I want to retrieve the index in the array where the value is stored. I know the value of the item at that point in the array. I'm thinking it's similar to the findIndex function in c#. For example, array[2] = {4, 7, 8}. I know the value is 7, how do I get the value of the index, 1, if I know it is at array[1]?
-
2Write a loop from 0 to the size of the array, compare current element to the given value, stop when found. – The Paramagnetic Croissant Jul 28 '14 at 20:43
-
1If you know the array is sorted, you can also use binary search – Drew McGowen Jul 28 '14 at 20:47
-
@user1798299 May I append my post to show how to use bsearch?:) – Vlad from Moscow Jul 28 '14 at 21:11
-
@VladfromMoscow - just do it. – ryyker Jul 28 '14 at 21:18
-
@VladfromMoscow of course! – user1798299 Jul 28 '14 at 21:22
3 Answers
For example you can define the corresponding function the following way
size_t FindIndex( const int a[], size_t size, int value )
{
size_t index = 0;
while ( index < size && a[index] != value ) ++index;
return ( index == size ? -1 : index );
}
Also instead of type size_t you can use type int.
But the better way is to use standard algorithm std::find
or std::find_if
declared in header <algorithm>
provided that you use C++
For example
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
int main()
{
int a[] = { 4, 7, 8 };
auto it = std::find( std::begin( a ), std::end( a ), 7 );
if ( it != std::end( a ) )
{
std::cout << "The index of the element with value 7 is "
<< std::distance( std::begin( a ), it )
<< std::endl;
}
}
The output is
The index of the element with value 7 is 1
Otherwise you have to write the function yourself as I showed abve.:)
If the array is sorted you can use standard C function bsearch
declared in header <stdlib.h>
For example
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int cmp( const void *lhs, const void *rhs )
{
if ( *( const int * )lhs < *( const int * )rhs ) return -1;
else if ( *( const int * )rhs < *( const int * )lhs ) return 1;
else return 0;
}
int main()
{
int a[] = { 4, 7, 8 };
int x = 7;
int *p = ( int * )bsearch( &x, a, 3, sizeof( int ), cmp );
if ( p != NULL ) printf( "%d\n", p - a );
return 0;
}

- 301,070
- 26
- 186
- 335
-
In your first example, you have return type of `size_t`. This is `typedef unsigned int size_t;`, so returning a -1 may be problematic. Your second example looks like C++. (tagged C) – ryyker Jul 28 '14 at 20:56
-
@ryyker There is no any problem. Such a way std::string::npos is defined in C++.:) – Vlad from Moscow Jul 28 '14 at 20:57
-
3OP is tagged C, not C++ though. Other than that I like both approaches, except size_t cannot be negative. – ryyker Jul 28 '14 at 20:59
-
1@ryyker IIRC `-1` is implicitly converted to `size_t`, which is the same as `SIZE_MAX` (since overflow/underflow for unsigned integers is not UB) – Drew McGowen Jul 28 '14 at 21:00
-
@ryyker You are right that size_t can not be negative. As for all other you are wrong. -1 assigned to an object of size_t will give the maximum value of size_t. It is not important whether you deal with C or C++. – Vlad from Moscow Jul 28 '14 at 21:00
-
2@VladfromMoscow given that the question is tagged as C, then while a C++ answer is demonstrative, it cannot be used as C code. – Drew McGowen Jul 28 '14 at 21:01
-
-
1@VladfromMoscow true, but it's irrelevant to this particular question. – Drew McGowen Jul 28 '14 at 21:03
-
Thanks both Vlad and Drew, regarding comment on range of size_t. I am not sure what other assertions I made that are incorrect. The one about the OP being C is correct (unless an edit has been made my OP) – ryyker Jul 28 '14 at 21:08
-
-
_It is not important whether you deal with C or C++_. disagree. There are many places (eg. some embedded systems) that do not allow C++ where C methodology is required. Honoring the tag of the OP is usually a good idea for that reason alone. – ryyker Jul 28 '14 at 21:17
-
@ryyker We are not discussing "many places". We are saying that this code is valid in C and as in C++. The problem that you simply do not know this. – Vlad from Moscow Jul 28 '14 at 21:24
-
@VladfromMoscow - really not a big issue for me. I am not arguing the veracity of syntax in your answer(s), all good. And I even learned something about `size_t`. ***Just saying*** OP is for C, not C++. And `std::end( a )` (et. al.) is (are) not valid in C. :) – ryyker Jul 28 '14 at 21:55
First its important that the argument list contain size information for the array, i.e. passing a pointer to an array only does not provide enough information to know how many elements the array has. The argument decays into a pointer type with no size information to the function.
So given that, you could do something like this:
int findIndex(int *array, size_t size, int target)
{
int i=0;
while((i<size) && (array[i] != target)) i++;
return (i<size) ? (i) : (-1);
}
For small arrays this approach will be fine. For very large arrays, some sorting and a binary search would improve performance

- 22,849
- 3
- 43
- 87
Here's my version without a additional variable.
// Return index of element starting
// Return -1 if element is not present
int indexOf(const int elm, const int *ar, int ar_cnt)
{
// decreasing array count till it reaches negative
// arr_cnt - 1 to 0
while (ar_cnt--)
{
// Return array index if current element equals provided element
if (ar[ar_cnt] == elm)
return ar_cnt;
}
// Element not present
return -1; // Should never reaches this point
}
Hope the comments are self explanatory!

- 959
- 10
- 23