove YOURBRA before answering me]
The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
<blank line>
FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/

[Default User]

Martin Dickopp wrote:

As you correctly point out elsewhere in this thread, it is guaranteed to
work for all integer types according to Defect Report #263. :)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that a Defect Report guarantees
anything of the sort?


Brian Rodenborn

[Glen Herrmannsfeldt]

"Emmanuel Delahaye" <em**********@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:Xn***************************@130.133.1.4...

In 'comp.lang.c', Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org>
wrote:

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> spoke thus:

Not knowing the representation of ((*Buffer)0),
memset() might or might not work right.
Why is this so? Are you saying that if Buffer were

long Buffer[300];

that memset wouldn't work, even if you did

memset( Buffer, 0, 300 * sizeof(long) );

This is nuts. You want 'sizeof Buffer'. BTW, it's still wrong, because
nothing in the standard says that all-bits-to-0 is the correct

representation of 0.0 (or -0.0, +0.0, who knows...)

Nothing in the standard, but computer designers tend to like it that way.

Does anyone know of a machine where it isn't true? (comp.arch added.)

-- glen

[Martin Dickopp]

Default User <fi********@company.com> writes:

Martin Dickopp wrote:

As you correctly point out elsewhere in this thread, it is guaranteed to
work for all integer types according to Defect Report #263. :)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that a Defect Report guarantees
anything of the sort?

It has been repeatedly claimed in comp.std.c that the Committee's
response to a Defect Report is authoritative, for example in
<3D**************@wizard.net> or <ws*****************@news.hananet.net>.
Is this not the case?

Martin

[Jack Klein]

On 16 Sep 2003 01:40:30 +0200, Martin Dickopp
<ex*************@zero-based.org> wrote in comp.lang.c:

Default User <fi********@company.com> writes:

Martin Dickopp wrote:

As you correctly point out elsewhere in this thread, it is guaranteed to
work for all integer types according to Defect Report #263. :)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that a Defect Report guarantees
anything of the sort?

It has been repeatedly claimed in comp.std.c that the Committee's
response to a Defect Report is authoritative, for example in
<3D**************@wizard.net> or <ws*****************@news.hananet.net>.
Is this not the case?

Martin

But this is not an authoritative response, it is a _suggestion_ by one
member for a TC. It has obviously not been approved, or it would not
be merely a suggestion.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

[Jack Klein]

On 15 Sep 2003 20:04:37 GMT, Emmanuel Delahaye <em**********@noos.fr>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

In 'comp.lang.c', "Terry Andersen" <te**@sea.com> wrote:

I have an array that I initialize to zero, like:

Buffer[300] = {0x00};

How do I in my code reset this array to all zeros ones more? Without
running a whole for loop?

The portable way for any type is:

static mytype_s const z[300] = {0};
memcpy(Buffer, z, sizeof Buffer); /* <string.h> */

If the array is of type unsigned char, you can use:

memset (Buffer, 0, sizeof Buffer);

With other types, the result is undefined.

No, how many times do I need to repeat this.

It is not undefined for any type of char (signed, unsigned, or plain).

It is not undefined for any exact-width types defined in <stdint.h>.

In fact, it is not only not undefined but guaranteed to produce all 0
_values_ for any signed or unsigned integer type provided only that
the unsigned type does not have any padding bits. Even if the
corresponding signed type does have padding bits.

The reason that the standard guarantees this is left as an exercise to
the reader (or the reader can look up the three or so other posts I
have made about within the past week alone).

And any platform that has padding bits in its unsigned integer types
is actually not worth worrying about anymore. Unless somebody can
name one that is still in production AND has a C99 implementation.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

[LibraryUser]

Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:

"Emmanuel Delahaye" <em**********@noos.fr> wrote in message

.... snip ...
This is nuts. You want 'sizeof Buffer'. BTW, it's still wrong,
because nothing in the standard says that all-bits-to-0 is the
correct representation of 0.0 (or -0.0, +0.0, who knows...)

Nothing in the standard, but computer designers tend to like it
that way.

Does anyone know of a machine where it isn't true? (comp.arch added.)

The well known DeathStation 3000.

--
Replies should be to the newsgroup
Chuck Falconer, on vacation.

[Default User]

Jack Klein wrote:

On 16 Sep 2003 01:40:30 +0200, Martin Dickopp
<ex*************@zero-based.org> wrote in comp.lang.c:

It has been repeatedly claimed in comp.std.c that the Committee's
response to a Defect Report is authoritative, for example in
<3D**************@wizard.net> or <ws*****************@news.hananet.net>.
Is this not the case?

But this is not an authoritative response, it is a _suggestion_ by one
member for a TC. It has obviously not been approved, or it would not
be merely a suggestion.

I'm confused on this one, because they have it marked Closed, with no
indication of anything added to a TC.

Brian Rodenborn

[Keith Thompson]

Thomas Pfaff <th**********@tiscali.no> writes:

Joe Wright <jo********@earthlink.net> writes:

C makes arrays difficult. Their expression results in a pointer to its
first element, they cannot be passed by value.

Well since the value of an array is a pointer to its initial element,
I'd say arrays are indeed being passed by value ;-)

No, the value of an array consists of the values of its elements.

The name of an array object, in most expression contexts, is
implicitly converted to a pointer to the the array's first element;
that conversion results in a distinct value.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

In 'comp.lang.c', LibraryUser <de**********@made.invalid> wrote:

> BTW, it's still wrong,
> because nothing in the standard says that all-bits-to-0 is the
> correct representation of 0.0 (or -0.0, +0.0, who knows...)

Nothing in the standard, but computer designers tend to like it
that way.

Does anyone know of a machine where it isn't true? (comp.arch added.)

The well known DeathStation 3000.

You meant DS 9000 !

--
-ed- em**********@noos.fr [remove YOURBRA before answering me]
The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
<blank line>
FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/

[Glen Herrmannsfeldt]

"Emmanuel Delahaye" <em**********@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:Xn***************************@130.133.1.4...

In 'comp.lang.c', LibraryUser <de**********@made.invalid> wrote:

> BTW, it's still wrong,
> because nothing in the standard says that all-bits-to-0 is the
> correct representation of 0.0 (or -0.0, +0.0, who knows...)

Nothing in the standard, but computer designers tend to like it
that way.

Does anyone know of a machine where it isn't true? (comp.arch added.)

The well known DeathStation 3000.

You meant DS 9000 !

So, what is the floating point representation for +0.0 on the DS9000?

How many different sizes are available?

-- glen

[LibraryUser]

Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:

"Emmanuel Delahaye" <em**********@noos.fr> wrote in message

LibraryUser <de**********@made.invalid> wrote:

> > BTW, it's still wrong,
> > because nothing in the standard says that all-bits-to-0 is the
> > correct representation of 0.0 (or -0.0, +0.0, who knows...)
>
> Nothing in the standard, but computer designers tend to like it
> that way.
>
> Does anyone know of a machine where it isn't true? (comp.arch added.)

The well known DeathStation 3000.

You meant DS 9000 !

So, what is the floating point representation for +0.0 on the DS9000?

How many different sizes are available?

That comes under the heading of trade secrets / proprietary
information / national security etc. If I told you these things
I would have to kill you. However the DS9000 can be trusted to
adhere to the C89 and C99 standards, i.e. it will never emit
nasal demons, cause explosions, etc. on correct coding and input
data.

--
Replies should be to the newsgroup
Chuck Falconer, on vacation.

[Dave Thompson]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:20:41 GMT, Joe Wright
<jo********@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

typedef struct arr {
int arr[SA];
} arr;

arr st_arr; <snip> int array[SA]; <snip> C makes arrays difficult. Their expression results in a pointer to its
first element, they cannot be passed by value. Shucks. But what of a
struct consisting of an array? You can do anything with the struct that
you can with the array. What I have not realized until today is, you can
assign the 'value' of a struct (the whole thing) to a local array of the
same size (carefully), as above.

*((arr *)array) = st_arr; /* assign the struct to the local array */

This works (I think) because array in this context is pointer. Casting
it to a struct pointer and dereferencing it creates perfect lvalue
target for the assignment of a struct.

I think technically this is illegal (UB) because you are accessing an
object using a type (lvalue) other than its correct (here, declared)
type or character, or one of the minor variations allowed in 6.5p7; at
least I think that the fifth exception there is intended only to allow
*sub*objects of an aggregate to be accessed by (as part of) an access
to that aggregate, as is clearly necessary, not to allow a subobject
to be accessed *as* the aggregate, but that could be clearer.

Theoretically it could fail because the struct 'st_arr' may contain
padding after the only element arr, while 'array' must not, and struct
assignment may (and usually does) copy padding. In practice I think
the chance of this is about equal to that of winning the lottery while
being hit by a meteorite.

It could also screw up aggressive type-aware optimization, leading to
use of stale cached values, although on current systems I know of
int[10] seems a rather poor candidate for caching.

So, yes it probably does work. But it's much cleaner to just define
your objects of the struct type, arr, in the first place, and assign
or pass or return them; you can still easily use the array member.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net