I am trying to implement a function that read lines from a file and put them into a string array. But it gives me the warning:
expected char ** But argument is of type char * (*)[(sizetype)(numberOfchar)]
It was working on Windows but when I switch into Linux it stops working.
Here is the caller and the array variable :
char *hashes[numberOfchar];
PutInArray(textName, numberOfchar, &hashes);
And here is the function (the void* is for the next part of the program, threading) :
void* PutInArray(char* k, int d, char *tab[d]) {
FILE* fp = NULL;
int i;
fp = fopen(k, "r");
if(fp != NULL) {
for (i = 0; i < d; i++) {
tab[i] = (char *)malloc((34) * sizeof(char));
fgets(tab[i], 34, fp);
}
fclose(fp);
}
}
Let's see how function calls work for other types.
You have a variable int v; and a function void foo(int x) (the variable declaration and the parameter declaration look the same). You call foo(v). You also have a function void bar(int* x) (the variable declaration has one star less than the parameter declaration). You call bar(&v).
You have a variable int* v; and a function void foo(int* x) (the variable declaration and the parameter declaration look the same). You call foo(v). You also have a function void bar(int** x) (the variable declaration has one star less than the parameter declaration). You call bar(&v).
You have a variable const struct moo ***v and a function void foo(const struct moo ***x) (the variable declaration and the parameter declaration look the same). You call foo(v). You also have a function void bar(const struct moo ****x) (the variable declaration has one star less than the parameter declaration). You call bar(&v).
You have a variable char *hashes[numberOfchar] and a function void* PutInArray(char* k, int d, char *tab[d]). The variable declaration and the parameter declaration still look the same. Why on God's green earth stick & in front of the variable?
I hear you saying "but I want to pass hashes by reference, and to pass by reference I need to use &". Nope, arrays are automatically passed by reference (or rather an array automatically gets converted to a pointer of its first element; parameters of array type are similarly adjusted so that the rule formulated above just works).
For completeness, the analogue of bar would have a parameter that looks like this:
char* (*tab)[numberOfchar]
and if you had such parameter, you would have to use &hashes. But you don't need it.
Your code is almost OK. Concerning the error/warning you get, just write PutInArray(textName, numberOfchar, hashes) instead of PutInArray(textName, numberOfchar, &hashes) for the following reason:
In function PutInArray(char* k, int d, char *tab[d]), char *tab[d] has the same meaning as char*[] and char**, i.e. it behaves as a pointer to a pointer to a char.
Then you define hashes as char *hashes[numberOfchar], which is an array of pointers to char. When using hashes as function argument, hashes decays to a pointer to the first entry of the array, i.e. to a value of type char **, which matches the type of argument tab. However, if you pass &hashes, then you'd pass a pointer to type char *[], which is one indirection to much. (BTW: passing &hashes[0] would be OK).
BTW: PutInChar should either return a value or should be declared as void PutInArray(char* k, int d, char *tab[d]) (not void*).
Related
I would be very thankful if you could explain me what the following means:
void bar(char *a, char *b, unsigned short c) // (2)
{
...
}
void (*foo(void))(char *, char *, unsigned short) // (1)
{
return bar;
}
In particular,
Why there are no variable names in (1)?
What does void (*foo(void)) mean? How can *foo(void) be a name?
What does return bar mean? Returns it the address of the bar source code, or the result from bar, or else?
Is there any feature in making these signatures so complicated?
Could you give an example of the usage?
foo is a function that takes no arguments and returns a pointer to a function that takes three arguments of types char *, char * and unsigned short and returns void.
These declarations can be quite confusing because they should be read inside-out, bouncing left and right as needed:
foo is a thing ...
foo(void) ... apparently a function
*foo(void) ... whose return value can be dereferenced
(*foo(void))(...) ... and then called with these arguments
void (*foo(void))(...) ... which results in a value of type void.
You can also use cdecl.org to parse complex declarations for you:
declare foo as function (void) returning pointer to function (pointer to char, pointer to char, unsigned short) returning void
Usage examples:
// Immediately call the returned function.
// The similarity to the declaration is no coincidence!
(*foo())("hello", "world", 42);
// Store the returned function pointer for later invocation.
// This time there are no parentheses following the name, because
// this is a variable, not a function.
void (*fnPtr)(char *, char *, unsigned short) = foo();
(*fnPtr)("hello", "world", 42);
Argument names can always be omitted if the arguments aren't used inside the function. In this case, there isn't even a function body to use them in, because the body of foo isn't what the arguments are being passed to.
So, I am just trying to wrap my head around "pointer function that returns a pointer to an array"... but to start off slowly, I had to understand this:
void Print(const char c){
printf("\nPrint: %c\n", c);
}
int main () {
void (*FunctionPointer)(const char);
FunctionPointer = &Print;
FunctionPointer('a');
}
Which I do - pretty easy to guess what is going on... FunctionPointer just points to the location where the Print function "resides". Instead of jumping to a specific memory address (stored on a register) of a specific function, I can now be more flexible and point to any function that I want to access.
But I am stuck with the following...
int main () {
int (*FunctionPointer())[];
}
Now it seems that the function that is pointed by FunctionPointer, can in fact return a pointer to an array of type int. The compiler accepts the second line - so far so good - and I also understand the concept... but I am getting stuck regarding the implementation.
FunctionPointer needs - once again, to point to a function. That function can indeed return a pointer that points to an array of type int... soooooo:
int *Array(){
int ar[2] = {5,6};
return ar;
}
int main () {
int (*FunctionPointer())[];
FunctionPointer = &Array;
}
However, the last piece of code is just not accepted by the compiler.... So, what gives?
With
int (*FunctionPointer())[];
you've declared FunctionPointer as a function returning a pointer to an array of int -- not a function pointer. You want
int *(*FunctionPointer)();
If you use [] here, you'll get an error, as functions can't return arrays -- arrays are not first class types -- and unlike with function parameters, arrays will not be silently converted to pointers when used as the return value of a function type. With that, you'll still get the warning
t.c:3:12: warning: function returns address of local variable [-Wreturn-local-addr]
return ar;
^~
which is pretty self-explanatory
You have declared the array of function pointers. Arrays can't be assignable. Functions can't return arrays. You might wish
int* (*FunctionPointer)();
FunctionPointer = &Array;
Function pointers are much easier when you use typedefs. You can simply use the same notation as "normal" data pointers.
// func is a function type. It has one parater and returns pointer to int
typedef int *func(const char);
// funcptr is a pointer to func
func *funcptr;
I am trying to build a parser to a given input, there are 8 possible commands. So I figured that instead of using the ugly technique of a case switch block like that:
switch(command)
case cmd1:
.... /*call a function that do cmd1*/
case cmd2
..../*call a function that do cmd2*/
I will define in a header an array of structs, each one contains the name of the function, and a pointer to a function:
typedef struct command_info
{
char *name;
void (*func)(int)
};
command_info command_table[] = {{"func1", &func1}, {"func2", &func2} }
So that I can switch to the more elegant:
int i;
for(i = 0; i < COMMAND_TABLE_LENGTH; i++)
if(!strcmp(command_table[i].name, command))
command_table[i].func(2);
My only problem is, that the functions have different parameters (all return void). This is not a problem for me since I can check if the function is func1 or func2 search for one int argument for example, and if it is func3 or func4 search for two (still more compact than case switch). But the function pointer only points to a function with a certain type and amount of arguments. How can I make a universal pointer that can point to any function?
But the function pointer only points to a function with a certain type and amount of arguments.
How can I make a universal pointer that can point to any function?
In OP's limited case, use void (*func)().
Any function pointer can be converted with a type cast to another function pointer and retain an equivalent function address. #Jonathan Leffler
int (*foo)(int) = (int (*)(int)) sqrt;
double (*sq)(double) = (double (*)(double)) foo;
printf("%f\n", sq(2)); // prints 1.414214
A function pointer need not provide a function parameter signature.
// No parameter info
// vv
int (*foo)() = (int (*)()) sqrt;
OP has "functions have different parameters (all return void)", so in OP's case code could use a limited universal function pointer of void (*func)() and lose parameter checking.
typedef struct {
char *name; // suggest const char *name
void (*func)(); // no parameter info nor checking
} command_info;
char buf[100];
// void setbuf(FILE * restrict stream, char * restrict buf);
command_info fred = { "my_setbuf", setbuf };
// Both compile, 2nd is UB.
fred.func(stdin, buf); // No parameter checking.
fred.func(0); // No parameter checking.
Code also incurs a subtle issue when calling .funf(): the parameters ranking lower than int/unsigned are promoted as well as float parameters before passed to the function. Best to make certain the parameters are not char, float, short, _Bool etc. to avoid compatible signature issues.
void * is a universal object pointer. It may be insufficient to encode a function pointer. So it is not a portable candidate. It is not uncommon for the size of a function pointer to be wider than sizeof(void*).
I've just started to work with C, and never had to deal with pointers in previous languages I used, so I was wondering what method is better if just modifying a string.
pointerstring vs normal.
Also if you want to provide more information about when to use pointers that would be great. I was shocked when I found out that the function "normal" would even modify the string passed, and update in the main function without a return value.
#include <stdio.h>
void pointerstring(char *s);
void normal(char s[]);
int main() {
char string[20];
pointerstring(string);
printf("\nPointer: %s\n",string);
normal(string);
printf("Normal: %s\n",string);
}
void pointerstring(char *s) {
sprintf(s,"Hello");
}
void normal(char s[]) {
sprintf(s,"World");
}
Output:
Pointer: Hello
Normal: World
In a function declaration, char [] and char * are equivalent. Function parameters with outer-level array type are transformed to the equivalent pointer type; this affects calling code and the function body itself.
Because of this, it's better to use the char * syntax as otherwise you could be confused and attempt e.g. to take the sizeof of an outer-level fixed-length array type parameter:
void foo(char s[10]) {
printf("%z\n", sizeof(s)); // prints 4 (or 8), not 10
}
When you pass a parameter declared as a pointer to a function (and the pointer parameter is not declared const), you are explicitly giving the function permission to modify the object or array the pointer points to.
One of the problems in C is that arrays are second-class citizens. In almost all useful circumstances, among them when passing them to a function, arrays decay to pointers (thereby losing their size information).
Therefore, it makes no difference whether you take an array as T* arg or T arg[] — the latter is a mere synonym for the former. Both are pointers to the first character of the string variable defined in main(), so both have access to the original data and can modify it.
Note: C always passes arguments per copy. This is also true in this case. However, when you pass a pointer (or an array decaying to a pointer), what is copied is the address, so that the object referred to is accessible through two different copies of its address.
With pointer Vs Without pointer
1) We can directly pass a local variable reference(address) to the new function to process and update the values, instead of sending the values to the function and returning the values from the function.
With pointers
...
int a = 10;
func(&a);
...
void func(int *x);
{
//do something with the value *x(10)
*x = 5;
}
Without pointers
...
int a = 10;
a = func(a);
...
int func(int x);
{
//do something with the value x(10)
x = 5;
return x;
}
2) Global or static variable has life time scope and local variable has scope only to a function. If we want to create a user defined scope variable means pointer is requried. That means if we want to create a variable which should have scope in some n number of functions means, create a dynamic memory for that variable in first function and pass it to all the function, finally free the memory in nth function.
3) If we want to keep member function also in sturucture along with member variables then we can go for function pointers.
struct data;
struct data
{
int no1, no2, ans;
void (*pfAdd)(struct data*);
void (*pfSub)(struct data*);
void (*pfMul)(struct data*);
void (*pfDiv)(struct data*);
};
void add(struct data* x)
{
x.ans = x.no1, x.no2;
}
...
struct data a;
a.no1 = 10;
a.no1 = 5;
a.pfAdd = add;
...
a.pfAdd(&a);
printf("Addition is %d\n", a.ans);
...
4) Consider a structure data which size s is very big. If we want to send a variable of this structure to another function better to send as reference. Because this will reduce the activation record(in stack) size created for the new function.
With Pointers - It will requires only 4bytes (in 32 bit m/c) or 8 bytes (in 64 bit m/c) in activation record(in stack) of function func
...
struct data a;
func(&a);
...
Without Pointers - It will requires s bytes in activation record(in stack) of function func. Conside the s is sizeof(struct data) which is very big value.
...
struct data a;
func(a);
...
5) We can change a value of a constant variable with pointers.
...
const int a = 10;
int *p = NULL;
p = (int *)&a;
*p = 5;
printf("%d", a); //This will print 5
...
in addition to the other answers, my comment about "string"-manipulating functions (string = zero terminated char array): always return the string parameter as a return value.
So you can use the function procedural or functional, like in printf("Dear %s, ", normal(buf));
i need to write a function that receives an array of pointers to functions.
i wrote the following code, however i'm having trouble in testing it at the moment.
is this the correct way to define a pointers to function array?
typedef (*Function)(double);
void func(Function* arr);
and if i want to declare the size of the array with [20] do i write:
void func(Function arr[20]);
?
thanks for your help
First, my usual method for figuring out complex types. Start with the identifier, and then add on the rest one step at a time:
f -- f
f[N] -- is an N-element array
*f[N] -- of pointers
(*f[N])() -- to functions
T (*f[N])() -- returning T
For an array of pointers to functions taking a double parameter and returning a double value, that would be
double (*f[N])(double);
However, remember that expressions of array type "decay" from type "N-element array of T" to "pointer to T" in most contexts. When you pass an array expression as an argument to a function, what the function actually receives is a pointer. So, instead of receiving an object of type "N-element array of pointer to function returning double", your function will receive an object of type "pointer to pointer to function returning double", or
double (**f)(double)
So your function definition would look something like
void func(double (**f)(double))
{
int i;
...
for (i = 0; f[i] != NULL; i++)
{
double x = (*f[i])((double) i);
}
}
And the caller would look something like
double a(double x) {...}
double b(double x) {...}
double c(double x) {...}
void foo(void)
{
double (*list[])(double) = {a, b, c, NULL};
func(list);
}
If you want to use typedefs instead, you could use something like this:
typedef double Dblfunc(double); // typedef for function type
typedef Dblfunc *Dblfuncptr; // typedef for function pointer type
void func(Dblfuncptr *f)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; f[i] != NULL; i++)
{
double x = (*f[i])((double) i);
...
}
}
...
void foo(void)
{
Dblfuncptr list[] = {a, b, c, NULL}; // EDIT: fixed type
func(list);
}
Using the typedefs makes the array and function parameter look more like regular types. Personally, I prefer using the "raw" types, since it shows explicitly that I'm dealing with pointers to functions, and it shows what the return and parameter types are.
If you correct the typedef to include a return type typedef void (*Function)(double);, that array declaration will work fine. You'd call it by calling (arr[index])(3.14) for the array case.
BTW: http://www.newty.de/fpt/fpt.html is a handy reference for function pointers.
What does the function return? You're the return type in the function pointer typedef, like you should have something like
typedef double (*Function)(double);
it looks almost correct i think you forgot the return type when declaring Function:
typedef int (*Function)(double)
instead
the second declaration is invalid too i think because it is invalid to specify array size for function parameters
void func (Function*)
will do just fine