Initialize a byte array to a certain value, other than the default null?

Question

I'm busy rewriting an old project that was done in C++, to C#.

My task is to rewrite the program so that it functions as close to the original as possible.

During a bunch of file-handling the previous developer who wrote this program creates a structure containing a ton of fields that correspond to the set format that a file has to be written in, so all that work is already done for me.

These fields are all byte arrays. What the C++ code then does is use memset to set this entire structure to all spaces characters (0x20). One line of code. Easy.

This is very important as the utility that this file eventually goes to is expecting the file in this format. What I've had to do is change this struct to a class in C#, but I cannot find a way to easily initialize each of these byte arrays to all space characters.

What I've ended up having to do is this in the class constructor:

//Initialize all of the variables to spaces.
int index = 0;
foreach (byte b in UserCode)
{
    UserCode[index] = 0x20;
    index++;
}

This works fine, but I'm sure there must be a simpler way to do this. When the array is set to UserCode = new byte[6] in the constructor the byte array gets automatically initialized to the default null values. Is there no way that I can make it become all spaces upon declaration, so that when I call my class' constructor that it is initialized straight away like this? Or some memset-like function?

Answer 1

For small arrays use array initialisation syntax:

var sevenItems = new byte[] { 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20 };

For larger arrays use a standard for loop. This is the most readable and efficient way to do it:

var sevenThousandItems = new byte[7000];
for (int i = 0; i < sevenThousandItems.Length; i++)
{
    sevenThousandItems[i] = 0x20;
}

Of course, if you need to do this a lot then you could create a helper method to help keep your code concise:

byte[] sevenItems = CreateSpecialByteArray(7);
byte[] sevenThousandItems = CreateSpecialByteArray(7000);

// ...

public static byte[] CreateSpecialByteArray(int length)
{
    var arr = new byte[length];
    for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
    {
        arr[i] = 0x20;
    }
    return arr;
}

Answer 2

Use this to create the array in the first place:

byte[] array = Enumerable.Repeat((byte)0x20, <number of elements>).ToArray();

Replace <number of elements> with the desired array size.

Answer 3

You can use Enumerable.Repeat()

Enumerable.Repeat generates a sequence that contains one repeated value.

Array of 100 items initialized to 0x20:

byte[] arr1 = Enumerable.Repeat((byte)0x20,100).ToArray();

Answer 4

var array = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(new string(' ', 100));

Answer 5

If you need to initialise a small array you can use:

byte[] smallArray = new byte[] { 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20 };

If you have a larger array, then you could use:

byte[] bitBiggerArray Enumerable.Repeat(0x20, 7000).ToArray();

Which is simple, and easy for the next guy/girl to read. And will be fast enough 99.9% of the time. (Normally will be the BestOption™)

However if you really really need super speed, calling out to the optimized memset method, using P/invoke, is for you: (Here wrapped up in a nice to use class)

public static class Superfast
{
    [DllImport("msvcrt.dll",
              EntryPoint = "memset",
              CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl,
              SetLastError = false)]
    private static extern IntPtr MemSet(IntPtr dest, int c, int count);

    //If you need super speed, calling out to M$ memset optimized method using P/invoke
    public static byte[] InitByteArray(byte fillWith, int size)
    {
        byte[] arrayBytes = new byte[size];
        GCHandle gch = GCHandle.Alloc(arrayBytes, GCHandleType.Pinned);
        MemSet(gch.AddrOfPinnedObject(), fillWith, arrayBytes.Length);
        gch.Free();
        return arrayBytes;
    }
}

Usage:

byte[] oneofManyBigArrays =  Superfast.InitByteArray(0x20,700000);

Answer 6

This is a faster version of the code from the post marked as the answer.

All of the benchmarks that I have performed show that a simple for loop that only contains something like an array fill is typically twice as fast if it is decrementing versus if it is incrementing.

Also, the array Length property is already passed as the parameter so it doesn't need to be retrieved from the array properties. It should also be pre-calculated and assigned to a local variable. Loop bounds calculations that involve a property accessor will re-compute the value of the bounds before each iteration of the loop.

public static byte[] CreateSpecialByteArray(int length)
{
    byte[] array = new byte[length];

    int len = length - 1;

    for (int i = len; i >= 0; i--)
    {
        array[i] = 0x20;
    }

    return array;
}

Answer 7

Maybe these could be helpful?

What is the equivalent of memset in C#?

http://techmikael.blogspot.com/2009/12/filling-array-with-default-value.html

Answer 8

Guys before me gave you your answer. I just want to point out your misuse of foreach loop. See, since you have to increment index standard "for loop" would be not only more compact, but also more efficient ("foreach" does many things under the hood):

for (int index = 0; index < UserCode.Length; ++index)
{
    UserCode[index] = 0x20;
}

Answer 9

The fastest way to do this is to use the api:

bR = 0xFF;

RtlFillMemory(pBuffer, nFileLen, bR);

using a pointer to a buffer, the length to write, and the encoded byte. I think the fastest way to do it in managed code (much slower), is to create a small block of initialized bytes, then use Buffer.Blockcopy to write them to the byte array in a loop. I threw this together but haven't tested it, but you get the idea:

long size = GetFileSize(FileName);
// zero byte
const int blocksize = 1024;
// 1's array
byte[] ntemp = new byte[blocksize];
byte[] nbyte = new byte[size];
// init 1's array
for (int i = 0; i < blocksize; i++)
    ntemp[i] = 0xff;

// get dimensions
int blocks = (int)(size / blocksize);
int remainder = (int)(size - (blocks * blocksize));
int count = 0;

// copy to the buffer
do
{
    Buffer.BlockCopy(ntemp, 0, nbyte, blocksize * count, blocksize);
    count++;
} while (count < blocks);

// copy remaining bytes
Buffer.BlockCopy(ntemp, 0, nbyte, blocksize * count, remainder);

Answer 10

Just to expand on my answer a neater way of doing this multiple times would probably be:

PopulateByteArray(UserCode, 0x20);

which calls:

public static void PopulateByteArray(byte[] byteArray, byte value)
{
    for (int i = 0; i < byteArray.Length; i++)
    {
        byteArray[i] = value;
    }
}

This has the advantage of a nice efficient for loop (mention to gwiazdorrr's answer) as well as a nice neat looking call if it is being used a lot. And a lot mroe at a glance readable than the enumeration one I personally think. :)

Answer 11

This function is way faster than a for loop for filling an array.

The Array.Copy command is a very fast memory copy function. This function takes advantage of that by repeatedly calling the Array.Copy command and doubling the size of what we copy until the array is full.

I discuss this on my blog at https://grax32.com/2013/06/fast-array-fill-function-revisited.html (Link updated 12/16/2019). Also see Nuget package that provides this extension method. http://sites.grax32.com/ArrayExtensions/

Note that this would be easy to make into an extension method by just adding the word "this" to the method declarations i.e. public static void ArrayFill<T>(this T[] arrayToFill ...

public static void ArrayFill<T>(T[] arrayToFill, T fillValue)
{
    // if called with a single value, wrap the value in an array and call the main function
    ArrayFill(arrayToFill, new T[] { fillValue });
}

public static void ArrayFill<T>(T[] arrayToFill, T[] fillValue)
{
    if (fillValue.Length >= arrayToFill.Length)
    {
        throw new ArgumentException("fillValue array length must be smaller than length of arrayToFill");
    }

    // set the initial array value
    Array.Copy(fillValue, arrayToFill, fillValue.Length);

    int arrayToFillHalfLength = arrayToFill.Length / 2;

    for (int i = fillValue.Length; i < arrayToFill.Length; i *= 2)
    {
        int copyLength = i;
        if (i > arrayToFillHalfLength)
        {
            copyLength = arrayToFill.Length - i;
        }

        Array.Copy(arrayToFill, 0, arrayToFill, i, copyLength);
    }
}

Answer 12

You could speed up the initialization and simplify the code by using the the Parallel class (.NET 4 and newer):

public static void PopulateByteArray(byte[] byteArray, byte value)
{
    Parallel.For(0, byteArray.Length, i => byteArray[i] = value);
}

Of course you can create the array at the same time:

public static byte[] CreateSpecialByteArray(int length, byte value)
{
    var byteArray = new byte[length];
    Parallel.For(0, length, i => byteArray[i] = value);
    return byteArray;
}

Answer 13

You can use a collection initializer:

UserCode = new byte[]{0x20,0x20,0x20,0x20,0x20,0x20};

This will work better than Repeat if the values are not identical.