I need your help, becouse I dont know whether I realy free the allocated memory. I also will be very grateful, if you could advice me some tools for this purpose. Thanks!
P.S You can skip bb_sort and swap functions.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct DArray{
double * array;
int size;
} DArray;
void getArrays(DArray * arrays, int numOfArrays){
int curArraySize, i;
while(numOfArrays >= 0){
printf("Input size of array: "); scanf("%d", &curArraySize);
if(arrays[numOfArrays].array = (double*)malloc((arrays[numOfArrays].size = curArraySize)*sizeof(double))){
for(i = 0; i < arrays[numOfArrays].size; ++i)
arrays[numOfArrays].array[i] = rand()%100;
--numOfArrays;
}
else{
printf("Error, have no enough memory in the system!"); break;
}
}
}
void swap(double * arr, int pos1, int pos2) {
int tmp = arr[pos1];
arr[pos1]=arr[pos2];
arr[pos2]=tmp;
}
double * bb_sort(double * arr, int size){
int i, j, noChanges = 1;
while(1){
for(i = 0;i < size;++i){
for(j = 0;j < size-1;++j){
if(arr[j] < arr[j+1]){
swap(arr, j, j+1);
noChanges = 0;
}
}
if(noChanges) return arr;
noChanges = 1;
}
}
}
int main() {
srand (time (NULL));
int numOfArrays, i, j;
printf("Input number of arrays: "); scanf("%d", &numOfArrays);
DArray arrays[numOfArrays];
getArrays(arrays ,numOfArrays-1);
for(i = 0; i < numOfArrays; ++i){
bb_sort(arrays[i].array, arrays[i].size);
}
for(i = numOfArrays-1; i >= 0; --i){
printf("\nSorted array num#%d\n", i+1);
for(j = 0; j < arrays[i].size; ++j)
printf(" %.1lf ", arrays[i].array[j]);
free(arrays[i].array); <------FREE MEMORY?
printf("\n");
}
printf("Done!");
while(1){
}
return 0;
}
=====================================================================================================
Short Answer:
The OP ask if 'memory is cleaned'. Technically, there is no requirement for the free implementation to CLEAN the memory (e.g, sets the data to zero, or some random data). Most implementation will not CLEAR to memory to save time.
If, by mistake, the code will try to read the data, it will usually find the data is still in memory, potentially modified by the free call, or by other code, which was assigned the freed memory to other tasks.
For security sensitive information (password, credit card numbers, private keys), it is common to ZERO the data, or to fill the region with other pattern, before calling free. It will make it harder/reduce the risk of the data being access by mistakes, bugs or hacking.
Some memory debuggers will fill freed memory with pattern data/guards/etc, to help detect memory problems earlier than later.
Yes it will, since your program created array pointer using malloc function, and it does not manipulate that pointer, according to C99 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999):
7.20.3.2 The free function (p: 313):
The free function causes the space pointed to by ptr to be deallocated, that is, made available for further allocation. If ptr is a null pointer, no action occurs. Otherwise, if the argument does not match a pointer earlier returned by the calloc, malloc, or realloc function, or if the space has been deallocated by a call to free or realloc, the behavior is undefined.
Related
I have a program i made and its running perfectly! the only problem is the free pointers function
this is a link for the full code https://codeshare.io/aVE3n3
The problem is that i success to free the player name pointer, but after the program doesn't let me free the player's pointer.
I'd love to get some help, thanks.
void freeTeam(team* t,int size)
{
int temp;
for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
{
temp = t[j].current_players;
for (int i = 0; i < temp; i++)
{
free(t->players[i].name);
}
free(t->players);
for (int i = 0; i < temp; i++)
{
free(t[i].team_name);
}
free(t[j]);
}
}
The first wrong part is
t->players = (player**)calloc(t->max_players, sizeof(player*));
in initTeam().
t->players has type player* and its element type is player.
In typical environment, player (one pointer and other elements) consume more memory than player* (one pointer), so you won't allocate enough memory here.
It should be
t->players = calloc(t->max_players, sizeof(player));
or
t->players = calloc(t->max_players, sizeof(*t->players));
(note: c - Do I cast the result of malloc? - Stack Overflow)
The second wrong part is the freeTeam function.
free(t->players[i].name); may cause double (or more) free because only t[0] is dealt with.
free(t[i].team_name); may cause double (or more) free and/or out-of-bounds read because the usage of loop is wrong.
free(t[j]); is invalid because structure is not a pointer.
It should be
void freeTeam(team* t,int size)
{
int temp;
for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
{
temp = t[j].current_players;
for (int i = 0; i < temp; i++)
{
free(t[j].players[i].name);
}
free(t[j].players);
free(t[j].team_name);
}
}
after that, t should be freed after freeTeam(t,size); in main().
Additionaly, you should use standard int main(void) in hosted environment instead of void main(), which is illegal in C89 and implementation-defined in C99 or later, unless you have some special reason to use non-standard signature.
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].
I am somewhat new to C programming. I have a doubt regarding dynamic memory allocation. The following is a code in the main program for memory allocation.
double **mat=(double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*n);
mat[0]=(double*)calloc(sizeof(double),n*n);
for(i=1; i<n; i++)
mat[i] = mat[i-1] + n;
mat = create_square_matrix(n);
I want to call the function and create elements in the matrix inside the function. Do I have once again allocation memory inside the function like below or Is there any other method to avoid this tedious memory allocation repetition. Following is the function.
`double** create_square_matrix(int n)
{
int i,j,sum=0;
double **array2=(double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*n);
array2[0]=(double*)calloc(sizeof(double),n*n);
for(i=1; i<n; i++)
array2[i] = array2[i-1] + n;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
for (j = 0; j < n; ++j)
{
sum=sum+j;
array2[i][j]=sum;
}
}
return array2;
}
`
The above function returns the array which is stored in the 'mat' variable. And another question is how do I free the memory of variable 'array2' inside the function after using the return method. I can't free the memory possibly before returning the array. Is there a method to free the memory in the above function.
Your function create_square_matrix allocates memory and then fills it by some values.
Your top piece of code allocates memory, and then calls create_square_matrix which again allocates memory. It is like to mop floors before calling the janitor who also mops floors. You don't need to allocate memory twice. Not only it is unneccessary, in fact it is bad. Since you perform two allocations, the memory from the first one is lost, and there is no way to free it. This is called memory leak. Instead of
double **mat=(double**)malloc(sizeof(double*)*n);
mat[0]=(double*)calloc(sizeof(double),n*n);
for(i=1; i<n; i++)
mat[i] = mat[i-1] + n;
mat = create_square_matrix(n);
you should write
double **mat = create_square_matrix(n);
As mentioned, in C there's no need to cast to/from void*. Also, your calloc is backwards: use N elements for the first argument, sizeof(element) for the second.
I will answer your question, and then suggest a better approach.
You are choosing double ** for your matrix. Even if it weren't square, you know exactly how many pointers and how many doubles you need, and of course how big each type is. So,
double **M = malloc( n * sizeof(double*) + n * m * sizeof(double) );
does the trick, does it not? If sizeof(double*) == sizeof(double) for your machine (probably true), then
double **M = calloc( (1+n) * m, sizeof(double) );
works, too, but less portably. You also get the zeros for free; you'll have trouble finding a machine for which it's not true that double f=0 yields a value for which all bits are zero.
But why define your matrix as an array of pointers? Why not instead define it as an array of doubles?
double *M = calloc( n * m, sizeof(double) );
Better yet, for the past 15 years or so, C has supported variable-length arrays, meaning you can define arrays whose size is determined at runtime. Back in K&R days, you could define an array M[n] unless n was a static constant or enum. If your arrays aren't ginormous -- meaning that for the machine in question they'll fit comfortably on the stack -- you can skip malloc and simply define your matrix by a size determined at runtime.
Even if you can't do that, can typedef one dimension dynamically,
typedef double (x_axis_t)[m];
double x_axis_t *M = calloc( n * sizeof(x_axis_t), sizeof(double) );
which is nice, because then you can access your array as
M[x][y];
Just don't try to use M[x,y], because that's something else altogether.
BTW, since you're new to the game, to use a c99 compiler, the standard command is c99, not cc. See your friendly manual for details. :-)
Using a nice function macro for memory allocation is always a good idea. Unless you have to free memory manually I would leave it to a garbage collector such as libgc. Below is an example. If you don't want to use a garbage collector you can just replace GC_MALLOC with malloc. When you free the array (manually) you must first free the individual rows.
#include <gc/gc.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NEW_ARRAY(ptr, n) (ptr) = GC_MALLOC((n) * sizeof (ptr)[0])
double **SquareMatrix(int n)
{
double **A;
int i, j;
NEW_ARRAY(A, n);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
NEW_ARRAY(A[i], n);
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
A[i][j] = 0.0;
}
}
return A;
}
int main(void)
{
const int n = 5;
double **A;
int i, j;
A = SquareMatrix(n);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
printf("%5.2f ", A[i][j]);
}
putchar('\n');
}
return 0;
}
I am trying to find out the Lagrange's Interpolation with the program. I have solved it using arrays but when using dynamic memory allocation, the program is giving me garbage result.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
#define SIZE 100
int main()
{
float *x,*y;
float value = 0,ask,temp;
int i,j,n;
printf("Enter size");
scanf("%d",&n);
x = (float*)malloc(n*sizeof(float));
y = (float*)malloc(n*sizeof(float));
for(i = 0; i < n;i++)
{
printf("x[%d]: ",i);
scanf("%f",(x+i));
printf("y[%d]: ",i);
scanf("%f",(y+i));
}
printf("Enter value to find");
scanf("%f",&ask); //cin >> ask;
for(i = 0; i < n;i++)
{
temp = 1;
for(j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
if(i != j)
{
temp = temp * (ask-(*(x+i))/(*(x+i)-*(x+j)));
}
}
value = value + temp * *(y+i);
}
printf("%f",value);
}
You need to #include <stdlib.h>, since that is the header that declares functions that perform dynamic memory allocation (malloc(), etc).
You will find, assuming you use a C compiler and not a C++ compiler, that the type conversions on the malloc() calls are not required.
x = (float*)malloc(n*sizeof(float)); /* (float *) is unnecessary */
The problem is that, without stdlib.h, the compiler assumes malloc() returns an int. The type conversion might allow the code to compile without stdlib.h, but the result is subsequent usage of the malloc()d pointer will have undefined behaviour, since the pointer does not necessarily survive the round trip (being converted to int and then back).
If you are using a C++ compiler, then the (float *) type conversion AND #include <stdlib.h> are BOTH required to avoid undefined behaviour.
I need to allocate an N sized array and assign it values, how can I do it without int indexes?
Here is the code I have so far but it doesn't do what I need:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int *array;
int n;
printf("Size of array: ");
scanf("%d", &n);
array = (int*) malloc(n*sizeof(int));
if (array == NULL) printf("Memory Fail");
for(; *array; array++)
{
printf("Store:\n");
scanf("%d", &n);
*array = n;
}
for(; *array; array++)
{
printf("Print: %d\n",*array);
}
free(array);
return 0;
}
thanks
for(; *array; array++); you should remove ; at the end
Number of iterations for this loop is undefined and you are going to lose a pointer
You should do something like this:
int *cur;
for(cur = array; cur < array+n; ++cur)
{
*cur = ...;
}
When you allocate the memory, you have no way to determine, in the memory, where it ends (unless you decide a convention and set a value somewhere, but anyway you would use n) .
In your case you have to use n to limit the array coverage (otherwise it is only limited by your computer capacity, and until it reaches an area where it does not have access: program crash). For instance (be careful not to overwrite n !)
int v;
int x = n;
int *ptr = array;
while (x--)
{
printf("Store:\n");
scanf("%d", &v);
*ptr++ = v;
}
x = n;
ptr = array;
while (x--)
{
printf("Print: %d\n",*ptr++);
}
You are using *array as your condition, which means the for loop should continue unless *array evaluates to false, which is only if *array == 0. You are actually invoking undefined behavior because you allocate array with malloc and are trying to dereference the pointer when the underlying data could be anything, since the data block has been uninitialized.
You still need some type of counter to loop with, in this case you allocated n items.
/* I'm using a C99 construct by declaring variables in the for initializer */
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
/* In your original code you re-assign your counter 'n', don't do that otherwise you lost the size of your array! */
int temp;
printf("Store: \n");
scanf("%d", &temp)
array[i] = temp;
}
/* This is your second loop which prints the items */
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
printf("%d\n", array[i]);
}
Also, do not manipulate the array pointer without keeping a copy of it. You can only do free on the pointer returned by malloc.
Using indexes is the same as manipulating the pointer, your professor is being ridiculous otherwise.
If you have an array int *a; then:
a[0] is equal to *a
a[1] is equal to *(a+1)
a[2] is equal to *(a+2)
So you can go through the array by doing arithmetic on the pointer.