array performance

[Frank Pool]

Hi,

I have on large threedimensiona l array
int largeArray[1024][64][4];
In a particular function I only need a part of this array
So I'm using a new variable and assign it the follwoing way:

int (*smallArray)[64][4];
smallArray = &largeArray[42];

Is the following code correct if I want to get the value of an element ?
int x = smallArray[0][0];


Is there a performance difference between retriveing many elements of the
small and the large array in my function ?

Thanks,
Frank

[Malcolm]

Re: array performance


"Frank Pool" <Frank.Pool@gmx .net> wrote[color=blue]
> I have on large threedimensiona l array
> int largeArray[1024][64][4];
> In a particular function I only need a part of this array
> So I'm using a new variable and assign it the follwoing way:
>
> int (*smallArray)[64][4];
> smallArray = &largeArray[42];
>
> Is the following code correct if I want to get the value of an element ?
> int x = smallArray[0][0];
>[/color]
I don't think so. smallArray is a pointer to a list of int [64][4] s. So
smallArray[0] would be the first 2d array (&largeArray[42]), smallArray[1]
would be the next (&largeArray[43]) and so on. So smallArray[0][0] actually
returns a list of 4 integers, and you need (*smallArray)[0][0];

However I have been programming in C for years, and had to think about this.
This is the problem with mutli-dimensional arrays. Beyond the very basics,
the syntax is horrible and confusing and even an experienced programmer will
find it difficult to understand your program.[color=blue]
>
> Is there a performance difference between retriveing many elements of the
> small and the large array in my function ?
>[/color]
Depends on the platform. Your huge array probably won't fit in a cache, but
if you can arrange matters so that acesses that are continguous in memory
are also close together in order, you might see some speed-up. Declaring a
pointer to a small part of the array is unlikely to have an impact by
itself, but it might help you organise the code efficently.

[Barry Schwarz]

Re: array performance

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:05:04 +0100, "Frank Pool" <Frank.Pool@gmx .net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hi,
>
>I have on large threedimensiona l array
> int largeArray[1024][64][4];[/color]

largeArray is an array of 1024 arrays of 64 arrays of 4 int.
[color=blue]
>In a particular function I only need a part of this array
>So I'm using a new variable and assign it the follwoing way:
>
>int (*smallArray)[64][4];[/color]

smallArray is a pointer to an array of 64 arrays of 4 int.
[color=blue]
>smallArray = &largeArray[42];[/color]

largeArray[42] is the n-th element (out of the possible 1024 elements)
of largeArray. this element is an array of 64 arrays of 4 int.
&largeArray[42] is the address of this element with the same type as
smallArray.
[color=blue]
>
>Is the following code correct if I want to get the value of an element ?
>int x = smallArray[0][0];[/color]

No. smallArray is a pointer to the first of a series of objects, each
of which is an array of 64 arrays of 4 int. smallArray[0] is the n-th
such object pointed to and is therefore an array of 64 arrays of 4
int. smallArray[0][0] is the n-th array (of the possible 64 arrays)
and has type array of 4 int.

As you have set it up, you need to use (*smallArray)[0][0].

Alternatively, you could consider the following:

largeArray[42] is a particularly object (out of the 1024 that
largeArray consists of) with type 64 arrays of 4 int.

In most contexts, the expression largeArray[42] evaluates to the
address of the first element, that is the address of the first array
of 4 int (out of the possible 64) with type pointer to array of 4 int.
One exception to this rule (there are others) is when the expression
is the operand of the & operators, as it is in your original code.

If you code
int (*smallArray)[4];
you can assign to it with
smallArray = largeArray[42];
and then refer to individual integers with smallArray[i][j] which I
find to be a much easier notation to read and to type.
[color=blue]
>
>Is there a performance difference between retriveing many elements of the
>small and the large array in my function ?
>[/color]
A quality of implementation issue which is not part of the language we
discuss here. You can ask in a newsgroup where your compiler is
discussed.


<<Remove the del for email>>