Passing around fixed-size arrays in C++?

c++ performance allocation numerical
static_rtti picture static_rtti · Nov 18, 2009 · Viewed 21.1k times · Source

Basically I'd like to do something like that:

int[3] array_func()
{
    return {1,1,1};
}

int main(int argc,char * argv[])
{
    int[3] point=array_func();
}

But that doesn't seem legal in C++. I know I can use vectors, but since I know the size of the array is a constant, it seems like a loss of performance is likely to occur. I'd also like to avoid a new if I can, because allocating stuff on the stack is easier and also likely to improve performance.

What's the solution here?

Answer

Didier Trosset picture Didier Trosset · Nov 18, 2009

Using C++0x, the almost finalized new C++ standard (already implemented in latest gcc and msvc IIRC), you can do it exactly as you want! Simply use std::array instead of int[3].

std::array<int, 3> array_func()
{
    return {1,1,1};
}

int main(int argc,char * argv[])
{
    std::array<int, 3> point = array_func();
}

Related questions

In what cases should I use memcpy over standard operators in C++?

When can I get better performance using memcpy or how do I benefit from using it? For example: float a[3]; float b[3]; is code: memcpy(a, b, 3*sizeof(float)); faster than this one? a[0] = b[0]; a[1] = b[1]; a[2] = b[2];

Read More
Why is processing a sorted array faster than processing an unsorted array?

Here is a piece of C++ code that shows some very peculiar behavior. For some strange reason, sorting the data miraculously makes the code almost six times faster: #include <algorithm> #include <ctime> #include <iostream> …

Read More
C++ performance vs. Java/C#

My understanding is that C/C++ produces native code to run on a particular machine architecture. Conversely, languages like Java and C# run on top of a virtual machine which abstracts away the native architecture. Logically it would seem impossible …

Read More