So I´m stuck with this sort function because everything seems to work fine when I debug it and there are no errors or warnings what so ever but it somehow gets stuck in an infinite loop.
My struct(if it helps):
typedef struct raeume{
char number[5];
char klasse[6];
int tische;
}raeume;
my start of the qsort function:
void ausgabesortiert(struct raeume *arr[],int used,int size)
{
qsort(*arr,size,sizeof(raeume),cmp);
ausgabesortiert(arr,size,used);
}
my compare function:
int cmp(const void * a, const void * b)
{
raeume *raumA = (raeume *) a;
raeume *raumB = (raeume *) b;
int tempA = raumA->klasse[0] - '0';
int tempB = raumB->klasse[0] - '0';
if(tempA < tempB)
{
return -1;
}
else if(tempA > tempB)
{
return 1;
}
else if(tempA == tempB)
{
if(raumA->tische > raumB->tische)
{
return -1;
}
else if(raumA->tische < raumB->tische)
{
return 1;
}
else if(raumA->tische == raumB->tische)
{
return 0;
}
}
return 0;
}
The declaration of your ausgabesortiert function
void ausgabesortiert(struct raeume *arr[],int used,int size)
clearly suggests that array arr contains pointers to struct raeume objects, not the objects themselves.
But the call to qsort
qsort(*arr,size,sizeof(raeume),cmp);
and the comparison function are written as if you are trying to sort an array of struct raeume objects themselves that begins at arr[0] location.
While there's nothing formally invalid in this, it still looks rather strange. Is this really your intent? What exactly are you trying to sort, again? The arr array or some other array pointed by arr[0]? I suspect that it is the former, in which case you need to fix the qsort call and comparison function.
Related
The following code works fine without the statement d = *dummy; which is a double pointer dereference. However if this line is present, a segmentation fault occurs. Why so?
The code allocates and initializes memory for data structs dynamically. I was trying to simplify access to the returned pointer-to-pointer.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct s_dummy {
char dummy_number;
} Dummy;
int mock_read_from_external_source() {
return 4;
}
int load_dummies(Dummy** dummies, int* num_of_dummies) {
*num_of_dummies = mock_read_from_external_source();
*dummies = (Dummy*) calloc(*num_of_dummies, sizeof(Dummy));
if (!dummies) {
return 1; // allocation unsuccessful
}
// Iterate dummies and assign their values...
for (int i = 0; i < *num_of_dummies; i++) {
(*dummies + i)->dummy_number = i;
}
return 0;
}
void main() {
Dummy** dummies;
Dummy* d;
int num_of_dummies = 0;
int *p_num_of_dummies = &num_of_dummies;
int err;
err = load_dummies(dummies, p_num_of_dummies);
// Segmentation fault occurs when dummies is dereferenced
d = *dummies;
if (err) {
exit(err);
}
for (int i = 0; i < num_of_dummies; i++) {
printf("Dummy number: %d\n", (*dummies + i)->dummy_number);
}
}
Thanks in advance.
You are getting the fault because of UB, in part caused by trying to use variable objects without memory. dummies, although created as a Dummies **, has never been provided memory. At the very least, your compiler should have warned you about dummies not being initialized in this call:
err = load_dummies(dummies, p_num_of_dummies);
This is easily addressed by simply initializing the variable when it is created:
Dummy** dummies = {0}; //this initialization eliminates compile time warnings
^^^^^
Then come the run-time errors. The first is called a fatal run-time on my system, which means the OS refused to continue because of a serious problem, in this case an attempt to dereference a null pointer in this line:
dummies = (Dummy) calloc(*num_of_dummies, sizeof(Dummy));
Because you created a Dummy ** called dummies, the first step is to create memory for the pointer to pointers dummies, then create memory for the several instances of dummies[i] that will result. Only then can the members of any of them be written to.
Here is one method illustrating how memory can be created for a Dummies pointer to pointers, ( d ) and several Dummies instances ( d[i] ):
Dummy ** loadDummies(int numPointers, int numDummiesPerPointer)
{
int i;
Dummy **d = {0};
d = malloc(numPointers * sizeof(Dummy *));//Create Dummies **
if(!d) return NULL;
for(i=0;i<numPointers;i++)
{ //Now create Dummies *
d[i] = malloc(numDummiesPerPointer*sizeof(Dummy)); //random size for illustration
if(!d[i]) return NULL;
}
return d;
}
In your main function, which by the way should really be prototyped at a minimum as: int main(void){...}, this version of loadDummies could be called like this:
...
Dummies **dummies = loadDummies(4, 80);
if(!dummies) return -1;//ensure allocation of memory worked before using `dummies`.
...
After using this collection of dummies, be sure to free all of them in the reverse order they were created. Free all instances of dummies[0]-dummies[numPointers-1] first, then free the pointer to pointers, dummies
void freeDummies(Dummy **d, int numPointers)
{
int i;
for(i=0;i<numPointers;i++)
{
if(d[i]) free(d[i]);
}
if(d) free(d);
}
Called like this:
freeDummies(dummies, 4);
dummies was never assigned a value, so de-referencing will attempt to reach some random memory which is almost certainly not going to be part of your program's allocated memory. You should have assigned it to &d.
But you don't even need to do that. Just use &d once when you call the function.
Also, if you return the number of dummies allocated instead of 1/0, you can simplify your code. Something like the below (not tested):
#include <stdio.h>
int mock_read_from_external_source() {
return 10;
}
typedef struct Dummy {
int dummy_number;
} Dummy;
int load_dummies(Dummy** dummies) {
int want, i = 0;
if((want = mock_read_from_external_source()) > 0) {
*dummies = (Dummy*) calloc(want, sizeof(Dummy));
if(*dummies) {
// Iterate dummies and assign their values...
for (i = 0; i < want; i++) {
(*dummies)[i].dummy_number = i;
}
}
}
return i;
}
int main() {
Dummy* d = NULL;
int num_of_dummies = load_dummies(&d); // when &d is de-referenced, changes are reflected in d
if(num_of_dummies > 0) {
for (int i = 0; i < num_of_dummies; i++) {
printf("Dummy number: %d\n", d[i].dummy_number);
}
}
if(d) { // clean up
free(d);
}
return 0;
}
const static int VECTOR_BASIC_LENGTH = 20;
struct m_vector
{
void* my_vector;
size_t my_capacity;
size_t my_head;
};
typedef struct m_vector Vector;
Vector creat_Vector(size_t size,void *judge)
{
Vector _vector;
size = size?size:VECTOR_BASIC_LENGTH;
_vector.my_capacity = size;
_vector.my_head = 0;
//How I write the following two lines
_vector.my_vector = malloc(sizeof(*judge) * size);
return _vector;
}
The type of judge is uncertain,so I pass a void pointer as a parameters.I need the size of *judge to allocate memory to _vector.my_vector,for example if I use:
int *a;
creat_Vector(5,a);
I want the following line:
_vector.my_vector = malloc(sizeof(*judge)*size);
is equal to:
_vector.my_vector = malloc(sizeof(*a)*5);
How could I achieve this function.Using pure C
There is a forbidden thing done in your code.
You statically (at compile time) allocate/declare a local _vector of type Vector in your function creat_Vector. Then you return this object to the outside world. However, when you are exiting your function, all local data is dead. So, you should absolutely rethink this.
One suggestion would be:
int init_Vector(Vector* _vect, size_t size, unsigned int ptr_size)
{
size = size?size:VECTOR_BASIC_LENGTH;
_vect->my_capacity = size;
_vect->my_head = 0;
_vect->my_vector = malloc(size*ptr_size);
if (_vect->my_vector) {
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
Then:
Vector _vector;
char *a;
if (init_Vector(&_vector, 5, sizeof(char)) == 0) {
printf("Success!\n");
}
else {
printf("Failure!\n");
/* treat appropriately (return error code/exit) */
}
/* do whatever with a (if needed) and _vector*/
I'm having some very strange bug in my ANSI C program.
I'm using debugger and I've observed that 'size' variable is corrupted in function 'doSthing.' Outside of 'doSthing' 'size' got a proper value, but inside 'doSthing' I've got a value nothing similar to what it should be, possibly some random data. This would be not be such a mystery but...
In 'doAnotherThing' which is called from 'doSthing' I get the proper value again. I suppose if it passes the correct value, it is not corrupted anyway, am I wrong? But then why does it have a different value?
The pointer in struct does not change inside the functions.
Memory is allocated for both oTV and oTV->oT.
I really don't see what's happening here...
typedef struct{
ownType *oT[] /* array of pointers */
int size;
} ownTypeVector;
void doSthing(ownTypeVector* oTV);
void doAnotherThing(ownTypeVector* oTV);
void doSthing(ownTypeVector* oTV)
{
...
doAnotherThing(oTV);
...
}
Thanks for your comments, I collected all the code that contains control logic and data structures so that it compiles. It runs on in an embedded systems, that can receive characters from multiple sources, builds strings from it by given rules and after the strings are ready, calls a function that needs that string. This can also be a list of functions. This is why I have function pointers - I can use the same logic for a bunch of things simply by choosing functions outside the 'activityFromCharacters' function.
Here I build a data structre with them by adding A-s, B-s and C-s to the AVector.
Of course every one of these separate sources has their own static strings so that they do not bother each other.
The problem again in the more detailed version of the code:
'aV->size' has got a proper value everywhere, except 'handleCaGivenWay.' Before it gets calles, 'aV->size' is ok, in 'addA' 'aV->size' is ok, too. After leaving 'handleCaGivenWay' it is ok again.
#define NUMBER_OF_AS 1
#define NUMBER_OF_BS 5
#define NUMBER_OF_CS 10
typedef struct{
char name[81];
} C;
typedef struct{
C *c[NUMBER_OF_CS]; /* array of pointers */
int size;
int index;
} B;
typedef struct{
B *b[NUMBER_OF_BS]; /* array of pointers */
char name[81];
int size;
} A;
typedef struct{
A *a[NUMBER_OF_AS]; /* array of pointers */
int size;
} AVector;
typedef struct {
char *string1;
char *string2;
} stringBundle;
typedef struct{
void (*getCharacter)(char *buffer);
void (*doSthingwithC)(stringBundle* strings,AVector* aV);
AVector* aV;
} functionBundle;
void getCharFromaGivenPort(char *buffer)
{
//...
}
void addA(AVector * aV, stringBundle* strings)
{
aV->a[aV->size]->size = 0;
++aV->size;
int i = 0;
if(strlen(strings->string2) < 81)
{
for(i;i<81;++i)
{
aV->a[aV->size-1]->name[i] = strings->string2[i];
}
}
else {report("Too long name for A:");
report(strings->string2);}
}
void handleCaGivenWay(stringBundle* strings,AVector* aV)
{
A* a;
a = NULL;
if(aV->size) { a = aV->a[aV->size-1]; }
switch(1)
{
case 1: addA(aV,strings); break;
case 2: //addB()...
default: if (a && aV->size)
{ //addC(a->thr[a->size-1],c);
}
else report("A or B or C invalid");
break;
}
//handleCaGivenWay
}
void activityFromCharacters(stringBundle* strings,functionBundle* funcbundle)
{
/* some logic making strings from characters by */
/* looking at certain tokens */
(* funcbundle->doSthingwithC)(strings,funcbundle->aV);
}
//activityFromCharacters
AVector* initializeAVector(void)
{
AVector* aV;
if (NULL == (aV = calloc(1,sizeof(AVector))))
{ report("Cannot allocate memory for aVector."); }
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
int k = 0;
for(i; i < NUMBER_OF_AS; ++i)
{
if (NULL == (aV->a[i] = calloc(1,sizeof(A))))
{ report("Cannot allocate memory for As."); }
aV->a[i]->size = 0;
aV->a[i]->name[0] = 0;
for(j; j < NUMBER_OF_BS; ++j)
{
if (NULL == (aV->a[i]->b[j] = calloc(1,sizeof(B))))
{ report("Cannot allocate memory for Bs."); }
aV->a[i]->b[j]->size = 0;
for(k; k < NUMBER_OF_CS; ++k)
{
if (NULL == (aV->a[i]->b[j]->c[k] = calloc(1,sizeof(C))))
{ report("Cannot allocate memory for Cs."); }
}
}
}
aV->size = 0;
return aV;
//initializeProgramVector
}
int main (void)
{
AVector* aV;
aV = initializeAVector();
while(1)
{
static stringBundle string;
static char str1[81];
static char str2[81];
string.string1 = str1;
string.string2 = str2;
functionBundle funcbundle;
funcbundle.getCharacter = &getCharFromaGivenPort;
funcbundle.doSthingwithC = &handleCaGivenWay;
funcbundle.aV = aV;
activityFromCharacters(&string,&funcbundle);
}
//main
}
your code shows that it hasn't any error...
But i think you are doing mistake in getting the value of size in doSthing function.
you are printing there its address. so concentrate on some pointer stuff..
Try printing the oTV->size just before the call and as the first statement in doSthing function. If you get the correct value in both print, then the problem is with the function doSthing. Problem could be better understood if you've shown the code that calls doSthing.
Searched a long time to find this. I found 2 problems, but dont know what exactly you are trying to accomplish so i cannot tell for certain that the fix'es i propose are what you intend.
typedef struct{
A *a[NUMBER_OF_AS]; /* array of pointers */
int size;
} AVector;
// and in addA():
aV->a[aV->size]->size = 0;
First: You are inlining the array of pointers in the struct. What i think what you want and need is a pointer to a pointer array so that it can grow which is what you want in addA() i think. The line from addA() aV->a[aV->size]->size = 0; does not communicate your intention very well but it looks like you are trying to change the value beyond the last entry in the array and since it is inlined in the struct it would result to the separate field size by pure coincidence on some alignments; this is a very fragile way of programming. So what i propose is this. Change the struct to contain A** a; // pointer to pointer-array, malloc it initially and re-malloc (and copy) it whenever you need it to grow (in addA()).
#include<stdio.h>
#include "amicablenumber.h"
int i,j;
struct amicable
{
int **amicablePair;
int size;
};
main()
{
int startnum = 250;
int endnum = 1000;
struct amicable* ami;
ami = getAmicablePairs(startnum, endnum);
printf("{");
for(int i = 0; i<ami->size; i++)
{
printf("{%d, %d}",ami->amicablePair[i][0], ami->amicablePair[i][1]);
}
printf("}");
}
amicable *getAmicablePairs(int startnum,int endnum)
{
int size=0;
int sumfactors(int);
amicable record;
for(i=startnum;i<=endnum;i++)
{
for(j=endnum;j>=startnum;j--)
{
if((sumfactors(i)==j)&&(sumfactors(j)==i) && (i!=j))
{
record.amicablePair[size][0]=i;
record.amicablePair[size][1]=j;
size++;
}}}
record.size=size;
return record;
}
int sumfactors(int number)
{
int sum=0;
for(i=1;i<number;i++)
{
if(number%i==0)
sum +=i;
}
return sum;
}
in the above code i m getting a error
cannot convert amicable to amicable* in return
getAmicablePairs is declared to return a pointer to an amicable:
amicable *getAmicablePairs(...)
but you then try to return an amicable:
return record;
rather than a pointer to one.
Note that one "obvious" fix, which is to return a pointer to record:
return &record;
won't work, because you'd be returning a pointer to a variable that was about to go away as soon as getAmicablePairs returns. Instead you need to create a record using malloc and return that; something like this:
amicable *record = (amicable*) malloc(sizeof(amicable));
You'll need to change all your record. into record->.
Note also that you're writing into the amicablePair member of your structure without allocating it - that's going to cause a crash. You need to malloc the amicablePair as well as the amicable.
You are returning an (amicable *) - a pointer to an amicable, but your function creates an (amicable) (not a pinter to one).
Instead of declaring
amicable record;
you need to do this (or an equivalent):
amicable *record = (amicable *) malloc(sizeof(amicable));
and then access via "record->" rather than "record."
Note: With the above approach you will need to free() the above allocation when you are finished with it.
I'm assuming that the good old qsort function in stdlib is not stable, because the man page doesn't say anything about it. This is the function I'm talking about:
#include <stdlib.h>
void qsort(void *base, size_t nmemb, size_t size,
int(*compar)(const void *, const void *));
I assume that if I change my comparison function to also include the address of that which I'm comparing, it will be stable. Is that correct?
Eg:
int compareFoos( const void* pA, const void *pB ) {
Foo *pFooA = (Foo*) pA;
Foo *pFooB = (Foo*) pB;
if( pFooA->id < pFooB->id ) {
return -1;
} else if( pFooA->id > pFooB->id ) {
return 1;
} else if( pA < pB ) {
return -1;
} else if( pB > pA ) {
return 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
No, you cannot rely on that unfortunately. Let's assume you have the array (two fields in each record used for checking but only first field used for sorting):
B,1
B,2
A,3
A non-stable sort may compare B,1 with A,3 and swap them, giving:
A,3
B,2
B,1
If the next step were to compare B,2 with B,1, the keys would be the same and, since B,2 has an address less than B,1, no swap will take place. For a stable sort, you should have ended up with:
A,3
B,1
B,2
The only way to do it would be to attach the starting address of the pointer (not its current address) and sort using that as well as the other keys. That way, the original address becomes the minor part of the sort key so that B,1 will eventually end up before B,2 regardless of where the two B lines go during the sorting process.
The canonical solution is to make (i.e. allocate memory for and fill) an array of pointers to the elements of the original array, and qsort this new array, using an extra level of indirection and falling back to comparing pointer values when the things they point to are equal. This approach has the potential side benefit that you don't modify the original array at all - but if you want the original array to be sorted in the end, you'll have to permute it to match the order in the array of pointers after qsort returns.
This does not work because during the sort procedure, the ordering will change and two elements will not have consistent output. What I do to make good old-fashioned qsort stable is to add the initial index inside my struct and initialize that value before passing it to qsort.
typedef struct __bundle {
data_t some_data;
int sort_score;
size_t init_idx;
} bundle_t;
/*
.
.
.
.
*/
int bundle_cmp(void *ptr1, void *ptr2) {
bundle_t *b1, *b2;
b1 = (budnel_t *) ptr1;
b2 = (budnel_t *) ptr2;
if (b1->sort_score < b2->sort_score) {
return -1;
}
if (b1->sort_score > b2->sort_score) {
return 1;
}
if (b1->init_idx < b2->init_idx) {
return -1;
}
if (b1->init_idx > b2->init_idx) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
void sort_bundle_arr(bundle_t *b, size_t sz) {
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < sz; i++) {
b[i]->init_idx = i;
}
qsort(b, sz, sizeof(bundle_t), bundle_cmp);
}