When I try to run this, it gives me an error saying that the value in variable a isn't constant. That doesn't make sense to me because I explicitly made the variable a constant. Does the size of an array have to more constant than that? Meaning, only #define a 5, or initializing it as int arr[5] or using malloc? What is wrong with what I did?
int main{
const int a = 5;
int i;
int arr [a];
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
arr[i] = i * 2;
}
printf("%d", arr[1]);
return 0;
}
In C, const should be read as read-only. It doesn't define a compile time.
const int a = 5;
Here a, is not a constant expression as required by the C standard:
6.7.9 Initialization
4 All the expressions in an initializer for an object that has static or thread storage duration shall be constant
expressions or string literals.
So the error indicates you are using a C89/C90 compiler. You can read the input from user for a and declare a variable length array, which is a C99-feature, which has automatic storage duration.
Using #define is another way. But it's simply a textual replacement and defines an array with automatic storage duration. It's same as defining int arr[5]; yourself.
if you want to allocate memory on dynamic storage (commonly known as "heap"), you have to use malloc() family functions, which will have lifetime thoughout the program execution until you call free() on it.
(Note that this behaviour of const is only in C. C++ differs in this and will work as you expected).
If I compile the code in C89, it fails with:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
const int a = 5;
int i;
int arr [a];
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
arr[i] = i * 2;
}
printf("%d", arr[1]);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c89 -pedantic-errors test.c
test.c: In function âmainâ:
test.c:7:4: error: ISO C90 forbids variable length array âarrâ [-Wvla]
int arr [a];
^
because C89 doesn't support VLAs (Although gcc supports it as an extension even in C89/C90). So if you are using a compiler that doesn't support C99 then you can't use VLAs.
For example, visual studio doesn't fully support all C99 and C11 features. Although, Visual studio 2015 support most C99 features, VLAs are not one of them.
But the same code compiles in C99 and C11 without any problem:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c99 -pedantic-errors t.c
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c11 -pedantic-errors t.c
It's because variable length arrays (VLAs) were added in C99. Note that VLAs have been made optional in C11 standard. So an implementation may not support VLAs in C11.
You need to test against __STDC_NO_VLA__ to check if VLAs are not supported by your implementation.
From 6.10.8.3 Conditional feature macros
__STDC_NO_VLA__
The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the implementation does not support variable length arrays or variably
modified types.
I personally do not use VLAs as the allocation failure can't be portably found if the array size is reasonably large. E.g.
size_t size = 8*1024;
int arr[size];
In the above fragment, if arr allocation failed, you won't know it until runtime. What's a "small enough" size for which the memory allocation is platform dependent. So on one machine, 1MB allocation may succeed and another it may fail and worse part is that there's no way to catch this failure.
Thus the use of VLAs is limited and can only be used with small arrays that you know will always succeed on a given platform. But in that I would simply hard-code the array size and take care of the boundary conditions.
Maybe use an enum to define the value of a.
enum { a = 5 };
int arr [a];
Perhaps this is not the intention of an enum but the members of enums are the closest thing to a constant in C. Unlike the common practice of defining everything using #define, the visibility of a is limited by scope and here it is the same as arr.
A const-qualified variable is not the same thing as a constant expression; a constant expression has its value known at compile time, whereas a const-qualified variable (normally) doesn't (even though it looks like it should).
Note that in C99 and later, it's possible to declare variable-length arrays, where the array size isn't known until run time. You have to use a C99 or later compiler, and given that the feature was made optional in the 2011 standard, you have to check a feature macro to see if VLAs are available:
static const int a = 10; // a is not a constant expression
#if defined( __STDC__ ) && defined ( __STDC_VERSION__ ) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L && !defined( __STDC_NO_VLA__ )
/**
* VLAs are available in this environment
*/
#define USE_VLA 1
#endif
#ifdef USE_VLA
int arr[a];
#else
/**
* VLAs are not available, either because it's a pre-1999 implementation,
* or it's a post-2011 implementation that does not support optional
* VLAs. We'll have to use dynamic memory allocation here, meaning we'll
* also need an explicit free call when we're done with arr
*/
int *arr = malloc( sizeof *arr * a );
#endif
...
do_something_interesting_with( a );
...
#ifndef USE_VLA
free( a );
#endif
At least up until very recently, Microsoft's C compiler did not support VLAs. They have been adding some C99 features, though, such as mixed declarations and code, so maybe the latest version supports VLAs. I don't know.
Related
Just curious, what actually happens if I define a zero-length array int array[0]; in code? GCC doesn't complain at all.
Sample Program
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int arr[0];
return 0;
}
Clarification
I'm actually trying to figure out if zero-length arrays initialised this way, instead of being pointed at like the variable length in Darhazer's comments, are optimised out or not.
This is because I have to release some code out into the wild, so I'm trying to figure out if I have to handle cases where the SIZE is defined as 0, which happens in some code with a statically defined int array[SIZE];
I was actually surprised that GCC does not complain, which led to my question. From the answers I've received, I believe the lack of a warning is largely due to supporting old code which has not been updated with the new [] syntax.
Because I was mainly wondering about the error, I am tagging Lundin's answer as correct (Nawaz's was first, but it wasn't as complete) -- the others were pointing out its actual use for tail-padded structures, while relevant, isn't exactly what I was looking for.
An array cannot have zero size.
ISO 9899:2011 6.7.6.2:
If the expression is a constant expression, it shall have a value greater than zero.
The above text is true both for a plain array (paragraph 1). For a VLA (variable length array), the behavior is undefined if the expression's value is less than or equal to zero (paragraph 5). This is normative text in the C standard. A compiler is not allowed to implement it differently.
gcc -std=c99 -pedantic gives a warning for the non-VLA case.
As per the standard, it is not allowed.
However it's been current practice in C compilers to treat those declarations as a flexible array member (FAM) declaration:
C99 6.7.2.1, §16: As a special case, the last element of a structure with more than one named member may have an incomplete array type; this is called a flexible array member.
The standard syntax of a FAM is:
struct Array {
size_t size;
int content[];
};
The idea is that you would then allocate it so:
void foo(size_t x) {
Array* array = malloc(sizeof(size_t) + x * sizeof(int));
array->size = x;
for (size_t i = 0; i != x; ++i) {
array->content[i] = 0;
}
}
You might also use it statically (gcc extension):
Array a = { 3, { 1, 2, 3 } };
This is also known as tail-padded structures (this term predates the publication of the C99 Standard) or struct hack (thanks to Joe Wreschnig for pointing it out).
However this syntax was standardized (and the effects guaranteed) only lately in C99. Before a constant size was necessary.
1 was the portable way to go, though it was rather strange.
0 was better at indicating intent, but not legal as far as the Standard was concerned and supported as an extension by some compilers (including gcc).
The tail padding practice, however, relies on the fact that storage is available (careful malloc) so is not suited to stack usage in general.
In Standard C and C++, zero-size array is not allowed..
If you're using GCC, compile it with -pedantic option. It will give warning, saying:
zero.c:3:6: warning: ISO C forbids zero-size array 'a' [-pedantic]
In case of C++, it gives similar warning.
It's totally illegal, and always has been, but a lot of compilers
neglect to signal the error. I'm not sure why you want to do this.
The one use I know of is to trigger a compile time error from a boolean:
char someCondition[ condition ];
If condition is a false, then I get a compile time error. Because
compilers do allow this, however, I've taken to using:
char someCondition[ 2 * condition - 1 ];
This gives a size of either 1 or -1, and I've never found a compiler
which would accept a size of -1.
Another use of zero-length arrays is for making variable-length object (pre-C99). Zero-length arrays are different from flexible arrays which have [] without 0.
Quoted from gcc doc:
Zero-length arrays are allowed in GNU C. They are very useful as the last element of a structure that is really a header for a variable-length object:
struct line {
int length;
char contents[0];
};
struct line *thisline = (struct line *)
malloc (sizeof (struct line) + this_length);
thisline->length = this_length;
In ISO C99, you would use a flexible array member, which is slightly different in syntax and semantics:
Flexible array members are written as contents[] without the 0.
Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied.
A real-world example is zero-length arrays of struct kdbus_item in kdbus.h (a Linux kernel module).
I'll add that there is a whole page of the online documentation of gcc on this argument.
Some quotes:
Zero-length arrays are allowed in GNU C.
In ISO C90, you would have to give contents a length of 1
and
GCC versions before 3.0 allowed zero-length arrays to be statically initialized, as if they were flexible arrays. In addition to those cases that were useful, it also allowed initializations in situations that would corrupt later data
so you could
int arr[0] = { 1 };
and boom :-)
Zero-size array declarations within structs would be useful if they were allowed, and if the semantics were such that (1) they would force alignment but otherwise not allocate any space, and (2) indexing the array would be considered defined behavior in the case where the resulting pointer would be within the same block of memory as the struct. Such behavior was never permitted by any C standard, but some older compilers allowed it before it became standard for compilers to allow incomplete array declarations with empty brackets.
The struct hack, as commonly implemented using an array of size 1, is dodgy and I don't think there's any requirement that compilers refrain from breaking it. For example, I would expect that if a compiler sees int a[1], it would be within its rights to regard a[i] as a[0]. If someone tries to work around the alignment issues of the struct hack via something like
typedef struct {
uint32_t size;
uint8_t data[4]; // Use four, to avoid having padding throw off the size of the struct
}
a compiler might get clever and assume the array size really is four:
; As written
foo = myStruct->data[i];
; As interpreted (assuming little-endian hardware)
foo = ((*(uint32_t*)myStruct->data) >> (i << 3)) & 0xFF;
Such an optimization might be reasonable, especially if myStruct->data could be loaded into a register in the same operation as myStruct->size. I know nothing in the standard that would forbid such optimization, though of course it would break any code which might expect to access stuff beyond the fourth element.
Definitely you can't have zero sized arrays by standard, but actually every most popular compiler gives you to do that. So I will try to explain why it can be bad
#include <cstdio>
int main() {
struct A {
A() {
printf("A()\n");
}
~A() {
printf("~A()\n");
}
int empty[0];
};
A vals[3];
}
I am like a human would expect such output:
A()
A()
A()
~A()
~A()
~A()
Clang prints this:
A()
~A()
GCC prints this:
A()
A()
A()
It is totally strange, so it is a good reason not to use empty arrays in C++ if you can.
Also there is extension in GNU C, which gives you to create zero length array in C, but as I understand it right, there should be at least one member in structure prior, or you will get very strange examples as above if you use C++.
Before C99, does the C standard allow defining or casting to pointers to arrays of length determined at runtime?
I understand that the standard doesn't allow variable length arrays before C99, but whether pointers to arrays of runtime-determined size are allowed is not obvious to me, since the compiler knows how much memory to allocate for a pointer at compile time, unlike the array.
gcc 10.1.0 allows it, even with -std=c90, but I am curious about whether the standard allows it rather than whether specific compilers do. This question is very similar, but the answer doesn't talk about the standard.
Here is a code example:
#include <stdio.h>
int f() {
int a;
scanf("%d", &a)
return a;
}
int main() {
int dim1 = f();
int dim2 = 2*dim1;
int (*p)[dim1][dim2]; // is this allowed pre-C99?
return 0;
}
This is a constraint violation. A conforming C89 compiler must issue a diagnostic for this program.
3.5.4.2 Array declarators
Constraints
The expression that specifies the size of an array shall be an integral constant expression that has a value greater than zero.
With gcc use -std=c90 -pedantic to get (mostly) conforming mode.
When I tried this code it works:
const int i = 5;
int main() {
int arry[i];
}
Even though this didn't work:
const int i = 5;
int arry[i];
int main() {
}
I have read all posts here about arrays with constant sizes, but I can't understand why when declaring arry in main it works.
The issue here is that const in C doesn’t result in a true constant.
When you write const int i = 5 what you have is a read-only variable and not a constant. In C99 an array dimensioned with i is a variable length array (VLA). VLAs are only available for stack allocated variables, hence the compilation error you see.
If you need an array with global scope you should switch to a macro.
#define ARRAY_SIZE 5
int arry[ARRAY_SIZE];
This is valid because 5 is a literal which is a true constant.
In fact, even for an array of automatic storage (i.e. stack allocated local variable) you should avoid a VLA since they incur a runtime overhead.
Version 2 is simply not valid C, since i is a read-only variable rather than a true compile-time constant. If you wanted to make it work, you could use malloc and free (or a #define for the size).
Version 1 uses a variable-length array, which is standard feature of C99. gcc supports this syntax in pre-C99 code as an extension. If you compiled your code as C90 and turned on -pedantic, you'd get a warning that ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘arry’.
I recently tried this experiment in which instead of going for dynamic memory allocation for memory requirements of unknown size, I did a static allocation. When an array a[i] was declared by me, I kept i (size of the array) variable and dependent on the input that the user gives.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <conio.h>
void function(int );
int main(void)
{
int i;
printf("Enter:");
scanf("%d",&i);
function(i);
printf("i = %d\n",i);
getch();
return 0;
}
void function(int i)
{
char a[i];
char b[4];
strncpy(a,"hello",i);
strcpy(b,"world");
int j = 0;
char *c = a;
for( j = 0; j< 20; j++ )
printf("%c",*c++);
}
My questions are:
Is such an operation legal?
If no, why does the compiler not issue any warning or error?
Where will this memory be allocated: Stack or heap?
Why does ANSI C/GCC allow this?
Is such an operation legal?
It's called a variable length array.
VLAs are legal in ANSI C99 and as an extension to some pre-C99 compilers. GCC supports it both as strict C99 and as an extension to non-C99 code. It's also legal in C++0x.
If no, why does the compiler not issue any warning or error?
With gcc:
$ gcc -std=c89 src/vla.c -Wall -ansi -pedantic
src/vla.c: In function ‘function’:, not dynamic array.
src/vla.c:17: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘a’
src/vla.c:21: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
The presence of 'conio.h' from MSDOS indicates you're probably using a Microsoft Visual C++ compiler, so don't worry about it. MS has worked to make their compiler more conformant to the C++0x standard, but makes no claims about how standard its C compiler mode is. You're asking why Spanish dialect words aren't in the French dictionary.
Where will this memory be allocated: Stack or heap?
It is an automatic object, so most C implementations will put in on the stack for efficiency reasons.
Why does ANSI C/GCC allow this
It is useful for creating temporary arrays of variable size at runtime whose lifetime doesn't extend beyond the function call.
This is valid C99.
Look here for a more detailed explanation in another StackOverflow question.
This is legal, but not all compilers support it. At least Visual Studio <= 2003 afaik do not support it.
I would assume it is not Ansi C++, try gcc -ansi -pedantic.
Variable length arrays are illegal in ANSI C (C89). Try upping your compiler's warning level and I'm sure you'll get a warning/error.
The code is valid, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using variable length arrays.
void function(int i)
{
int a[i];
.
.
}
There is no error checking here. This code can fail if i is too big.
Dynamic memory allocation on stack:
There is a library call _malloca which allocates memory dynamically on program stack (very much like malloc does on Heap)
Reference: _malloca
Can someone elaborate on the following gcc error?
$ gcc -o Ctutorial/temptable.out temptable.c
temptable.c: In function ‘main’:
temptable.c:5: error: ‘for’ loop initial declaration used outside C99 mode
temptable.c:
...
/* print Fahrenheit-Celsius Table */
main()
{
for(int i = 0; i <= 300; i += 20)
{
printf("F=%d C=%d\n",i, (i-32) / 9);
}
}
P.S: I vaguely recall that int i should be declared before a for loop. I should state that I am looking for an answer that gives a historical context of C standard.
for (int i = 0; ...)
is a syntax that was introduced in C99. In order to use it you must enable C99 mode by passing -std=c99 (or some later standard) to GCC. The C89 version is:
int i;
for (i = 0; ...)
EDIT
Historically, the C language always forced programmers to declare all the variables at the begin of a block. So something like:
{
printf("%d", 42);
int c = 43; /* <--- compile time error */
must be rewritten as:
{
int c = 43;
printf("%d", 42);
a block is defined as:
block := '{' declarations statements '}'
C99, C++, C#, and Java allow declaration of variables anywhere in a block.
The real reason (guessing) is about allocating internal structures (like calculating stack size) ASAP while parsing the C source, without go for another compiler pass.
Before C99, you had to define the local variables at the start of a block. C99 imported the C++ feature that you can intermix local variable definitions with the instructions and you can define variables in the for and while control expressions.