I am learning C and I have written the following strcat function:
char * stringcat(const char* s1, const char* s2) {
int length_of_strings = strlen(s1) + strlen(s2);
char s3[length_of_strings + 1]; // add one for \0 at the end
int idx = 0;
for(int i=0; (s3[idx]=s1[i]) != 0; idx++, i++);
for(int i=0; (s3[idx]=s2[i]) != 0; idx++, i++);
s3[idx+1] = '\0';
// s3 is a character array;
// how to get a pointer to a character array?
char * s = s3;
return s;
}
That part that looks odd to me is where I have to "re-assign" the character array to a pointer, otherwise C complains that my return is a memory address. I also tried "casting" the return value to (char *) s3, but that didn't work either.
What is the most common way to do this "conversion"? Is this a common pattern in C programs?
There are many ways to handle this situation, but returning a pointer to stack-allocated memory inside the function isn't one of them (the behavior is undefined; consider this memory untouchable once the function returns).
One approach is to allocate heap memory using malloc inside the function, build the result string, then return the pointer to the newly allocated memory with the understanding that the caller is responsible for freeing the memory.
Here's an example of this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
char *stringcat(const char* s1, const char* s2) {
int i = 0;
int s1_len = strlen(s1);
int s2_len = strlen(s2);
char *result = malloc(s1_len + s2_len + 1);
result[s1_len+s2_len] = '\0';
for (int j = 0; j < s1_len; j++) {
result[i++] = s1[j];
}
for (int j = 0; j < s2_len; j++) {
result[i++] = s2[j];
}
return result;
}
int main(void) {
char *cat = stringcat("hello ", "world");
printf("%s\n", cat); // => hello world
free(cat);
return 0;
}
Another approach is for the caller to handle all of the memory management, which is similar to how strcat behaves:
/* Append SRC on the end of DEST. */
char *
STRCAT (char *dest, const char *src)
{
strcpy (dest + strlen (dest), src);
return dest;
}
man says:
The strcat() function appends the src string to the dest string, overwriting the terminating null byte ('\0') at the end of dest, and then adds a terminating null byte. The strings may not overlap, and the dest string must have enough space for the result. If dest is not large enough, program behavior is unpredictable; buffer overruns are a favorite avenue for attacking secure programs.
The problem isn't converting from array to pointer; that happens all the time implicitly, and it's no big deal. Your problem is you've just returned a pointer to invalid memory. The array you allocated in the function disappears when the function returns, and dereferencing a pointer to that array is undefined behavior (returning the pointer isn't technically illegal, but any good compiler warns you, because a pointer that is never dereferenced is usually pretty useless).
If you want to return a new array with the concatenated string, you must use dynamically allocated memory, e.g. from malloc/calloc; making the array static would also work (it would now be persistent global memory), but it would make your function both non-reentrant and non-threadsafe, so it's usually frowned on.
Your little trick of assigning to a pointer and returning the pointer may have fooled the compiler into thinking you weren't doing anything illegal, but it did nothing to make your code safer.
You might be used to languages with more dynamic memory handling, but your function here won't work because C strings are just a block of local memory which disappears when you return. That means that whatever you write to char s3[] will disappear after the return (the details vary and the memory can sometimes stick around long enough for you to think it worked even when it didn't).
Normally you'd want to allocate the memory before calling the function, and pass it in as a parameter, as in:
void stringcat(const char * first, const char * second, char * dest, const size_t dest_len)
Called like this:
char title[] = "Mr. ";
char last[] = "Jones";
char addressname[sizeof(title) + sizeof(last)];
stringcat(title, last, addressname, sizeof(addressname));
The other way to do it is to allocate the memory in the function using malloc(), and return that, but you have to remember to free it in the code when you're done with it.
Related
I am studying for a Data Structures and Algorithms exam. One of the sample questions related to dynamic memory allocation requires you to create a function that passes a string, which takes it at copies it to a user defined char pointer. The question provides the struct body to start off.
I did something like this:
typedef struct smart_string {
char *word;
int length;
} smart_string;
smart_string* create_smart_string(char *str)
{
smart_string *s = (smart_string*)malloc(sizeof(smart_string));
s->length = strlen(str);
s->word = malloc(s->length);
strcpy(s->word, str);
return s;
}
But the answer was this
typedef struct smart_string {
char *word;
int length;
} smart_string;
smart_string *create_smart_string(char *str)
{
smart_string *s = malloc(sizeof(smart_string));
s->length = strlen(str);
s->word = malloc(sizeof(char) * (s->length + 1));
strcpy(s->word, str);
return s;
}
I went on code:blocks and tested them both to see any major differences. As far as I'm aware, their outputs were the same.
I did my code the way it is because I figured if we were to allocate a specific block of memory to s->word, then it should be the same number of bytes as s ->length, because that's the string we want to copy.
However the correct answer below multiplies sizeof(char) (which is just 1 byte), with s->length + 1. Why the need to add 1 to s->length? What's the importance of multiplying s->length by sizeof(char)? What mistakes did I make in my answer that I should look out for?
sizeof(char) == 1 by definition, so that doesn't matter.
You should not cast the result of malloc: Do I cast the result of malloc?
And your only real difference is that strlen returns the length of the string, not including the terminating NUL ('\0') character, so you need to add + 1 to the size of the buffer as in the solution.
If you copy there the string, the terminating character won't be copied (or worse, it will be copied on some other memory), and therefore, any function that deals with strings (unless you use special safety functions such as strscpy) will run through the buffer and past it since they won't find the end. At that point it is undefined behaviour and everything can happen, even working as expected, but can't rely on that.
The reason it is working as expected is because probably the memory just next to the buffer will be 0 and therefore it is being interpreted as the terminating character.
Your answer is incorrect because it doesn't account for the terminating '\0'-character. In C strings are terminated by 0. That's how their length can be determined. A typical implementation of strlen() would look like
size_t strlen(char const *str)
{
for (char const *p = str; *p; ++p); // as long as p doesn't point to 0 increment p
return p - str; // the length of the string is determined by the distance of
} // the '\0'-character to the beginning of the string.
But both "solutions" are fubar, though. Why would one allocate a structure consisting of an int and a pointer on the free-store ("heap")!? smart_string::length being an int is the other wtf.
#include <stddef.h> // size_t
typedef struct smart_string_tag { // *)
char *word;
size_t length;
} smart_string_t;
#include <assert.h> // assert()
#include <string.h> // strlen(), strcpy()
#include <stdlib.h> // malloc()
smart_string_t create_smart_string(char const *str)
{
assert(str); // make sure str isn't NULL
smart_string_t new_smart_string;
new_smart_string.length = strlen(str);
new_smart_string.word = calloc(new_smart_string.length + 1, sizeof *new_smart_string.word);
if(!new_smart_string.word) {
new_smart_string.length = 0;
return new_smart_string;
}
strcpy(new_smart_string.word, str);
return new_smart_string;
}
*) Understanding C Namespaces
I used this code to print some string,but it does not print any thing.What is the problem?
char* getNotFilledEncryptionParams(void)
{
char* nofilledStr;
char tmp[3];
const char * arr[]= {" P,"," Q,"," A,"," B,"," C,"," R,"," S0,","S1,","S2,","F1,","G1"};
for(i=0;i<11;i++)
{
if(filledParams[i] == 0)
{
strcpy(tmp,arr[i]);
strcat(nofilledStr,tmp);
}
}
return nofilledStr;
}
Usage:
int main(void){
char *remaining;
remaining = getNotFilledEncryptionParams();
printf("\r\n Remaining item:%s",remaining);
}
I think the problem is in const char * arr[] and I changed it,but the problem remains.
You didn't allocate any memory for noFilledStr, so its value is indeterminate and strcat(noFilledStr, tmp) is undefined.
Use malloc to allocate memory and initialize noFilledStr with the returned pointer:
char* noFilledStr = malloc(number_of_bytes);
The strings in arr are char[4], not char[3] (do not forget the null byte!). tmp is too small to hold them, so strcpy(tmp, arr[i]) writes out of bounds.
You are trying to build the string to return in the location pointed to by nofilledStr but this pointer is pointing somewhere as you do not initialize it. You could use a sufficiently large static char[] array if you do not have to deal with multiple threads. Otherwise, use malloc() and require the caller to free() the returned string when he is done with it.
I'm trying to concat two strings, supposing the "dest" string hasn't enough space to add another one, so I'm using dynamic arrays to solve it.
The problem is a mremap_chunk error when trying to compile the code.
I don't know what I'm missing since the realloc call has all the right params place in.
Error:
malloc.c:2869: mremap_chunk: Assertion `((size + offset) & (GLRO (dl_pagesize) - 1)) == 0' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *strcatt(char *s1, char *s2)
{
int a = strlen(s1);
int b = strlen(s2);
int i, size_ab = a+b;
s1 = (char *) realloc (s1, size_ab*sizeof(char));
for(i=0; i<b; i++) {
s1[i+a]=s2[i];
}
s1[size_ab]='\0';
return s1;
}
int main()
{
char s1[]="12345";
char s2[]="qwerty";
strcatt(s1,s2);
printf("%s\n", s1);
return 0;
}
First, you are treating non-heap memory as heap memory, don't do that.
Second you're not including space for the terminator in the calculation.
Here are some more points:
Don't name functions starting with str, that's a reserved name space.
Buffer sizes should be size_t, not int.
Don't cast the return value of malloc() in C.
Use memcpy() to copy blocks of memory when you know the size.
The "right hand side" strings should be const.
Deal with the possibility of allocation error.
I consider it bad practice to scale by sizeof (char), that's always 1.
Here's how I would write it, assuming the same logic:
char * my_strcatt(char *s1, const char *s2)
{
const size_t a = strlen(s1);
const size_t b = strlen(s2);
const size_t size_ab = a + b + 1;
s1 = realloc(s1, size_ab);
memcpy(s1 + a, s2, b + 1);
return s1;
}
You can not realloc or free a memory that is not allocated with a call to malloc or is not NULL.
From section 7.22.3.5. The realloc function in C11 draft
The realloc function deallocates the old object pointed to by ptr and
returns a pointer to a new object that has the size specified by size.
The contents of the new object shall be the same as that of the old
object prior to deallocation, up to the lesser of the new and old
sizes. Any bytes in the new object beyond the size of the old object
have indeterminate values.
So, s1 = (char *) realloc (s1, size_ab*sizeof(char)); is plainly wrong for your inputs (automatic arrays), never do that.
And then there are many more problems which can be fixed with some help from a debugger.
The clang debugger gives a very clear error description:
malloc: error for object 0x7fff6fbb16d6: pointer being realloc'd was not allocated
set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
Both of your arrays are initialized as string literals. Further on, your function tries to modify a string literal by reallocing it, which is wrong by C standard because you can't reallocate what you haven't allocated, and then copying the members of the second string literal to the "object" you intended to modify by misusing realloc() on a string literal.
The code would work if you had dynamically defined a third string in which you would have summed the contents of both:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *mystrcatt(char *s1, char *s2)
{
int a = strlen(s1);
int b = strlen(s2);
int i, size_ab = a+b;
char *s3 = malloc (size_ab*sizeof(char)); //sizeof(char) is always 1
for(i=0; i<a; i++) { //inefficient
(s3[i])=s1[i];
}
for(i=0; i<b; i++) { //inefficient
(s3[i+a])=s2[i];
}
s3[size_ab]='\0';
return s3;
}
int main()
{
char s1[]="12345";
char s2[]="qwerty";
char *s3 = mystrcatt(s1,s2);
printf("%s\n", s3);
free(s3);
return 0;
}
Please, also note that you don't cast the return of malloc() in C.
Have a
typedef struct person {
char name[20]
char surname[20]
} person_t;
I need to create a string like XXXXXX:YYYYYY with the function like
char* personToString(person_t *p). I tried to make it:
char* personToString(person_t* p) {
int n1,n2;
n1=strlen(p->name);
n2=strlen(p->surname);
char *p = (char*) malloc((n1+n2+2)*sizeof(char));
strcat(p,puser->name);
strcat(p,":");
strcat(p,puser->surname);
return p;
}
This give me a reasonable output but I have some errors testing with valgrind! I also think that there is a way more classy to write the function!
When you malloc memory for p the memory will hold garbage values. Strcat will append a string after the null character, but in an uninitialized string will hold random values.
Replace the first strcat with strcpy.
You need to
strcpy(p,puser->name);
not
strcat(p,puser->name);
malloc does not initialize the buffer to zero, so strcat is searching for a null byte in p first and probably not finding one, reading past the end of the buffer and thus crashing.
Instead of one strcpy plus two strcat you can also write one call to sprintf:
sprintf(p, "%s:%s", puser->name, puser->surname);
First you should call string copy, then strcat:
strcat(p,puser->name);
should be:
strcpy(p,puser->name);
because memory allocated with malloc function keeps values garbage, by doing strcat for first you are concatenating after garbage -- it also brings Undefined behaviour in your code.
You can use void* calloc (size_t num, size_t size); instead of malloc(), calloc function initialized allocated memory with 0 (then strcat() no problem).
Also dynamically allocated memory you should deallocate memory block using void free (void* ptr);) explicitly.
This looks good to me,
char* personToString( struct person_t *p )
{
int len = strlen(p->name) + strlen(p->surname) + 2; // holds ':' + NULL
char *str = malloc( len ); // Never cast malloc's return value in C
// Check str for NULL
if( str == NULL )
{
// we are out of memory
// handle errors
return NULL;
}
snprintf( str, len, "%s:%s", p->name, p->surname);
return str;
}
NOTE:
Never cast malloc's return value in C.
Use snprintf when multiple strcat is needed, its elegant.
free the return value str here in caller.
Fixed struct and char variables.
I am having trouble concatenating strings in C, without strcat library function. Here is my code
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int main()
{
char *a1=(char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(a1,"Vivek");
char *b1=(char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(b1,"Ratnavel");
int i;
int len=strlen(a1);
for(i=0;i<strlen(b1);i++)
{
a1[i+len]=b1[i];
}
a1[i+len]='\0';
printf("\n\n A: %s",a1);
return 0;
}
I made corrections to the code. This is working. Now can I do it without strcpy?
Old answer below
You can initialize a string with strcpy, like in your code, or directly when declaring the char array.
char a1[100] = "Vivek";
Other than that, you can do it char-by-char
a1[0] = 'V';
a1[1] = 'i';
// ...
a1[4] = 'k';
a1[5] = '\0';
Or you can write a few lines of code that replace strcpy and make them a function or use directly in your main function.
Old answer
You have
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
a1 [V|i|v|e|k|0|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_]
b1 [R|a|t|n|a|v|e|l|0|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_]
and you want
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
a1 [V|i|v|e|k|R|a|t|n|a|v|e|l|0|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_]
so ...
a1[5] = 'R';
a1[6] = 'a';
// ...
a1[12] = 'l';
a1[13] = '\0';
but with loops and stuff, right? :D
Try this (remember to add missing bits)
for (aindex = 5; aindex < 14; aindex++) {
a1[aindex] = b1[aindex - 5];
}
Now think about the 5 and 14 in the loop above.
What can you replace them with? When you answer this, you have solved the programming problem you have :)
char a1[] = "Vivek";
Will create a char array a1 of size 6. You are trying to stuff it with more characters than it can hold.
If you want to be able to accommodate concatenation "Vivek" and "Ratnavel" you need to have a char array of size atleast 14 (5 + 8 + 1).
In your modified program you are doing:
char *a1=(char*)malloc(100); // 1
a1 = "Vivek"; // 2
1: Will allocate a memory chunk of size 100 bytes, makes a1 point to it.
2: Will make a1 point to the string literal "Vivek". This string literal cannot be modified.
To fix this use strcpy to copy the string into the allocated memory:
char *a1=(char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(a1,"Vivek");
Also the for loop condition i<strlen(b1)-1 will not copy last character from the string, change it to i<strlen(b1)
And
a1[i]='\0';
should be
a1[i + len]='\0';
as the new length of a1 is i+len and you need to have the NUL character at that index.
And don't forget to free your dynamically allocated memory once you are done using it.
You cannot safely write into those arrays, since you have not made sure that enough space is available. If you use malloc() to allocate space, you can't then overwrite the pointer by assigning to string literal. You need to use strcpy() to copy a string into the newly allocated buffers, in that case.
Also, the length of a string in C is computed by the strlen() function, not length() that you're using.
When concatenating, you need to terminate at the proper location, which your code doesn't seem to be doing.
Here's how I would re-implement strcat(), if needed for some reason:
char * my_strcat(char *out, const char *in)
{
char *anchor = out;
size_t olen;
if(out == NULL || in == NULL)
return NULL;
olen = strlen(out);
out += olen;
while(*out++ = *in++)
;
return anchor;
}
Note that this is just as bad as strcat() when it comes to buffer overruns, since it doesn't support limiting the space used in the output, it just assumes that there is enough space available.
Problems:
length isn't a function. strlen is, but you probably shouldn't call it in a loop - b1's length won't change on us, will it? Also, it returns a size_t, which may be the same size as int on your platform but will be unsigned. This can (but usually won't) cause errors, but you should do it right anyway.
a1 only has enough space for the first string, because the compiler doesn't know to allocate extra stack space for the rest of the string since. If you provide an explicit size, like [100], that should be enough for your purposes. If you need robust code that doesn't make assumptions about what is "enough", you should look into malloc and friends, though that may be a lesson for another day.
Your loop stops too early. i < b1_len (assuming you have a variable, b1_len, that was set to the length of b1 before the loop began) would be sufficient - strlen doesn't count the '\0' at the end.
But speaking of counting the '\0' at the end, a slightly more efficient implementation could use sizeof a1 - 1 instead of strlen(a1) in this case, since a1 (and b1) are declared as arrays, not pointers. It's your choice, but remember that sizeof won't work for pointers, so don't get them mixed up.
EDIT: New problems:
char *p = malloc(/*some*/); p = /* something */ is a problem. = with pointers doesn't copy contents, it copies the value, so you're throwing away the old pointer value you got from malloc. To copy the contents of a string into a char * (or a char [] for that matter) you'd need to use strcpy, strncpy, or (my preference) memcpy. (Or just a loop, but that's rather silly. Then again, it may be good practice if you're writing your own strcat.)
Unless you're using C++, I wouldn't cast the return value of malloc, but that's a religious war and we don't need one of those.
If you have strdup, use it. If you don't, here is a working implementation:
char *strdup(const char *c)
{
size_t l = strlen(c);
char *d = malloc(l + 1);
if(d) memcpy(d, c, l + 1);
return d;
}
It is one of the most useful functions not in the C standard library.
You can do it using strcpy() too ;)
char *a = (char *) malloc(100);
char *b = (char *) malloc(100);
strcpy(a, "abc"); // initializes a
strcpy(b, "def"); // and b
strcpy((a + strlen(a)), b); // copy b at end of a
printf("%s\n",a); // will produce: "abcdef"
i think this is an easy one.
#include<stdio.h>
int xstrlen(char *);
void xstrcat(char *,char *,int);
void main()
{
char source[]="Sarker";
char target[30]="Maruf";
int j=xstrlen(target);
xstrcat(target,source,j);
printf("Source String: %s\nTarget String: %s",source,target);
}
int xstrlen(char *s)
{
int len=0;
while(*s!='\0')
{
len++;
s++;
}
return len;
}
void xstrcat(char *t,char *s,int j)
{
while(*t!='\0')
{
*t=*t;
t++;
}
while(*s!='\0')
{
*t=*s;
s++;
t++;
}
}
It is better to factor out your strcat logic to a separate function. If you make use of pointer arithmetic, you don't need the strlen function:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h> /* To completely get rid of this,
implement your our strcpy as well */
static void
my_strcat (char* dest, char* src)
{
while (*dest) ++dest;
while (*src) *(dest++) = *(src++);
*dest = 0;
}
int
main()
{
char* a1 = malloc(100);
char* b1 = malloc(100);
strcpy (a1, "Vivek");
strcpy (b1, " Ratnavel");
my_strcat (a1, b1);
printf ("%s\n", a1); /* => Vivek Ratnavel */
free (a1);
free (b1);
return 0;
}