Problem with free() function in C and memory-leaks - c

I've a problem about deallocating memory using free() in C.
My program generates a random genealogic tree using a matrix. This matrix can be very huge depending on the number of family members. The program seemed to work fine until I decided to generate more than one tree. I noticed that generating about 100 trees causes my 8GB RAM to fill! I'm sure I can make a better code to reduce the demand of memory, but my problem remains.
I use free() to deallocate memory and there's no error. I installed Valgrind to se what's happening and it says that about 100 million byte per tree are definitely lost. This means that free() doesn't work fine. I don't now where is the problem. I link some functions that I think are correlated to the problem.
typedef struct{
int f_id;
char f_name[L_NAMES];
int generations;
int n_members;
type_people *members;
int_mtx *mtx;
}type_family;
The struct above is for the family.
typedef struct temp{
int p_id;
char name[L_NAMES];
char f_name[L_NAMES];
int generation;
int n_sons;
struct temp **sons;
int f_id;
int sex;
int age;
}type_people;
This is for the members.
typedef struct{
int i;
int j;
int **val;
}int_mtx;
And the matrix.
In the main i call the function to initialize the tree:
type_family *family_a;
family_a = malloc(sizeof(type_family));
family_a = init_family_n_gen(family_a, 6);
This is the frist part of init_family_n_gen():
type_family *init_family_n_gen(type_family *family, int n){
...
family->members = malloc(max_people * sizeof(type_people));
family->mtx = mtxcalloc(family->mtx, max_people, max_people - 1);
...
This code is for mtxcalloc that initializes the matrix:
int_mtx *mtxcalloc(int_mtx *mtx, int i, int j){
mtx = malloc(sizeof(int_mtx));
mtx->i = i;
mtx->j = j;
mtx->val = malloc(i * sizeof(int *));
for(int a = 0; a < i; a++){
mtx->val[a] = malloc(j * sizeof(int));
for(int b = 0; b < j; b++){
mtx->val[a][b] = 0;
}
}
return mtx;
}
And to conclude the code to deallocate the family:
void free_family(type_family *family){
for(int m = 0; m < family->n_members; m++){
if(family->members[m].n_sons != 0){
free(family->members[m].sons);
}
}
mtxfree(family->mtx);
free(family->members);
}
And the one to deallocate the matrix:
void mtxfree(int_mtx *mtx){
for(int i = 0; i < mtx->i; i++){
free(mtx->val[i]);
}
free(mtx->val);
free(mtx);
}
Screen capture of Valgrind output
So I call the free_family(family_a) every time i need to regenerate the family but the memory still increases. (In the photo above the number of byte become 1 billion if i regenerate the family for 50 times).
Thanks for the support!
EDITED
I made a minimal reproducible example that emulates my original code. The structs and variables are the same but I changed the functions according to Weather Vane: they are all void and I pass them the double **.
The init_family_n_gen becomes:
void init_family(type_family **f){
type_family *family = malloc(sizeof(type_family));
family->members = malloc(100 * sizeof(type_people));
for(int m = 0; m < 100; m++){
family->members[m].n_sons = 0;
}
mtxcalloc(&family->mtx, 100, 99);
family->mtx->val[0][1] = 7;
family->mtx->val[9][8] = 1;
mtxrealloc(&family->mtx, 5, 4);
*f = family;
}
The main is:
type_family *family_a;
init_family(&family_a);
free_family(&family_a);
The only thing I added is this function(Is the code right?):
void mtxrealloc(int_mtx **mtx, int i, int j){
(*mtx)->i = i;
(*mtx)->j = j;
(*mtx)->val = realloc((*mtx)->val, (*mtx)->i * sizeof(int *));
for(int a = 0; a < (*mtx)->i; a++){
(*mtx)->val[a] = realloc((*mtx)->val[a], (*mtx)->j * sizeof(int));
}
}
I noticed that the problem occours when i use the realloc function and i can't figure why. I link the images of Valgrind with and without the function mtxrealloc. (I see that there is aslo a 48 byte leak...).
Valgrind with realloc
Valgrind without realloc
Thanks again for your support!

This:
init_family(&family_a);
Causes this code from mtxcalloc to execute:
mtx->val = malloc(i * sizeof(int *));
for(int a = 0; a < i; a++){
mtx->val[a] = malloc(j * sizeof(int));
for(int b = 0; b < j; b++){
mtx->val[a][b] = 0;
}
}
, with i, j = 100, 99. That is, you allocate space for 100 pointers, and for each one, you allocate space for 99 ints. These are then accessible via family_a->mtx.
Very shortly thereafter, you make this call:
mtxrealloc(&family->mtx, 5, 4);
, which does this, among other things:
(*mtx)->val = realloc((*mtx)->val, (*mtx)->i * sizeof(int *));
That loses all the pointers (*mtx)->val[5] through (*mtx)->val[99], each of which is the sole pointer to allocated space sufficient for 99 ints. Overall, sufficient space for 9405 ints is leaked before you even perform any computations with the object you are preparing.
It is unclear why you overallocate, just to immediately (attempt to) free the excess, but perhaps that's an artifact of your code simplification. It would be much better to come up with a way to determine how much space you need in advance, and then allocate only that much in the first place. But if you do need to reallocate this particular data, then you need to first free each of the (*mtx)->val[x] that will be lost. Of course, if you were going to reallocate larger, then you would need to allocate / reallocate all of the (*mtx)->val[x].

Related

How do I allocate an array of string in an array of structure

I'm trying to allocate the char** path array in my batiment struct
#ifndef SDL2_BATIMENTS_H
#define SDL2_BATIMENTS_H
typedef struct{
int x;
int y;
}vecteur;
typedef struct{
int numtype; //Détermine quelle representation du batiment (route nor/ route sud...)
char** tabpath; // tableau de chemin d'acces aux images
vecteur size; // Taille du batiment en (x,y)
int habitant;
}batiment;
typedef struct {
vecteur** tuile;
batiment* tabbatiment; //tableau de batiment
}Monde;
Monde* InitBatiment(Monde* monde);
vecteur toGrid(float x,float y);
#endif //SDL2_BATIMENTS_H
I've tried to allocate it like an array[][], at first it seems to be working with no error but everytime i try to access it my program crashes
for(int i=0; i<14;i++)
{
monde->tabbatiment[i].tabpath = malloc(7 * sizeof (char*));
for (int y = 0; y < 7; y++)
monde->tabbatiment[i].tabpath[i] = (char*)malloc(50 * sizeof(char));
}
Ok First of all thank you for your answer, I changed my code to this but everytime my program try to call strcpy it crashes.
I think I still have an allocation problem or a memory leak.
for(int i=0; i<14;i++)
{
monde->tabbatiment[i].tabpath = calloc(10,sizeof(char*));
for(int y = 0; y < 10; y++)
monde->tabbatiment[i].tabpath[i] = calloc(30 ,sizeof(char));
}
FILE *f;
char c;
int numbatiment;
f=fopen("batiment.txt","r");
int x,y,numbat,numtype;
const char path[50];
for(int i =0;i<16;i++)
{
fscanf(f,"%d %d %d %d %s ",&numbat,&x,&y,&numtype,&path);
printf("%s",path);
strcpy(monde->tabbatiment[numbat].tabpath[numtype],path);
monde->tabbatiment[numbat].size.x = x ;
monde->tabbatiment[numbat].size.y=y ;
monde->tabbatiment[numbat].numtype = numtype;
printf("%d %d %d %d %s\n",numbat,monde->tabbatiment[numbat].size.x,monde->tabbatiment[numbat].size.y,monde->tabbatiment[numbat].numtype,monde->tabbatiment[numbat].tabpath[numtype]);
}
fclose(f);
Could you elaborate what you are exactly trying to accomplish with the code? It feels like there is more to it then a simple bug, but more of an implementation issue as a whole.
I cannot replicate your SEGFAULT for what it's worth. I do run into a lot of memory issues in valgrind, all of which could be attributed that you allocate memory in a loop, where you could've easily done it in a linear block (hence why I'm afraid that there might be more to this).
To directly answer your question: allocating memory for a string can go 2 ways: either you allocate enough memory from the start for which you are certain the any string you throw at it will be smaller than the allocated memory. Or you allocate memory on the go based on the length of the string that you are adding to your array.
In both cases you would be looking at a combination of malloc/calloc and strcpy/strncpy (the latter in both having my preference most often). Allocate memory where the string should reside, than copy a local buffered value to the designated memory address.
Anyway, I've refactored your example to this. I have to say: take a GOOD look at how you are using indexes in loops. You are going out of bounds often, which might trigger a SEGFAULT. For monde->tuile for instance you allocate 35 slots, but the next thing you do is loop the tuile index to 44. I've also included some define statements which are good practice over magic numbers.
#define SIZE_BATIMENT 15
#define SIZE_TUILE 34
#define SIZE_TABPATH 8
#define MAX_STRING_LEN 64
Monde *monde = calloc(1, sizeof monde);
monde->tuile = calloc(SIZE_TUILE, sizeof(vecteur *));
for (int i=0 ; i <= SIZE_TUILE ; i++)
{
monde->tuile[i] = (vecteur*)malloc(45 * sizeof(vecteur));
}
// Assign memory to allow MAX_STRING_LEN sizes
monde->tabbatiment = calloc(SIZE_BATIMENT, sizeof(batiment));
for(int i = 0; i <= SIZE_BATIMENT; i++)
{
monde->tabbatiment[i].tabpath = calloc(SIZE_TABPATH, sizeof(char *));
for (int j = 0; j <= SIZE_TABPATH; j++)
{
monde->tabbatiment[i].tabpath[j] = calloc(MAX_STRING_LEN, sizeof(char));
}
}

Segmentation fault (core dumped) [Conway's game of life]

I'm working on a C implementation for Conway's game of life, I have been asked to use the following header:
#ifndef game_of_life_h
#define game_of_life_h
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
// a structure containing a square board for the game and its size
typedef struct gol{
int **board;
size_t size;
} gol;
// dynamically creates a struct gol of size 20 and returns a pointer to it
gol* create_default_gol();
// creates dynamically a struct gol of a specified size and returns a pointer to it.
gol* create_gol(size_t size);
// destroy gol structures
void destroy_gol(gol* g);
// the board of 'g' is set to 'b'. You do not need to check if 'b' has a proper size and values
void set_pattern(gol* g, int** b);
// using rules of the game of life, the function sets next pattern to the g->board
void next_pattern(gol* g);
/* returns sum of all the neighbours of the cell g->board[i][j]. The function is an auxiliary
function and should be used in the following function. */
int neighbour_sum(gol* g, int i, int j);
// prints the current pattern of the g-board on the screen
void print(gol* g);
#endif
I have added the comments to help out with an explanation of what each bit is.
gol.board is a 2-level integer array, containing x and y coordinates, ie board[x][y], each coordinate can either be a 1 (alive) or 0 (dead).
This was all a bit of background information, I'm trying to write my first function create_default_gol() that will return a pointer to a gol instance, with a 20x20 board.
I then attempt to go through each coordinate through the 20x20 board and set it to 0, I am getting a Segmentation fault (core dumped) when running this program.
The below code is my c file containing the core code, and the main() function:
#include "game_of_life.h"
int main()
{
// Create a 20x20 game
gol* g_temp = create_default_gol();
int x,y;
for (x = 0; x < 20; x++)
{
for (y = 0; y < 20; y++)
{
g_temp->board[x][y] = 0;
}
}
free(g_temp);
}
// return a pointer to a 20x20 game of life
gol* create_default_gol()
{
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn) + (sizeof(int) * 20 * 20));
return g_rtn;
}
This is the first feature I'd like to implement, being able to generate a 20x20 board with 0's (dead) state for every coordinate.
Please feel free to criticise my code, I'm looking to determine why I'm getting the segmentation fault, and if I'm allocating memory properly in the create_default_gol() function.
Thanks!
The type int **board; means that board must contain an array of pointers, each of which points to the start of each row. Your existing allocation omits this, and just allocates *g_rtn plus the ints in the board.
The canonical way to allocate your board, supposing that you must stick to the type int **board;, is:
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof *g_rtn);
g_rtn->size = size;
g_rtn->board = malloc(size * sizeof *g_rtn->board);
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(size * sizeof **g_rtn->board);
This code involves a lot of small malloc chunks. You could condense the board rows and columns into a single allocation, but then you also need to set up pointers to the start of each row, because board must be an array of pointers to int.
Another issue with this approach is alignment. It's guaranteed that a malloc result is aligned for any type; however it is possible that int has stricter alignment requirements than int *. My following code assumes that it doesn't; if you want to be portable then you could add in some compile-time checks (or run it and see if it aborts!).
The amount of memory required is the sum of the last two mallocs:
g_rtn->board = malloc( size * size * sizeof **g_rtn->board
+ size * sizeof *g_rtn->board );
Then the first row will start after the end of the row-pointers (a cast is necessary because we are converting int ** to int *, and using void * means we don't have to repeat the word int):
g_rtn->board[0] = (void *) (g_rtn->board + size);
And the other rows each have size ints in them:
for (int i = 1; i < size; ++i)
g_rtn->board[i] = g_rtn->board[i-1] + size;
Note that this is a whole lot more complicated than just using a 1-D array and doing arithmetic for the offsets, but it was stipulated that you must have two levels of indirection to access the board.
Also this is more complicated than the "canonical" version. In this version we are trading code complexity for the benefit of having a reduced number of mallocs. If your program typically only allocates one board, or a small number of boards, then perhaps this trade-off is not worth it and the canonical version would give you fewer headaches.
Finally - it would be possible to allocate both *g_rtn and the board in the single malloc, as you attempted to do in your question. However my advice (based on experience) is that it is simpler to keep the board separate. It makes your code clearer, and your object easier to use and make changes to, if the board is a separate allocation to the game object.
create_default_gol() misses to initialise board, so applying the [] operator to it (in main() ) the program accesses "invaid" memory and with ethis provokes undefined behaviour.
Although enough memory is allocated, the code still needs to make board point to the memory by doing
gol->board = ((char*) gol) + sizeof(*gol);
Update
As pointed out by Matt McNabb's comment board points to an array of pointers to int, so initialisation is more complicate:
gol * g_rtn = malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn) + 20 * sizeof(*gol->board));
g_rtn->board = ((char*) gol) + sizeof(*gol);
for (size_t i = 0; i<20; ++i)
{
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(20 * sizeof(*g_rtn->board[i])
}
Also the code misses to set gol's member size. From what you tell us it is not clear whether it shall hold the nuber of bytes, rows/columns or fields.
Also^2 coding "magic numbers" like 20 is bad habit.
Also^3 create_default_gol does not specify any parameters, which explictily allows any numberm and not none as you might perhaps have expected.
All in all I'd code create_default_gol() like this:
gol * create_default_gol(const size_t rows, const size_t columns)
{
size_t size_rows = rows * sizeof(*g_rtn->board));
size_t size_column = columns * sizeof(**g_rtn->board));
gol * g_rtn = malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn) + size_rows);
g_rtn->board = ((char*) gol) + sizeof(*gol);
if (NULL ! = g_rtn)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i<columns; ++i)
{
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(size_columns); /* TODO: Add error checking here. */
}
g_rtn->size = size_rows * size_columns; /* Or what ever this attribute is meant for. */
}
return g_rtn;
}
gol* create_default_gol()
{
int **a,i;
a = (int**)malloc(20 * sizeof(int *));
for (i = 0; i < 20; i++)
a[i] = (int*)malloc(20 * sizeof(int));
gol* g_rtn = (gol*)malloc(sizeof(*g_rtn));
g_rtn->board = a;
return g_rtn;
}
int main()
{
// Create a 20x20 game
gol* g_temp = create_default_gol();
int x,y;
for (x = 0; x < 20; x++)
{
for (y = 0; y < 20; y++)
{
g_temp->board[x][y] = 10;
}
}
for(x=0;x<20;x++)
free(g_temp->board[x]);
free(g_temp->board);
free(g_temp);
}
main (void)
{
gol* gameOfLife;
gameOfLife = create_default_gol();
free(gameOfLife);
}
gol* create_default_gol()
{
int size = 20;
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof *g_rtn);
g_rtn = malloc(sizeof g_rtn);
g_rtn->size = size;
g_rtn->board = malloc(size * sizeof *g_rtn->board);
int i, b;
for (i = 0; i < size; ++i){
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(sizeof (int) * size);
for(b=0;b<size;b++){
g_rtn->board[i][b] = 0;
}
}
return g_rtn;
}
Alternatively, since you also need to add a create_gol(size_t new_size) of custom size, you could also write it as the following.
main (void)
{
gol* gameOfLife;
gameOfLife = create_default_gol();
free(gameOfLife);
}
gol* create_default_gol()
{
size_t size = 20;
return create_gol(size);
}
gol* create_gol(size_t new_size)
{
gol* g_rtn = malloc(sizeof *g_rtn);
g_rtn = malloc(sizeof g_rtn);
g_rtn->size = new_size;
g_rtn->board = malloc(size * sizeof *g_rtn->board);
int i, b;
for (i = 0; i < size; ++i){
g_rtn->board[i] = malloc(sizeof (int) * size);
for(b=0;b<size;b++){
g_rtn->board[i][b] = 0;
}
}
return g_rtn;
}
Doing this just minimizes the amount of code needed.

Dynamically allocated 2 dimensional array

I am trying to build two dimensional array by dynamically allocating. My question is that is it possible that its first dimension would take 100 values, then second dimension would take variable amount of values depending on my problem? If it is possible then how I would access it? How would I know the second dimension's boundary?
(See the comments in the code)
As a result you'll get an array such like the following:
// Create an array that will contain required variables of the required values
// which will help you to make each row of it's own lenght.
arrOfLengthOfRows[NUMBER_OF_ROWS] = {value_1, value_2, ..., value_theLast};
int **array;
array = malloc(N * sizeof(int *)); // `N` is the number of rows, as on the pic.
/*
if(array == NULL) {
printf("There is not enough memory.\n");
exit (EXIT_FAILURE);
}
*/
// Here we make each row of it's own, individual length.
for(i = 0; i < N; i++) {
array[i] = malloc(arrOfLengthOfRows[i] * sizeof(int));
/*
if(array[i] == NULL) {
printf("There is not enough memory.\n");
exit (EXIT_FAILURE);
}
*/
}
You can use array of 100 pointers:
int *arr[100];
then you can dynamically allocate memory to each of the 100 pointers separately of any size you want, however you have to remember how much memory (for each pointer) you have allocated, you cannot expect C compiler to remember it or tell it to you, i.e. sizeof will not work here.
To access any (allowed, within boundary) location you can simply use 2D array notation e.g. to access 5th location of memory allocated to 20th pointer you can use arr[20][5] or *(arr[20] + 5).
I believe the OP wants a single chunk of memory for the array, and is willing to fix one of the dimensions to get it. I frequently like to do this when coding in C as well.
We all used to be able to do double x[4][]; and the compiler would know what to do. But someone has apparently messed that up - maybe even for a good reason.
The following however still works and allows us to use large chunks of memory instead of having to do a lot of pointer management.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
// double x[4][];
struct foo {
double y[4];
} * x;
void
main(int ac, char * av[])
{
double * dp;
int max_x = 10;
int i;
x = calloc(max_x, sizeof(struct foo));
x[0].y[0] = 0.23;
x[0].y[1] = 0.45;
x[9].y[0] = 1.23;
x[9].y[1] = 1.45;
dp = x[9].y;
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
if (dp[i] > 0)
printf("%f\n", dp[i]);
}
The trick is to declare the fixed dimension in a struct. But keep in mind that the "first" dimension is the dynamic dimension and the "second" one is fixed. And this is the opposite of the old way ...
You will have to track the size of your dynamic dimension on your own - sizeof can't help you with that.
Using anonymous thingies you might even be able to git rid of 'y'.
Using a single pointer:
int *arr = (int *)malloc(r * c * sizeof(int));
/* how to access array elements */
for (i = 0; i < r; i++)
for (j = 0; j < c; j++)
*(arr + i*c + j) = ++count; //count initialized as, int count=0;
Using pointer to a pointer:
int **arr = (int **)malloc(r * sizeof(int *));
for (i=0; i<r; i++)
arr[i] = (int *)malloc(c * sizeof(int));
In this case you can access array elements same as you access statically allocated array.

Segmentation fault when using malloc for 2D array

I create a 2-D array using malloc. When I use printf to print the array element in for loop, everything is fine. But when I want to use printf in main, these is a Segmentation fault: 11.
Could you please tell me what the problem with the following code is?
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void initCache(int **cache, int s, int E){
int i, j;
/* allocate memory to cache */
cache = (int **)malloc(s * sizeof(int *)); //set
for (i = 0; i < s; i++){
cache[i] = (int *)malloc(E * sizeof(int)); //int
for(j = 0; j < E; j++){
cache[i][j] = i + j;
printf("%d\n", cache[i][j]);
}
}
}
main()
{
int **c;
initCache (c, 2, 2);
printf("%d\n", c[1][1]); // <<<<<<<<<< here
}
Since your cache is a 2D array, it's int**. To set it in a function, pass int***, not int**. Otherwise, changes to cache made inside initCache have no effect on the value of c from main().
void initCache(int ***cache, int s, int E) {
int i, j;
/* allocate memory to cache */
*cache = (int **)malloc(s * sizeof(int *)); //set
for (i = 0; i < s; i++) {
(*cache)[i] = (int *)malloc(E * sizeof(int)); //int
for(j = 0; j < E; j++){
(*cache)[i][j] = i + j;
printf("%d\n", (*cache)[i][j]);
}
}
}
Now you can call it like this:
initCache (&c, 2, 2);
You changed a local variable, which won't effect the local variable c in main.
If you want to allocate in the function, why pass a variable? Return it from the function.
int **c = initCache(2, 2);
You could use a return, or else a *** as suggested by others. I'll describe the return method here.
initCache is creating and initializing a suitable array, but it is not returning it. cache is a local variable pointing to the data. There are two ways to make this information available to the calling function. Either return it, or pass in an int*** and use that to record the pointer value.
I suggest this:
int** initCache(int **cache, int s, int E){
....
return cache;
}
main()
{
int **c;
c = initCache (2, 2);
printf("%d\n", c[1][1]); <<<<<<<<<< here
}
====
Finally, it's very important to get in the habit of checking for errors. For example, malloc will return NULL if it has run out of memory. Also, you might accidentally as for a negative amount of memory (if s is negative). Therefore I would do:
cache = (int **)malloc(s * sizeof(int *));
assert(cache);
This will end the program if the malloc fails, and tell you what line has failed. Some people (including me!) would disapprove slightly of using assert like this. But we'd all agree it's better than having no error checking whatsoever!
You might need to #include <assert.h> to make this work.

C Programming weird struct setup

I am trying to build this project and for some reason the program hangs when I run it.
It works fine if i comment out the data cache lines. but it cannot make a call to makeCache for two different caches i dont know why any C experts know. Im new to c.
/*
* main.c
*
* Created on: Sep 16, 2010
* Author: TJ
*/
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
int tag;
int valid;
int LRU;
int offset;
}directoryBlock;
typedef struct{
int setNumber;
directoryBlock blocks[];
}cacheSet;
typedef struct{
int cacheNumber;
cacheSet *sets[];
}cache;
cache* makeCache(cache *makeMe,int numberOfSets, int blocksPerSet);
int main(void)
{
int i = 0;
//cache * temp = makeCache(10,200);
i = 0;
int j = 0;
cache *instructions = malloc(sizeof(cache) + sizeof(cacheSet*));
cache *data = malloc(sizeof(cache) + sizeof(cacheSet*));
makeCache(instructions,20,300);
makeCache(data,20,300);
for(j=0;j < 20;j++)
{
for(i = 0; i < 300;i++)
{
printf("Data From Set %d Block %d, Valid %d, Tag %d, LRU %d, Offset %d\n",j,i
,instructions->sets[j]->blocks[i].valid,instructions->sets[j]->blocks[i].tag
,instructions->sets[j]->blocks[i].LRU,instructions->sets[j]->blocks[i].offset);
}
}
return 0;
}
cache* makeCache(cache *makeMe,int numberOfSets,int blocksPerSet)
{
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
for(j=0; j < numberOfSets;j++)
{
cacheSet *newSet = malloc(sizeof(cacheSet) + sizeof(directoryBlock)*blocksPerSet);
for(i = 0; i < blocksPerSet; i++)
{
directoryBlock temp;
temp.LRU = i*j;
temp.tag = i*j;
temp.offset = i*j;
temp.valid = i;
newSet->blocks[i] = temp;
}
makeMe->sets[j] = newSet;
}
return makeMe;
}
You're not allocating space for the cacheSet array, you have 20 cacheSets so try this with the "20 *" added to your lines:
cache *instructions = malloc(sizeof(cache) + 20 *sizeof(cacheSet*));
cache *data = malloc(sizeof(cache) + 20 * sizeof(cacheSet*));
In your main function you're allocating the memory for your cache. Since you have a function dedicated to creating the cache, it should allocate the memory. That function has the parameters to determine the total memory required. If you do it separately, you're repeating that information and require yourself to remember exactly how to allocate the memory. If the function makeCache does it for you, it will save pain later. Just be sure your documentation notes that the makeCache function allocates memory.
Your cache memory is incorrect, but not as pointed out before. Just sizeof(cache) is the right size. This will make room for the int and the cacheSet **. You should then allocate memory for the cacheSet array in each cache. Then you should allocate memory for each directoryBlock in each cacheSet in the cache.... kittens, cats, sacks, and wives...
So all your allocations should just be Thing *t sizof(Thing);
In psuedocode:
cache *c = malloc(sizeof(cache))
for 0 to number of cacheSets:
cacheSet *s = malloc(sizeof(cacheSet))
for 0 to number of blocks:
block *b = malloc(sizeof(block))
//fill in data
JD

Resources