Watch here:
struct mystruct{
int a;
int b;
};
int main(void){
struct mystruct* ptr;
ptr = malloc( 10*sizeof( struct mystruct ) );
In this way I have allocated an array of struct.
If you try to print, for example ptr[4], you will notice a pointer.
When I have a pointer and I have access to a member, I have to use the -> operator right?
But if I do:
ptr[4]->a
It doesn't work! I must do
ptr[4].a
to make it work... why? I have a pointer!
ptr[4] = (ptr+4) right?
Also in normal arrays this happen:
struct mystruct array[10];
array[4].a
but array is a pointer!
array[4] is not the same as array + 4. It's the same as *(array + 4).
array + 4 is certainly a pointer, but array[4] is the value pointed to by the pointer (which, of course, might also be a pointer if array were an array of some pointer type.)
Since x->y is essentially the same as (*x).y, you could rewrite array[4].a as (array + 4)->a, but you'd have a hard time getting that past most code reviewers.
when you use square brackets on a pointer, it's similar to dereferencing the point. Therefore, it requests the p[].a syntax, and not the p[]->a
(p + 4)->a is essentially the same as p[4].a
If ptr has type struct mystruct *, then ptr[i] has type struct mystruct; IOW, ptr[i] is not a pointer value. Thus, you need to use the . component selection operator instead of ->.
Related
I am new to C and have a question about a specific pointer declaration:
Here is a program i wrote:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct n {
int x;
int y;
};
int main()
{
struct n **p = malloc(sizeof(struct n));
return 0;
}
The declaration here is not be correct but why not?
Here is my thought process:
The man page of malloc specifies that it returns a pointer:
The malloc() and calloc() functions return a pointer to the
allocated memory, which is suitably aligned for any built-in
type.
The type of p is struct n** aka a pointer to another pointer.
But shouldn't this declaration work in theory because:
malloc returns type struct n* (a pointer)
and p points to the pointer that malloc returns
so it is essentially a pointer to another pointer
so the type of p is fulfilled
Sorry if this is a dumb question but i am genuinely confused about why this does not work. Thanks for any help in advance.
The return type of malloc is not struct n *, regardless of how it is called. The return type of malloc is void *.
Initializing a struct n ** object with a value of type void * implicitly converts it to struct n **. This implicit conversion is allowed, because the rules for initialization follow the rules for assignment in C 2018 6.5.16.1 1, which state one of the allowed assignments is:
… the left operand has atomic, qualified, or unqualified pointer type, and (considering the type the left operand would have after lvalue conversion) one operand is a pointer to an object type, and the other is a pointer to a qualified or unqualified version of void, and the type pointed to by the left has all the qualifiers of the type pointed to by the right;…
and p points to the pointer that malloc returns
No, the value p is initialized to the value that malloc returns. Then p points to the memory malloc allocated.
It is a mistake for this code to allocate enough space for a struct n (using malloc(sizeof(struct n))) but assign the address of that space to the struct n ** that is p. To point to a struct n, use struct n *p = malloc(sizeof (struct n)); or, preferably, struct n *p = malloc(sizeof *p);.
To pointer to a pointer to a struct n, first create some pointer to a struct n, as with the above struct n *p = malloc(sizeof *p);. Then a pointer to that pointer would be struct n **pp = &p;.
If you wanted to allocate space for those pointers-to-pointers, you could do it with struct n **pp = malloc(sizeof *pp);, after which you could fill in the pointer to the struct n with *pp = malloc(sizeof **pp);. However, you should not add this additional layer of allocation without good reason.
Note that the form MyPointer = malloc(sizeof *MyPointer); is often preferred to MyPointer = malloc(sizeof (SomeType)); because the former automatically uses the type that MyPointer points to. The latter is prone to errors, such as somebody misintepreting the type of MyPointer and not setting SomeType correctly or somebody later changing the declaration of MyPointer but omitting to make the corresponding change to SomeType in the malloc call.
This doesn't really work. In this example, malloc is returning a void *, which points to a newly allocated place in the heap that is large enough to hold a struct n.
Note that malloc() returns type void *, which is basically a pointer to any potential type, malloc() DOES NOT return type struct n * (a pointer to your declared struct type). void * has the special property of being able to be cast to any other type of pointer, and back again.
All together this means that your code doesn't actually work, since the first dereference of your struct n** would be a struct n, not a struct n*. If you tried to dereference twice, you would most likely get an invalid memory reference and crash.
The reason that your code can compile and run without crashing is because:
The compiler automatically casts void * to struct n **
You never attempt to actually dereference your pointer, which means you never attempt an invalid memory reference.
Simplify the problem and understanding may come:
int main()
{
struct n data;
struct n *pData = &data; // skipped in your version
struct n **ppData = &pData;
// struct n **ppData = &data; // Will not compile
// struct n **ppData = (struct n **)&data; // Casting but wrong!
return 0;
}
Because malloc() returns a void ptr, you are free to store the pointer into anything that is a pointer datatype. On your head if you put it into the wrong datatype...
I need some help with the pointer syntax. I have an array of structures, and I'm trying to create a pointer to it, from inside another structure, contained in an array.
struct foo array* = malloc(sizeof(foo)*10);
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = &array;
I have read through this question: c pointer to array of structs. While it did clear up some of the confusion, I'm still left with a few errors to solve.
I have defined my structure like this:
struct bar{
...
struct foo (*foo_ptr)[];
...
}
It seems that I am able to add new structures to the array, as the following returns no errors:
(*bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr)[j] = new_struct;
However, if I attempt to create a new pointer to a struct inside of the struct array like this:
struct foo* one_ptr = (*bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr)[j];
or this:
struct foo* one_ptr = bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j];
the compiler will give me errors. Either one for invalid use of an array with unspecified bounds, or that one_ptr and foo_ptr[j] have incompatible types (in this case: one is of type foo and the other is struct foo *).
Is it simply not possible to create a pointer to one of the elements of the structure array? Any help would be appreciated.
EDIT: BETTER CODE EXAMPLE
I am currently working with a linearly linked list for use as a shared memory stack, for use with pthreads. The array of structures is a shared pool of nodes. Whenever a node is removed from the stack, it is put into the shared pool. If a thread attempts to add a new item to the stack, it checks whether or not the element to be added exists in the pool, to avoid having to allocate new memory every time it needs to add another element to the stack.
Each thread needs a pointer to the shared pool of nodes as an argument. That's why i'm trying to create a pointer to it from the argument structure. I was hoping that the question would have a simple answer.
typedef struct node{...} node_t;
struct thread_args
{
...
node_t (*pool)[];
...
}
node_t shared_pool = malloc(sizeof(node_t)*10);
arg[index]->pool = &shared_pool;
I am trying to access the pool inside one of the functions that the thread is executing.
node_t *item;
item = stack->root;
//remove item from stack
(*args->pool)[index] = item;
//...later
node_t *item2;
item2 = (*args->pool)[index];
Hopefully this provides some more information.
Also, the exact error i get from attempting to use:
node_t *pool;
args[index]->pool = shared_pool;
is as follows: error: incompatible types when assigning to type ‘struct node_t *’ from type ‘node_t’.
For starters this declaration (not mentioning the omitted semicolon after the closing brace)
struct bar{
...
struct foo (*foo_ptr)[];
^^^
...
}
is invalid. You have to specify the size of the array. Otherwise the pointer will point to an object of an incompete type.
Taking into account how you are trying to use the array this declaration does not make sense. You could declare the data member like
struct bar{
...
struct foo *foo_ptr;
...
};
and then
struct foo *array = malloc(sizeof(struct foo)*10);
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = array;
In this case you could write
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j] = new_struct;
and
struct foo* one_ptr = bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr + j;
or
struct foo* one_ptr = &bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j];
This is wrong:
struct foo array* = malloc(sizeof(foo)*10);
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = &array;
Assuming you mean
struct foo *array = malloc(sizeof(foo)*10);
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = &array;
you are storing the address of the actual array variable into your structure's foo_ptr variable. From the code snippet you posted, that's likely a local variable for the function, so it's not only the wrong type, it ceases to exist once your function returns.
Given struct foo, this will allocate a pointer to an array of struct foo:
struct foo *array = malloc( nelem * sizeof( *array ) );
and this will assign that
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = array;
Or, more directly:
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = malloc( nelem * sizeof( *( bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr ) ) );
Note that I use a dereference to the pointer the malloc() result is being assigned to as the argument to sizeof(). That's a simple way to ensure that the pointer and the memory allocation done always refer to the same type.
The call to malloc() will allocate nelem contiguous copies of struct foo (which will contain unknown, unspecified data...). Those copies can be accessed via
array[ n ]
as long as n >= 0 and n < nelem.
Is it simply not possible to create a pointer to one of the elements of the structure array?
You're making your code too complex. To create a pointer to the nth element:
struct foo *nthElement = array + n;
You simply add n to the address of the first element, and the resulting pointer will refer to the nth element, assuming n is within the proper range.
Short answer
The declaration of foo_ptr in struct bar is not right. Change it into struct foo *foo_ptr. And change your assigning statement to the follows
struct foo *array = malloc(sizeof(struct foo)*10);
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr = array;
Then you can read or write the element of the array like below
// read from array
struct foo one_struct = bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j];
// write to array
struct foo new_struct = { ... }
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j] = new_struct;
(NOTE: the both read and write operation are copy of all fields of the struct foo).
Explanation of the changes
Think about an easy example. How do you make an array of 10 char.
char *a = malloc(sizeof(char)*10)
a is a pointer of char, it points to a space that contains 10 char. So we can use it as an array. a[4] means the 5th char of the array of 10 char.
What if you want to assign this array to another variable?
char *b = a;
Now b is an array too (not a copy of the original array, b and a point to one array). You can refer to the element via b now, just like what you do with a. E.g., b[4].
Nobody will declare b as char (*b)[] right?
More explanation of your mistakes
Still start with an simple example. When we see such a declaration -- char (*x)[10] -- what would we say about x? We may say x is a pointer to an array of 10 char.
Let's look at your declaration, struct foo (*foo_ptr)[]. Likewise, we may say, foo_ptr is a pointer to an array of ... length-unspecified struct foo. (Notice the difference in the length of array. Actually it is wrong not to specify the length, I'll talk about it soon)
Based on this declaration of yours, let's talk about the errors you encountered when using it.
Statement 1 that throws error
struct foo* one_ptr = (*bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr)[j];
To simplify and make it clear, I'm going to remove the part of bar_arr[i]-> in following discussion.
In this statement, *foo_ptr is an array of length-unspecified struct foo, we can call it this way, *foo_ptr is an array of struct foo []. So (*foo_ptr)[j] means the jth element of the array of struct foo []. Everything seems good here. BUT your array has no length defined, even though you assigned a malloc'ed array to it, but in compile-time, gcc has no idea about it. That is why it throws an error about "unspecified bounds".
Statement 2 that throws error
struct foo* one_ptr = bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j];
As I said above, foo_ptr is a pointer to an array of struct foo []. Let's pay attention to the fact that foo_ptr is a pointer first. So in this statement, foo_ptr[j] is kinda like *foo_ptr. Other than the index j, they have same type. Since we already know *foo_ptr is an array of struct foo [], foo_ptr[j] is also an array of struct foo []. It's an array, not an object of struct foo. To put it precisely, you need to imagine there is a big array, of which each element is still array (array of struct foo []). foo_ptr[j] is just the jth element, or say jth array, in this big array.
So the practice you assign foo_ptr[j] to one_ptr is more or less like the following example
typedef char char_array_of_4_t[4];
char_array_of_4_t array1;
char *p = array1; //ERROR: incompatible types
To make it easy to understand, I show you another exmaple below.
char array2[4];
char *p = array2;
In the second example, there is no error. In perspective of human being, array1 and array2 are both array of 4 char, however, in mind of gcc, array1 is a type of array, while array2 is a type of pointer.
In this declaration ...
struct bar{
// ...
struct foo (*foo_ptr)[];
// ...
};
... member foo_ptr of struct bar is declared as a pointer to an unknown-length array of struct foo. This is allowed, but it is unusual. One would ordinarily just declare a pointer to the first element of the array, as this plays out more naturally in C, and it's simpler, too:
struct bar{
// ...
struct foo *foo_ptr;
// ...
};
You can assign to the members of the pointed-to array via this form:
bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j] = new_struct;
(provided of course, that the pointed-to array has at least j + 1 elements. To get a pointer to such an element, you would do either
struct foo *struct_ptr = &bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr[j];
or, equivalently,
struct foo *struct_ptr = bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr + j;
You can do the same with your original struct declaration, but the form would need to be slightly different. For example:
struct foo *struct_ptr = &(*bar_arr[i]->foo_ptr)[j];
But really, make it easier on everybody, yourself included, and don't do that.
Hi have a function which takes the argument of a pointer, to a pointer to a struct. I'm having trouble accessing the members of my struct. Do struct pointers behave differently to pointers of other types, or am i just missing somethign essential?
struct mystr {
int num;
};
void fun(mystr **out) {
printf("%d",**out.num); <-- where the problem arises
}
No, 'struct pointers' (whatever you mean) work precisely the same way as pointers to other types.
You just need to recall operators precedence:
. structure member access
->structure member access through pointer
(...)
* indirection (dereference)
(...)
So your expression **out.num is interpreted as *(*(out.num)) and your (out.num) is not a pointer, hence applying an asterisk to it is an error.
You need to parenthesise appropriate part of the expression to force a non-default operators binding: (**out).num – dereference out twice first to get to a struct mystr variable, then access that variable's num member.
The -> operator serves as a shortcut for accessing a member of pointed stucture:
(ptr_expr)->member_name is equivalent to (*(ptr_expr)).member_name
so you can replace (**out).num with (*out)->num.
Possible to the solution to use this :
printf("%d",(*out)->num);
instead of
printf("%d",**out.num);
This is the way you should implement, here printf("%d",(*(*out)).num); will print 1.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
struct mystr{
int num;
};
void fun(struct mystr **out) {
printf("%d",(*(*out)).num);
}
int main()
{
struct mystr m;
struct mystr *p;
struct mystr **pp;
p=&m;
pp=&p;
m.num=1;
fun(pp);
return 0;
}
Here m is our structure, p is pointer to structure and pp is pointer to the pointer p.
I know that if I have a pointer in C programming language, and I have to point to a struct, I do:
struct mystruct S;
struct mystruct *ptr;
ptr=&S;
ptr->member=5;
I understood this, but I do not understand the reason why, if I do:
ptr=&S;
(*ptr).member=5;
*ptr should point to the first address of the struct, but why doesn't it work if I do this:
*ptr.member=5;
Operators have precedence: the member access operator . has the highest precedence, while dereference * has the next highest precedence. So *p.member attempts to find the member member of a pointer to mystruct and then dereference it. Since a *mystruct does not have a member called member, this is an error.
Because the access to member operator (the dot) has precedence over the dereferenciation (*).
So, your expression is equivalent to:
*(p.member) = 5
And p.member is not a pointer.
Unary * has a lower precedence than the . and -> member selection operators, so *p.member is parsed as *(p.member); in other words, you're attempting to dereference the result of p.member. This has two problems:
p is a pointer type, so the compiler will complain that you're trying to use the . operator on something that isn't a struct or union type;
member isn't a pointer type, so you can't apply the unary * to it.
(*p).member is equivalent to p->member; both dereference p before accessing member.
If you have a structure
struct A
{
int x;
};
and an object of the structure type
A a;
then to access its data member x you have to write
a.x = 5;
Or you can write
( &a )->x = 5;
Now if you have a pointer of type struct A * that initialized by the address of the object a
struct A *pa = &a;
then expression *pa gives the object a itself. So you may write
( *pa ).x = 5;
So now compare. On the one hand
a.x = 5; and ( *pa ).x = 5;
and on the other hand
( &a )->x = 5; and pa->x = 5;
You have a struct and a pointer to the struct:
struct mystruct S;
struct mystruct *ptr;
Now you store in ptr the address of that struct
ptr = &S;
When you need to access one member of that struct through a pointer, you have TWO alternative syntaxes
(*ptr).member = 5;
and
ptr->member = 5;
The two syntaxes are equivalent and do exactly the same action.
Is only a matter of personal taste.
In your question you have an error, because you wrote:
(*p).member = 5;
Instead of
(*ptr).member = 5;
Hence the error
One last tip:
(*ptr).member = 5;
and
*ptr.member = 5;
Are different things
(*ptr).member = 5; means that you get the address pointed by ptr and then store 5 in the field named member
*ptr.member = 5; means that you get the address pointed by ptr.member and then store 5 in the memory pointed by that address.
I have to use the following block of code for a school assignment, STRICTLY WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS.
typedef struct
{
char* firstName;
char* lastName;
int id;
float mark;
}* pStudentRecord;
pStudentRecord* g_ppRecords;
int g_numRecords =0;
Here g_ppRecords is supposed to be an array of pointers to structs. What I am completely failing to understand is that how can the statement pStudentRecords *g_ppRecords; mean g_ppRecords to be an array because an array should be defined as
type arrayname[size];
I tried allocating memory to g_ppRecords dynamically, but that's not helping.
g_ppRecords = (pStudentRecord*) malloc(sizeof(pStudentRecord*)*(g_numRecords+1));
EDIT: updated the "BIG MISTAKE" section.
A quick lesson on C-style (different from C++!) typedefs, and why it is how it is, and how to use it.
Firstly, a basic typedef trick.
typedef int* int_pointer;
int_pointer ip1;
int *ip2;
int a; // Just a variable
ip1 = &a; // Sets the pointer to a
ip2 = &a; // Sets the pointer to a
*ip1 = 4; // Sets a to 4
*ip2 = 4; // Sets a to 4
ip1 and ip2 are the same type: a pointer-to-type-int, even though you didn't put a * in the declaration of ip1. That * was instead in the declaration.
Switching topics.
You speak of declaring arrays as
int array1[4];
To do this dynamically at runtime, you might do:
int *array2 = malloc(sizeof(int) * 4);
int a = 4;
array1[0] = a;
array2[0] = a; // The [] implicitly dereferences the pointer
Now, what if we want an array of pointers? It would look like this:
int *array1[4];
int a;
array1[0] = &a; // Sets array[0] to point to variable a
*array1[0] = 4; // Sets a to 4
Let's allocate that array dynamically.
int **array2 = malloc(sizeof(int *) * 4);
array2[0] = &a; // [] implicitly dereferences
*array2[0] = 4; // Sets a to 4
Notice the int **. That means pointer-to pointer-to-int. We can, if we choose, use a pointer typedef.
typedef int* array_of_ints;
array_of_ints *array3 = malloc(sizeof(array_of_ints) * 4);
array3[0] = &a; // [] implicitly dereferences
*array3[0] = 4; // Sets a to 4
See how there's only one * in that last declaration? That's because ONE of them is "in the typedef." With that last declaration, you now have an array of size 4 that consists of 4 pointers to ints (int *).
It's important to point out OPERATOR PRECEDENCE here. The dereference operator[] takes preference over the * one. SO to be absolutely clear, what we're doing is this:
*(array3[0]) = 4;
Now, let's change topics to structs and typedefs.
struct foo { int a; }; // Declares a struct named foo
typedef struct { int a; } bar; // Typedefs an "ANONYMOUS STRUCTURE" referred to by 'bar'
Why would you ever typedef an anonymous struct? Well, for readability!
struct foo a; // Declares a variable a of type struct foo
bar b; // Notice how you don't have to put 'struct' first
Declaring a function...
funca(struct foo* arg1, bar *arg2);
See how we didn't have to put 'struct' in front of arg2?
Now, we see that the code you have to use defines a structure IN THIS MANNER:
typedef struct { } * foo_pointers;
That is analogous to how we did an array of pointers before:
typedef int* array_of_ints;
Compare side-by-side
typedef struct { } * foo_pointers;
typedef int* array_of_ints;
The only difference is that one is to a struct {} and the other is to int.
With our foo_pointers, we can declare an array of pointers to foo as such:
foo_pointers fooptrs[4];
Now we have an array that stores 4 pointers to an anonymous structure that we can't access.
TOPIC SWITCH!
UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, your teacher made a mistake. If one looks at the sizeof() of the type foo_pointers above, one will find it returns the size of a pointer to that structure, NOT the size of the structure. This is 4 bytes for 32-bit platform or 8 bytes for 64-bit platform. This is because we typedef'd a POINTER TO A STRUCT, not a struct itself. sizeof(pStudentRecord) will return 4.
So you can't allocate space for the structures themselves in an obvious fashion! However, compilers allow for this stupidity. pStudentRecord is not a name/type you can use to validly allocate memory, it is a pointer to an anonymous "conceptual" structure, but we can feed the size of that to the compiler.
pStudnetRecord g_ppRecords[2];
pStudentRecord *record = malloc(sizeof(*g_ppRecords[1]));
A better practice is to do this:
typedef struct { ... } StudentRecord; // Struct
typedef StudentRecord* pStudentRecord; // Pointer-to struct
We'd now have the ability to make struct StudentRecord's, as well as pointers to them with pStudentRecord's, in a clear manner.
Although the method you're forced to use is very bad practice, it's not exactly a problem at the moment. Let's go back to our simplified example using ints.
What if I want to be make a typedef to complicate my life but explain the concept going on here? Let's go back to the old int code.
typedef int* array_of_ints;
int *array1[4];
int **array2 = malloc(sizeof(int *) * 4); // Equivalent-ish to the line above
array_of_ints *array3 = malloc(sizeof(array_of_ints) * 4);
int a, b, c, d;
*array1[0] = &a; *array1[1] = &b; *array1[2] = &c; *array1[3] = &d;
*array2[0] = &a; *array2[1] = &b; *array2[2] = &c; *array2[3] = &d;
*array3[0] = &a; *array3[1] = &b; *array3[2] = &c; *array3[3] = &d;
As you can see, we can use this with our pStudentRecord:
pStudentRecord array1[4];
pStudentRecord *array2 = malloc(sizeof(pStudentRecord) * 4);
Put everything together, and it follows logically that:
array1[0]->firstName = "Christopher";
*array2[0]->firstName = "Christopher";
Are equivalent. (Note: do not do exactly as I did above; assigning a char* pointer at runtime to a string is only OK if you know you have enough space allocated already).
This only really brings up one last bit. What do we do with all this memory we malloc'd? How do we free it?
free(array1);
free(array2);
And there is a the end of a late-night lesson on pointers, typedefs of anonymous structs, and other stuff.
Observe that pStudentRecord is typedef'd as a pointer to a structure. Pointers in C simply point to the start of a memory block, whether that block contains 1 element (a normal "scalar" pointer) or 10 elements (an "array" pointer). So, for example, the following
char c = 'x';
char *pc = &c;
makes pc point to a piece of memory that starts with the character 'x', while the following
char *s = "abcd";
makes s point to a piece of memory that starts with "abcd" (and followed by a null byte). The types are the same, but they might be used for different purposes.
Therefore, once allocated, I could access the elements of g_ppRecords by doing e.g. g_ppRecords[1]->firstName.
Now, to allocate this array: you want to use g_ppRecords = malloc(sizeof(pStudentRecord)*(g_numRecords+1)); (though note that sizeof(pStudentRecord*) and sizeof(pStudentRecord) are equal since both are pointer types). This makes an uninitialized array of structure pointers. For each structure pointer in the array, you'd need to give it a value by allocating a new structure. The crux of the problem is how you might allocate a single structure, i.e.
g_ppRecords[1] = malloc(/* what goes here? */);
Luckily, you can actually dereference pointers in sizeof:
g_ppRecords[1] = malloc(sizeof(*g_ppRecords[1]));
Note that sizeof is a compiler construct. Even if g_ppRecords[1] is not a valid pointer, the type is still valid, and so the compiler will compute the correct size.
An array is often referred to with a pointer to its first element. If you malloc enough space for 10 student records and then store a pointer to the start of that space in g_ppRecords, g_ppRecords[9] will count 9 record-pointer-lengths forward and dereference what's there. If you've managed your space correctly, what's there will be the last record in your array, because you reserved enough room for 10.
In short, you've allocated the space, and you can treat it however you want if it's the right length, including as an array.
I'm not sure why you're allocating space for g_numRecords + 1 records. Unless g_numRecords is confusingly named, that's space for one more in your array than you need.
Here g_ppRecords is supposed to be an array of pointers to structs. What I am completely failing to understand is that how can the statement *pStudentRecords g_ppRecords; mean g_ppRecords to be an array. as an array should be defined as
type arrayname[size];
umm type arrayname[size]; is one way of many ways to define an array in C.
this statically defines an array, with most of the values being stored on the stack depending the location of it definition, the size of the array must be known at compile time, though this may no longer be the case in some modern compilers.
another way would be to dynamically create an array at runtime, so we don't have to know the size at compile time, this is where pointers come in, they are variables who store the address of dynamically allocated chunks of memory.
a simple example would be something like this type *array = malloc(sizeof(type) * number_of_items); malloc returns a memory address which is stored in array, note we don't typecast the return type for safety reasons.
Going back to the problem at hand.
typedef struct
{
char* firstName;
char* lastName;
int id;
float mark;
}* pStudentRecord;
pStudentRecord* g_ppRecords;
int g_numRecords = 0;
this typedef is a bit different from most note the }* basically its a pointer to a struct so this:
pStudentRecord* g_ppRecords;
is actually:
struct
{
char* firstName;
char* lastName;
int id;
float mark;
}** pStudentRecord;
its a pointer to a pointer, as to why they would define the typedef in this way, its beyond me, and I personally don't recommend it, why?
well one problem woud be how can we get the size of the struct through its name? simple we can't! if we use sizeof(pStudentRecord) we'll get 4 or 8 depending on the underlying architecture, because thats a pointer, without knowing the size of the structure we can't really dynamically allocated it using its typedef name, so what can we do, declare a second struct such as this:
typedef struct
{
char* firstName;
char* lastName;
int id;
float mark;
} StudentRecord;
g_ppRecords = malloc(sizeof(StudentRecord) * g_numRecords);
Either way you really need to contact the person who original created this code or the people maintaining and raise your concerns.
g_ppRecords=(pStudentRecord) malloc( (sizeof(char*) +
sizeof(char*) +
sizeof(int) +
sizeof(float)) *(g_numRecords+1));
this may seem like one possible way, unfortunately, there are no guarantees about structs, so they can actually containg padding in between the members so the total size of the struct can be actually larger then its combined members, not to mention there address would probably differ.
EDIT
Apparently we can get the size of the struct by simply inferring its type
so:
pStudentRecord g_ppRecords = malloc(sizeof(*g_ppRecords) * g_numRecords);
works fine!