Confusion between C++ and OpenGL matrix order (row-major vs column-major)

I'm getting thoroughly confused over matrix definitions. I have a matrix class, which holds a float[16] which I assumed is row-major, based on the following observations:

float matrixA[16] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 };
float matrixB[4][4] = { { 0, 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6, 7 }, { 8, 9, 10, 11 }, { 12, 13, 14, 15 } };

matrixA and matrixB both have the same linear layout in memory (i.e. all numbers are in order). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row-major_order this indicates a row-major layout.

matrixA[0] == matrixB[0][0];
matrixA[3] == matrixB[0][3];
matrixA[4] == matrixB[1][0];
matrixA[7] == matrixB[1][3];

Therefore, matrixB[0] = row 0, matrixB[1] = row 1, etc. Again, this indicates row-major layout.

My problem / confusion comes when I create a translation matrix which looks like:

1, 0, 0, transX
0, 1, 0, transY
0, 0, 1, transZ
0, 0, 0, 1

Which is laid out in memory as, { 1, 0, 0, transX, 0, 1, 0, transY, 0, 0, 1, transZ, 0, 0, 0, 1 }.

Then when I call glUniformMatrix4fv, I need to set the transpose flag to GL_FALSE, indicating that it's column-major, else transforms such as translate / scale etc don't get applied correctly:

> If transpose is GL_FALSE, each matrix is assumed to be supplied in > column major order. If transpose is GL_TRUE, each matrix is assumed to > be supplied in row major order.

Why does my matrix, which appears to be row-major, need to be passed to OpenGL as column-major?

To summarize the answers by SigTerm and dsharlet: The usual way to transform a vector in GLSL is to left-multiply the vector by the transformation matrix:

mat4 T; vec4 v; vec4 v_transformed; 
v_transformed = T*v;

In order for that to work, OpenGL expects the memory layout of T to be, as described by SigTerm,

{1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, transX, transY, transZ, 1 }

which is also called 'column major'. In your shader code (as indicated by your comments), however, you right-multiplied the vector by the transformation matrix:

v_transformed = v*T;

which only yields the correct result if T is transposed, i.e. has the layout

{ 1, 0, 0, transX, 0, 1, 0, transY, 0, 0, 1, transZ, 0, 0, 0, 1 }

(i.e. 'row major'). Since you already provided the correct layout to your shader, namely row major, it was not necessary to set the transpose flag of glUniform4v.

matrix notation used in opengl documentation does not describe in-memory layout for OpenGL matrices

If think it'll be easier if you drop/forget about the entire "row/column-major" thing. That's because in addition to row/column major, the programmer can also decide how he would want to lay out the matrix in the memory (whether adjacent elements form rows or columns), in addition to the notation, which adds to confusion.

OpenGL matrices have same memory layout as directx matrices.

x.x x.y x.z 0
y.x y.y y.z 0
z.x z.y z.z 0
p.x p.y p.z 1

or

{ x.x x.y x.z 0 y.x y.y y.z 0 z.x z.y z.z 0 p.x p.y p.z 1 }

• x, y, z are 3-component vectors describing the matrix coordinate system (local coordinate system within relative to the global coordinate system).

• p is a 3-component vector describing the origin of matrix coordinate system.

Which means that the translation matrix should be laid out in memory like this:

{ 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, transX, transY, transZ, 1 }.

Leave it at that, and the rest should be easy.

---citation from old opengl faq--

---

> 9.005 Are OpenGL matrices column-major or row-major? > > For programming purposes, OpenGL matrices are 16-value arrays with base vectors laid out contiguously in memory. The translation components occupy the 13th, 14th, and 15th elements of the 16-element matrix, where indices are numbered from 1 to 16 as described in section 2.11.2 of the OpenGL 2.1 Specification. > > Column-major versus row-major is purely a notational convention. Note that post-multiplying with column-major matrices produces the same result as pre-multiplying with row-major matrices. The OpenGL Specification and the OpenGL Reference Manual both use column-major notation. You can use any notation, as long as it's clearly stated. > > Sadly, the use of column-major format in the spec and blue book has resulted in endless confusion in the OpenGL programming community. Column-major notation suggests that matrices are not laid out in memory as a programmer would expect.

---

I'm going to update this 9 years old answer.

A mathematical matrix is defined as m x n matrix. Where m is a number of rows and n is number of columns. For the sake of completeness, rows are horizontals, columns are vertical. When denoting a matrix element in mathematical notation Mij, the first element (i) is a row index, the second one (j) is a column index. When two matrices are multiplied, i.e. A(m x n) * B(m1 x n1), the resulting matrix has number of rows from the first argument(A), and number of columns of the second(B), and number of columns of the first argument (A) must match number of rows of the second (B). so n == m1. Clear so far, yes?

Now, regarding in-memory layout. You can store matrix two ways. Row-major and column-major. Row-major means that effectively you have rows laid out one after another, linearly. So, elements go from left to right, row after row. Kinda like english text. Column-major means that effectively you have columns laid out one after another, linearly. So elements start at top left, and go from top to bottom.

Example:

//matrix
|a11 a12 a13|
|a21 a22 a23|
|a31 a32 a33|

//row-major
[a11 a12 a13 a21 a22 a23 a31 a32 a33]

 //column-major
[a11 a21 a31 a12 a22 a32 a13 a23 a33]

Now, here's the fun part!

There are two ways to store 3d transformation in a matrix. As I mentioned before, a matrix in 3d essentially stores coordinate system basis vectors and position. So, you can store those vectors in rows or in columns of a matrix. When they're stored as columns, you multiply a matrix with a column vector. Like this.

//convention #1
|vx.x vy.x vz.x pos.x|   |p.x|   |res.x|
|vx.y vy.y vz.y pos.y|   |p.y|   |res.y|
|vx.z vy.z vz.z pos.z| x |p.z| = |res.z|
|   0    0    0     1|   |  1|   |res.w| 

However, you can also store those vectors as rows, and then you'll be multiplying a row vector with a matrix:

//convention #2 (uncommon)
                  | vx.x  vx.y  vx.z 0|   
                  | vy.x  vy.y  vy.z 0|   
|p.x p.y p.z 1| x | vz.x  vz.y  vz.z 0| = |res.x res.y res.z res.w|
                  |pos.x pos.y pos.z 1|   

So. Convention #1 often appears in mathematical texts. Convention #2 appeared in DirectX sdk at some point. Both are valid.

And in regards of the question, if you're using convention #1, then your matrices are column-major. And if you're using convention #2, then they're row major. However, memory layout is the same in both cases

[vx.x vx.y vx.z 0 vy.x vy.y vy.z 0 vz.x vz.y vz.z 0 pos.x pos.y pos.z 1]

Which is why I said it is easier to memorize which element is which, 9 years ago.

You are dealing with two separate issues.

First, your examples are dealing with the memory layout. Your [4][4] array is row major because you've used the convention established by C multi-dimensional arrays to match your linear array.

The second issue is a matter of convention for how you interpret matrices in your program. glUniformMatrix4fv is used to set a shader parameter. Whether your transform is computed for a row vector or column vector transform is a matter of how you use the matrix in your shader code. Because you say you need to use column vectors, I assume your shader code is using the matrix A and a column vector x to compute x' = A x.

I would argue that the documentation of glUniformMatrix is confusing. The description of the transpose parameter is a really roundabout way of just saying that the matrix is transposed or it isn't. OpenGL itself is just transporting that data to your shader, whether you want to transpose it or not is a matter of convention you should establish for your program.

This link has some good further discussion: http://steve.hollasch.net/cgindex/math/matrix/column-vec.html

I think that the existing answers here are very unhelpful, and I can see from the comments that people are left feeling confused after reading them, so here is another way of looking at this situation.

As a programmer, if I want to store an array in memory, I cannot store a rectangular grid of numbers, because computer memory doesn't work like that, I have to store the numbers in a linear sequence.

Lets say I have a 2x2 matrix and I initialize it in my code like this:

const matrix = [a, b, c, d];

I can successfully use this matrix in other parts of my code provided I know what each of the array elements represents.

The OpenGL specification defines what each index position represents, and this is all you need to know to construct an array and pass it to OpenGL and have it do what you expect.

The row or column major issue only comes into play when I want to write my matrix in a document that describes my code, because mathematicians write matrixes as rectangular grids of numbers. However this is just a convention, a way of writing things down, and has no impact on the code I write or the arrangement of numbers in memory on my computer. You could easily re-write these mathematics papers using some other notation, and it would work just as well.

For the array above, I have two options for writing this array in my documentation as a rectangular grid:

|a b|  OR  |a c|
|c d|      |b d|

Whichever way I choose to write my documentation, this will have no impact on my code or the order of the numbers in memory on my computer, it's just documentation.

In order for people reading my documentation to know the order that I stored the values in the linear array in my program, I can specify that this is a column major or row major representation of the array as a matrix. If it is in column major order then I should traverse the columns to get the linear arrangement of numbers. If this is a row major representation then I should traverse the rows to get the linear arrangement of numbers.

In general, writing documentation in row major order makes life easier for programmers, because if I want to translate this matrix

|a b c|
|d e f|
|g h i|

into code, I can write it like this:

const matrix = [
  a, b, c
  d, e, f
  g, h, i
];