What is the correct approach to dynamically allocate a struct array and its components in C? I have managed to do something that works,but I am kind of sceptical if it is correct.
I have the following code:
This is my struct array that I need to dynamically allocate:
typedef struct
{
char *wrong;
char *right;
}Dictionary;
This is the function I call when I need to initialise my struct array:
Dictionary *init_Dictionary(int nr_elem)
{
Dictionary *dict;
dict = malloc(nr_elem*sizeof(Dictionary));
for(int i=0; i<nr_elem; i++)
{
char wrong[101],right[101];
scanf("%s%s",wrong,right);
dict[i].wrong = malloc(strlen(wrong)*sizeof(char));
dict[i].right = malloc(strlen(right)*sizeof(char));
strcpy(dict[i].wrong,wrong);
strcpy(dict[i].right,right);
}
return dict;
}
Then in my main function, I have this:
int nr_elem;
scanf("%d",&nr_elem);
Dictionary *dict;
dict = init_Dictionary(nr_elem);
Also,when I finish work with the struct, how do I free the used memory ?
EDIT Thank you all for the quick and indepth answers!
For each allocation you need to allocate one more location to allow for \0 (NULL terminator) at the end of the string.
dict[i].wrong = malloc(strlen(wrong)*sizeof(char) +1 );
dict[i].right = malloc(strlen(right)*sizeof(char) +1);
To free, you first need to free all the pointers right and wrong in the array and then free the main dict array. Optionally, you can NULL the pointers after free.
Dictionary* freeDict(Dictionary *dict, int nr_elem)
{
for (int i=0; i<nr_elem; i++)
{
free(dict->wrong);
free(dict->right);
dict->wrong = NULL;
dict->right = NULL;
}
free (dict);
dict = NULL;
return dict;
}
//To call.
dict = free(dict, nr_elem);
The program design isn't good, you should separate UI from algorithms. Instead of this, you should first take the user input, then store it in 2 strings and pass the strings as parameters to init_Dictionary.
As for the allocation, it is almost correct. But you forgot to allocate space for the null terminator, it should be:
dict[i].wrong = malloc(strlen(wrong)+1);
dict[i].right = malloc(strlen(right)+1);
Multiplying with sizeof(char) isn't meaningful, since the definition of sizeof(char) is always 1 on all systems.
In a production-quality application, you must always check the result of each malloc, then handle errors.
You free memory the same way as you allocated it, but in the opposite order since you need dict itself to be valid until you have deallocated its members:
for(int i=0; i<nr_elem; i++)
{
free(dict[i].wrong);
free(dict[i].right);
}
free(dict);
As a rule of thumb, each call to malloc must be matched with a call to free.
There's a bug in your implementation: strlen(s) does not count the terminating 0-character, so, despite one test may work successfully, this is actually an UB. strdup can do work for you; if you don't have it standard library, simply add 1 when allocating memory for string copies. Or even better: count string length once, then use this value to both allocate enough bytes and copy contents with memcpy.
Otherwise your algorithm is quite useful (provided an array of string pairs is really what you need, with no additional structure like search index or anything).
To deallocate it, add a destructor that performs element-wise deallocation and then frees the whole array:
void destroy(Dictionary *dict, size_t nr_elem) {
for(size_t i = 0; i < nr_elem; ++i) {
free(dict[i].wrong);
free(dict[i].right);
}
free(dict);
}
Related
Recently I was pondering over this question: how to make an easier way to iterate over an array of pointer in C.
If I create an array of string in C, it should look like this right?
int size = 5;
char ** strArr = (char **) malloc(sizeof(char *) * size);
if (strArr == NULL) return;
But the problem is, when you want to iterate over this array for some reason (like printing all values inside it), you have to keep track of its current size, storing in another variable.
That's not a problem, but if you create lots of arrays, you have to keep track of every single one of their sizes inside the code. If you pass this array to another function, you must pass its size as well.
void PrintValues (char ** arr, int size) {
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
printf("%s\n", arr[i]);
}
But when iterating over a string, it's different. You have the '\0' character, which specifies the end of the string. So, you could iterate over a string like this, with not need to keep its size value:
char * str = (char *) malloc(sizeof(char) * 4);
str[0] = 'a';
str[1] = 'b';
str[2] = 'c';
str[3] = '\0';
for (int i = 0; str[i] != '\0'; i++)
printf("%c", str[i]);
printf("\n");
Now my question:
Is it ok or morally right to allocate +1 unit in an array of pointers to maintain its tail as NULL?
char ** strArr = (char **) malloc(sizeof(char *) * (5 +1);
if (strArr == NULL) return;
strArr[0] = PseudoFunc_NewString("Car");
strArr[1] = PseudoFunc_NewString("Car#1");
strArr[2] = PseudoFunc_NewString("Car#2");
strArr[3] = PseudoFunc_NewString("Tree");
strArr[4] = PseudoFunc_NewString("Tree#1");
strArr[5] = NULL; // Stop iteration here as next element is not allocated
Then I could use the NULL pointer to control the iterator:
void PrintValues (char ** arr) {
for (int i = 0; arr[i] != NULL; i++)
printf("%s\n", arr[i]);
}
This would help me to keep the code cleaner, though it would consume more memory as a pointer size is larger than a integer size.
Also, when programming with event-based libraries, like Gtk, the size values would be released from the stack at some point, so I would have to create a pointer to dynamically store the size value for example.
In cases like this, it ok to do this? Or is it considered something bad?
Is this technique only used with char pointers because char type has a size of only 1 byte?
I miss having a foreach iterator in C...
Now my question: Is it ok or morally right to allocate +1 unit in an array of pointers to maintain its tail as NULL?
This is ok, the final NULL is called a sentinel value and using one is somewhat common practice. This is most often used when you don't even know the size of the data for some reason.
It is however, not the best solution, because you have to iterate over all the data to find the size. Solutions that store the size separately are much faster. An arrays of structs for example, containing both size and data in the same place.
Now my question: Is it ok or morally right to allocate +1 unit in an array of pointers to maintain its tail as NULL?
In C this is quite a common pattern, and it has a name. You're simply using a sentinel value.
As long as your list can not contain null pointers normally this is fine. It is a bit error-prone in general however, then again, that's C for you.
It's ok, and is a commonly used pattern.
As an alternative you can use a struct, in there you can create a size variable where you can store the current size of the array, and pass the struct as argument. The advantage is that you don't need to iterate through the entire array to know its size.
Example:
Live demo
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
char **strArr;
int size;
} MyStruct;
void PrintValues(MyStruct arr) //pass the struct as an argument
{
for (int i = 0; i < arr.size; i++) //use the size passed in the struct
printf("%s\n", arr.strArr[i]);
}
int main()
{
// using the variable to extract the size, to avoid silent errors
// also removed the cast for the same reason
char **strArr = malloc(sizeof *strArr * 5);
if (strArr == NULL) return EXIT_FAILURE;
strArr[0] = "Car";
strArr[1] = "Car#1";
strArr[2] = "Car#2";
strArr[3] = "Tree";
strArr[4] = "Tree#1";
MyStruct strt = { strArr, 5 }; // initialize the struct
PrintValues(strt); //voila
free(strArr); // don't forget to free the allacated memory
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
This allows for direct access to an index with error checking:
// here if the array index exists, it will be printed
// otherwise no, allows for O(1) access error free
if(arr.size > 6){
printf("%s\n", arr.strArr[6]);
}
I'm trying to implement the first part of an autocomplete feature that takes in a string, calculates an index for a particular letter, and then allocates another struct pointer at that index. It also stores possible completions of words in a string array. For some reason, the program crashes when I try to access the string array field, and I can't figure out why. How can I fix this?
Thanks
struct table {
struct table *next[26];
char **complete;
int lastIndex;
int size;
};
static struct table Base={{NULL},NULL,0,0};
void insert(const char *string){
int index=string[0]-'a';
if(Base.next[index]==NULL){
Base.next[index]=(struct table*)malloc(sizeof(struct table));
*Base.next[index]=(struct table){{NULL},NULL,0,0};
}
struct table *pointer=Base.next[index];
if(pointer->lastIndex==pointer->size){ //expand complete array
pointer->complete[pointer->lastIndex] = strdup(string); //program crashes here
pointer->lastIndex=pointer->lastIndex+1;
}
}
The crash in this line
pointer->complete[pointer->lastIndex] = strdup(string);
is because pointer->complete is NULL. In other words, you forgot to allocate memory for complete.
How can I fix this?
You must allocate memory. It seems that you want a dynamic sized array of char pointers. So you'll need to use realloc so that you both extend the allocated memory and preserve previous values.
Something like:
char** tmp = realloc(pointer->complete, (pointer->lastIndex + 1) * sizeof(char*));
if (tmp == NULL)
{
// Out of memory
exit(1);
}
pointer->complete = tmp;
// Then you can do your normal code
pointer->complete[pointer->lastIndex] = strdup(string);
Notice: Though it's possible to use realloc every time you insert a string, it may perform rather bad.
So instead of reallocating memory for every new string, it may be better to reallocate a chunk of memory each time you call realloc. Like:
if (pointer->lastIndex == pointer->size)
{
// Need more memory
// - if it's the first time just start with 10 (or another number)
// - else double the size
pointer->size = (pointer->size != 0) ? 2 * pointer->size : 10;
char** tmp = realloc(pointer->complete, (pointer->size) * sizeof(char*));
if (tmp == NULL)
{
// Out of memory
exit(1);
}
pointer->complete = tmp;
}
Here I decided to double the allocated memory when doing realloc. You can of cause use ant approach you like instead, e.g. always add 10 more instead of doubling.
BTW: The name lastIndex seems poor as it's really a nextIndex variable.
A final word on data structure
Your data structur, i.e. struct table seems a bit strange to me. At base-level, you only use table. At the next level you don't use table but only the other variables.
Seems to me that you should split up the struct into two structs like:
struct StringTable {
char **complete;
int lastIndex;
int size;
};
struct table {
struct StringTable strings[26];
};
That would save you both memory and some of the dynamic memory allocation.
You are assuming that
const char * string
will contain only small case alphabets. Dictionaries also have apostrophes
add that case.
My code contains the struct BeforeTriag which is from type Patient** .
here is the structs and it's fields:
typedef struct{
char Id[ID_SIZE];
char Name[NAME_SIZE];
char LastName[NAME_SIZE];
char PhoneNum[PHONE_SIZE];
STATUS Status;
char Address[ADDRESS_SIZE];
}Patient;
Here is my initilization and allocation:
Patient** BeforeTriag = NULL;
int* BeforeTriagSize[1] = { 0 };
BeforeTriag = (Patient**)malloc(sizeof(Patient*));
if (!(BeforeTriag))
{
printf("ERROR!Out of memory!");
exit(1);
}
*BeforeTriag = (Patient*)malloc((PatientArraySize)* sizeof(Patient));
if (!(*BeforeTriag)){
printf("ERROR!Out of memory!");
exit(1);
}
here i'm tring to free each field in the struct:
for (i = 0; i < (*BeforeTriagSize); i++){
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Id);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Name);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->LastName);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Address);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->PhoneNum);
}
free(BeforeTriag);
When I am debugging it crush on the first row of the free id:
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Id);
What should i do to free as proper?
The individual fields within BeforeTriag[i] were not dynamically allocated by themselves, so you can't free them. You need to free the struct as a whole, because that's what was allocated:
for (i = 0; i < (*BeforeTriagSize); i++){
free(BeforeTriag[i]);
}
free(BeforeTriag);
You do not have to do this:
for (i = 0; i < (*BeforeTriagSize); i++){
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Id);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Name);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->LastName);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->Address);
free((BeforeTriag)[i]->PhoneNum);
}
Because they are not dynamically allocated.
But you have to free BeforeTriag[i] inside the loop.
for (i = 0; i < (*BeforeTriagSize); i++){
free(BeforeTriag[i]);
}
free(BeforeTriag);
While #dbush and #RolBrok already pointed out correctly that there's no need to free the individual members, there is another bug in your code:
int* BeforeTriagSize[1] = { 0 };
This line initalizes a int ** to zero. I'm not really sure why you want this variable to be in an array, but anyway, the correct way to declare it would be
int BeforeTriagSize[1] = { 0 };
(If you only need one value for BeforeTriagSize anyway, just declare it as an int!)
Edit:
Another thing you should look closer into is the way you're allocating memory for your structs:
*BeforeTriag = (Patient*)malloc((PatientArraySize)* sizeof(Patient));
With this you're always writing to the same pointer. So when you are allocating the memory for the second struct, you are overwriting the position of the first one, basically causing a memory leak.
Consider something along the line of
BeforeTriag[BeforeTriagSize++] = (Patient*)malloc((PatientArraySize)* sizeof(Patient));
This ensures that you are writing to a new position in your array every time. (Assuming you changed BeforeTriagSize to an int - if you need to hand it over as a pointer to some functions just use the address operator (&))
I'm attempting to make an array of the structure I made called StatusItem, which looks like this:
typedef struct
{
char* name;
char* index;
int optional;
} StatusItem;
Also, as I want this array to be of any size, I am using malloc. So the array is defined as such:
StatusItem* statusItem = NULL;
(its then passed to function which retrieves all the values as follows.)
statusItem = (StatusItem*)malloc(cJSON_GetArraySize(items));
...
for (i = 0 ; i < cJSON_GetArraySize(items) ; i++)
{
strcpy(statusItem[i].name,name->valuestring);
strcpy(statusItem[i].index,index->valuestring);
if(!parseInt(optional->valuestring, &statusItem[i].optional));
{
goto cleanup;
}
}
There's come code that involves the cJSON library in getting the string values of name, index and optional into the variables referenced above, and they are stored in the valuestring field of those variables.
I have checked that everything involving the cJSON library works fine, and returns the correct values, but the program is unable to access or store values in the statusItems array.
Any ideas? I'm almost positive that it involves some misuse of malloc on my part.
1) cJSON_GetArraySize(items) returns an element count - you need the size of the object factored in: malloc(cJSON_GetArraySize(items) * sizeof(StatusItem))
2) a StatusItem structure doesn't have memory for the actual string - only a pointer to a string. You can use strdup() to allocate and copy a string.
You probably want your code to look more like:
statusItem = (StatusItem*)malloc(cJSON_GetArraySize(items) * sizeof(StatusItem));
...
for (i = 0 ; i < cJSON_GetArraySize(items) ; i++)
{
statusItem[i].name = strdup(name->valuestring);
statusItem[i].index = strdup(index->valuestring);
if(!parseInt(optional->valuestring, &statusItem[i].optional));
{
goto cleanup;
}
}
Of course this means that you also have to free the duplicated strings explicitly when you free the array of StatusItem objects:
// to free the statusItem array, and the various strings it refers to:
for (i = 0 ; i < cJSON_GetArraySize(items) ; i++)
{
free(statusItem[i].name);
free(statusItem[i].index);
}
free(statusItem);
Two misuses spotted:
Don't cast the return value of malloc(), it's dangerous and superfluous.
You don't allocate any memory for the members of the structure - you're strcpy()ing to uninitialized pointers, so your program invokes undefined behavior.
Edit: actually three:
malloc(cJSON_GetArraySize(items));
doesn't allocate enough memory since it's not magic and it doesn't know you're reserving sizeof(StatusItem) bytes of memory, thus you have to multiply the allocation size by sizeof(StatusItem), or even better, by sizeof(*statusItem) for safety.
In addition, malloc takes a number of bytes, not elements. The value passed to it must be multiplied by the size of each element.
To avoid having to use strdup() which is a little 'messier' because it leaves the freeing of the memory up to the caller instead of taking care of everything itself, I modified my existing structure as follows:
typedef struct
{
char name[32];
char index[32];
int optional;
} StatusItem;
This allows 32 bytes for the name and index, which should be more than enough. Before, the structures fields were pointing to nothing, which was causing the error when trying to copy to that location. now, there is empty (or junk) memory waiting for the string to be placed in.
This allows for strcpy() to still be used, and allows for an overall cleaner implementation.
i have a simple structure:
typedef struct {
int test;
} struct1_t;
typedef struct {
struct1_t** tests;
} struct2_t;
struct2_t *str
for(i=0;i<1000;i++) {
(str->tests)[i]=(test1_t *) malloc(sizeof(test1_t));
(str->tests)[i]->test = i;
}
How to know exist str->tests)[i] element on not ?
if (str->tests)[i] != NULL
call Segmentation failed :).
Simply put, you can't. There is no way to know the length of an array in C, you have to keep track of it manually as your array changes or grows.
C arrays are really just blocks of memory, so what you really
want to do as add a field to your structs that keeps track of how
much space has been allocated and make sure you initialize
everything to sane values. You also have to be careful when using
pointers of structs containing to pointers to pointers of structs,
since in your example you failed to properly allocate memory for
everything.
Try this:
typedef struct {
int test;
} test_t;
typedef struct {
test_t* tests; /* We only need a regular pointer here */
size_t numtests; /* This is so we know how many tests we allocated */
} mystruct_t;
/* .... Now skip to the actual usage: */
mystruct_t *str;
int i;
str = malloc(sizeof(mystruct_t)); /* Remember to allocate memory for
the container! */
str->numtests = 1000; /* Set our size inside the container and use it! */
/* Now to allocate an array of tests, we only need to allocate
a single chunk of memory whose size is the number of tests
multiplied by the size of each test: */
str->tests = malloc(sizeof(test_t)*str->numtests);
/* Now let's initialize each test: */
for (i=0; i<str->numtests; i++) { /* Notice we use str->numtests again! */
str->tests[i]->test = 1; /* Notice we don't need all the extra
parenthesese. This is due to the operator
precedence of [] and -> */
}
Now when you need to see if a test element exists, you can just see if the
index is within the size of the container:
if (i >= 0 && i < str->numtests) {
str->tests[i]->test = 2; /* This code only runs if the index would exist. */
}
But that means you have to take care to always initialize str->numtests to be
a sane value. For example, with no allocated tests:
mystruct_t *str = malloc(sizeof(mystruct_t));
/* Initialize the container to sane starting values! */
str->tests = NULL;
str->numtests = 0;
And that's how you know if something exists -- you keep track of it inside
the structures you define. That's because C code maps very directly to
assembly language, and C structs and arrays map very directly to bits and bytes
in computer memory, so if you want to maintain meta information like how
many elements are inside your array, you have to make room for that information
and store it yourself.
It is pretty fundamental that you can't do it this way in C. Your struct2_t would need an extra field such as int no_of_tests, which you would update.
In fact to do what your trying to do there, you also need 2 mallocs -
struct2_t str;
str.tests = malloc( 1000 * sizeof(int) );
str.no_of_tests = 1000;
for(i=0;i<1000;i++) {
str.tests[i] = malloc( sizeof(struct1_t) );
str.tests[1]->test = i;
}
There is nothing in the language to do this for you, you need to keep track yourself. A common solution is to make the last pointer in an arbitrary-size array of pointers be a NULL pointer, so you know to stop looping when you hit NULL.
If your compiler supports _msize you can find out the size that you allocated. For example:
if (i < _msize((str->tests)/sizeof(test1_t))
then i is valid and points to an element of the allocated array