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.

Posts from blogs I like

Much ado about "nothing"

Author's note Originally, I was gonna wait a bit before writing this. I had intended this to be written and published in a few weeks after the NixOS foundation board had time to react and attempt to control the damage from whatever the fuck has been going on over there. I just don't care at this point. I need this out of my head and off of my chest. I would also like to have made this a video of some kind to make it more personal (mostly so you can hear my voice and intonation/emotio…

via Xe Iaso's blog April 27, 2024

Copyleft licenses are not “restrictive”

One may observe an axis, or a “spectrum”, along which free and open source software licenses can be organized, where one end is “permissive” and the other end is “copyleft”. It is important to acknowledge, however, that though copyleft can be found at the opposite end of an axis with respect to permissive, it is not synonymous with the linguistic antonym of permissive – that is, copyleft licenses are not “restrictive” by comparison with permissive licenses. Aside: Free software is not synonymous with copyle…

via Drew DeVault's blog April 19, 2024

How web bloat impacts users with slow devices

In 2017, we looked at how web bloat affects users with slow connections. Even in the U.S., many users didn't have broadband speeds, making much of the web difficult to use. It's still the case that many users don't have broadband speeds, both inside and outside of the U.S. and that much of the modern web isn't usable for people with slow internet, but the exponential increase in bandwidth (Nielsen suggests this is 50% per year for high-end connections) has outpaced web bloat for typical sites, making this l…

via danluu.com March 16, 2024