Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on 2D-array pointer as a struct member

Parent

2D-array pointer as a struct member

+4
−0

I have an array of struct:

static struct basket baskets[MAX_ITEMLEN + 1];

struct basket {
  char *items;      // malloc(itemlen * itemcount)
  int itemcount;
};

char *items does all I need to do with some pointer-gymnastics, but at times it gets a little ugly.

I would prefer a 2D-array pointer allowing items[item_index][char_index] navigation by default, but all my attempts to get a 2D-array pointer as struct member have failed miserably.

If it is indeed possible: how?

Details (in case relevant):

#1 Specs:

#define MAX_ITEMLEN 20  
#define MAX_ITEMCOUNT 16000

#2 itemcount(s) & the char content of each item are not known at compile-time but are derived at start-up by parsing two user-provided .txt files

#3 The code will not interrogate baskets[x] having itemcount == 0

#4 *items is initialised: |←item_chars→|←item_chars→| ...itemcount times ...with no delimiters ('\0' or otherwise)

#5 After initialsation, basket[] is invariant until exit()

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Are the data strings? (3 comments)
Post
+2
−0

If you don't mind the extra memory, you can do it with an extra array:

struct basket {
    char *item_memory;
    char **items;
    int itemcount;
};

/* I omitted any error handling */
void initialize(basket *b, int itemlen, int itemcount) {
    int item_index;
    b->item_memory = malloc(itemlen * itemcount);
    b->items = malloc(sizeof(char*) * itemcount);
    b->itemcount = itemcount;
    for (item_index = 0; item_index < itemcount; ++item_index)
        b->items[item_index] = item_memory + itemlen ** item_index;
}

Of course here the actual storage is not in *items but in *item_memory. You cannot avoid that if you want to use double index on items; the only thing in C you can apply the index operator to are pointers, therefore *index must be a pointer.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

Arrays are not pointers (4 comments)
General comments (3 comments)
Arrays are not pointers
alx‭ wrote 1 day ago

Re: the only thing in C you can apply the index operator to are pointers:

Actually, both pointers and arrays can use the index operator.

celtschk‭ wrote about 21 hours ago

Not really. In C, a[b] is defined to be the same as *(a+b). And in that expression, the array decays into a pointer. Thus when you apply the subscript operator, its first operand is always a pointer, even if by decay. Note that also 3[a] is a valid expression if a is a pointer.

Lundin‭ wrote about 7 hours ago

alx‭ It is always a pointer. Check out Do pointers support "array style indexing"?

alx‭ wrote about 3 hours ago · edited about 3 hours ago

Lundin‭ Hmmmm, I was wrong. Thanks! :)