78

The standard array-size macro that is often taught is

#define ARRAYSIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]))

or some equivalent formation. However, this kind of thing silently succeeds when a pointer is passed in, and gives results that can seem plausible at runtime until things mysteriously fall apart.

It's all-too-easy to make this mistake: a function that has a local array variable is refactored, moving a bit of array manipulation into a new function called with the array as a parameter.

So, the question is: is there a "sanitary" macro to detect misuse of the ARRAYSIZE macro in C, preferably at compile-time? In C++ we'd just use a template specialized for array arguments only; in C, it seems we'll need some way to distinguish arrays and pointers. (If I wanted to reject arrays, for instance, I'd just do e.g. (arr=arr, ...) because array assignment is illegal).

14
  • 1
    This is going to be rough, as arrays decay into pointers in virtually all contexts.
    – user395760
    Oct 18, 2013 at 15:13
  • 1
    Why would anyone be in need of such a macro? This only works with arrays that have been defined by a fixed size in the code, why would you need to calculate what you know you wrote? If the answer is "maybe you are in another part of your code and you don't have this info anymore" my subsequent question is: How is that possible with the array not decaying to a pointer, in a non-weird non-specificly-designed-to-make-this-happen piece of code?
    – Eregrith
    Oct 18, 2013 at 15:18
  • 7
    @Eregrith By extension that point of view may as well be "why would anyone need any kind of compile-time calculation or metaprogramming, ever"? The idea that "you know what you wrote" is both ridiculous and useless. No law says you had to write it by hand in the first place. Oct 18, 2013 at 15:48
  • 7
    @Eregrith I would see absolutely nothing wrong with writing char a[MAGIC_STUFF(COMPLICATED(X, Z+FOO(G)))]; and not wanting to type that out again lower down. If the information is there and the toolset is there, use it. Oct 18, 2013 at 15:55
  • 3
    @Eregrith: At least two situatons come to mind: (1) The array size might not be specified, but might be inferred from the initlialization list; (2) It may be useful to have a macro like #define SEND_FIXED_COMMAND(cmd) send_command((arr), sizeof (arr)) so as to avoid having to specify both the name of the array and the name of a constant giving the array's size.
    – supercat
    Jun 1, 2015 at 6:17

10 Answers 10

56

Linux kernel uses a nice implementation of ARRAY_SIZE to deal with this issue:

#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))

with

#define __must_be_array(a) BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__same_type((a), &(a)[0]))

and

#define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))

Of course this is portable only in GNU C as it makes use of two instrinsics: typeof operator and __builtin_types_compatible_p function. Also it uses their "famous" BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO macro which is only valid in GNU C.

Assuming a compile time evaluation requirement (which is what we want), I don't know any portable implementation of this macro.

A "semi-portable" implementation (and which would not cover all cases) is:

#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr)  \
    (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + STATIC_EXP(IS_ARRAY(arr)))

with

#define IS_ARRAY(arr)  ((void*)&(arr) == &(arr)[0])
#define STATIC_EXP(e)  \
    (0 * sizeof (struct { int ARRAY_SIZE_FAILED:(2 * (e) - 1);}))

With gcc this gives no warning if argument is an array in -std=c99 -Wall but -pedantic would gives a warning. The reason is IS_ARRAY expression is not an integer constant expression (cast to pointer types and subscript operator are not allowed in integer constant expressions) and the bit-field width in STATIC_EXP requires an integer constant expression.

1
  • 3
    Oh, nice, this is a gem. I should have figured the Linux kernel devs would figure this out.
    – nneonneo
    Oct 18, 2013 at 20:23
21

This version of ARRAYSIZE() returns 0 when arr is a pointer and the size when its a pure array

#include <stdio.h>

#define IS_INDEXABLE(arg) (sizeof(arg[0]))
#define IS_ARRAY(arg) (IS_INDEXABLE(arg) && (((void *) &arg) == ((void *) arg)))
#define ARRAYSIZE(arr) (IS_ARRAY(arr) ? (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0])) : 0)

int main(void)
{
    int a[5];
    int *b = a;
    int n = 10;
    int c[n]; /* a VLA */

    printf("%zu\n", ARRAYSIZE(a));
    printf("%zu\n", ARRAYSIZE(b));
    printf("%zu\n", ARRAYSIZE(c));
    return 0;
}

Output:

5
0
10

As pointed out by Ben Jackson, you can force a run-time exception (dividing by 0)

#define IS_INDEXABLE(arg) (sizeof(arg[0]))
#define IS_ARRAY(arg) (IS_INDEXABLE(arg) && (((void *) &arg) == ((void *) arg)))
#define ARRAYSIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / (IS_ARRAY(arr) ? sizeof(arr[0]) : 0))

Sadly, you can't force a compile-time error (the address of arg must be compared at run-time)

9
  • 1
    Better yet would be if you could get a compile time error (divide by 0?) in the bad case. Oct 18, 2013 at 15:58
  • What is the need for IS_INDEXABLE(arg)? As far as I can tell, this always returns non-zero Oct 18, 2013 at 17:23
  • 3
    @DigitalTrauma, Because it raises an error when the argument is not an array (or a pointer). error: subscripted value is neither array nor pointer nor vector Oct 18, 2013 at 17:31
  • 1
    @AlterMann - Thanks - yes, thats a nice a extra test to put in Oct 18, 2013 at 17:36
  • 1
    An array :) The address of the array will be the same as the the value of the array since the value decays into the pointer to the first element.
    – tangrs
    Oct 19, 2013 at 4:55
7

With C11, we can differentiate arrays and pointers using _Generic, but I have only found a way to do it if you supply the element type:

#define ARRAY_SIZE(A, T) \
    _Generic(&(A), \
            T **: (void)0, \
            default: _Generic(&(A)[0], T *: sizeof(A) / sizeof((A)[0])))


int a[2];
printf("%zu\n", ARRAY_SIZE(a, int));

The macro checks: 1) pointer-to-A is not pointer-to-pointer. 2) pointer-to-elem is pointer-to-T. It evaluates to (void)0 and fails statically with pointers.

It's an imperfect answer, but maybe a reader can improve upon it and get rid of that type parameter!

2
  • Instead of checking that "pointer-to-A is not pointer-to-pointer", why not directly check, that pointer-to-A is pointer-to-array? _Generic(&(A), T(*)[sizeof(A) / sizeof((A)[0])]: sizeof(A) / sizeof((A)[0])) This makes the second test unnecessary and I think the error message error: '_Generic' selector of type 'int **' is not compatible with any association is better understandable than error: invalid use of void expression. Sadly I still have no idea how to get rid of that type parameter. :-(
    – T S
    Mar 16, 2021 at 20:50
  • If you can pass the element type, then it's actually quite easy. #define ARRAYSIZE(arr, T) _Generic(&(arr), T(*)[sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0])]: sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0])) This creates an array pointer to an array of the specified type. If the passed parameter is not an array of the correct type or size, you'll get compiler errors. 100% portable standard C.
    – Lundin
    Jul 1, 2021 at 13:57
6

Modification of bluss's answer using typeof instead of a type parameter:

#define ARRAY_SIZE(A) \
    _Generic(&(A), \
    typeof((A)[0]) **: (void)0, \
    default: sizeof(A) / sizeof((A)[0]))
1
  • 1
    typeof is a GCC extension, so this code only works in GCC. If you are specific to GCC, then you could much better use something based on __builtin_types_compatible_p or similar - that works in any case where this code would work, but it would additionally work in older versions of GCC or if an older standard was specified via the -std= option.
    – T S
    Mar 16, 2021 at 20:19
2

Here's one possible solution using a GNU extension called statement expressions:

#define ARRAYSIZE(arr) \
    ({typedef char ARRAYSIZE_CANT_BE_USED_ON_POINTERS[sizeof(arr) == sizeof(void*) ? -1 : 1]; \
     sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]);})

This uses a static assertion to assert that sizeof(arr) != sizeof(void*). This has an obvious limitation -- you can't use this macro on arrays whose size happens to be exactly one pointer (e.g. a 1-length array of pointers/integers, or maybe a 4-length array of bytes on a 32-bit platform). But those particular instances can be worked around easily enough.

This solution is not portable to platforms which don't support this GNU extension. In those cases, I'd recommend just using the standard macro and not worry about accidentally passing in pointers to the macro.

1

Here's another one which relies on the typeof extension:

#define ARRAYSIZE(arr) ({typeof (arr) arr ## _is_a_pointer __attribute__((unused)) = {}; \
                         sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]);})

This works by attempting to set up an identical object and initializing it with an array designated initializer. If an array is passed, then the compiler is happy. If pointer is passed the compiler complains with:

arraysize.c: In function 'main':
arraysize.c:11: error: array index in non-array initializer
arraysize.c:11: error: (near initialization for 'p_is_a_pointer')
9
  • This is nice! Actually, it works better if you use = {};: if you pass a pointer, you get "empty scalar initializer". This makes it portable to e.g. struct arrays.
    – nneonneo
    Oct 18, 2013 at 16:12
  • @nneonneo - = {}; didn't work for me :( - if I pass a simple int array, then I also get "error: empty scalar initializer". But I can pass arrays of ints, arrays of pointers or arrays of structs to the = 0; version without difficulty. Oct 18, 2013 at 16:41
  • 1
    @DigitalTrauma: Sorry, I might have been confusing. The code is #define ARRAYSIZE(arr) ({typeof(arr) arr##_is_pointer = {}; sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]);}). No designated initializer. This works properly for both int arrays and struct arrays with no warnings.
    – nneonneo
    Oct 18, 2013 at 16:49
  • 1
    @nneonneo - yes, thanks for clarifying - that makes sense - I'll update the answer, as that is clearly an improvement. Oct 18, 2013 at 16:58
  • 1
    @hurufu and what's worse: when using this on a VLA, clang doesn't generate an error for the line where this macro is used, but for the line where the VLA was declared :-(
    – T S
    Mar 18, 2021 at 10:03
1

my personal favorite, tried gcc 4.6.3 and 4.9.2:

#define STR_(tokens) # tokens

#define ARRAY_SIZE(array) \
    ({ \
        _Static_assert \
        ( \
            ! __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(array), typeof(& array[0])), \
            "ARRAY_SIZE: " STR_(array) " [expanded from: " # array "] is not an array" \
        ); \
        sizeof(array) / sizeof((array)[0]); \
    })

/*
 * example
 */

#define not_an_array ((char const *) "not an array")

int main () {
    return ARRAY_SIZE(not_an_array);
}

compiler prints

x.c:16:12: error: static assertion failed: "ARRAY_SIZE: ((char const *) \"not an array\") [expanded from: not_an_array] is not an array"
1
  • 1
    Small hitch: __builtin_types_compatible_p version fails for an array that's behind a const pointer (because const and non-const types don't match)
    – M.M
    Jul 31, 2018 at 4:03
1

One more example to the collection.

#define LENGTHOF(X) ({ \
    const size_t length = (sizeof X / (sizeof X[0] ?: 1)); \
    typeof(X[0]) (*should_be_an_array)[length] = &X; \
    length; })

Pros:

  1. It works with normal arrays, variable-length arrays, multidimensional arrays, arrays of zero sized structs
  2. It generates a compilation error (not warning) if you pass any pointer, struct or union
  3. It does not depend on any of C11's features
  4. It gives you very readable error

Cons:

  1. It depends on some of the gcc extensions: Typeof, Statement Exprs, and (if you like it) Conditionals
  2. It depends on C99 VLA feature
2
  • 1
    As a cons, this also creates a variable "length" that may conflict with another one in the code
    – Stoogy
    Aug 15, 2018 at 8:46
  • 2
    It will not conflict because ({ ... }) notation creates new scope. The only problem is when you use it like this: double length[234]; const size_t size = LENGTHOF(length); . And you can always just duplicate (sizeof X / (sizeof X[0] ?: 1)) and don't use any temporary variable at all ;)
    – hurufu
    Mar 4, 2019 at 10:24
1

with typeof in c and template matching in c++:

#ifndef __cplusplus
   /* C version */
#  define ARRAY_LEN_UNSAFE(X) (sizeof(X)/sizeof(*(X)))
#  define ARRAY_LEN(X) (ARRAY_LEN_UNSAFE(X) + 0 * sizeof((typeof(*X)(*[1])[ARRAY_LEN_UNSAFE(X)]){0} - (typeof(X)**)0))
#else
   /* C++ version */
   template <unsigned int N> class __array_len_aux    { public: template <typename T, unsigned int M> static const char (&match_only_array(T(&)[M]))[M]; };
   template <>               class __array_len_aux<0> { public: template <typename T>                 static const char (&match_only_array(T(&)))[0]; };
#  define ARRAY_LEN(X) sizeof(__array_len_aux<sizeof(X)>::match_only_array(X))
#endif

// below is the checking codes with static_assert
#include <assert.h>

void * a0[0];
void * a1[9];
void * aa0[0];
void * aa1[5][10];
void *p;
struct tt {
    char x[10];
    char *p;
} t;

static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(a0) == 0, "verify [0]");
static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(aa0) == 0, "verify [0][N]");
static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(a1) == 9, "verify [N]");
static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(aa1) == 5, "verify [N][M]");
static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(t.x) == 10, "verify array in struct");
//static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(p) == 0, "should parse error");
//static_assert(ARRAY_LEN(t.p) == 0, "should parse error");```

This `ARRAY_LEN` accepts any dim array, and also accepts 0-size arrays, but rejects a pointer and 0-size array.
0

Awful, yes, but that works and it is portable.

#define ARRAYSIZE(arr) ((sizeof(arr) != sizeof(&arr[0])) ? \
                       (sizeof(arr)/sizeof(*arr)) : \
                       -1+0*fprintf(stderr, "\n\n** pointer in ARRAYSIZE at line %d !! **\n\n", __LINE__))

This will not detect anything at compile time but will print out an error message in stderr and return -1 if it is a pointer or if the array length is 1.

==> DEMO <==

3
  • 7
    This one fails for me with int arr2[2]; on my 64-bit box. In this case sizeof(arr) and sizeof(&arr[0])c are both equal to 8 Oct 18, 2013 at 17:39
  • PRO:Reports problem in the case where I use an array allocated on the heap. Even the google chromium COUNT_OF macro will return 2 in this case for an array of any size. CON: doesn't compile with pedantic warnings.
    – KANJICODER
    Mar 19, 2019 at 23:19
  • sizeof(arr) != sizeof(&arr[0]) is a bad test. 1) It's misleading: On first glance one would probably assume, that sizeof(&arr[0]) somehow depends on arr when in fact it almost never does. On all platforms I've ever known it's equivalent to sizeof(void*). (Do you happen to know a platform where sizeof(int*)!=sizeof(void*)?)    2) As noted by @DigitalTrauma this error check easily leads to false positives. Why not use (((void *) &arg) == ((void *) arg))? If you would change that, I could upvote - a runtime error message can at least for debug builds be very useful.
    – T S
    Mar 18, 2021 at 10:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.