Best way to implement 2D array on heap












0















I have been working on C++ and I was recently told that I was making 2D arrays on the heap wrong. I have always done it this way:



int **array1 = new int*[200];

for (int i = 0; i < 200; ++i)

{

    array1[i] = new int[200];

}


I was told that this was the better way:



int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200];


However the person explaining it to me was not able to explain it well as to why one is better then the other. I was hoping someone here would tell me why one would be better then the other?






c++







share|improve this question


















  • 1





    Is there a reason you can't use an std::vector or std::array?

    – scohe001
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:39











  • I would in most cases but I just was wondering why one be better then the other if for some reason you were forced.

    – xxcellerator
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:40






  • 1





    The second only makes one allocation, so it'll be faster at runtime. Might even be drastically faster in multi-threaded code with a single thread allocator. Though neither are something you should ever really find yourself writing unless using a legacy system.

    – George
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:43








  • 1





    int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200]; only works if you know the second dimension at compile time. Instead I suggest a simple matrix class.

    – user4581301
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:57













  • Here's an article why you should reduce the number of calls to dynamic memory (on windows) randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/… If you're not planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you could go towards fragmentation. If you're planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you're probably better off using the "better way* structure to be more clear about your intentions.

    – GandhiGandhi
    Nov 27 '18 at 0:27


















0















I have been working on C++ and I was recently told that I was making 2D arrays on the heap wrong. I have always done it this way:



int **array1 = new int*[200];

for (int i = 0; i < 200; ++i)

{

    array1[i] = new int[200];

}


I was told that this was the better way:



int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200];


However the person explaining it to me was not able to explain it well as to why one is better then the other. I was hoping someone here would tell me why one would be better then the other?






c++







share|improve this question


















  • 1





    Is there a reason you can't use an std::vector or std::array?

    – scohe001
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:39











  • I would in most cases but I just was wondering why one be better then the other if for some reason you were forced.

    – xxcellerator
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:40






  • 1





    The second only makes one allocation, so it'll be faster at runtime. Might even be drastically faster in multi-threaded code with a single thread allocator. Though neither are something you should ever really find yourself writing unless using a legacy system.

    – George
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:43








  • 1





    int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200]; only works if you know the second dimension at compile time. Instead I suggest a simple matrix class.

    – user4581301
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:57













  • Here's an article why you should reduce the number of calls to dynamic memory (on windows) randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/… If you're not planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you could go towards fragmentation. If you're planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you're probably better off using the "better way* structure to be more clear about your intentions.

    – GandhiGandhi
    Nov 27 '18 at 0:27
















0












0








0








I have been working on C++ and I was recently told that I was making 2D arrays on the heap wrong. I have always done it this way:



int **array1 = new int*[200];

for (int i = 0; i < 200; ++i)

{

    array1[i] = new int[200];

}


I was told that this was the better way:



int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200];


However the person explaining it to me was not able to explain it well as to why one is better then the other. I was hoping someone here would tell me why one would be better then the other?






c++







share|improve this question














I have been working on C++ and I was recently told that I was making 2D arrays on the heap wrong. I have always done it this way:



int **array1 = new int*[200];

for (int i = 0; i < 200; ++i)

{

    array1[i] = new int[200];

}


I was told that this was the better way:



int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200];


However the person explaining it to me was not able to explain it well as to why one is better then the other. I was hoping someone here would tell me why one would be better then the other?






c++




c++






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 26 '18 at 22:37









xxcelleratorxxcellerator

133




133








  • 1





    Is there a reason you can't use an std::vector or std::array?

    – scohe001
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:39











  • I would in most cases but I just was wondering why one be better then the other if for some reason you were forced.

    – xxcellerator
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:40






  • 1





    The second only makes one allocation, so it'll be faster at runtime. Might even be drastically faster in multi-threaded code with a single thread allocator. Though neither are something you should ever really find yourself writing unless using a legacy system.

    – George
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:43








  • 1





    int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200]; only works if you know the second dimension at compile time. Instead I suggest a simple matrix class.

    – user4581301
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:57













  • Here's an article why you should reduce the number of calls to dynamic memory (on windows) randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/… If you're not planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you could go towards fragmentation. If you're planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you're probably better off using the "better way* structure to be more clear about your intentions.

    – GandhiGandhi
    Nov 27 '18 at 0:27
















  • 1





    Is there a reason you can't use an std::vector or std::array?

    – scohe001
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:39











  • I would in most cases but I just was wondering why one be better then the other if for some reason you were forced.

    – xxcellerator
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:40






  • 1





    The second only makes one allocation, so it'll be faster at runtime. Might even be drastically faster in multi-threaded code with a single thread allocator. Though neither are something you should ever really find yourself writing unless using a legacy system.

    – George
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:43








  • 1





    int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200]; only works if you know the second dimension at compile time. Instead I suggest a simple matrix class.

    – user4581301
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:57













  • Here's an article why you should reduce the number of calls to dynamic memory (on windows) randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/… If you're not planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you could go towards fragmentation. If you're planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you're probably better off using the "better way* structure to be more clear about your intentions.

    – GandhiGandhi
    Nov 27 '18 at 0:27










1




1





Is there a reason you can't use an std::vector or std::array?

– scohe001
Nov 26 '18 at 22:39





Is there a reason you can't use an std::vector or std::array?

– scohe001
Nov 26 '18 at 22:39













I would in most cases but I just was wondering why one be better then the other if for some reason you were forced.

– xxcellerator
Nov 26 '18 at 22:40





I would in most cases but I just was wondering why one be better then the other if for some reason you were forced.

– xxcellerator
Nov 26 '18 at 22:40




1




1





The second only makes one allocation, so it'll be faster at runtime. Might even be drastically faster in multi-threaded code with a single thread allocator. Though neither are something you should ever really find yourself writing unless using a legacy system.

– George
Nov 26 '18 at 22:43







The second only makes one allocation, so it'll be faster at runtime. Might even be drastically faster in multi-threaded code with a single thread allocator. Though neither are something you should ever really find yourself writing unless using a legacy system.

– George
Nov 26 '18 at 22:43






1




1





int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200]; only works if you know the second dimension at compile time. Instead I suggest a simple matrix class.

– user4581301
Nov 26 '18 at 22:57







int(*ptr)[200] = new int[200][200]; only works if you know the second dimension at compile time. Instead I suggest a simple matrix class.

– user4581301
Nov 26 '18 at 22:57















Here's an article why you should reduce the number of calls to dynamic memory (on windows) randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/… If you're not planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you could go towards fragmentation. If you're planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you're probably better off using the "better way* structure to be more clear about your intentions.

– GandhiGandhi
Nov 27 '18 at 0:27







Here's an article why you should reduce the number of calls to dynamic memory (on windows) randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/… If you're not planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you could go towards fragmentation. If you're planning on freeing all of the elements at the same time, you're probably better off using the "better way* structure to be more clear about your intentions.

– GandhiGandhi
Nov 27 '18 at 0:27














0






active

oldest

votes











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53490177%2fbest-way-to-implement-2d-array-on-heap%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53490177%2fbest-way-to-implement-2d-array-on-heap%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Contact image not getting when fetch all contact list from iPhone by CNContact

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite I know this question already asked but not getting solution. From this code I will get all the information from the contact but image not found when open vcf files on mac os, also not getting when share this file. I use this stackoverflow link here but It's not help full. var contacts = [CNContact]() let keys = [CNContactVCardSerialization.descriptorForRequiredKeys() ] as [Any] let request = CNContactFetchRequest(keysToFetch: keys as! [CNKeyDescriptor]) do { try self.contactStore.enumerateContacts(with: request) { (contact, stop) in // Array containing all unified contacts from everywhere contacts.append(contact) } } catch { print("unable to fetch contacts") } do { let data = try
Read more

count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets

Image
up vote 6 down vote favorite 1 This program is for count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets I am confusing here return k*countP(n-1, k) + countP(n-1, k-1); can some one explain what is happening here? why we are multiplying with k? NOTE->I know this is not the best way to calculate number of partitions that would be DP // A C++ program to count number of partitions // of a set with n elements into k subsets #include<iostream> using namespace std; // Returns count of different partitions of n // elements in k subsets int countP(int n, int k) { // Base cases if (n == 0 || k == 0 || k > n) return 0; if (k == 1 || k == n) return 1; // S(n+1, k) = k*S(n, k) + S(n, k-1) return k*countP(n-1, k) + countP(n-1, k-1); } // Driver program int ma
Read more

A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

Image
0 I found a lot of questions abount appendices and ToC. Many users want appendices to be grouped in an Appendix part, however some problems arise with ToC, hyperref, PDF viewer bookmarks, and so on. There are different solutions which require extra packages, command patching and other extra code, however none of them satisfies me. I almost found an easy way to accomplish a good result, where appendices are added to bookmarks in the right way and hyperref links point to the right page. However, the number of the "Appendix" part page is wrong (it's the number of appendix A). Is there any EASY way to fix that? This is a MWE: documentclass{book} usepackage[nottoc,notlot,notlof]{tocbibind} usepackage{hyperref} begin{document} frontmatter tableofcontents mainmatter part{First} chapter{
Read more