This question already has answers here:
Changing address contained by pointer using function
(5 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I'm trying to allocate memory for and initialize members of a struct.
In a function which takes a pointer to the struct and some other parameters (used in other members), I allocate the memory for the struct itself and its nodes member and initialize the other members. Printing the size and len members within the initialization function outputs the correct values, but testing them after the function outputs random garbage.
Why is this behavior occurring and what can I do to fix it?
Struct definitions:
struct node_t {
int priority;
void *data;
};
struct pqueue {
int len,size,chunk_size;
struct node_t *nodes;
};
Initialization function:
int alloc_pq(struct pqueue *q,int init_size,int chunk_size){
// allocate for struct
if((q=(struct pqueue*) malloc(sizeof(struct pqueue)))==NULL){
perror("malloc");
return -1;
}
// set initial sizes
q->len=0;
q->chunk_size=chunk_size;
q->size=init_size;
if(init_size>0){
// allocate initial node memory (tried malloc here too)
if((q->nodes=(struct node_t*) realloc(q->nodes,init_size*sizeof(struct node_t)))==NULL){
perror("realloc");
return -1;
}
}
printf("%lu %d %d\n",sizeof(*q),q->size,q->len); // DEBUG
return q->size;
}
In main function:
struct pqueue q;
...
alloc_pq(&q,n,0);
printf("%lu %d %d\n",sizeof(q),q.size,q.len); // DEBUG
Output (second last number is always > 32000, last is seemingly random):
24 67 0
24 32710 -2085759307
The way you do things is making no changes. You passed address and then overwrote it.
Any changes you make to q will be lost when that function ends. Solution would be to either take a pointer variable in main() and pass it's address.
struct pqueue* q;
...
alloc_pq(&q,n,0);
Change alloc_pq accordingly. Something like
int alloc_pq(struct pqueue **q,int init_size,int chunk_size){
// allocate for struct
if((*q=malloc(sizeof(struct pqueue)))==NULL){
perror("malloc");
return -1;
}
// set initial sizes
(*q)->len=0;
(*q)->chunk_size=chunk_size;
(*q)->size=init_size;
if(init_size>0){
// allocate initial node memory (tried malloc here too)
if(((*q)->nodes= realloc((*q)->nodes,init_size*sizeof(struct node_t)))==NULL){
perror("realloc");
return -1;
}
}
printf("%lu %d %d\n",sizeof(*q),(*q)->size,(*q)->len); // DEBUG
return (*q)->size;
}
Your use of realloc is wrong. Use a temporary vcariable to hold the result and check whether it returns NULL or not.
Casting the result of malloc,realloc is not needed. Free the memory allocated when you are done working with it. Check the return value of malloc,realloc.
struct node_t* temp= realloc((*q)->nodes,init_size*sizeof(struct node_t)));
if( temp == NULL ){
perror("realloc");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
(*q)->nodes = temp;
Related
I am studying C (self-study, not in an educational institution) and have been trying to build a hashtable data structure as part of my learning.
Please refer to this hopefully reproducible example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct table_item {
char *name;
char gender;
char *birthdate;
char *address;
};
struct list_node {
struct table_item *data;
struct list_node *next;
unsigned long long hash_key;
};
struct hashtable {
int table_size;
int num_entries;
struct list_node **entries;
};
struct hashtable* init_hashtable(int size);
void free_hashtable(struct hashtable *table);
int main(void)
{
struct hashtable *hashtable = NULL;
int size_entry = 0;
printf("Input hashtable array size: ");
while (size_entry < 1) {
scanf(" %d", &size_entry);
}
hashtable = init_hashtable(size_entry);
free_hashtable(hashtable);
return 0;
}
struct hashtable* init_hashtable(int size) {
struct hashtable* new_table;
if ((new_table = malloc(sizeof(struct hashtable))) == NULL) {
perror("Error: failed to allocate memory for hash table\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
new_table->table_size = size;
new_table->num_entries = 0;
if ((new_table->entries = malloc(size*sizeof(struct list_node))) == NULL) {
perror("Error: failed to allocate memory for hash table array\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
return new_table;
}
void free_hashtable(struct hashtable *table) {
for (int i = 0; i < table->table_size; i++) {
if (table->entries[i] != NULL) {
free_list(table->entries[i]);
table->entries[i] = NULL;
}
}
free(table->entries);
free(table);
}
My issue is that trying to free the table always fails, even if I have not added anything to it.
I used GDB to check the issue. It seems that, in the above for loop, if (table->entries[i] != NULL) always fires (such as when i=0) even when I haven't added anything. This results in my free_list function trying to free inappropriate memory, which is why I get the stack dump.
Somehow it seems that table->entries[i] is actually not NULL but rather has a struct list_node * type, causing the if condition to fire inappropriately. Could somebody please explain to me why this is?
I was hoping that I could use this for loop to go through the entries array and only free memory where malloced nodes exist, but as it stands this will just crash my program. I am not sure how I can alter this to behave as I'd like it to.
Somehow it seems that table->entries[i] is actually not NULL
Indeed, because you never initialized it to NULL.
init_hashtable allocates space using malloc and points table->entries. Now malloc does not initialize the memory it provides. Its contents are garbage, and in particular, there is no reason why it should consist entirely of NULL pointers as your code expects.
If you want table->entries to be full of NULL pointers then you have to explicitly initialize it, either with a loop, or with memset(entries, 0, size*sizeof(struct list_node *)). Or best of all, by calling calloc instead of malloc, which also avoids bugs in case the multiplication size*sizeof(struct list_node *) overflows.
(Technically memset and calloc initialize memory to all-bits-zero, which in theory does not have to correspond to NULL pointers, but it actually does on all systems you are likely to encounter. But to be pedantic, the loop is the only strictly conforming way to do it.)
but rather has a struct list_node * type,
This has nothing to do with types. Types in C are statically determined from declarations, and there is no way for an object to have an unexpected type at runtime. The type of table->entries[i] is struct list_node * no matter what. The question is about the value of that object; you expect it to be NULL but it's not. "Null pointers" are not a separate type in C; NULL is simply a value that a pointer of any type may have.
As Avi Berger points out, there is another bug in that the size calculation in the malloc should be size*sizeof(struct list_node *) not sizeof(struct list_node). Each element is not a struct list_node but rather a pointer. In this case a struct list_node is larger than a pointer, so it's just wasting memory and not causing any other harm, but it should be fixed.
Somehow it seems that table->entries[i] is actually not NULL but rather has a struct list_node * type, causing the if condition to fire inappropriately. Could somebody please explain to me why this is?
You dynamically allocate space for table->entries. The initial contents of that allocated space are unspecified, so until you assign values to its contents, it is unsafe to have any particular expectations about them. In particular, you cannot assume that any or all elements will contain null pointers.
If you want to rely on those values to tell you something about what kind of cleanup needs to be performed, then you should set them all to appropriate values, I guess NULL, immediately after allocating the space.
Note also that there are null pointer values of every pointer type, so being null and having type struct list_node * are not mutually exclusive.
I'm getting started with dynamic lists and i don't understand why it is necessary to use the malloc function even when declaring the first node in the main() program, the piece of code below should just print the data contained in the first node but if i don't initialize the node with the malloc function it just doesn't work:
struct node{
int data;
struct node* next;
};
void insert(int val, struct node*);
int main() {
struct node* head ;
head->data = 2;
printf("%d \n", head->data);
}
You don’t technically, but maintaining all nodes with the same memory pattern is only an advantage to you, with no real disadvantages.
Just assume that all nodes are stored in the dynamic memory.
Your “insert” procedure would be better named something like “add” or (for full functional context) “cons”, and it should return the new node:
struct node* cons(int val, struct node* next)
{
struct node* this = (struct node*)malloc( sizeof struct node );
if (!this) return next; // or some other error condition!
this->data = val;
this->next = next;
return this;
}
Building lists is now very easy:
int main()
{
struct node* xs = cons( 2, cons( 3, cons( 5, cons( 7, NULL ) ) ) );
// You now have a list of the first four prime numbers.
And it is easy to handle them.
// Let’s print them!
{
struct node* p = xs;
while (p)
{
printf( "%d ", p->data );
p = p->next;
}
printf( "\n" );
}
// Let’s get the length!
int length = 0;
{
struct node* p = xs;
while (p)
{
length += 1;
p = p->next;
}
}
printf( "xs is %d elements long.\n", length );
By the way, you should try to be as consistent as possible when naming things. You have named the node data “data” but the constructor’s argument calls it “val”. You should pick one and stick to it.
Also, it is common to:
typedef struct node node;
Now in every place except inside the definition of struct node you can just use the word node.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Don’t forget to clean up with a proper destructor.
node* destroy( node* root )
{
if (!root) return NULL;
destroy( root->next );
free( root );
return NULL;
}
And an addendum to main():
int main()
{
node* xs = ...
...
xs = destroy( xs );
}
When you declare a variable, you define the type of the variable, then it's
name and optionally you declare it's initial value.
Every type needs an specific amount of memory. For example int would be
32 bit long on a 32bit OS, 8 bit long on a 64.
A variable declared in a function is usually stored in the stack associated
with the function. When the function returns, the stack for that function is
no longer available and the variable does not longer exist.
When you need the value/object of the variable to exist even after a function
returns, then you need to allocate memory on a different part of the program,
usually the heap. That's exactly what malloc, realloc and calloc do.
Doing
struct node* head ;
head->data = 2;
is just wrong. You've declaring a pointer named head of type struct node,
but you are not assigning anything to it. So it points to an unspecified
location in memory. head->data = 2 tries to store a value at an unspecified
location and the program will most likely crash with a segfault.
In main you could do this:
int main(void)
{
struct node head;
head.data = 2;
printf("%d \n", head.data);
return 0;
}
head will be saved in the stack and will persist as long as main doesn't
return. But this is only a very small example. In a complex program where you
have many more variables, objects, etc. it's a bad idea to simply declare all
variables you need in main. So it's best that objects get created when they
are needed.
For example you could have a function that creates the object and another one
that calls create_node and uses that object.
struct node *create_node(int data)
{
struct node *head = malloc(sizeof *head);
if(head == NULL)
return NULL; // no more memory left
head->data = data;
head->next = NULL;
return head;
}
struct node *foo(void)
{
struct node *head = create_node(112);
// do somethig with head
return head;
}
Here create_node uses malloc to allocate memory for one struct node
object, initializes the object with some values and returns a pointer to that memory location.
foo calls create_node and does something with it and it returns the
object. If another function calls foo, this function will get the object.
There are also other reasons for malloc. Consider this code:
void foo(void)
{
int numbers[4] = { 1, 3, 5, 7 };
...
}
In this case you know that you will need 4 integers. But sometimes you need an
array where the number of elements is only known during runtime, for example
because it depends on some user input. For this you can also use malloc.
void foo(int size)
{
int *numbers = malloc(size * sizeof *numbers);
// now you have "size" elements
...
free(numbers); // freeing memory
}
When you use malloc, realloc, calloc, you'll need to free the memory. If
your program does not need the memory anymore, you have to use free (like in
the last example. Note that for simplicity I omitted the use of free in the
examples with struct head.
What you have invokes undefined behavior because you don't really have a node,, you have a pointer to a node that doesn't actually point to a node. Using malloc and friends creates a memory region where an actual node object can reside, and where a node pointer can point to.
In your code, struct node* head is a pointer that points to nowhere, and dereferencing it as you have done is undefined behavior (which can commonly cause a segfault). You must point head to a valid struct node before you can safely dereference it. One way is like this:
int main() {
struct node* head;
struct node myNode;
head = &myNode; // assigning the address of myNode to head, now head points somewhere
head->data = 2; // this is legal
printf("%d \n", head->data); // will print 2
}
But in the above example, myNode is a local variable, and will go out of scope as soon as the function exists (in this case main). As you say in your question, for linked lists you generally want to malloc the data so it can be used outside of the current scope.
int main() {
struct node* head = malloc(sizeof struct node);
if (head != NULL)
{
// we received a valid memory block, so we can safely dereference
// you should ALWAYS initialize/assign memory when you allocate it.
// malloc does not do this, but calloc does (initializes it to 0) if you want to use that
// you can use malloc and memset together.. in this case there's just
// two fields, so we can initialize via assignment.
head->data = 2;
head->next = NULL;
printf("%d \n", head->data);
// clean up memory when we're done using it
free(head);
}
else
{
// we were unable to obtain memory
fprintf(stderr, "Unable to allocate memory!\n");
}
return 0;
}
This is a very simple example. Normally for a linked list, you'll have insert function(s) (where the mallocing generally takes place and remove function(s) (where the freeing generally takes place. You'll at least have a head pointer that always points to the first item in the list, and for a double-linked list you'll want a tail pointer as well. There can also be print functions, deleteEntireList functions, etc. But one way or another, you must allocate space for an actual object. malloc is a way to do that so the validity of the memory persists throughout runtime of your program.
edit:
Incorrect. This absolutely applies to int and int*,, it applies to any object and pointer(s) to it. If you were to have the following:
int main() {
int* head;
*head = 2; // head uninitialized and unassigned, this is UB
printf("%d\n", *head); // UB again
return 0;
}
this is every bit of undefined behavior as you have in your OP. A pointer must point to something valid before you can dereference it. In the above code, head is uninitialized, it doesn't point to anything deterministically, and as soon as you do *head (whether to read or write), you're invoking undefined behavior. Just as with your struct node, you must do something like following to be correct:
int main() {
int myInt; // creates space for an actual int in automatic storage (most likely the stack)
int* head = &myInt; // now head points to a valid memory location, namely myInt
*head = 2; // now myInt == 2
printf("%d\n", *head); // prints 2
return 0;
}
or you can do
int main() {
int* head = malloc(sizeof int); // silly to malloc a single int, but this is for illustration purposes
if (head != NULL)
{
// space for an int was returned to us from the heap
*head = 2; // now the unnamed int that head points to is 2
printf("%d\n", *head); // prints out 2
// don't forget to clean up
free(head);
}
else
{
// handle error, print error message, etc
}
return 0;
}
These rules are true for any primitive type or data structure you're dealing with. Pointers must point to something, otherwise dereferencing them is undefined behavior, and you hope you get a segfault when that happens so you can track down the errors before your TA grades it or before the customer demo. Murphy's law dictates UB will always crash your code when it's being presented.
Statement struct node* head; defines a pointer to a node object, but not the node object itself. As you do not initialize the pointer (i.e. by letting it point to a node object created by, for example, a malloc-statement), dereferencing this pointer as you do with head->data yields undefined behaviour.
Two ways to overcome this, (1) either allocate memory dynamically - yielding an object with dynamic storage duration, or (2) define the object itself as an, for example, local variable with automatic storage duration:
(1) dynamic storage duration
int main() {
struct node* head = calloc(1, sizeof(struct node));
if (head) {
head->data = 2;
printf("%d \n", head->data);
free(head);
}
}
(2) automatic storage duration
int main() {
struct node head;
head.data = 2;
printf("%d \n", head.data);
}
I am trying to create an array of structs, with dynamically allocated memory,
Here's the struct definition I'm using:
struct node {
int key;
double probability;
struct node *parent;
struct node *children[255];
};
Here is the declaration and initialization:
int base_nodes = sizeof(X)/sizeof(*X);
while ((base_nodes - 1)%(D-1) != 0){
printf("Incrementing base\n");
base_nodes++;
}
printf("base_nodes:\t%d\n", base_nodes);
struct node **nodes = malloc(base_nodes * sizeof(struct node));
if (nodes) {
printf("Size of nodes:\t%llu\n", sizeof(nodes));
} else { printf("Failed to allocate memory\n"); return 1;}
Where X is another dynamically allocated Array of numbers defined before I call it here.
AFAIK, base_nodes is being calculated correctly, however the Size of nodes: is reporting 8, rather than 10. I have tried base_nodes less than 8 and it also returns 8.
Could someone explain why this happens? And how to do it properly?
The program I'm making is a D-ary Huffman code generator given a PMF.
I also attempted to realloc later on in the program and it seems to have had no effect:
nodes = realloc(nodes, ((sizeof(nodes) + 1) * sizeof(struct node)));
if (nodes) {
printf("New size:\t%llu\n", sizeof(nodes));
} else { printf("Not enough memory\n"); }
You're trying to obtain the number of elements of type struct node, allocated dynamically, using the operator sizeof() on the pointer itself, which will just return the size of a pointer on your machine, which is 8 bytes as it seems to be a 64 bit machine.
I think you're confused by the fact that when you allocate some memory statically in an array you can use sizeof() operator to return the number of elements allocated, i.e.
myType a[N];
number_of_elements = sizeof(a)/sizeof(myType)
So I'm doing some linked list revison and Im trying to just load a list with some numbers and then print it out. Below is my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct stack {
int data;
struct stack *next;
}*stack;
stack create_s(void){
stack s = (void*)malloc(sizeof(stack));
s->next = NULL;
return s;
}
void push_s(stack s, int data) {
while (s->next != NULL) {
s = s->next;
}
s->next = (void*)malloc(sizeof(stack));
s=s->next;
s->data = data;
s->next = NULL;
}
void print_s(stack s) {
if (s==NULL) {
return;
}
else {
while (s->next != NULL) {
printf("%d\n",s->data);
s=s->next;
}
}
}
int main (void) {
stack s = create_s();
push_s(s,2);
push_s(s,4);
push_s(s,6);
push_s(s,8);
print_s(s);
return 0;
}
My output is however:
-1853045587
2
4
6
when it should be
2
4
6
8
Is it printing the address of my struct at the beginning? Also, why is it not printing my last element?
Thanks
The code contains several errors, but the first thing that catches the eye is that your memory allocation is already obviously broken
stack s = (void*)malloc(sizeof(stack));
You defined stack as a pointer type. This means that sizeof(stack) evaluates to pointer size and the above malloc allocates enough space to store a single pointer, not enough for the entire struct stack object. The same memory allocation error is present in push_s as well.
Here's some advice
Don't hide pointer types behind typedef names. Define your stack as
typedef struct stack{
int data;
struct stack *next;
} stack;
and use stack * wherever you need a pointer. I.e. make that * visible instead of hiding it "inside" a typedef name. This will make your code easier to read.
Don't cast the result of malloc. Anyway, what is the point of casting it to void * when it is void * already???
Don't use sizeof with types unless you really really have to. Prefer to use sizeof with expressions. Learn to use the following malloc idiom
T *p = malloc(sizeof *p);
or, in your case
struct stack *s = malloc(sizeof *s);
This will allocate a memory block of appropriate size.
Also, as #WhozCraig noted in the comments, the very first node in your list is apparently supposed to serve as a "sentinel" head node (with undefined data value). In your code you never initialize the data value in that head node. Yet in your print_s function you attempt to print data value from the head node. No wonder you get garbage (-1853045587) as the first line in your output. Don't print the very first node. Skip it, if it really is supposed to serve as a sentinel.
Also, the cycle termination condition in print_s looks strange
while (s->next != NULL)
Why are you checking s->next for NULL instead of checking s itself? This condition will terminate the cycle prematurely, without attempting to print the very last node in the list. This is the reason why you don't see the last element (8) in your output.
The actual cause of the given output can be fixed by changing:
s=s->next;
s->data = data;
to
s->data = data;
s=s->next;
I have the following data structures
struct a_str {
union {
struct {
struct c_str *c;
} b_str;
struct {
int i;
} c_str;
};
}
struct c_str {
struct d_str;
}
struct d_str {
int num;
}
I am trying to access num in struct d_str. For some reason I keep on getting a segmentation fault.
struct a_str *a = init_a(); //assume memory allocation and init is ok.
a->b_str.c->d_str.num = 2;
What is wrong?
Probably you are not allocating memory for a->b_str.c in your init() function, that may be reason that a->b_str.c is pointing a garbage location and segmentation fault is due to accessing memory that is not allocated - an illegal memory operation.
If init() function is correct, there should not be any problem (syntax-wise your code is correct).
Below I have suggested inti() function that will allocated memory for your nested structure correctly (read comments).
struct a_str *init()
{
struct a_str *ret = malloc(sizeof(struct a_str)); // memory for `struct a_str`
struct c_str *cptr = malloc(sizeof(struct c_str)); // memory for inner struct
ret->b_str.c = cptr; //assigning valid memory address to ret->b_str.c
return ret;
}
Below is the main() code with steps for deallocate/free() dynamically allocated memory.
int main(int argv, char **argc)
{
struct a_str *ret = init();
ret->b_str.c->d.num = 5;
printf("%d\n", ret->b_str.c->d.num);
//Make sure to free the memory allocated through malloc
free(ret->b_str.c); // 1 first free in struct
free(ret); // in reverse order of allocation
return 0;
}
struct a_str *a = init_a();
My guess: Your init_a function
is allocating the a_str pointer
is not allocating the a->b_str.c pointer
Since a->b_str.c is not allocated, when you want to access it, a segfault occur
EDIT :
Second guess: Your init_a function
is allocating the a_str pointer
is allocating the a->b_str.c pointer
is initializing the a->c_str.i integer value
By initializing c_str.i value, it erase the b_str.c value Since it share the same location (it is a union).
you need to check your pointer "c" if it has been initialized