This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
strcpy(temp1,temp2);
if I want to copy a string literal to an array, it works well, but if I do it in the opposite way, I get an error:
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
strcpy(temp2,temp1);
The feedback from compiler is "Segmentation fault".
So what's the differences? Is there anyway to copy a string to a string literal?
Thx.
You need to understand the subtle difference between these 2 lines
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
The first one creates a 4 character variable and copies "abc\0" to it.
You can overwrite that if you want to. You can do e.g. temp1[0] = 'x' if you want.
The second one creates a pointer that points to the constant literal "123\0".
You cannot overwrite that, its typically in memory that is declared read only to the OS.
What you have is more complicated than a string literal and what you attempt to do cannot be described as "copying to string literal". Which is good, because copying to a string literal is literally impossible. (Excuse the pun.)
First, what you are successfully doing in the first code quote is copying from a string literal into an array of chars of size 4 (you knew that). You are however doing this with the added detail of copying via a pointer to that string literal (temp2). Also note that what the pointer is pointing to is not a variable which can be edited in any way. It is "just a string which the linker knows about".
In the second code quote you attempt to copy a string (strictly speaking a zero-terminated sequence of chars which is stored in an array, temp1, but not a string literal) to a place where a pointer to char (temp2) points to, but which happens not to be a variable which is legal to write to.
The types of the involved variables allow such an operation basically, but in this case it is forbidden/impossible; which causes the segmentation fault.
Now what IS possible and might be what you actually attempt, is to repoint temp2 to the address at the beginning of temp1. I believe that is what gives you the desired effect:
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
/* Some code, in which temp2 is used with a meaningful
initialisation value, which is represented by "123".
Then, I assume you want to change the pointer, so that it points
to a dynamically determined string, which is stored in a changeable
variable.
To do that: */
temp2=temp1;
/* But make sure to keep the variable, the name you chose makes me worry. */
Note that an array identifier can be used as a pointer to the type of the array entries.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to write code to reverse a string in place (I'm just trying to get better at C programming and pointer manipulation), but I cannot figure out why I am getting a segmentation fault:
#include <string.h>
void reverse(char *s);
int main() {
char* s = "teststring";
reverse(s);
return 0;
}
void reverse(char *s) {
int i, j;
char temp;
for (i=0,j = (strlen(s)-1); i < j; i++, j--) {
temp = *(s+i); //line 1
*(s+i) = *(s+j); //line 2
*(s+j) = temp; //line 3
}
}
It's lines 2 and 3 that are causing the segmentation fault. I understand that there may be better ways to do this, but I am interested in finding out what specifically in my code is causing the segmentation fault.
Update: I have included the calling function as requested.
There's no way to say from just that code. Most likely, you are passing in a pointer that points to invalid memory, non-modifiable memory or some other kind of memory that just can't be processed the way you process it here.
How do you call your function?
Added: You are passing in a pointer to a string literal. String literals are non-modifiable. You can't reverse a string literal.
Pass in a pointer to a modifiable string instead
char s[] = "teststring";
reverse(s);
This has been explained to death here already. "teststring" is a string literal. The string literal itself is a non-modifiable object. In practice compilers might (and will) put it in read-only memory. When you initialize a pointer like that
char *s = "teststring";
the pointer points directly at the beginning of the string literal. Any attempts to modify what s is pointing to are deemed to fail in general case. You can read it, but you can't write into it. For this reason it is highly recommended to point to string literals with pointer-to-const variables only
const char *s = "teststring";
But when you declare your s as
char s[] = "teststring";
you get a completely independent array s located in ordinary modifiable memory, which is just initialized with string literal. This means that that independent modifiable array s will get its initial value copied from the string literal. After that your s array and the string literal continue to exist as completely independent objects. The literal is still non-modifiable, while your s array is modifiable.
Basically, the latter declaration is functionally equivalent to
char s[11];
strcpy(s, "teststring");
You code could be segfaulting for a number of reasons. Here are the ones that come to mind
s is NULL
s points to a const string which is held in read only memory
s is not NULL terminated
I think #2 is the most likely. Can you show us the call site of reverse?
EDIT
Based on your sample #2 is definitely the answer. A string literal in C/C++ is not modifiable. The proper type is actually const char* and not char*. What you need to do is pass a modifiable string into that buffer.
Quick example:
char* pStr = strdup("foobar");
reverse(pStr);
free(pStr);
Are you testing this something like this?
int main() {
char * str = "foobar";
reverse(str);
printf("%s\n", str);
}
This makes str a string literal and you probably won't be able to edit it (segfaults for me). If you define char * str = strdup(foobar) it should work fine (does for me).
Your declaration is completely wrong:
char* s = "teststring";
"teststring" is stored in the code segment, which is read-only, like code. And, s is a pointer to "teststring", at the same time, you're trying to change the value of a read-only memory range. Thus, segmentation fault.
But with:
char s[] = "teststring";
s is initialized with "teststring", which of course is in the code segment, but there is an additional copy operation going on, to the stack in this case.
See Question 1.32 in the C FAQ list:
What is the difference between these initializations?
char a[] = "string literal";
char *p = "string literal";
My program crashes if I try to assign a new value to p[i].
Answer:
A string literal (the formal term for a double-quoted string in C source) can be used in two slightly different ways:
As the initializer for an array of char, as in the declaration of char a[], it specifies the initial values of the characters in that array (and, if necessary, its size).
Anywhere else, it turns into an unnamed, static array of characters, and this unnamed array may be stored in read-only memory, and which therefore cannot necessarily be modified. In an expression context, the array is converted at once to a pointer, as usual (see section 6), so the second declaration initializes p to point to the unnamed array's first element.
Some compilers have a switch controlling whether string literals are writable or not (for compiling old code), and some may have options to cause string literals to be formally treated as arrays of const char (for better error catching).
(emphasis mine)
See also Back to Basics by Joel.
Which compiler and debugger are you using? Using gcc and gdb, I would compile the code with -g flag and then run it in gdb. When it segfaults, I would just do a backtrace (bt command in gdb) and see which is the offending line causing the problem. Additionally, I would just run the code step by step, while "watching" the pointer values in gdb and know where exactly is the problem.
Good luck.
As some of the answers provided above, the string memory is read-only. However, some compilers provide an option to compile with writable strings. E.g. with gcc, 3.x versions supported -fwritable-strings but newer versions don't.
I think strlen can not work since s is not NULL terminated. So the behaviour of your for iteration is not the one you expect.
Since the result of strlen will be superior than s length you will write in memory where you should not be.
In addition s points to a constant strings hold by a read only memory. You can not modify it. Try to init s by using the gets function as it is done in the strlen example
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between char s[] and char *s?
(14 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
char *ch = "Hello, World";//character pointer pointing to a string without declaration.
printf("%s", ch);//printing the string without <i>dereferencing</i> it.
}
I saw an example in a book, with code as given above. I don't understand how a character pointer points to a string without declaring a string first.Also there is no dereference operator used to print the string.
As stated very well by #tryurbest, Why it works with pointers:
When you say char * ch in C, you are allocating a pointer in the memory. When you write char *ch = "Hello, World";, you are creating a string literal in memory and making the pointer point to it. When you create another string literal "new string" and assign it to ch, all you are doing is changing where the pointer points.
On the other hand, for added information, Why it doesn't work with arrays:
When you say char ch1 [] = "Hello, World", you are creating a string literal and putting it in the array during its definition. It is ok to not give a size, as the array calculates it and appends a '\0' to it. You cannot reassign anything to that array without resizing it.
Hope this helps to clarify some things.
"Hello, World" is a string literal or read only memory store in data block. A variable ch is pointer to char, which is initialized with the location of the first character.
That's simply how printf works with a const char* argument. (Your pointer actually points to const data.)
Starting at the memory location denoted by the pointer, it prints character by character until a NUL terminator is reached.
The C standard library string functions all work in this way. Simply put it's how the language models strings.
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to write code to reverse a string in place (I'm just trying to get better at C programming and pointer manipulation), but I cannot figure out why I am getting a segmentation fault:
#include <string.h>
void reverse(char *s);
int main() {
char* s = "teststring";
reverse(s);
return 0;
}
void reverse(char *s) {
int i, j;
char temp;
for (i=0,j = (strlen(s)-1); i < j; i++, j--) {
temp = *(s+i); //line 1
*(s+i) = *(s+j); //line 2
*(s+j) = temp; //line 3
}
}
It's lines 2 and 3 that are causing the segmentation fault. I understand that there may be better ways to do this, but I am interested in finding out what specifically in my code is causing the segmentation fault.
Update: I have included the calling function as requested.
There's no way to say from just that code. Most likely, you are passing in a pointer that points to invalid memory, non-modifiable memory or some other kind of memory that just can't be processed the way you process it here.
How do you call your function?
Added: You are passing in a pointer to a string literal. String literals are non-modifiable. You can't reverse a string literal.
Pass in a pointer to a modifiable string instead
char s[] = "teststring";
reverse(s);
This has been explained to death here already. "teststring" is a string literal. The string literal itself is a non-modifiable object. In practice compilers might (and will) put it in read-only memory. When you initialize a pointer like that
char *s = "teststring";
the pointer points directly at the beginning of the string literal. Any attempts to modify what s is pointing to are deemed to fail in general case. You can read it, but you can't write into it. For this reason it is highly recommended to point to string literals with pointer-to-const variables only
const char *s = "teststring";
But when you declare your s as
char s[] = "teststring";
you get a completely independent array s located in ordinary modifiable memory, which is just initialized with string literal. This means that that independent modifiable array s will get its initial value copied from the string literal. After that your s array and the string literal continue to exist as completely independent objects. The literal is still non-modifiable, while your s array is modifiable.
Basically, the latter declaration is functionally equivalent to
char s[11];
strcpy(s, "teststring");
You code could be segfaulting for a number of reasons. Here are the ones that come to mind
s is NULL
s points to a const string which is held in read only memory
s is not NULL terminated
I think #2 is the most likely. Can you show us the call site of reverse?
EDIT
Based on your sample #2 is definitely the answer. A string literal in C/C++ is not modifiable. The proper type is actually const char* and not char*. What you need to do is pass a modifiable string into that buffer.
Quick example:
char* pStr = strdup("foobar");
reverse(pStr);
free(pStr);
Are you testing this something like this?
int main() {
char * str = "foobar";
reverse(str);
printf("%s\n", str);
}
This makes str a string literal and you probably won't be able to edit it (segfaults for me). If you define char * str = strdup(foobar) it should work fine (does for me).
Your declaration is completely wrong:
char* s = "teststring";
"teststring" is stored in the code segment, which is read-only, like code. And, s is a pointer to "teststring", at the same time, you're trying to change the value of a read-only memory range. Thus, segmentation fault.
But with:
char s[] = "teststring";
s is initialized with "teststring", which of course is in the code segment, but there is an additional copy operation going on, to the stack in this case.
See Question 1.32 in the C FAQ list:
What is the difference between these initializations?
char a[] = "string literal";
char *p = "string literal";
My program crashes if I try to assign a new value to p[i].
Answer:
A string literal (the formal term for a double-quoted string in C source) can be used in two slightly different ways:
As the initializer for an array of char, as in the declaration of char a[], it specifies the initial values of the characters in that array (and, if necessary, its size).
Anywhere else, it turns into an unnamed, static array of characters, and this unnamed array may be stored in read-only memory, and which therefore cannot necessarily be modified. In an expression context, the array is converted at once to a pointer, as usual (see section 6), so the second declaration initializes p to point to the unnamed array's first element.
Some compilers have a switch controlling whether string literals are writable or not (for compiling old code), and some may have options to cause string literals to be formally treated as arrays of const char (for better error catching).
(emphasis mine)
See also Back to Basics by Joel.
Which compiler and debugger are you using? Using gcc and gdb, I would compile the code with -g flag and then run it in gdb. When it segfaults, I would just do a backtrace (bt command in gdb) and see which is the offending line causing the problem. Additionally, I would just run the code step by step, while "watching" the pointer values in gdb and know where exactly is the problem.
Good luck.
As some of the answers provided above, the string memory is read-only. However, some compilers provide an option to compile with writable strings. E.g. with gcc, 3.x versions supported -fwritable-strings but newer versions don't.
I think strlen can not work since s is not NULL terminated. So the behaviour of your for iteration is not the one you expect.
Since the result of strlen will be superior than s length you will write in memory where you should not be.
In addition s points to a constant strings hold by a read only memory. You can not modify it. Try to init s by using the gets function as it is done in the strlen example
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What is the difference between char s[] and char *s in C?
Why is:
char *ptr = "Hello!"
different than:
char ptr[] = "Hello!"
Specifically, I don't see why you can use (*ptr)++ to change the value of 'H' in the array, but not the pointer.
Thanks!
You can (in general) use the expression (*ptr)++ to change the value that ptr points to when ptr is a pointer and not an array (ie., if ptr is declared as char* ptr).
However, in your first example:
char *ptr = "Hello!"
ptr is pointing to a literal string, and literal strings are not permitted to be modified (they may actually be stored in memory area which are not writable, such as ROM or memory pages marked as read-only).
In your second example,
char ptr[] = "Hello!";
The array is declared and the initialization actually copies the data in the string literal into the allocated array memory. That array memory is modifiable, so (*ptr)++ works.
Note: for your second declaration, the ptr identifier itself is an array identifier, not a pointer and is not an 'lvalue' so it can't be modified (even though it converts readily to a pointer in most situations). For example, the expression ++ptr would be invalid. I think this is the point that some other answers are trying to make.
When pointing to a string literal, you should not declare the chars to be modifiable, and some compilers will warn you for this:
char *ptr = "Hello!" /* WRONG, missing const! */
The reason is as noted by others that string literals may be stored in an immutable part of the program's memory.
The correct "annotation" for you is to make sure you have a pointer to constant char:
const char *ptr = "Hello!"
And now you see directly that you can't modify the text stored at the pointer.
Arrays automatically allocate space and they can't be relocated or resized while pointers are explicitly assigned to point to allocated space and can be relocated.
Array names are read only!
If You use a string literal "Hello!", the literal itself becomes an array of 7 characters and gets stored somewhere in a data memory. That memory may be read only.
The statement
char *ptr = "Hello!";
defines a pointer to char and initializes it, by storing the address of the beginning of the literal (that array of 7 characters mentioned earlier) in it. Changing contents of the memory pointed to by ptr is illegal.
The statement
char ptr[] = "Hello!";
defines a char array (char ptr[7]) and initializes it, by copying characters from the literal to the array. The array can be modified.
in C strings are arrays of characters.
A pointer is a variable that contains the memory location of another variable.
An array is a set of ordered data items.
when you put (*ptr)++ you are getting Segmentation Fault with the pointer.
Maybe you are adding 1 to the whole string (with the pointer), instead of adding 1 to the first character of the variable (with the array).
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to write code to reverse a string in place (I'm just trying to get better at C programming and pointer manipulation), but I cannot figure out why I am getting a segmentation fault:
#include <string.h>
void reverse(char *s);
int main() {
char* s = "teststring";
reverse(s);
return 0;
}
void reverse(char *s) {
int i, j;
char temp;
for (i=0,j = (strlen(s)-1); i < j; i++, j--) {
temp = *(s+i); //line 1
*(s+i) = *(s+j); //line 2
*(s+j) = temp; //line 3
}
}
It's lines 2 and 3 that are causing the segmentation fault. I understand that there may be better ways to do this, but I am interested in finding out what specifically in my code is causing the segmentation fault.
Update: I have included the calling function as requested.
There's no way to say from just that code. Most likely, you are passing in a pointer that points to invalid memory, non-modifiable memory or some other kind of memory that just can't be processed the way you process it here.
How do you call your function?
Added: You are passing in a pointer to a string literal. String literals are non-modifiable. You can't reverse a string literal.
Pass in a pointer to a modifiable string instead
char s[] = "teststring";
reverse(s);
This has been explained to death here already. "teststring" is a string literal. The string literal itself is a non-modifiable object. In practice compilers might (and will) put it in read-only memory. When you initialize a pointer like that
char *s = "teststring";
the pointer points directly at the beginning of the string literal. Any attempts to modify what s is pointing to are deemed to fail in general case. You can read it, but you can't write into it. For this reason it is highly recommended to point to string literals with pointer-to-const variables only
const char *s = "teststring";
But when you declare your s as
char s[] = "teststring";
you get a completely independent array s located in ordinary modifiable memory, which is just initialized with string literal. This means that that independent modifiable array s will get its initial value copied from the string literal. After that your s array and the string literal continue to exist as completely independent objects. The literal is still non-modifiable, while your s array is modifiable.
Basically, the latter declaration is functionally equivalent to
char s[11];
strcpy(s, "teststring");
You code could be segfaulting for a number of reasons. Here are the ones that come to mind
s is NULL
s points to a const string which is held in read only memory
s is not NULL terminated
I think #2 is the most likely. Can you show us the call site of reverse?
EDIT
Based on your sample #2 is definitely the answer. A string literal in C/C++ is not modifiable. The proper type is actually const char* and not char*. What you need to do is pass a modifiable string into that buffer.
Quick example:
char* pStr = strdup("foobar");
reverse(pStr);
free(pStr);
Are you testing this something like this?
int main() {
char * str = "foobar";
reverse(str);
printf("%s\n", str);
}
This makes str a string literal and you probably won't be able to edit it (segfaults for me). If you define char * str = strdup(foobar) it should work fine (does for me).
Your declaration is completely wrong:
char* s = "teststring";
"teststring" is stored in the code segment, which is read-only, like code. And, s is a pointer to "teststring", at the same time, you're trying to change the value of a read-only memory range. Thus, segmentation fault.
But with:
char s[] = "teststring";
s is initialized with "teststring", which of course is in the code segment, but there is an additional copy operation going on, to the stack in this case.
See Question 1.32 in the C FAQ list:
What is the difference between these initializations?
char a[] = "string literal";
char *p = "string literal";
My program crashes if I try to assign a new value to p[i].
Answer:
A string literal (the formal term for a double-quoted string in C source) can be used in two slightly different ways:
As the initializer for an array of char, as in the declaration of char a[], it specifies the initial values of the characters in that array (and, if necessary, its size).
Anywhere else, it turns into an unnamed, static array of characters, and this unnamed array may be stored in read-only memory, and which therefore cannot necessarily be modified. In an expression context, the array is converted at once to a pointer, as usual (see section 6), so the second declaration initializes p to point to the unnamed array's first element.
Some compilers have a switch controlling whether string literals are writable or not (for compiling old code), and some may have options to cause string literals to be formally treated as arrays of const char (for better error catching).
(emphasis mine)
See also Back to Basics by Joel.
Which compiler and debugger are you using? Using gcc and gdb, I would compile the code with -g flag and then run it in gdb. When it segfaults, I would just do a backtrace (bt command in gdb) and see which is the offending line causing the problem. Additionally, I would just run the code step by step, while "watching" the pointer values in gdb and know where exactly is the problem.
Good luck.
As some of the answers provided above, the string memory is read-only. However, some compilers provide an option to compile with writable strings. E.g. with gcc, 3.x versions supported -fwritable-strings but newer versions don't.
I think strlen can not work since s is not NULL terminated. So the behaviour of your for iteration is not the one you expect.
Since the result of strlen will be superior than s length you will write in memory where you should not be.
In addition s points to a constant strings hold by a read only memory. You can not modify it. Try to init s by using the gets function as it is done in the strlen example