Pointer Math in C

C is a very confusing language.

The world is built on C, and some people are able to get very good at it, but I am not one of those people.

I pick it up for class, learn it, use it, appreciate it, and then forget it. Why would I want to write an application in C? I’m not a systems programmer, so I don’t touch it.

One side effect of this usage pattern is that I quickly forget how pointers and manual memory management work.

Pointers are the semantics of calloc and free are easy enough to refresh on. It takes me a little while to remember if I need to use *, &, ->, or . when working with pointers. That’s not a big deal though — again, I can refresh myself on the syntax rather easily.

One thing that does trip me up (and led to a very annoying bug in a barrier algorithm) is 2D arrays, or rather representing a 2D array as a pointer.

Here’s what I did.

int x;
int y;
int *array;

array = calloc(x * y, sizeof(int))

for (int i = 0; i < x; i++) {
    for (int j = 0; j < y; j++>) {
        item = array[i + j];
    }
}

Now, this seems somewhat reasonable at first. The problem is that there is going to be a collision. x = 0, y = 1 and x = 1, y = 0 will refer to the same slots in the array, which shouldn’t happen!

My next attempted was to change the array access to array[i * j]. This also doesn’t work. Consider when i = 0 or j = 0. Any multiplication by zero is zero, so these will all refer to the same slot.

The correct solution is rather simple. The access should be array[(i * y) + j]. Let’s prove this with an example.

With x = 2 and y = 3. These are the possible values of i and j:

i = 0, j = 0
i = 0, j = 1
i = 0, j = 2
i = 1, j = 0
i = 1, j = 1
i = 1, j = 2

Now, lets see which slot in the array each pair will fit into.

i = 0, j = 0; (0 * 3) + 0 = 0
i = 0, j = 1; (0 * 3) + 1 = 1
i = 0, j = 2; (0 * 3) + 2 = 2
i = 1, j = 0; (1 * 3) + 0 = 3
i = 1, j = 1; (1 * 3) + 1 = 4
i = 1, j = 2; (1 * 3) + 2 = 5

A unique index for each item! This is exactly what we wanted.

You should perform these accesses based on the usage patterns of your data. The example above uses the x value as the column and the y value as the row. Accesses to sequential x values will be faster than accesses to sequential y values because of locality.

Recent posts from blogs that I like

The case of the missing ordinal 380

Untangling the error message and developing a theory. The post The case of the missing ordinal 380 appeared first on The Old New Thing.

via The Old New Thing

"No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

In the hours following the release of CVE-2024-38063 for the project Microsoft Windows, site reliability workers and systems administrators scrambled to desperately rebuild and patch all their systems to fix a vulnerability where a specially crafted IPv6 packet can result in remote code execution.....

via Xe Iaso

Thinking about perceptiveness

links

via Henrik Karlsson