Jump to Content
Register
Forgot your password?
Third-party login
Log in with Discord

Handmade Hero
Forums
Episode Guide
twitter
Handmade Hero»Forums»Code
← Back to index
Nines Baobaberson
37 posts
#168
Pointer arithmetic vs array subscript
I am still somewhat new to pointer arithmetic. For our RenderWeirdGradient, for example, we fill the buffer by basically using a pointer we move across the memory (if I understand correctly). Say we wanted to fill just part of the buffer, my first thought is something like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
for (int Y = StartY; Y < EndY; ++Y)
{
    for(int X = StartX; X < EndX; ++X)
    {
        ((uint32*)(Buffer->Memory))[(Y*Buffer->Width) + X] = Color;
    }
}


Thinking of the equivalent using pointer arithmetic did not come as quickly to me, but I ended up with something like this:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
uint8 *Row = (uint8 *)Buffer->Memory;
Row += (StartY * Buffer->Pitch);
for (int Y = 0; Y < Height; ++Y)
{
    uint32 *Pixel = ((uint32*)(Row)) + StartX;
    for(int X = 0; X < Width; ++X)
    {
        *Pixel++ = Color;
    }
    Row += Buffer->Pitch;
}


I think I heard somewhere that [ ] in C is just literally shorthand for pointer arithmetic, but I'm not sure if that's actually true?

I guess I'm wondering if it's worth stumbling through the pointer arithmetic with these kinds of loops for educational purposes if nothing else. Are there any performance / design considerations with this kind of thing?

Curious to hear any thoughts. Thanks ^-^
Casey Muratori
801 posts / 1 project
Casey Muratori is a programmer at Molly Rocket on the game 1935 and is the host of the educational programming series Handmade Hero.
#170
Pointer arithmetic vs array subscript
Assuming that there is no operator overloading going on, then yes, []'s in C generally just does the pointer arithmetic that would have happened. You can think of

1
Foo[X] = Y;


as being the same as

1
*(Foo + X) = Y;


There's really not much to it.

In general, performance concerns come more from whether you do incremental or absolute offsets... ie., if instead you do:

1
*Foo++ = Y;


and things like this, but these sorts of things usually depend on what the compiler was doing with your loops in the first place. Compilers are often smart enough to turn absolute-index loops into incremental loops when it is faster, etc.

- Casey
Nines Baobaberson
37 posts
#202
Pointer arithmetic vs array subscript
Awesomesauce, thanks Casey, you're the man
29 posts
#301
Pointer arithmetic vs array subscript

1
*Foo++ = Y;


Fair warning: I think this is actually undefined behavior because of a thing called "sequence points". Basically, the compiler doesn't guarantee in which order it will apply the "*" and "++" operations. At least it's the case in C, not sure about C++.
Andrew Bromage
183 posts / 1 project
Research engineer, resident maths nerd (Erdős number 3).
#303
Pointer arithmetic vs array subscript
@norswap: No, that is a perfectly well-defined and officially sanctioned operation in C as long as Foo and Y aren't aliased.
29 posts
#323
Pointer arithmetic vs array subscript
Ah indeed you are perfectly right. The increment can occur at any time during the evaluation of the assignment, but the pre-incrementation value is used. Since Foo does not appear somewhere else, there is no problem.

Something like `*Foo++ = Foo;` is actually undefined. I was bitten by something like that recently, hence a bit overeager to warn about the potential pitfall :)
← Back to index Log in to reply