Hi,

I cannot figure out how to delete this array:

 	
float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;

...

void main(int argc, char* argv[]){

...

xbuffer = new float**[4];
ybuffer = new float**[4];
zbuffer = new float**[4];
for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
	xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
	ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
	zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
	for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
		xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
		ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
		zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
	}
}


...


Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)

Best wishes

JENS

Just use reversed order (compared to what you have when allocated it)

for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
  for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
    delete xbuffer[i][j];
    delete ybuffer[i][j];
    delete zbuffer[i][j];
  }
  delete xbuffer[i];
  delete ybuffer[i];
  delete zbuffer[i];
}
delete xbuffer;
delete ybuffer;
delete zbuffer;

As these arrays are simple type, you can simply use free() function instead
of delete operator.

Nic Tiger.

"Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????: news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> Hi,
>
> I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
>
>
> float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
>
> ...
>
> void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
>
> ...
>
> xbuffer = new float**[4];
> ybuffer = new float**[4];
> zbuffer = new float**[4];
> for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> }
> }
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
>
> Best wishes
>
> JENS
>

Thank you so much for helping me, Nic!
Jens

Nic Tiger wrote:
> Just use reversed order (compared to what you have when allocated it)
> 
> for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
>   for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
>     delete xbuffer[i][j];
>     delete ybuffer[i][j];
>     delete zbuffer[i][j];
>   }
>   delete xbuffer[i];
>   delete ybuffer[i];
>   delete zbuffer[i];
> }
> delete xbuffer;
> delete ybuffer;
> delete zbuffer;
> 
> As these arrays are simple type, you can simply use free() function instead
> of delete operator.
> 
> Nic Tiger.
> 
> "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
> news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
>>
>>
>>float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
>>
>>...
>>
>>void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
>>
>>...
>>
>>xbuffer = new float**[4];
>>ybuffer = new float**[4];
>>zbuffer = new float**[4];
>>for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
>>xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
>>ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
>>zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
>>for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
>>xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
>>ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
>>zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
>>}
>>}
>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>JENS
>>
> 
> 
> 

I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly justify allocating a resource with one API and deallocating it with another, particularly when the language standard proscribes such action.

It's bad practise. It's not maintainable. It's a bad example. It contravenes the standard. It has no benefit whatsoever.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Soap-box Simon

"Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:b5v9ml$1u8g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Just use reversed order (compared to what you have when allocated it)
>
> for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
>   for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
>     delete xbuffer[i][j];
>     delete ybuffer[i][j];
>     delete zbuffer[i][j];
>   }
>   delete xbuffer[i];
>   delete ybuffer[i];
>   delete zbuffer[i];
> }
> delete xbuffer;
> delete ybuffer;
> delete zbuffer;
>
> As these arrays are simple type, you can simply use free() function
instead
> of delete operator.
>
> Nic Tiger.
>
> "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> ???????/???????? ? ????????
?????????:
> news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
> >
> >
> > float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
> >
> > ...
> >
> > xbuffer = new float**[4];
> > ybuffer = new float**[4];
> > zbuffer = new float**[4];
> > for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> > xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> > xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > JENS
> >
>
>

Ok, than I suggest to allocate arrays also via malloc() rather than new operator, as long as the only difference between them is that new calls constructor afterwards.

Well, in general I admit that using different APIs is not good. Thanks for correction.

Nic Tiger.

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ × ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ: news:b5vpl0$2cqn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly justify allocating a resource with one API and deallocating it with another, particularly when the language standard proscribes such action.
>
> It's bad practise. It's not maintainable. It's a bad example. It
contravenes
> the standard. It has no benefit whatsoever.
>
> This is wrong, wrong, wrong!
>
> Soap-box Simon
>
> "Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:b5v9ml$1u8g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Just use reversed order (compared to what you have when allocated it)
> >
> > for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> >   for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> >     delete xbuffer[i][j];
> >     delete ybuffer[i][j];
> >     delete zbuffer[i][j];
> >   }
> >   delete xbuffer[i];
> >   delete ybuffer[i];
> >   delete zbuffer[i];
> > }
> > delete xbuffer;
> > delete ybuffer;
> > delete zbuffer;
> >
> > As these arrays are simple type, you can simply use free() function
> instead
> > of delete operator.
> >
> > Nic Tiger.
> >
> > "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> ???????/???????? ? ????????
> ?????????:
> > news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
> > >
> > >
> > > float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > xbuffer = new float**[4];
> > > ybuffer = new float**[4];
> > > zbuffer = new float**[4];
> > > for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> > > xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > > ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > > zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > > for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> > > xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > > ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > > zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > JENS
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Just curious: where are you using a structure which requires a pointer to a pointer to a pointer?

Would suggest to wrap up allocations and releases in a class constructor &
destructor (as advocated by www.relisoft.com) , so that compiler worries
about freeing in the right order and right amount, not you.
- Rajiv


"Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> wrote in message news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> Hi,
>
> I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
>
>
> float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
>
> ...
>
> void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
>
> ...
>
> xbuffer = new float**[4];
> ybuffer = new float**[4];
> zbuffer = new float**[4];
> for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> }
> }
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
>
> Best wishes
>
> JENS
>

Hi everybody,

I hardly dare to say that I have no idea
what pointers are. I just have to create
this three-dimensional array during runtime
because it uses up to 800 mb (!) of memory.
Don't tell me that's too much - I do really need it ;)
Someone told me, to allocate memory this way -
and it works fine for me...

Can you tell me an equally easy method to do so
in a better way? I would be happy if you could
tell me about this destructor thing too.

Jens



Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:
> Just curious: where are you using a structure which requires a pointer to a
> pointer to a pointer?
> 
> Would suggest to wrap up allocations and releases in a class constructor &
> destructor (as advocated by www.relisoft.com) , so that compiler worries
> about freeing in the right order and right amount, not you.
> - Rajiv
> 
> 
> "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> wrote in message
> news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
>>
>>
>>float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
>>
>>...
>>
>>void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
>>
>>...
>>
>>xbuffer = new float**[4];
>>ybuffer = new float**[4];
>>zbuffer = new float**[4];
>>for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
>>xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
>>ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
>>zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
>>for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
>>xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
>>ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
>>zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
>>}
>>}
>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>JENS
>>
> 
> 
> 

Well, any book on 'c' will tell you about arrays and pointers. Any book on
'c++' will tell you about classes, their constructors and destructors. Lot
of sites about learning these languages will also explain these to you.
(Search using Google.com).
Best of luck,

- Rajiv



"Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> wrote in message news:3E8404A3.2000108@highfisch.de...
> Hi everybody,
>
> I hardly dare to say that I have no idea
> what pointers are. I just have to create
> this three-dimensional array during runtime
> because it uses up to 800 mb (!) of memory.
> Don't tell me that's too much - I do really need it ;)
> Someone told me, to allocate memory this way -
> and it works fine for me...
>
> Can you tell me an equally easy method to do so
> in a better way? I would be happy if you could
> tell me about this destructor thing too.
>
> Jens
>
>
>
> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:
> > Just curious: where are you using a structure which requires a pointer
to a
> > pointer to a pointer?
> >
> > Would suggest to wrap up allocations and releases in a class constructor
&
> > destructor (as advocated by www.relisoft.com) , so that compiler worries
> > about freeing in the right order and right amount, not you.
> > - Rajiv
> >
> >
> > "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> wrote in message news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
> >>
> >>
> >>float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>xbuffer = new float**[4];
> >>ybuffer = new float**[4];
> >>zbuffer = new float**[4];
> >>for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> >>xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> >>ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> >>zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> >>for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> >>xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> >>ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> >>zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> >>}
> >>}
> >>
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
> >>
> >>Best wishes
> >>
> >>JENS
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Don't have a problem with that, other than that it is more work and more scope for error. I am sceptical that there is much, if any, performance gain to be had from going straight to malloc()/free() rather than new/delete.

Nonetheless, I am not a religious adherent to the notion that every mem alloc in C++ should be through new. My only objection was your mixing APIs, which is guaranteed to fail on many compilers, even if it works with DMC++

:)

Matthew


"Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:b60kl4$31il$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok, than I suggest to allocate arrays also via malloc() rather than new operator, as long as the only difference between them is that new calls constructor afterwards.
>
> Well, in general I admit that using different APIs is not good. Thanks for correction.
>
> Nic Tiger.
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ × ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ
ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ:
> news:b5vpl0$2cqn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly justify allocating a resource with
one
> > API and deallocating it with another, particularly when the language standard proscribes such action.
> >
> > It's bad practise. It's not maintainable. It's a bad example. It
> contravenes
> > the standard. It has no benefit whatsoever.
> >
> > This is wrong, wrong, wrong!
> >
> > Soap-box Simon
> >
> > "Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:b5v9ml$1u8g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Just use reversed order (compared to what you have when allocated it)
> > >
> > > for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> > >   for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> > >     delete xbuffer[i][j];
> > >     delete ybuffer[i][j];
> > >     delete zbuffer[i][j];
> > >   }
> > >   delete xbuffer[i];
> > >   delete ybuffer[i];
> > >   delete zbuffer[i];
> > > }
> > > delete xbuffer;
> > > delete ybuffer;
> > > delete zbuffer;
> > >
> > > As these arrays are simple type, you can simply use free() function
> > instead
> > > of delete operator.
> > >
> > > Nic Tiger.
> > >
> > > "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> ???????/???????? ? ????????
> > ?????????:
> > > news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > xbuffer = new float**[4];
> > > > ybuffer = new float**[4];
> > > > zbuffer = new float**[4];
> > > > for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> > > > xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > > > ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > > > zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> > > > for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> > > > xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > > > ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > > > zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes
> > > >
> > > > JENS
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Please don't apologise for lack of understanding. This community is very friendly, so please feel at ease. (Plus, you should see the number of stupid questions I pose on the D newsgroup. Ouch!)

In answer to your question, the STLSoft library (http://stlsoft.org/) has a
dynamically-sized (as opposed to sized at compile time) but not resizable
(once created, it cannot be resized) 3 dimensional array called
fixed_array_3d. (There are fixed_array_1d, _2d and _4d also.)

It supports multi-dimensional array notation, which is unchecked (though
asserts are used in debug mode), as well as checked access via the at(d0,
d1, d2) method

You would use it like

#include <stlsoft.h>
#include <stlsoft_fixed_array.h>

int main(int /* argc */, char ** /*argv*/)
{
 typedef stlsoft::fixed_array_3d<float> float_array_t;

 float_array_t array(4, 10, 20);

 array[0][1][2] = 12345.6789;

  for(int i = 0; i < dimension0(); ++i)
  {
    for(int j = 0; j < dimension1(); ++j)
    {
      for(int k = 0; k < dimension2(); ++k)
      {
            assert(array.at(i, j, k) == array[i][j][k]);
      }
    }
  }
}

Only one allocation is performed for the entire array, which means your use of memory would be more efficient both from a performance and size perspective. However, since the [] operators involve the creation of temporaries of fixed_array_2d and fixed_array_1d, there is a small performance penalty in their use. at() is more efficient, but still involves checks for the validity of the given indexers. I've plans to make an unchecked_at(d0, d1, d2) which would be extremely efficient, but I've not yet got round to it. Maybe if a user makes a request ... ;)

Hope that helps

Matthew

"Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> wrote in message news:3E8404A3.2000108@highfisch.de...
> Hi everybody,
>
> I hardly dare to say that I have no idea
> what pointers are. I just have to create
> this three-dimensional array during runtime
> because it uses up to 800 mb (!) of memory.
> Don't tell me that's too much - I do really need it ;)
> Someone told me, to allocate memory this way -
> and it works fine for me...
>
> Can you tell me an equally easy method to do so
> in a better way? I would be happy if you could
> tell me about this destructor thing too.
>
> Jens
>
>
>
> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:
> > Just curious: where are you using a structure which requires a pointer
to a
> > pointer to a pointer?
> >
> > Would suggest to wrap up allocations and releases in a class constructor
&
> > destructor (as advocated by www.relisoft.com) , so that compiler worries
> > about freeing in the right order and right amount, not you.
> > - Rajiv
> >
> >
> > "Jens Friese" <j.friese@highfisch.de> wrote in message news:3E8318B4.20307@highfisch.de...
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I cannot figure out how to delete this array:
> >>
> >>
> >>float ***xbuffer,***ybuffer,***zbuffer;
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>void main(int argc, char* argv[]){
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>xbuffer = new float**[4];
> >>ybuffer = new float**[4];
> >>zbuffer = new float**[4];
> >>for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> >>xbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> >>ybuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> >>zbuffer[i] = new float*[hsize[i]];
> >>for (j=0;j<hsize[i];j++) {
> >>xbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> >>ybuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> >>zbuffer[i][j] = new float[vsize[i]];
> >>}
> >>}
> >>
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! :)
> >>
> >>Best wishes
> >>
> >>JENS
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>