I have been using this code:
char options_string[96];
sprintf(options_string,"%s_G%u", options_string, options.allowed_nucleotide_gap_between_CpN);
which is just writing unsigned integers to a string mixed with some letters.
but with the new version 9 of GCC that I just started using, is warning me:
warning: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases
with argument 3 [-Wrestrict] 1012 |
sprintf(options_string,"%s_G%u", options_string,
options.allowed_nucleotide_gap_between_CpN);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've read that the best way to make a string like this is to use sprintf, as I have: How to convert an int to string in C?
I've re-checked the code, and I'm not using any restrict keywords.
How can I write to this string without the warning?
The code causes undefined behaviour because the same part of a char buffer is used as both input and output for sprintf. The warning is useful information in this case. To be correct you must change the code so there is no overlap between inputs and outputs.
For example you could find the end of the current string and start writing from there. Also it would be wise to guard against buffer overflows in the length of output.
Possible code:
char options_string[96];
// ...assume you omitted some code that writes some valid string
size_t upto = strlen(options_string);
int written = snprintf(options_string + upto, sizeof options_string - upto,
"_G%u", options.allowed_nucleotide_gap_between_CpN);
if ( written < 0 || written + upto >= sizeof options_string )
{
// ...what you want to do if the options don't fit in the buffer
}
A conforming implementation of sprintf could start by writing a zero byte to the destination, then replacing that byte with the first byte of output (if any) and writing a zero after that, then replacing that second zero byte with the next byte of output and writing a third zero, etc. Such an approach would avoid the need to have it take any particular action (such as writing a terminating zero) after processing the last byte. An attempt to use your code with such an implementation, however, would fail since options_string would effectively get cleared before code could read it.
The warning you're receiving is thus an indication that your code may not work as written.
In your case it is better to use the strcat function instead of sprintf, due to the fact that you want to concatenate a string.
Related
Well as said Im using C language and fscanf for this task but it seems to make the program crash each time then its surely that I did something wrong here, I havent dealed a lot with this type of input read so even after reading several topics here I still cant find the right way, I have this array to read the 2 bytes
char p[2];
and this line to read them, of course fopen was called earlier with file pointer fp, I used "rb" as read mode but tried other options too when I noticed this was crashing, Im just saving space and focusing in the trouble itself.
fscanf(fp,"%x%x",p[0],p[1]);
later to convert into decimal I have this line (if its not the EOF that we reached)
v = strtol(p, 0, 10);
Well v is mere integer to store the final value we are seeking. But the program keeps crashing when scanf is called or I think thats the case, Im not compiling to console so its a pitty that I cant output what has been done and what hasnt but in debugger it seems like crashing there
Well I hope you can help me out in this, Im a bit lost regarding this type of read/conversion any clue will help me greatly, thanks =).
PS forgot to add that this is not homework, a friend want to make some file conversion for a game and this code will manipulate the files needed alone, so while I could be using any language or environment for this, I always feel better in C language
char strings in C are really called null-terminated byte strings. That null-terminated part is important, as it means a string of two characters needs space for three characters to include the null-terminator character '\0'. Not having the terminator means string functions will go out of bounds in their search for it, leading to undefined behavior.
Furthermore the "%x" format is to read a heaxadecimal integer number and store it in an int. Mismatching format specifiers and arguments leads to undefined behavior.
Lastly and probably what's causing the crash: The scanf family of function expects pointers as their arguments. Not providing pointers will again lead to undefined behavior.
There are two solutions to the above problems:
Going with code similar to what you already use, first of all you must make space for the terminator in the array. Then you need to read two characters. Lastly you need to add the terminator:
char p[3] = { 0 }; // String for two characters, initialized to zero
// The initialization means that we don't need to explicitly add the terminator
// Read two characters, skipping possible leading white-space
fscanf(fp," %c%c",p[0],p[1]);
// Now convert the string to an integer value
// The string is in base-16 (two hexadecimal characters)
v = strtol(p, 0, 16);
Read the hexadecimal value into an integer directly:
unsigned int v;
fscanf(fp, "%2x", &v); // Read as hexadecimal
The second alternative is what I would recommend. It reads two characters and parses it as a hexadecimal value, and stores the result into the variable v. It's important to note that the value in v is stored in binary! Hexadecimal, decimal or octal are just presentation formats, internally in the computer it will still be stored in binary ones and zeros (which is true for the first alternative as well). To print it as decimal use e.g.
printf("%d\n", v);
You need to pass to fscanf() the address of a the variable(s) to scan into.
Also the conversion specifier need to suite the variable provided. In your case those are chars. x expects an int, to scan into a char use the appropriate length modifiers, two times h here:
fscanf(fp, "%hhx%hhx", &p[0], &p[1]);
strtol() expects a C-string as 1st parameter.
What you pass isn't a C-string, as a C-string ought to be 0-terminated, which p isn't.
To fix this you could do the following:
char p[3];
fscanf(fp, "%x%x", p[0], p[1]);
p[2] = '\0';
long v = strtol(p, 0, 10);
I am studying now C with "C Programming Absolute Beginner's Guide" (3rd Edition) and there was written that all character arrays should have a size equal to the string length + 1 (which is string-termination zero length). But this code:
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
char name[4] = "Givi";
printf("%s\n",name);
return 0;
}
outputs Givi and not Giv. Array size is 4 and in that case it should output Giv, because 4 (string length) + 1 (string-termination zero character length) = 5, and the character array size is only 4.
Why does my code output Givi and not Giv?
I am using MinGW 4.9.2 SEH for compilation.
You are hitting what is considered to be undefined behavior. It's working now, but due to chance, not correctness.
In your case, it's because the memory in your program is probably all zeroed out at the beginning. So even though your string is not terminated properly, it just so happens that the memory right after it is zero, so printf knows when to stop.
+-----------------------+
|G|i|v|i|\0|\0|... |
+-----------------------+
| your | rest of |
| stuff | memory (stack)|
+-----------------------+
Other languages, such as Java, have safeguards against this sort of situations. Languages like C, however, do less hand holding, which, on the one hand, allows more flexibility, but on the other, give you much, much more ways to shoot you in the foot with subtle issues such as this one. In other words, if your code compiles, that doesn't mean it's correct and it won't blow up now, in 5 minutes or in 5 years.
In real life, this is almost never the case, and your string might end up getting stored next to other things, which would always end up getting printed out together with your string. You never want this. Situations like this might lead to crashes, exploits and leaked confidential information.
See the following diagram for an example. Imagine you're working on a web server and the string "secret"--a user's password or key is stored right next to your harmless string:
+-----------------------+
|G|i|v|i|s|e|c|r|e|t |
+-----------------------+
| your | rest of |
| stuff | memory (stack)|
+-----------------------+
Every time you would output what you would think is "Givi", you'd end up printing out the secret string, which is not what you want.
The byte after the last character always has to be 0, otherwise printf would not know when the string is terminanted and would try to access bytes (or chars) while they are not 0.
As Andrei said, apparently it just happened, that the compiler put at least one byte with the value 0 after your string data, so printf recognized the end of the string.
This can vary from compiler to compiler and thus is undefined behaviour.
There could, for instance, be a chance to have printf accessing an address, which your program is not allowed to. This would result in a crash.
In C text strings are stored as zero terminated arrays of characters. This means that the end of a text string is indicated by a special character, a numeric value of zero (0), to indicate the end of the string.
So the array of text characters to be used to store a C text string must include an array element for each of the characters as well as an additional array element for the end of string.
All of the C text string functions (strcpy(), strcmp(), strcat(), etc.) all expect that the end of a text string is indicated by a value of zero. This includes the printf() family of functions that print or output text to the screen or to a file. Since these functions depend on seeing a zero value to terminate the string, one source of errors when using C text strings is copying too many characters due to a missing zero terminator or copying a long text string into a smaller buffer. This type of error is known as a buffer overflow error.
The C compiler will perform some types of adjustments for you automatically. For instance:
char *pText = "four"; // pointer to a text string constant, compiler automatically adds zero to an additional array element for the constant "four"
char text[] = "four"; // compiler creates a array with 5 elements and puts the characters four in the first four array elements, a value of 0 in the fifth
char text[5] = "four"; // programmer creates array of 5 elements, compiler puts the characters four in the first four array elements, a value of 0 in the fifth
In the example you provided a good C compiler should issue at the minimum a warning and probably an error. However it looks like your compiler is truncating the string to the array size and is not adding the additional zero string terminator. And you are getting lucky in that there is a zero value after the end of the string. I suppose there is also the possibility that the C compiler is adding an additional array element anyway but that would seem unlikely.
What your book states is basically right, but there is missing the phrase "at least". The array can very well be larger.
You already stated the reason for the min length requirement. So what does that tell you about the example? It is crap!
What it exhibits is called undefined behaviour (UB) and might result in daemons flying out your nose for the printf() - not the initializer. It is just not covered by the C standard (well ,the standard actually says this is UB), so the compiler (and your libraries) are not expected to behave correctly.
For such cases, no terminator will be appended explicitly, so the string is not properly terminated when passed to `printf()".
Reason this does not produce an error is likely some legacy code which did exploit this to safe some bytes of memory. So, instead of reporting an error that the implicit trailing '\0' terminator does not fit, it simply does not append it. Silently truncating the string literal would also be a bad idea.
The following line:
char name[4] = "Givi";
May give warning like:
string for array of chars is too long
Because the behavior is Undefined, still compiler may pass it. But if you debug, you will see:
name[0] 'G'
name[1] 'i'
name[2] 'V'
name[3] '\0'
And so the output is
Giv
Not Give as you mentioned in the question!
I'm using GCC compiler.
But if you write something like this:
char name[4] = "Giv";
Compiles fine! And output is
Giv
I have written a simple program to calculate length of string in this way.
I know that there are other ways too. But I just want to know why this program is giving this output.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
char str[1];
printf( "%d", printf("%s", gets(str)));
return 0;
}
OUTPUT :
(null)6
Unless you always pass empty strings from the standard input, you are invoking undefined behavior, so the output could be pretty much anything, and it could crash as well. str cannot be a well-formed C string of more than zero characters.
char str[1] allocates storage room for one single character, but that character needs to be the NUL character to satisfy C string constraints. You need to create a character array large enough to hold the string that you're writing with gets.
"(null)6" as the output could mean that gets returned NULL because it failed for some reason or that the stack was corrupted in such a way that the return value was overwritten with zeroes (per the undefined behavior explanation). 6 following "(null)" is expected, as the return value of printf is the number of characters that were printed, and "(null)" is six characters long.
There's several issues with your program.
First off, you're defining a char buffer way too short, a 1 char buffer for a string can only hold one string, the empty one. This is because you need a null at the end of the string to terminate it.
Next, you're using the gets function which is very unsafe, (as your compiler almost certainly warned you about), as it just blindly takes input and copies it into a buffer. As your buffer is 0+terminator characters long, you're going to be automatically overwriting the end of your string into other areas of memory which could and probably does contain important information, such as your rsp (your return pointer). This is the classic method of smashing the stack.
Third, you're passing the output of a printf function to another printf. printf isn't designed for formating strings and returning strings, there are other functions for that. Generally the one you will want to use is sprintf and pass it in a string.
Please read the documentation on this sort of thing, and if you're unsure about any specific thing read up on it before just trying to program it in. You seem confused on the basic usage of many important C functions.
It invokes undefined behavior. In this case you may get any thing. At least str should be of 2 bytes if you are not passing a empty string.
When you declare a variable some space is reserved to store the value.
The reserved space can be a space that was previously used by some other
code and has values. When the variable goes out of scope or is freed
the value is not erased (or it may be, anything goes.) only the programs access
to that variable is revoked.
When you read from an unitialised location you can get anything.
This is undefined behaviour and you are doing that,
Output on gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 is 0
For above program your input is "(null)", So you are getting "(null)6". Here "6" is the output from printf (number of characters successfully printed).
What is the role of 1 and 2 in these snprintf functions? Could anyone please explain it
snprintf(argv[arg++], strlen(pbase) + 2 + strlen("ivlpp"), "%s%ccivlpp", pbase, sep);
snprintf(argv[arg++], strlen(defines_path) + 1, "-F\"%s\"", defines_path);
The role of the +2 is to allow for a terminal null and the embedded character from the %c format, so there is exactly the right amount of space for formatting the first string. but (as 6502 points out), the actual string provided is one space shorter than needed because the strlen("ivlpp") doesn't match the civlpp in the format itself. This means that the last character (the second 'p') will be truncated in the output.
The role of the +1 is also to cause snprintf() to truncate the formatted data. The format string contains 4 literal characters, and you need to allow for the terminal null, so the code should allocate strlen(defines)+5. As it is, the snprintf() truncates the data, leaving off 4 characters.
I'm dubious about whether the code really works reliably...the memory allocation is not shown, but will have to be quite complex - or it will have to over-allocate to ensure that there is no danger of buffer overflow.
Since a comment from the OP says:
I don't know the use of snprintf()
int snprintf(char *restrict s, size_t n, const char *restrict format, ...);
The snprintf() function formats data like printf(), but it writes it to a string (the s in the name) instead of to a file. The first n in the name indicates that the function is told exactly how long the string is, and snprintf() therefore ensures that the output data is null terminated (unless the length is 0). It reports how long the string should have been; if the reported value is longer than the value provided, you know the data got truncated.
So, overall, snprintf() is a relatively safe way of formatting strings, provided you use it correctly. The examples in the question do not demonstrate 'using it correctly'.
One gotcha: if you work on MS Windows, be aware that the MSVC implementation of snprintf() does not exactly follow the C99 standard (and it looks a bit as though MS no longer provides snprintf() at all; only various alternatives such as _snprintf()). I forget the exact deviation, but I think it means that the string is not properly null-terminated in all circumstances when it should be longer than the space provided.
With locally defined arrays, you normally use:
nbytes = snprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), "format...", ...);
With dynamically allocated memory, you normally use:
nbytes = snprintf(dynbuffer, dynbuffsize, "format...", ...);
In both cases, you check whether nbytes contains a non-negative value less than the size argument; if it does, your data is OK; if the value is equal to or larger, then your data got chopped (and you know how much space you needed to allocate).
The C99 standard says:
The snprintf function returns the number of characters that would have been written
had n been sufficiently large, not counting the terminating null character, or a negative
value if an encoding error occurred. Thus, the null-terminated output has been
completely written if and only if the returned value is nonnegative and less than n.
The programmer whose code you are reading doesn't know how to use snprintf properly. The second argument is the buffer size, so it should almost always look like this:
snprintf(buf, sizeof buf, "..." ...);
The above is for situations where buf is an array, not a pointer. In the latter case you have to pass the buffer size along:
snprintf(buf, bufsize, "...", ...);
Computing the buffer size is unneeded.
By the way, since you tagged the question as qt-related. There is a very nice QString class that you should use instead.
At a first look both seem incorrect.
In the first case the correct computation would be path + sep + name + NUL so 2 would seem ok, but for the name the strlen call is using ilvpp while the formatting code is using instead cilvpp that is one char longer.
In the second case the number of chars added is 4 (-L"") so the number to add should be 5 because of the ending NUL.
A comment on one of my answers has left me a little puzzled. When trying to compute how much memory is needed to concat two strings to a new block of memory, it was said that using snprintf was preferred over strlen, as shown below:
size_t length = snprintf(0, 0, "%s%s", str1, str2);
// preferred over:
size_t length = strlen(str1) + strlen(str2);
Can I get some reasoning behind this? What is the advantage, if any, and would one ever see one result differ from the other?
I was the one who said it, and I left out the +1 in my comment which was written quickly and carelessly, so let me explain. My point was merely that you should use the pattern of using the same method to compute the length that will eventually be used to fill the string, rather than using two different methods that could potentially differ in subtle ways.
For example, if you had three strings rather than two, and two or more of them overlapped, it would be possible that strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+strlen(str3)+1 exceeds SIZE_MAX and wraps past zero, resulting in under-allocation and truncation of the output (if snprintf is used) or extremely dangerous memory corruption (if strcpy and strcat are used).
snprintf will return -1 with errno=EOVERFLOW when the resulting string would be longer than INT_MAX, so you're protected. You do need to check the return value before using it though, and add one for the null terminator.
If you only need to determine how big would be the concatenation of the two strings, I don't see any particular reason to prefer snprintf, since the minimum operations to determine the total length of the two strings is what the two strlen calls do. snprintf will almost surely be slower, because it has to check the parameters and parse the format string besides just walking the two strings counting the characters.
... but... it may be an intelligent move to use snprintf if you are in a scenario where you want to concatenate two strings, and have a static, not too big buffer to handle normal cases, but you can fallback to a dynamically allocated buffer in case of big strings, e.g.:
/* static buffer "big enough" for most cases */
char buffer[256];
/* pointer used in the part where work on the string is actually done */
char * outputStr=buffer;
/* try to concatenate, get the length of the resulting string */
int length = snprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), "%s%s", str1, str2);
if(length<0)
{
/* error, panic and death */
}
else if(length>sizeof(buffer)-1)
{
/* buffer wasn't enough, allocate dynamically */
outputStr=malloc(length+1);
if(outputStr==NULL)
{
/* allocation error, death and panic */
}
if(snprintf(outputStr, length, "%s%s", str1, str2)<0)
{
/* error, the world is doomed */
}
}
/* here do whatever you want with outputStr */
if(outputStr!=buffer)
free(outputStr);
One advantage would be that the input strings are only scanned once (inside the snprintf()) instead of twice for the strlen/strcpy solution.
Actually, on rereading this question and the comment on your previous answer, I don't see what the point is in using sprintf() just to calculate the concatenated string length. If you're actually doing the concatenation, my above paragraph applies.
You need to add 1 to the strlen() example. Remember you need to allocate space for nul terminating byte.
So snprintf( ) gives me the size a string would have been. That means I can malloc( ) space for that guy. Hugely useful.
I wanted (but did not find until now) this function of snprintf( ) because I format tons of strings for output later; but I wanted not to have to assign static bufs for the outputs because it's hard to predict how long the outputs will be. So I ended up with a lot of 4096-long char arrays :-(
But now -- using this newly-discovered (to me) snprintf( ) char-counting function, I can malloc( ) output bufs AND sleep at night, both.
Thanks again and apologies to the OP and to Matteo.
EDIT: random, mistaken nonsense removed. Did I say that?
EDIT: Matteo in his comment below is absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong.
From C99:
2 The snprintf function is equivalent to fprintf, except that the output is written into
an array (specified by argument s) rather than to a stream. If n is zero, nothing is written,
and s may be a null pointer. Otherwise, output characters beyond the n-1st are
discarded rather than being written to the array, and a null character is written at the end
of the characters actually written into the array. If copying takes place between objects
that overlap, the behavior is undefined.
Returns
3 The snprintf function returns the number of characters that would have been written
had n been sufficiently large, not counting the terminating null character, or a neg ative
value if an encoding error occurred. Thus, the null-terminated output has been
completely written if and only if the returned value is nonnegative and less than n.
Thank you, Matteo, and I apologize to the OP.
This is great news because it gives a positive answer to a question I'd asked here only a three weeks ago. I can't explain why I didn't read all of the answers, which gave me what I wanted. Awesome!
The "advantage" that I can see here is that strlen(NULL) might cause a segmentation fault, while (at least glibc's) snprintf() handles NULL parameters without failing.
Hence, with glibc-snprintf() you don't need to check whether one of the strings is NULL, although length might be slightly larger than needed, because (at least on my system) printf("%s", NULL); prints "(null)" instead of nothing.
I wouldn't recommend using snprintf() instead of strlen() though. It's just not obvious. A much better solution is a wrapper for strlen() which returns 0 when the argument is NULL:
size_t my_strlen(const char *str)
{
return str ? strlen(str) : 0;
}