increase stack size in VC++ 2002

[sleze]

I am not sure I am doing this right. This is what my code looks like now: short temparray[PICTUREARRAYHEIGHT][PICTUREARRAYWIDTH]; I am trying to use new short * temparray = new short[PICTUREARRAYHEIGHT][PICTUREARRAYWIDTH]; but that gets an error message saying that it can't convert type short (*) to short [][320] I can't find any examples of malloc being used with arrays.

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

short* temparray = new short[PICTUREARRAYHEIGHT * PICTUREARRAYWIDTH];
temparray[y * PICTUREARRAYWIDTH + x] = value;

is a simple solution. No need to allocate an array of arrays, which you'd have to do if you had wanted to access the pixels in "2d"-fashion.

[Stephen Hewitt]

Forget using malloc and free or even new and delete. Do it using a std::vector. e.g. // So we can access "std::vector". #include <vector>   // We want a vector of ints. typedef std::vector<int> t_IntVec;   // Now use the vector in a similar way you'd use the dynamically allocated array. t_IntVec ints(200*200); ints[1*200 + 5] = 1; Steve

[sleze]

I'll try that tomorrow when I get back into work. Isn't there ANY way to just increase the size of the stack so I can use plain old 2-d arrays?

[Stephen Hewitt]

The /STACK linker switch. See here[^]. Steve

[cmk]

:) Nice Chris, i needed a good chuckle. ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set

[Waldermort]

sleze wrote:

short * temparray = new short[PICTUREARRAYHEIGHT][PICTUREARRAYWIDTH];

You can't create 2D arrays like this using new. Try this instead

short **temparray = new short*[PICTUREARRAYHEIGHT];
for (int i=0;i<PICTUREARRAYHEIGHT;i++)
temparray[i] = new short[PICTUREARRAYWIDTH];

You would also have to delete using a similar method to prevent leaks.

[sleze]

That solved the normal stack overflow error. But now I have a new one. When I try to move the window once image processing is going on, the program crashes with a stack overflow error. Increasing the stack to 10MB doesn't seem to fix it. Any ideas?

[Stephen Hewitt]

I was reluctant to tell you about the /STACK switch because I had doubts that it would fix your problem - most times "the quick fix" causes more problems then it solves. 200x200 integers is just 200x200x4=[EDIT]160KB[/EDIT]. It seems unlikely that the size of the array was actually the cause of the problem. I suspect the problem is that you're recursing too deeply. Can you send a stack trace when you get the crash? Steve -- modified at 8:55 Saturday 22nd April, 2006

[Nick_Kisialiou]

Isn't 200x200x4 = 160K?

[Stephen Hewitt]

Oops - you're right. That is a lot to have on the stack. Steve