passing multidimensional array to function leads to incorrect size detection

HI,

I am trying to pass a multidimensional array to a function with the following code:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void printSize (char x[][3][3]) {
	printf("size of x: %d\n", sizeof(x)); //4, why???
	return;
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	int i,j,k;
	char p[6][3][3];
	for(i=0;i<6;i++) for(j=0;j<3;j++) for(k=0;k<3;k++) p[i][j][k] = (char)i;
	printf("size of p: %d\n", sizeof(p)); //54, as expected
	printSize(p);
	return 0;
}

The code compiles without any errors or warnings, but when run the output is:

Code:

size of p: 54
size of x: 4

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my code, and - more importantly - how to solve it?

It is your responsibility, when writing a function that can be used with arrays of any size, to also accept as a parameter the size of the array. Arrays are passed to functions as pointers to the first element, and the size information is lost at that time.

Duh Pointers in a function, sizeof doesn't get array length

I don't know what you need your code for, but I recently did work with something like this.

Instead of passing the size (I find that kind of annoying) I made space and inserted NULLs at the end of the memory. That way I could work with the memory without knowing the size (I could loop through it until I hit the NULL etc). This is called using a sentinel value.

Sentinel value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, passing the size is probably the most common approach.

Originally Posted by \007

However, passing the size is probably the most common approach.

Oh, I dunno .....

The C string functions such as strcpy(), strcat(), etc are fairly commonly used, and rely on a sentinel value.

Those are some very specialized examples. They relay on the fact that a string has to be null-terminated to count as one in C.

In my, admittedly, limited experience, passing around size is the way that libraries do it. Thus I follow suit.

Originally Posted by 2noob2banoob

HI,

I am trying to pass a multidimensional array to a function with the following code:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void printSize (char x[][3][3]) {
	printf("size of x: %d\n", sizeof(x)); //4, why???
	return;
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	int i,j,k;
	char p[6][3][3];
	for(i=0;i<6;i++) for(j=0;j<3;j++) for(k=0;k<3;k++) p[i][j][k] = (char)i;
	printf("size of p: %d\n", sizeof(p)); //54, as expected
	printSize(p);
	return 0;
}

The code compiles without any errors or warnings, but when run the output is:

Code:

size of p: 54
size of x: 4

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my code, and - more importantly - how to solve it?

Because you passed in a pointer to an array and asked how big the pointer is.

The solution is to hand your function the size of the array which is only detectable in main().

So size information is not passed with the array, which actually makes sizeof meaningless. Thanks for that information, it helped me solve my problem.
In fact the sizeof was debugging info I wanted after the following line unexpectedly returned:

Code:

if(sizeof(x)!=54) return NULL;

You have learnt me that it was actually quite useless, right now I have created a struct in which the size is hard coded so the function can't receive invalidly sized arrays anymore.
Problem solved

Originally Posted by 2noob2banoob

So size information is not passed with the array, which actually makes sizeof meaningless.

No. sizeof has a defined meaning. You made a mistake in assuming it has a different meaning than it actually does.

Your actual mistake is based on three interrelated errors on your part;

1) you forgot that a pointer and an array are actually not the same thing

2) you forgot that, when an array is passed to a function, the function only receives a pointer, not the array (and not complete information about the array, either).

3) you assumed that sizeof(a_pointer) gives the size of whatever a_pointer points at.

Admittedly, a lot of people make these same mistakes. Quite a few texts about C make exactly the same errors you did.