There's different coding style with different programmers.
Colleagues and I are working on image data processing and we have 3 different ways.
Colleague1:
int IMAGE_WIDTH=1280;
int IMAGE_HEIGHT=800;
char* colleague1_way() //just allocate when he wants
{
char* mem = malloc(IMAGE_WIDTH*IMAGE_HEIGHT*2);
return mem;
}
int main(void)
{
char* data;
data=colleague1_way();
function1(data); //pass by pointer
function2(data); //pass by pointer
function3(data); //pass by pointer
free(data);
}
Colleague2:
int IMAGE_WIDTH=1280;
int IMAGE_HEIGHT=800;
char* data; //set it as global memory
void colleague2_way()
{
data = malloc(IMAGE_WIDTH*IMAGE_HEIGHT*2);
}
int main(void)
{
colleague2_way();
function1(); //void input, proceed data inside function
function2(); //void input, proceed data inside function
function3(); //void input, proceed data inside function
free(data);
}
Me:
int IMAGE_WIDTH=1280;
int IMAGE_HEIGHT=800;
int main(void)
{
char* data = malloc(IMAGE_WIDTH*IMAGE_HEIGHT*2);
function1(data); //pass by reference
function2(data); //pass by reference
function3(data); //pass by reference
free(data);
}
My idea is
I could see the allocated memory clearly, and free it at the end of main().
function1~3 might be in another cpp file, so it's easy to handle.
Anyone could give me a comment and is there any better way?
Also, if it's in C++, any good ways?
I dont know the specifics of why you want heap memory but stack is faster. Your sample code makes your program seem small so i would do something like:
#define IMAGE_WIDTH 1280
#define IMAGE_HEIGHT 800
#define PIXEL_DEPTH 2
int main(void)
{
char data[IMAGE_WIDTH][IMAGE_HEIGHT][PIXEL_DEPTH] = {0};
function1(data); //pass by reference
function2(data); //pass by reference
function3(data); //pass by reference
}
This is like your solution but you dont have to worry about freeing memory and you get faster writes. Like you said different programmers have different solutions, thats just my two cents.
First lets talk about "Colleague2" way: char pointer data declared globally
You should avoid declaring variables globally until it is really needed. Here, I don't see any reason of declaring data pointer globally. Since it is visible to other functions it's scope is increased and can be accidentally modified by other part of code which is not desirable.
"Colleague1" and "Me" way:
In these both ways, one good thing is the scope of data pointer is limited. But in the "Colleague1" way the memory allocation operation is part of another function, which is actually good because you can do the memory allocation error handling in one place (which is missing in all the 3 ways). Consider a case where you need to allocate same size of memory in some other part of the code then you just need to call this function instead of again doing malloc. If you are sure that you will not need to allocate the same size of memory again then in that case "Me" way is also okay. So, out of these two ways follow whichever way is appropriate but make sure to do the required error handling.
Related
Just out of curiosity, I'm trying to understand how pointers to functions work in C.
In order to associate a function to a typedef, I've declared a pointer in it, and then I've stored the address of the desired function in there.
This is what I was able to achieve:
typedef struct
{
void (*get)(char*, int);
char string[10];
} password;
int main()
{
password userPassword;
userPassword.get = &hiddenStringInput;
userPassword.get(userPassword.string, 10);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
While this does actually work perfectly, I'd like for "userPassword.get" to be a shortcut that when used calls the hiddenStringInput function and fills in the requested arguments (in this case, an array of characters and a integer).
Basically, since I'm always going to use userPassword.get in association with the arguments "userPassword.string" and "10", I'm trying to figure out a way to somehow store those parameters in the pointer that points to the hiddenString function. Is it even possible?
The way I see this usually done is by providing a "dispatch" function:
void get(password * pw) {
pw->get(pw->string, 10);
}
Then, after setting userPassword.get to your function, you call just:
get(userPassword);
Obviously this adds some boilerplate code when done for multiple functions. Allows to implement further funny "class like" things, though.
You can do this in Clang using the "Blocks" language extension. As commented, there have been attempts to standardize this (and it's not been received with hostility or anything), but they're moving slowly.
Translated to use Blocks, your example could look like this:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <Block.h>
typedef void (^GetPw)(int); // notice how Block pointer types are used
typedef void (*GetPw_Impl)(char*, int); // the same way as function pointer types
typedef struct
{
GetPw get;
char string[10];
} password;
extern void hiddenStringInput(char*, int);
extern void setPw(char dst [static 10], char * src);
GetPw bindPw (GetPw_Impl get_impl, char * pw)
{
return Block_copy (^ (int key) {
get_impl (pw, key);
});
}
int main()
{
password userPassword;
setPw(userPassword.string, "secret");
userPassword.get = bindPw(hiddenStringInput, userPassword.string);
userPassword.get(10);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
There are some subtleties to the way arrays are captured that might confuse this case; the example captures the password by normal pointer and assumes userPassword is responsible for ownership of it, separately from the block.
Since a block captures values, it needs to provide and release dynamic storage for the copies of the captured values that will be created when the block itself is copied out of the scope where it was created; this is done with the Block_copy and Block_release functions.
Block types (syntactically function pointers, but using ^ instead of *) are just pointers - there's no way to access the underlying block entity, just like basic C functions.
This is the Clang API - standardization would change this slightly, and will probably reduce the requirement for dynamic memory allocation to copy a block around (but the Clang API reflects how these are currently most commonly used).
So, I've just realized that I can write functions directly inside of structs
typedef struct
{
char string[10];
void get(void)
{
hiddenStringInput(string, 10);
return;
}
void set(const char* newPassword)
{
strcpy(string, newPassword);
return;
}
void show(void)
{
printf("%s", string);
return;
}
} password;
Now I can just call userPassword.get(), userPassword.show() and userPassword.set("something"), and what happens is exactly what the label says. Are there any reasons I shouldn't do this? This looks like it could come pretty handy.
EDIT: So this is only possible in C++. I didn't realize I'm using a C++ compiler and by attempting to do random stuff I came up with this solution. So this isn't really what I was looking for.
I'm about to debug someone else's code and I stumbled across a certain 'way' of handling with global arrays which I consider deeply bad, but the one who first used it swears to it.
I need to find arguments against it.
Here is the code written simplified (this is not the original code, just an abstracted version)
So my question: which arguments would you bring against (or maybe some code which brings down this method) this?
int test(int i, int v, int type, int** t)
{
static int *teeest;
int result = 0;
switch(type)
{
case (1):
{
int testarr[i];
teeest = testarr;
}
break;
case (2):
result = teeest[i];
break;
case (3):
teeest[i] = v;
break;
}
if (t != NULL)
{
*t = teeest;
}
return result;
}
int main()
{
int *te = (int*)1;
test(5, 0, 1, &te);
printf("%p\n", te);
int i=0;
for(;i<5;i++)
{
test(i, i, 3, NULL);
printf("Value: %d\n", test(i,0,2, NULL));
}
return 0;
}
local variables are dead after the block they declared in, so this code is undefined behavior. Like every accessing random address, it may work, but it also may not work.
Note that if you use malloc instead of int testarr[i], (and worry to free the previous array, and to initialize teeest), it will be correct. the problems of this code have nothing about static pointers.
This is really bad. Just because the pointer is static doesn't mean the data it points to will be around. For example, testarr disappears when the function exits and the returned pointer, if used, might cause dragons to appear.
It seems to me the big downfall of this style is that you are hiding the fact that you are accessing a locally declared array which is on the stack. Then you persist a pointer to your stack which will persist through calls, which will have different stacks each call.
Another thing I was thinking about is that you have hidden from the developer what the data structure is. Indexing an array is a normal operation. Indexing a pointer makes the developer acknowledge it is an array and not a more complex data type. This also adds confusion to bounds checking.
Another thing is, that all disadvantages of global variables apply directly. The code is not reentrant, and hard to make thread-safe (if that's a concern).
I'm pretty new at C programming, and this type of thing keeps popping up. As a simple example, suppose I have a struct http_header with some char pointers:
struct http_header {
char* name;
char* value;
};
I want to fill an http_header where value is the string representation of an int. I "feel" like, semantically, I should be able to write a function that takes in an empty header pointer, a name string, and an int and fills out the header appropriately.
void fill_header(struct http_header *h, char* name, int value)
{
h->name = name;
char *value_str = malloc(100);
sprintf(value_str, "%d", value);
h->value = value_str;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
struct http_header h;
char *name = "Header Name";
int val = 42;
fill_header(&h, name, val);
...
free(h.value);
}
Here, the calling code reads exactly as my intent, but in this case I'm creating the value string dynamically, which means I'd have to free it later. That doesn't smell right to me; it seems like the caller then knows too much about the implementation of fill_header. And in actual implementations it may not be so easy to know what to free: consider filling an array of http_headers where only one of them needed to have its value malloced.
To get around this, I'd have to create the string beforehand:
void fill_header2(struct http_header *h, char* name, char *value_str)
{
h->name = name;
h->value = value_str;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
struct http_header h;
char *name = "Header Name";
int value = 42;
char value_str[100];
sprintf(value_str, "%d", value);
fill_header2(&h, name, value_str);
}
As this pattern continues down the chain of structures with pointers to other structures, I end up doing so much work in top level functions the lower level ones seem hardly worth it. Furthermore, I've essentially sacrificed the "fill a header with an int" idea which I set out to write in the first place. I'm I missing something here? Is there some pattern or design choice that will make my life easier and keep my function calls expressing my intent?
P.S. Thanks to all at Stackoverfow for being the best professor I've ever had.
Well, I would go with the first approach (with a twist), and also provide a destroy function:
struct http_header *make_header(char *name, int value)
{
struct http_header *h = malloc(sizeof *h);
/* ... */
return h;
}
void destroy_header(struct http_header *h)
{
free(h->name);
free(h);
}
This way the caller doesn't have to know anything about http_header.
You might also get away with a version that leaves the main allocation (the struct itself) to the caller and does it's own internal allocation. Then you would have to provide a clear_header which only frees that fill allocated. But this clear_header leaves you with a partially-valid object.
I think your problem is simply that you are programming asymmetrically. You should once and for all decide who is responsible for the string inside your structure. Then you should have two functions, not only one, that should be called something like header_init and header_destroy.
For the init function I'd be a bit more careful. Check for a 0 argument of your pointer, and initialize your DS completely, something like *h = (http_header){ .name = name }. You never know if you or somebody will end up in adding another field to your structure. So by that at least all other fields are initialized with 0.
If you are new at C programming, you might perhaps want to use the Boehm's conservative garbage collector. Boehm's GC works very well in practice, and by using it systematically in your own code you could use GC_malloc instead of malloc and never bother about calling free or GC_free.
Hunting memory leaks in C (or even C++) code is often a headache. There are tools (like valgrind) which can help you, but you could decide to not bother by using Boehm's GC.
Garbage collection (and memory management) is a global property of a program, so if you use Boehm's GC you should decide that early.
The general solution to your problem is that of object ownership, as others have suggested. The simplest solution to your particular problem is, however, to use a char array for value, i.e., char value[12]. 2^32 has 10 decimal digits, +1 for the sign, +1 for the null-terminator.
You should ensure that 1) int is not larger than 32-bits at compile-time, 2) ensure that the value is within some acceptable range (HTTP codes have only 3 digits) before calling sprintf, 3) use snprintf.
So by using a static array you get rid of the ownership problem, AND you use less memory.
I have a dynamic array of structures, so I thought I could store the information about the array in the first structure.
So one attribute will represent the amount of memory allocated for the array and another one representing number of the structures actually stored in the array.
The trouble is, that when I put it inside a function that fills it with these structures and tries to allocate more memory if needed, the original array gets somehow distorted.
Can someone explain why is this and how to get past it?
Here is my code
#define INIT 3
typedef struct point{
int x;
int y;
int c;
int d;
}Point;
Point empty(){
Point p;
p.x=1;
p.y=10;
p.c=100;
p.d=1000; //if you put different values it will act differently - weird
return p;
}
void printArray(Point * r){
int i;
int total = r[0].y+1;
for(i=0;i<total;i++){
printf("%2d | P [%2d,%2d][%4d,%4d]\n",i,r[i].x,r[i].y,r[i].c,r[i].d);
}
}
void reallocFunction(Point * r){
r=(Point *) realloc(r,r[0].x*2*sizeof(Point));
r[0].x*=2;
}
void enter(Point* r,int c){
int i;
for(i=1;i<c;i++){
r[r[0].y+1]=empty();
r[0].y++;
if( (r[0].y+2) >= r[0].x ){ /*when the amount of Points is near
*the end of allocated memory.
reallocate the array*/
reallocFunction(r);
}
}
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Point * r=(Point *) malloc ( sizeof ( Point ) * INIT );
r[0]=empty();
r[0].x=INIT; /*so here I store for how many "Points" is there memory
//in r[0].y theres how many Points there are.*/
enter(r,5);
printArray(r);
return (0);
}
Your code does not look clean to me for other reasons, but...
void reallocFunction(Point * r){
r=(Point *) realloc(r,r[0].x*2*sizeof(Point));
r[0].x*=2;
r[0].y++;
}
The problem here is that r in this function is the parameter, hence any modifications to it are lost when the function returns. You need some way to change the caller's version of r. I suggest:
Point * // Note new return type...
reallocFunction(Point * r){
r=(Point *) realloc(r,r[0].x*2*sizeof(Point));
r[0].x*=2;
r[0].y++;
return r; // Note: now we return r back to the caller..
}
Then later:
r = reallocFunction(r);
Now... Another thing to consider is that realloc can fail. A common pattern for realloc that accounts for this is:
Point *reallocFunction(Point * r){
void *new_buffer = realloc(r, r[0].x*2*sizeof(Point));
if (!new_buffer)
{
// realloc failed, pass the error up to the caller..
return NULL;
}
r = new_buffer;
r[0].x*=2;
r[0].y++;
return r;
}
This ensures that you don't leak r when the memory allocation fails, and the caller then has to decide what happens when your function returns NULL...
But, some other things I'd point out about this code (I don't mean to sound like I'm nitpicking about things and trying to tear them apart; this is meant as constructive design feedback):
The names of variables and members don't make it very clear what you're doing.
You've got a lot of magic constants. There's no explanation for what they mean or why they exist.
reallocFunction doesn't seem to really make sense. Perhaps the name and interface can be clearer. When do you need to realloc? Why do you double the X member? Why do you increment Y? Can the caller make these decisions instead? I would make that clearer.
Similarly it's not clear what enter() is supposed to be doing. Maybe the names could be clearer.
It's a good thing to do your allocations and manipulation of member variables in a consistent place, so it's easy to spot (and later, potentially change) how you're supposed to create, destroy and manipulate one of these objects. Here it seems in particular like main() has a lot of knowledge of your structure's internals. That seems bad.
Use of the multiplication operator in parameters to realloc in the way that you do is sometimes a red flag... It's a corner case, but the multiplication can overflow and you can end up shrinking the buffer instead of growing it. This would make you crash and in writing production code it would be important to avoid this for security reasons.
You also do not seem to initialize r[0].y. As far as I understood, you should have a r[0].y=0 somewhere.
Anyway, you using the first element of the array to do something different is definitely a bad idea. It makes your code horribly complex to understand. Just create a new structure, holding the array size, the capacity, and the pointer.
Which is considered better style?
int set_int (int *source) {
*source = 5;
return 0;
}
int main(){
int x;
set_int (&x);
}
OR
int *set_int (void) {
int *temp = NULL;
temp = malloc(sizeof (int));
*temp = 5;
return temp;
}
int main (void) {
int *x = set_int ();
}
Coming for a higher level programming background I gotta say I like the second version more. Any, tips would be very helpful. Still learning C.
Neither.
// "best" style for a function which sets an integer taken by pointer
void set_int(int *p) { *p = 5; }
int i;
set_int(&i);
Or:
// then again, minimise indirection
int an_interesting_int() { return 5; /* well, in real life more work */ }
int i = an_interesting_int();
Just because higher-level programming languages do a lot of allocation under the covers, does not mean that your C code will become easier to write/read/debug if you keep adding more unnecessary allocation :-)
If you do actually need an int allocated with malloc, and to use a pointer to that int, then I'd go with the first one (but bugfixed):
void set_int(int *p) { *p = 5; }
int *x = malloc(sizeof(*x));
if (x == 0) { do something about the error }
set_int(x);
Note that the function set_int is the same either way. It doesn't care where the integer it's setting came from, whether it's on the stack or the heap, who owns it, whether it has existed for a long time or whether it's brand new. So it's flexible. If you then want to also write a function which does two things (allocates something and sets the value) then of course you can, using set_int as a building block, perhaps like this:
int *allocate_and_set_int() {
int *x = malloc(sizeof(*x));
if (x != 0) set_int(x);
return x;
}
In the context of a real app, you can probably think of a better name than allocate_and_set_int...
Some errors:
int main(){
int x*; //should be int* x; or int *x;
set_int(x);
}
Also, you are not allocating any memory in the first code example.
int *x = malloc(sizeof(int));
About the style:
I prefer the first one, because you have less chances of not freeing the memory held by the pointer.
The first one is incorrect (apart from the syntax error) - you're passing an uninitialised pointer to set_int(). The correct call would be:
int main()
{
int x;
set_int(&x);
}
If they're just ints, and it can't fail, then the usual answer would be "neither" - you would usually write that like:
int get_int(void)
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
int x;
x = get_int();
}
If, however, it's a more complicated aggregate type, then the second version is quite common:
struct somestruct *new_somestruct(int p1, const char *p2)
{
struct somestruct *s = malloc(sizeof *s);
if (s)
{
s->x = 0;
s->j = p1;
s->abc = p2;
}
return s;
}
int main()
{
struct somestruct *foo = new_somestruct(10, "Phil Collins");
free(foo);
return 0;
}
This allows struct somestruct * to be an "opaque pointer", where the complete definition of type struct somestruct isn't known to the calling code. The standard library uses this convention - for example, FILE *.
Definitely go with the first version. Notice that this allowed you to omit a dynamic memory allocation, which is SLOW, and may be a source of bugs, if you forget to later free that memory.
Also, if you decide for some reason to use the second style, notice that you don't need to initialize the pointer to NULL. This value will either way be overwritten by whatever malloc() returns. And if you're out of memory, malloc() will return NULL by itself, without your help :-).
So int *temp = malloc(sizeof(int)); is sufficient.
Memory managing rules usually state that the allocator of a memory block should also deallocate it. This is impossible when you return allocated memory. Therefore, the second should be better.
For a more complex type like a struct, you'll usually end up with a function to initialize it and maybe a function to dispose of it. Allocation and deallocate should be done separately, by you.
C gives you the freedom to allocate memory dynamically or statically, and having a function work only with one of the two modes (which would be the case if you had a function that returned dynamically allocated memory) limits you.
typedef struct
{
int x;
float y;
} foo;
void foo_init(foo* object, int x, float y)
{
object->x = x;
object->y = y;
}
int main()
{
foo myFoo;
foo_init(&foo, 1, 3.1416);
}
In the second one you would need a pointer to a pointer for it to work, and in the first you are not using the return value, though you should.
I tend to prefer the first one, in C, but that depends on what you are actually doing, as I doubt you are doing something this simple.
Keep your code as simple as you need to get it done, the KISS principle is still valid.
It is best not to return a piece of allocated memory from a function if somebody does not know how it works they might not deallocate the memory.
The memory deallocation should be the responsibility of the code allocating the memory.
The first is preferred (assuming the simple syntax bugs are fixed) because it is how you simulate an Out Parameter. However, it's only usable where the caller can arrange for all the space to be allocated to write the value into before the call; when the caller lacks that information, you've got to return a pointer to memory (maybe malloced, maybe from a pool, etc.)
What you are asking more generally is how to return values from a function. It's a great question because it's so hard to get right. What you can learn are some rules of thumb that will stop you making horrid code. Then, read good code until you internalize the different patterns.
Here is my advice:
In general any function that returns a new value should do so via its return statement. This applies for structures, obviously, but also arrays, strings, and integers. Since integers are simple types (they fit into one machine word) you can pass them around directly, not with pointers.
Never pass pointers to integers, it's an anti-pattern. Always pass integers by value.
Learn to group functions by type so that you don't have to learn (or explain) every case separately. A good model is a simple OO one: a _new function that creates an opaque struct and returns a pointer to it; a set of functions that take the pointer to that struct and do stuff with it (set properties, do work); a set of functions that return properties of that struct; a destructor that takes a pointer to the struct and frees it. Hey presto, C becomes much nicer like this.
When you do modify arguments (only structs or arrays), stick to conventions, e.g. stdc libraries always copy from right to left; the OO model I explained would always put the structure pointer first.
Avoid modifying more than one argument in one function. Otherwise you get complex interfaces you can't remember and you eventually get wrong.
Return 0 for success, -1 for errors, when the function does something which might go wrong. In some cases you may have to return -1 for errors, 0 or greater for success.
The standard POSIX APIs are a good template but don't use any kind of class pattern.