I'm writing my own strcpy due to the fact that the default one in string.h only accept a const char * as a source string to copy from.
I'm trying this very basic prototype (yes, the return isn't meaningful, I'm just trying things):
int copyStrings(char * dest, char * source){
int i=0;
while(source[i]!='\0'){
dest[i]=source[i];
i++;
}
dest[i]='\0';
return 0;
}
and it gives me SIGSEGV, Segmentation Fault error in gdb, at the line dest[i]=source[i], right at the first character. I'm pretty sure dest[i] isn't a string literal, so I should be able to modify it.
What am I doing wrong?
EDIT: here's the calling
int main(){
char * str = (char*)malloc((int)sizeof(double));
char * str2 = (char *)malloc((int)sizeof(int));
str = "hello";
str2 = "hey jude";
copyStrings(str2, str);
free(str);
free(str2);
return 0;
}
This is assigning a string literal to str2 - the very thing that you claim you aren't doing. This is actually the cause of your segfault.
str2 = "hey jude";
It also is causing a memory leak as prior to this, you malloc'd some memory and assigned it to str2 as well. But not enough memory to hold the string. Typically an int is 4 bytes and you need 9 bytes to store that string.
What you want to do is this, which allocates as many bytes as there are in the string, plus an extra one to store the \0 terminating character at the end.
str2 = malloc(strlen("hey jude")+1);
strcpy(str2,"hey jude");
or on some systems you can use POSIX function strdup() which effectively does the job of the above in one handy function call.
str2 = strdup("hey jude");
Let's go at it line by line and see where it goes wrong:
int main(){
char * str = (char*)malloc((int)sizeof(double));
char * str2 = (char *)malloc((int)sizeof(int));
str = "hello";
str2 = "hey jude";
copyStrings(str2, str);
free(str);
free(str2);
return 0;
}
int main(){ - this is an improper definition of main. Should be int main(int argc, char **argv)
char * str = (char*)malloc((int)sizeof(double)); - defines str, then allocates (probably) 8 bytes of memory and assigns its address to str. malloc takes a size_t argument, so the cast (int)sizeof(double) is incorrect. Also, in C the return value of malloc should never be cast. So this line should be char * str = malloc(sizeof(double));
char * str2 = (char *)malloc((int)sizeof(int)); - all the same problems as the preceding line. Should be char *str2 = malloc(sizeof(int));
str = "hello"; - causes a memory leak, because the memory you JUST ALLOCATED two lines earlier is now irretrievably lost. You've got two options here - either don't allocate the memory when defining str or free it first. Let's do the latter:
free(str);
str = "hello";
str2 = "hey jude"; - same problem, similar solution:
free(str2);
str2 = "hey jude";
copyStrings(str2, str); - here you're telling your routine to copy the constant string "hello" over the top of the constant string "hey jude". This will work fine on some systems, but will blow up on other systems. The question is in the treatment of the constant string "hey jude". If it's stored in modifiable memory the code will work just fine. If it's stored in memory which is marked as being unmodifiable, however, it will blow up. It seems that the latter is the case on your system. To fix this you probably want to go back to the previous line and change it to
str2 = malloc(20);
That's more memory than you'll need, but it will work just fine.
free(str); - you're attempting to free the constant string "hello", which is not dynamically allocated memory. This needed to be done prior to the assignment str = "hello";.
free(str2; - same problem as above. This needed to be done prior to the assignment str2 = "hey jude";.
} - correct
Best of luck.
Related
The following program has no memory leaks. My question is, why does str1 and str2 not have to be passed into free(), even though I malloc'd both strings? Please see two commented locations in the code where I attempted to free str1 and str2, uncommenting that code resulted in an error saying I free'd a non-heap object. But from my understanding, str1 and str2 are objects created by malloc, hence are heap objects. I do not understand this contradiction.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
char* StrCat(char* s1, const char* s2) {
// Removing const from const char* s2
// made no difference on memory leak error message
char *s, *tmp;
s = tmp = malloc(strlen(s1) + strlen(s2) + 1);
strcpy(tmp, s1);
tmp += strlen(s1);
strcpy(tmp, s2);
//free(str1); free(str2); Why not?
printf("%d\n", s[strlen(s)] == '\0'); // Prints 1
return s;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char* str1 = malloc(4 * sizeof (char));
str1 = "abc\n";
char* str2 = malloc(6 * sizeof (char));
str2 = "party\n";
char* new = StrCat(str1, str2);
//free(str1); free(str2); Why not?
printf("%s\n", new);
free(new); // Required
return 0;
}
Of course you need to free heap objects, whether you pass them to a function or not. Whatever is returned by malloc() must eventually be free()d, regardless of how you will use it.
Your problem is as follows:
The following line:
char* str1 = malloc(4 * sizeof (char));
allocates memory for 4 characters and stores a reference to it in str1.
The following line:
str1 = "abc\n";
forgets whatever memory str1 was pointing to, (thus causing a memory leak,) and makes str1 point to a new location, in your program's static data segment. This is memory which was never allocated, and therefore may not be freed.
In order to solve your problem, instead of setting str1 to point to "abc\n" you need to use strcpy() to copy "abc\n" to the allocated memory block which is pointed by str1.
Before doing that, do not forget to increment your 4 and your 6 by 1 each, because strings in C also contain a null-terminating byte, so you need to allocate space for 5 and 7 characters respectively.
I have a const char* string, I want to copy that string character by character to dynamic `char*.
const char *constStr = "Hello world";
char *str = (char*) malloc(strlen(constStr)+1);
while(*constStr){
*str = *constStr;
constStr++;
str++;
}
printf("%s", str);
free(str);
The problem is that previous code just copies each character of constStr to only the first index of the str. I don't know why?
As others have pointed out, you are incrementing str pointer in each iteration, so you always end up printing the end of the string.
You can instead iterate over each character without incrementing the pointer. The following code worked for me:
const char *constStr = "Hello world";
int len = strlen(constStr);
char *str = (char *) malloc(len + 1);
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= len; ++i) {
str[i] = constStr[i];
}
printf("%s", str);
free(str);
Yes you didn't null terminate the string. That was the primary problem. To be more clear, it is not that you didn't nul terminate the string which is the problem but rather your use of them where a pointer to a nul terminated char array is expected is the problem. But even if you did there was significant amount of problems in the code.
You allocated the memory and the casted the return value of malloc which is unnecessary. void* to char* conversion is implicitly done.
malloc might not be able to service the request, it might return a null pointer. It is important to
check for this to prevent later attempts to dereference the null pointer.
Then you started copying - you copied everything except the NUL terminating character. And then you passed it to printf's %s format specifier which expects a pointer to a null terminated char array. This is undefined behavior.
The one position, in the str is uninitialized - beware that accessing uninitialized value may lead to undefined behavior.
Also there is another problem, From standard ยง7.22.3.3
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 a memory management function, or if the space has been deallocated by a call to free or realloc, the behavior is undefined.
Yes so is is the case here? No. when you called free(str) str is not pointing to the dynamically allocated memory returned by the malloc. This is again undefined behavior.
The solution always is to keep a pointer which stores the address of the allocated chunk. The other answers already showed them (without repeating them - both of them provides a good solution).
You can use strdup or strcpy also - even if you don't need them now - get accustomed with them. It helps to know those. And yes strdup is not part of standard, it is a POSIX standard thing.
Example:
const char *constStr = "Hello world";
char *str = malloc(strlen(constStr)+1);
if( !str ){
perror("malloc");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
char *sstr = str;
while(*constStr){
*str = *constStr;
constStr++;
str++;
}
*str = 0;
printf("%s", sstr);
free(sstr);
Here's the "classical" string copy solution:
const char *constStr = "Hello world";
char *str = malloc(strlen(constStr) + 1), *p = str;
/* Do not forget to check if str!=NULL !*/
while((*p++ = *constStr++));
puts(str);
The problem is that previous code just copies each character of
constStr to only the first index of the str. I don't know why?
Use index variable.
Don't forget terminating '\0' because you have a good chance of segmentation fault.
I have been struggling for a few hours with all sorts of C tutorials and books related to pointers but what I really want to know is if it's possible to change a char pointer once it's been created.
This is what I have tried:
char *a = "This is a string";
char *b = "new string";
a[2] = b[1]; // Causes a segment fault
*b[2] = b[1]; // This almost seems like it would work but the compiler throws an error.
So is there any way to change the values inside the strings rather than the pointer addresses?
When you write a "string" in your source code, it gets written directly into the executable because that value needs to be known at compile time (there are tools available to pull software apart and find all the plain text strings in them). When you write char *a = "This is a string", the location of "This is a string" is in the executable, and the location a points to, is in the executable. The data in the executable image is read-only.
What you need to do (as the other answers have pointed out) is create that memory in a location that is not read only--on the heap, or in the stack frame. If you declare a local array, then space is made on the stack for each element of that array, and the string literal (which is stored in the executable) is copied to that space in the stack.
char a[] = "This is a string";
you can also copy that data manually by allocating some memory on the heap, and then using strcpy() to copy a string literal into that space.
char *a = malloc(256);
strcpy(a, "This is a string");
Whenever you allocate space using malloc() remember to call free() when you are finished with it (read: memory leak).
Basically, you have to keep track of where your data is. Whenever you write a string in your source, that string is read only (otherwise you would be potentially changing the behavior of the executable--imagine if you wrote char *a = "hello"; and then changed a[0] to 'c'. Then somewhere else wrote printf("hello");. If you were allowed to change the first character of "hello", and your compiler only stored it once (it should), then printf("hello"); would output cello!)
No, you cannot modify it, as the string can be stored in read-only memory. If you want to modify it, you can use an array instead e.g.
char a[] = "This is a string";
Or alternately, you could allocate memory using malloc e.g.
char *a = malloc(100);
strcpy(a, "This is a string");
free(a); // deallocate memory once you've done
A lot of folks get confused about the difference between char* and char[] in conjunction with string literals in C. When you write:
char *foo = "hello world";
...you are actually pointing foo to a constant block of memory (in fact, what the compiler does with "hello world" in this instance is implementation-dependent.)
Using char[] instead tells the compiler that you want to create an array and fill it with the contents, "hello world". foo is the a pointer to the first index of the char array. They both are char pointers, but only char[] will point to a locally allocated and mutable block of memory.
The memory for a & b is not allocated by you. The compiler is free to choose a read-only memory location to store the characters. So if you try to change it may result in seg fault. So I suggest you to create a character array yourself. Something like: char a[10]; strcpy(a, "Hello");
It seems like your question has been answered but now you might wonder why char *a = "String" is stored in read-only memory. Well, it is actually left undefined by the c99 standard but most compilers choose to it this way for instances like:
printf("Hello, World\n");
c99 standard(pdf) [page 130, section 6.7.8]:
The declaration:
char s[] = "abc", t[3] = "abc";
defines "plain" char array objects s and t whose elements are initialized with character string literals.
This declaration is identical to char
s[] = { 'a', 'b', 'c', '\0' }, t[] = { 'a', 'b', 'c' };
The contents of the arrays are modifiable. On the other hand, the declaration
char *p = "abc";
defines p with type "pointer to char" and initializes it to point to an object with type "array of char" with length 4 whose elements are initialized with a character string literal. If an attempt is made to use p to modify the contents of the array, the behavior is undefined.
You could also use strdup:
The strdup() function returns a pointer to a new string which is a duplicate of the string s.
Memory for the new string is obtained with malloc(3), and can be freed with free(3).
For you example:
char *a = strdup("stack overflow");
All are good answers explaining why you cannot modify string literals because they are placed in read-only memory. However, when push comes to shove, there is a way to do this. Check out this example:
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int take_me_back_to_DOS_times(const void *ptr, size_t len);
int main()
{
const *data = "Bender is always sober.";
printf("Before: %s\n", data);
if (take_me_back_to_DOS_times(data, sizeof(data)) != 0)
perror("Time machine appears to be broken!");
memcpy((char *)data + 17, "drunk!", 6);
printf("After: %s\n", data);
return 0;
}
int take_me_back_to_DOS_times(const void *ptr, size_t len)
{
int pagesize;
unsigned long long pg_off;
void *page;
pagesize = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);
if (pagesize < 0)
return -1;
pg_off = (unsigned long long)ptr % (unsigned long long)pagesize;
page = ((char *)ptr - pg_off);
if (mprotect(page, len + pg_off, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC) == -1)
return -1;
return 0;
}
I have written this as part of my somewhat deeper thoughts on const-correctness, which you might find interesting (I hope :)).
Hope it helps. Good Luck!
You need to copy the string into another, not read-only memory buffer and modify it there. Use strncpy() for copying the string, strlen() for detecting string length, malloc() and free() for dynamically allocating a buffer for the new string.
For example (C++ like pseudocode):
int stringLength = strlen( sourceString );
char* newBuffer = malloc( stringLength + 1 );
// you should check if newBuffer is 0 here to test for memory allocaton failure - omitted
strncpy( newBuffer, sourceString, stringLength );
newBuffer[stringLength] = 0;
// you can now modify the contents of newBuffer freely
free( newBuffer );
newBuffer = 0;
char *a = "stack overflow";
char *b = "new string, it's real";
int d = strlen(a);
b = malloc(d * sizeof(char));
b = strcpy(b,a);
printf("%s %s\n", a, b);
please, can you tell me if I use free in my function the right way?
I checked my code with valgrind and no errors occured.
void strconcat (char **str1, const char *str2) {
unsigned long str1len = strlen(*str1);
unsigned long str2len = strlen(str2);
char *tempStr = malloc(sizeof(char) * (str1len + str2len + 1));
memcpy(tempStr, *str1, str1len);
memcpy(&(tempStr[str1len]), str2, (str2len + 1));
free(*str1);
*str1 = tempStr;
}
In the main-function I'm calling my function this way:
int main() {
char *str1 = malloc(25);
str1 = strcpy(str1, "First part of the string");
char *str2 = malloc(16);
str2 = strcpy(str2, " - second part.");
printf("%s\n", str2);
strconcat(&str1, str2);
printf("%s\n", str1);
free(str1);
free(str2);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Thank you for your help!
Yes, you're using it correctly. In strconcat(), you'll lose the memory originally allocated to str1 when you assign the newly concatenated string to it, so you should free() it before that happens. After you return from that function, you still have two dynamically allocated blocks of memory, so you should free those both two.
Valgrind is generally pretty trustworthy, so you should have some confidence in it, provided that you're running through all the relevant different paths of execution.
Whether what you are doing with your function is a good idea, though, is another thing entirely. If someone passed in a pointer to a string literal then your function would fail catastrophically. There are also some other problems with your code, including that strconcat is a reserved identifier, but for what it does, you're using free() correctly.
After free in void strconcat()function you are assinging malloc'd tempStr variable to *str1, So you not getting any error when you debug with valgrind.
Remove *str1 = tempStr line from function, now compile and run the program your program will get crashed. Because of double free.
EDIT:
You have to free all the memory allocated using malloc. You have to free the memory of str1 before assigning to some other variable to avoid memory leak.
free(*str1) - free for memory allocated to str1 in main() function
free(str1) - free for memory allocated to tempStr in strconcat() function.
free(str2) - free for memory allocated to str2 in main function.
I have been struggling for a few hours with all sorts of C tutorials and books related to pointers but what I really want to know is if it's possible to change a char pointer once it's been created.
This is what I have tried:
char *a = "This is a string";
char *b = "new string";
a[2] = b[1]; // Causes a segment fault
*b[2] = b[1]; // This almost seems like it would work but the compiler throws an error.
So is there any way to change the values inside the strings rather than the pointer addresses?
When you write a "string" in your source code, it gets written directly into the executable because that value needs to be known at compile time (there are tools available to pull software apart and find all the plain text strings in them). When you write char *a = "This is a string", the location of "This is a string" is in the executable, and the location a points to, is in the executable. The data in the executable image is read-only.
What you need to do (as the other answers have pointed out) is create that memory in a location that is not read only--on the heap, or in the stack frame. If you declare a local array, then space is made on the stack for each element of that array, and the string literal (which is stored in the executable) is copied to that space in the stack.
char a[] = "This is a string";
you can also copy that data manually by allocating some memory on the heap, and then using strcpy() to copy a string literal into that space.
char *a = malloc(256);
strcpy(a, "This is a string");
Whenever you allocate space using malloc() remember to call free() when you are finished with it (read: memory leak).
Basically, you have to keep track of where your data is. Whenever you write a string in your source, that string is read only (otherwise you would be potentially changing the behavior of the executable--imagine if you wrote char *a = "hello"; and then changed a[0] to 'c'. Then somewhere else wrote printf("hello");. If you were allowed to change the first character of "hello", and your compiler only stored it once (it should), then printf("hello"); would output cello!)
No, you cannot modify it, as the string can be stored in read-only memory. If you want to modify it, you can use an array instead e.g.
char a[] = "This is a string";
Or alternately, you could allocate memory using malloc e.g.
char *a = malloc(100);
strcpy(a, "This is a string");
free(a); // deallocate memory once you've done
A lot of folks get confused about the difference between char* and char[] in conjunction with string literals in C. When you write:
char *foo = "hello world";
...you are actually pointing foo to a constant block of memory (in fact, what the compiler does with "hello world" in this instance is implementation-dependent.)
Using char[] instead tells the compiler that you want to create an array and fill it with the contents, "hello world". foo is the a pointer to the first index of the char array. They both are char pointers, but only char[] will point to a locally allocated and mutable block of memory.
The memory for a & b is not allocated by you. The compiler is free to choose a read-only memory location to store the characters. So if you try to change it may result in seg fault. So I suggest you to create a character array yourself. Something like: char a[10]; strcpy(a, "Hello");
It seems like your question has been answered but now you might wonder why char *a = "String" is stored in read-only memory. Well, it is actually left undefined by the c99 standard but most compilers choose to it this way for instances like:
printf("Hello, World\n");
c99 standard(pdf) [page 130, section 6.7.8]:
The declaration:
char s[] = "abc", t[3] = "abc";
defines "plain" char array objects s and t whose elements are initialized with character string literals.
This declaration is identical to char
s[] = { 'a', 'b', 'c', '\0' }, t[] = { 'a', 'b', 'c' };
The contents of the arrays are modifiable. On the other hand, the declaration
char *p = "abc";
defines p with type "pointer to char" and initializes it to point to an object with type "array of char" with length 4 whose elements are initialized with a character string literal. If an attempt is made to use p to modify the contents of the array, the behavior is undefined.
You could also use strdup:
The strdup() function returns a pointer to a new string which is a duplicate of the string s.
Memory for the new string is obtained with malloc(3), and can be freed with free(3).
For you example:
char *a = strdup("stack overflow");
All are good answers explaining why you cannot modify string literals because they are placed in read-only memory. However, when push comes to shove, there is a way to do this. Check out this example:
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int take_me_back_to_DOS_times(const void *ptr, size_t len);
int main()
{
const *data = "Bender is always sober.";
printf("Before: %s\n", data);
if (take_me_back_to_DOS_times(data, sizeof(data)) != 0)
perror("Time machine appears to be broken!");
memcpy((char *)data + 17, "drunk!", 6);
printf("After: %s\n", data);
return 0;
}
int take_me_back_to_DOS_times(const void *ptr, size_t len)
{
int pagesize;
unsigned long long pg_off;
void *page;
pagesize = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);
if (pagesize < 0)
return -1;
pg_off = (unsigned long long)ptr % (unsigned long long)pagesize;
page = ((char *)ptr - pg_off);
if (mprotect(page, len + pg_off, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC) == -1)
return -1;
return 0;
}
I have written this as part of my somewhat deeper thoughts on const-correctness, which you might find interesting (I hope :)).
Hope it helps. Good Luck!
You need to copy the string into another, not read-only memory buffer and modify it there. Use strncpy() for copying the string, strlen() for detecting string length, malloc() and free() for dynamically allocating a buffer for the new string.
For example (C++ like pseudocode):
int stringLength = strlen( sourceString );
char* newBuffer = malloc( stringLength + 1 );
// you should check if newBuffer is 0 here to test for memory allocaton failure - omitted
strncpy( newBuffer, sourceString, stringLength );
newBuffer[stringLength] = 0;
// you can now modify the contents of newBuffer freely
free( newBuffer );
newBuffer = 0;
char *a = "stack overflow";
char *b = "new string, it's real";
int d = strlen(a);
b = malloc(d * sizeof(char));
b = strcpy(b,a);
printf("%s %s\n", a, b);