I'm back, and it appears I still haven't quite figured out memory management in C. While trying to design an event queue I decided to build a circular buffer as an exercise. After a bit of research I am trying to model it after the following implementation I saw here on SO: https://stackoverflow.com/a/827749 .
I decided to simplify it a bit, instead of building a buffer for any data type I wanted to build one just for integers. For the most part I was able to follow the logic, although I do not understand how come the author is occasionally casting values to (char *). I've tried my program with and without the (char *) casts but it yields the same incorrect output in both cases.
Once I write past a certain point, values that should not change in my buffer are being affected, which I assume has something to do with the way I've allocated memory for the buffer. It looks like the program is writing past the buffer I've allocated in my struct, and is overwriting values that should otherwise be static. I can't for the life of me figure out how to fix the error, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's something very obvious I've managed to overlook.
Here is my code:
typedef struct Circular_buffer
{
void *buffer;
void *buffer_end;
size_t capacity; // The maximum number of items allowed in buffer
size_t count; // Current number of items in buffer
size_t item_size; //Size of each item;
void *head;
void *tail;
} Circular_buffer;
int main(void)
{
int i;
Circular_buffer my_buffer;
c_buff_init( &my_buffer, 10 );
printf("Buffer Capacity: %d\n", my_buffer.capacity);
for (i = 0; i < 7; i++) {
c_buff_write( &my_buffer, i);
}
printf("Capacity: %d Count: %d\n", my_buffer.capacity, (int)my_buffer.count);
cleanup_c_buff( my_buffer );
return 0;
}
void *c_buff_init( Circular_buffer *buffer, int length )
{
buffer->item_size = sizeof(int);
buffer->buffer = malloc( length * buffer->item_size );
buffer->buffer_end = buffer->buffer + buffer->capacity * buffer->item_size;
buffer->capacity = length;
buffer->count = 0;
buffer->head = buffer;
buffer->tail = buffer;
}
void c_buff_write( Circular_buffer *buffer, const int data)
{
if (buffer->count == buffer->capacity) {
printf( "Your buffer is full\n" );
exit(0);
}
printf("Buffer Capacity: %d Buffer Count %d\n", buffer->capacity, buffer->count);
memcpy( buffer->head, &data, buffer->item_size); // memcpy args = (dest, src, size)
buffer->head = (char*)buffer->head + buffer->item_size;
if (buffer->head == buffer->buffer_end) // If head has reached end of buffer
buffer->head = buffer->buffer; // Set head to start of buffer
buffer->count++;
}
When this program runs, it produces the expected output up until it tries to add the fifth element (heh), where it seems to all of a sudden write over my capacity value.
What gives?
You're using the same name, buffer, for two different things. One is for the circular buffer, and the other is for the storage that you create via malloc. Look at where you're setting buffer->head and buffer->tail. You're setting them to the structure itself, so you're going to overwrite it. You need to set them to the storage that you create via malloc.
Related
This is my very first post on stackoverflow. I am a CS student learning C, and I am having some issues with the problem I'm working on. Additionally, I should mention that I know very little, so if anything I put here comes off as foolish or ignorant, it is absolutely not my intention
I am aware that there are other posts similar to this one, however so far I feel that I have tried making a lot of amendments that all end with the same result.
I am given a text file in which each line contains studentName(tab)gpa. The total size of the file is unknown, this I must use dynamic memory allocation.
Example of text file format
Jordan 4.0
Bhupesh 2.51
General steps for program
Many details will be left out to save myself from embarrassment, however I will give a high-level overview of the process I am struggling with:
1.) Create dynamic memory array to hold struct for each line
2.) Start looping through file
3.) check the current size of the array to see if reallocation is necessary
4.) Create dynamic array to hold name
5.) Place name and gpa into struct
6.) rinse & repeat
Finally, one last thing. The error occurs when my initial allocated memory limit is reached and the program attempts to reallocate more memory from the heap.
Screenshot of error being thrown in clion debugger
My code is shown below:
#define EXIT_CODE_FAIL 1
#define ROW_COUNT 10
#define BUFFER_SIZE 255
#define VALID_ARG_COUNT 2
struct Student {
float gpa;
char * name;
};
// read the file, pack contents into struct array
struct Student * readFileContents(char *filename, int *rowCounter) {
// setup for loop
int maxDataSize = ROW_COUNT;
float currentStudentGpa = 0;
char studentNameBuffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
// initial structArray pre-loop
struct Student * structArray = calloc(maxDataSize, sizeof(*structArray));
FILE *pFile = fopen(filename, "r");
validateOpenFile(pFile);
// loop through, get contents, of eaach line, place them in struct
while (fscanf(pFile, "%s\t%f", studentNameBuffer, ¤tStudentGpa) > 0) {
structArray = checkArraySizeIncrease(*rowCounter, &maxDataSize, &structArray);
structArray->name = trimStringFromBuffer(studentNameBuffer);
structArray->gpa = currentStudentGpa;
(*rowCounter)++, structArray++;
}
fclose(pFile);
return structArray;
}
// resize array if needed
struct Student * checkArraySizeIncrease(int rowCount, int * maxDataSize, struct Student ** structArray) {
if (rowCount == *maxDataSize) {
*maxDataSize += ROW_COUNT;
**// line below is where the error occurs**
struct Student * newStructArray = realloc(*structArray, *maxDataSize * sizeof(*newStructArray));
validateMalloc(newStructArray);
return newStructArray;
}
return *structArray;
}
// resize string from initial data buffer
char *trimStringFromBuffer(char *dataBuffer) {
char *string = (char *) calloc(strlen(dataBuffer), sizeof(char));
validateMalloc(string);
strcpy(string, dataBuffer);
return string;
}
Once again, I apologize if similar questions have been asked, but please know I have tried most of the recommendations that I have found on stack overflow with no success (of which I'm well aware is the result of my poor programming skill level in C).
I will now promptly prepare myself for my obligatory "first post on stackoverflow" roasting. Cheers!
You are reusing structArray as both the base of the array and a pointer to the current element. This won't work. We need two variables.
There are a number of "loose" variables related to the dynamic array. It's cleaner to define a struct (e.g. dynarr_t below) to contain them and pass just the struct pointer around.
When you're duplicating the string, you must allocate strlen + 1 [not just strlen]. But, the entire function does what strdup already does.
I tried to save as much as possible, but I've had to refactor the code a fair bit to incorporate all the necessary changes.
By passing sizeof(*structArray) to the arrnew function, this allows the struct to be used for arbitrary size array elements.
Anyway, here's the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <errno.h>
#define sysfault(_fmt...) \
do { \
printf(_fmt); \
exit(1); \
} while (0)
#define EXIT_CODE_FAIL 1
#define ROW_COUNT 10
#define BUFFER_SIZE 255
#define VALID_ARG_COUNT 2
struct Student {
float gpa;
char *name;
};
// general dynamic array control
typedef struct {
void *base; // base address
size_t size; // bytes in array element
size_t count; // current number of used entries
size_t max; // maximum number of entries
size_t grow; // number of entries to grow
} dynarr_t;
// arrfind -- return pointer to array element
void *
arrfind(dynarr_t *arr,size_t idx)
{
void *ptr;
ptr = arr->base;
idx *= arr->size;
ptr += idx;
return ptr;
}
// arrnew -- create new array control
dynarr_t *
arrnew(size_t siz,size_t grow)
// siz -- sizeof of array element
// grow -- number of elements to grow
{
dynarr_t *arr;
arr = calloc(1,sizeof(*arr));
if (arr == NULL)
sysfault("arrnew: calloc fail -- %s\n",strerror(errno));
arr->size = siz;
arr->grow = grow;
return arr;
}
// arrgrow -- grow array [if necessary]
// RETURNS: pointer to element to fill
void *
arrgrow(dynarr_t *arr)
{
void *ptr;
// grow array if necessary
// NOTE: use of a separate "max" from "count" reduces the number of realloc
// calls
if (arr->count >= arr->max) {
arr->max += arr->grow;
arr->base = realloc(arr->base,arr->size * arr->max);
if (arr->base == NULL)
sysfault("arrgrow: realloc failure -- %s\n",strerror(errno));
}
// point to current element
ptr = arrfind(arr,arr->count);
// advance count of elements
++arr->count;
return ptr;
}
// arrtrim -- trim array to actual number of elements used
void
arrtrim(dynarr_t *arr)
{
arr->base = realloc(arr->base,arr->size * arr->count);
if (arr->base == NULL)
sysfault("arrtrim: realloc failure -- %s\n",strerror(errno));
arr->max = arr->count;
}
void
validateMalloc(void *ptr)
{
if (ptr == NULL) {
perror("validateMalloc");
exit(1);
}
}
void
validateOpenFile(FILE *ptr)
{
if (ptr == NULL) {
perror("validateOpenFile");
exit(1);
}
}
// resize string from initial data buffer
char *
trimStringFromBuffer(char *dataBuffer)
{
#if 0
#if 0
char *string = calloc(1,strlen(dataBuffer));
#else
char *string = calloc(1,strlen(dataBuffer) + 1);
#endif
validateMalloc(string);
strcpy(string, dataBuffer);
#else
char *string = strdup(dataBuffer);
validateMalloc(string);
#endif
return string;
}
// read the file, pack contents into struct array
dynarr_t *
readFileContents(char *filename)
{
dynarr_t *arr;
// setup for loop
float currentStudentGpa = 0;
char studentNameBuffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
struct Student *structArray;
arr = arrnew(sizeof(*structArray),10);
FILE *pFile = fopen(filename, "r");
validateOpenFile(pFile);
// loop through, get contents, of eaach line, place them in struct
while (fscanf(pFile, "%s\t%f", studentNameBuffer, ¤tStudentGpa) > 0) {
structArray = arrgrow(arr);
structArray->name = trimStringFromBuffer(studentNameBuffer);
structArray->gpa = currentStudentGpa;
}
fclose(pFile);
arrtrim(arr);
return arr;
}
I think your issue is with the calculation of the size of the realloc. Rather than using sizeof(*newStructArray), shouldn't you really be using the size of your pointer type? I would have written this as realloc(*structArray, *maxDataSize * sizeof(struct Student *))
There's a lot of other stuff in here I would never do - passing all those variables in to checkArraySizeIncrease as pointers is generally a bad idea because it can mask the fact that things are getting changed, for instance.
There is an issue in allocation of the buffer for string
char *string = (char *) calloc(strlen(dataBuffer), sizeof(char));
it should be:
char *string = (char *) calloc(1 + strlen(dataBuffer), sizeof(char));
as C-strings require extra 0-byte at the end.
Without it, the following operation:
strcpy(string, dataBuffer);
may damage data after the buffer, likely messing malloc() metadata.
I have a function that initializes a struct that contains nested structs and arrays.
While initializing the struct I have multiple calls to calloc.
Refer to code bellow:
typedef struct
{
int length;
uint8_t *buffer;
} buffer_a;
typedef struct
{
int length;
uint8_t *buffer;
int *second_buffer_size;
uint8_t **second_buffer;
} buffer_b;
typedef struct
{
int max_length;
buffer_a *buffer_in;
buffer_b *buffer_out;
} state_struct;
state_struct *init(int size, int elements) {
size_t struct_size = sizeof(state_struct);
state_struct *s = (state_struct*) calloc(struct_size, struct_size);
log("Building state with length %d", size);
s->max_length = size;
size_t buffer_in_size = s->max_length * sizeof(buffer_a);
s->buffer_in = (buffer_a*) calloc(buffer_in_size, buffer_in_size);
size_t buffer_out_size = s->max_length * sizeof(buffer_b);
s->buffer_out = (buffer_b*) calloc(buffer_out_size, buffer_out_size);
log("Allocated memory for both buffers structs");
for (int i = 0; i < s->max_length; ++i) {
size_t buf_size = elements * sizeof(uint8_t);
s->buffer_in[i].buffer = (uint8_t*) calloc(buf_size, buf_size);
s->buffer_in[i].length = -1;
log(s, "Allocated memory for in buffer");
s->buffer_out[i].buffer = (uint8_t*) calloc(buf_size, buf_size);
s->buffer_out[i].length = -1;
log(s, "Allocated memory for out buffer");
size_t inner_size = elements * elements * sizeof(uint8_t);
size_t inner_second_buffer_size = elements * sizeof(int);
s->buffer_out[i].second_buffer = (uint8_t**) calloc(inner_size, inner_size);
s->buffer_out[i].second_buffer_size = (int*) calloc(inner_second_buffer_size, inner_second_buffer_size);
log(s, "Allocated memory for inner buffer");
}
return s;
}
Logs just before the for loop are printed but the program crashes and the first log statement inside the loop does not get printed out.
Why is this happening?
So this may not be an answer to your question, but here goes:
When I ran this code (on Ubuntu, gcc 7.4), and replaced all the log functions with printf, it finished succesfuly. I suspect the problem might be in the way you use the log function. You specify that it works up until the first log call inside the loop. You didn't specify what the log function does, or whether it is a function or just a macro wrapper for printf, but you call it in a different manner inside the loop - the first parameter is *state_struct rather than a format string.
Also, the way you call calloc seems to be semantically incorrect. The first parameter should be the number of blocks of second parameter size you want to allocate (presumably 1 in this case)
As part of a personal project, I'm trying to create a dynamic array of 2-tuples that show a) the line in a program and b) the number of bytecode tokens associated with that line. I've implemented this as a struct of arrays:
typedef struct{
int count; // Number of elements
int capacity; // total capacity of arraylist
int* lines;
int* lineCount;
}
this is based on the example from the codebase, as such:
int count;
int capacity;
uint8_t* bytes;
My problem comes from re-allocation - I have several helper functions/macros for growing and re-allocating the array lists memory - here particularly the macro GROW_ARRAY and reallocate(), as described below. When I try and re-allocate lines, it works fine, but I get a segmentation fault and realloc(): invalid old size several times when I attempt to reallocate lineCount after it
I'm using the code base from Bob Nystrom's Crafting Interpreters, especially this first part here https://craftinginterpreters.com/chunks-of-bytecode.html#challenges. Most of the code comes from there, albeit tinkered with some of having added
Mostly, I've added a lot of checks and been running this with all the debug features in gcc I can find. Notably, realloc(): invalid old size has stop appearing as I've tinkered with the code some.
EDIT: Added main function that should reproduce behavior
int main() {
LineArray lines;
// Initialize to 0 / NULL
initLineArray(&lines);
updateLineArray(&lines, 0, 1);
}
// the structure I'm using
typedef struct {
int capacity;
int count;
int* lines;
int* lineCount;
} LineArray;
/* Note LineArray has already been initialized earlier with
capacity=0;
count=0;
lines=NULL;
lineCount=NULL;
*/
void updateLineArray(LineArray* array, int line, int count) {
// IF line in `lines` -- update it
int index = containsLine(array, line);
if (index != -1) { // IF Index is not Error Code
// I think I fixed a bug here?
array->lineCount[index] += count;
return;
}
//ELSE -- add line to end (naturally appends); then increment
else {
//Check to see if array would be overgrown
if (array->capacity < array->count + 1) {
//IF yes, regrow array
int old_capacity = array->capacity;
array->capacity = GROW_CAPACITY(old_capacity);
// Reallocate arrays.
array->lines = GROW_ARRAY(array->lines, int, old_capacity,
array->capacity);
array->lineCount = GROW_ARRAY(array->lineCount, int, old_capacity,
array->capacity);
}
// Properly update the lines
array->lines[array->count] = line;
array->lineCount[array->count] = count;
array->count++;
return;
}
}
//The memory management functions/macros I'm using here
#define GROW_CAPACITY(capacity) \
((capacity) < 8 ? 8 : (capacity) * 2)
#define GROW_ARRAY(previous, type, oldCount, count) \
(type*) reallocate(previous, sizeof(type) * (oldCount), \
sizeof(type) * (count))
void* reallocate(void* previous, size_t oldSize, size_t newSize) {
// If size is null, erase it and get null_pointer
if (newSize == 0) {
free(previous);
return NULL;
}
// reallocate the data into a new size
// is Oldsize is zero :: malloc(data, newSize)
return realloc(previous, newSize);
}
While working on a program which requires frequent memory allocation I came across behaviour I cannot explain. I've implemented a work around but I am curious to why my previous implementation didn't work. Here's the situation:
Memory reallocation of a pointer works
This may not be best practice (and if so please let me knwow) but I recall that realloc can allocate new memory if the pointer passed in is NULL. Below is an example where I read file data into a temporary buffer, then allocate appropriate size for *data and memcopy content
I have a file structure like so
typedef struct _my_file {
int size;
char *data;
}
And the mem reallocation and copy code like so:
// cycle through decompressed file until end is reached
while ((read_size = gzread(fh, buf, sizeof(buf))) != 0 && read_size != -1) {
// allocate/reallocate memory to fit newly read buffer
if ((tmp_data = realloc(file->data, sizeof(char *)*(file->size+read_size))) == (char *)NULL) {
printf("Memory reallocation error for requested size %d.\n", file->size+read_size);
// if memory was previous allocated but realloc failed this time, free memory!
if (file->size > 0)
free(file->data);
return FH_REALLOC_ERROR;
}
// update pointer to potentially new address (man realloc)
file->data = tmp_data;
// copy data from temporary buffer
memcpy(file->data + file->size, buf, read_size);
// update total read file size
file->size += read_size;
}
Memory reallocation of pointer to pointer fails
However, here is where I'm confused. Using the same thought that reallocation of a NULL pointer will allocate new memory, I parse a string of arguments and for each argument I allocate a pointer to a pointer, then allocate a pointer that is pointed by that pointer to a pointer. Maybe code is easier to explain:
This is the structure:
typedef struct _arguments {
unsigned short int options; // options bitmap
char **regexes; // array of regexes
unsigned int nregexes; // number of regexes
char *logmatch; // log file match pattern
unsigned int limit; // log match limit
char *argv0; // executable name
} arguments;
And the memory allocation code:
int i = 0;
int len;
char **tmp;
while (strcmp(argv[i+regindex], "-logs") != 0) {
len = strlen(argv[i+regindex]);
if((tmp = realloc(args->regexes, sizeof(char **)*(i+1))) == (char **)NULL) {
printf("Cannot allocate memory for regex patterns array.\n");
return -1;
}
args->regexes = tmp;
tmp = NULL;
if((args->regexes[i] = (char *)malloc(sizeof(char *)*(len+1))) == (char *)NULL) {
printf("Cannot allocate memory for regex pattern.\n");
return -1;
}
strcpy(args->regexes[i], argv[i+regindex]);
i++;
}
When I compile and run this I get a run time error "realloc: invalid pointer "
I must be missing something obvious but after not accomplishing much trying to debug and searching for solutions online for 5 hours now, I just ran two loops, one counts the numbers of arguments and mallocs enough space for it, and the second loop allocates space for the arguments and strcpys it.
Any explanation to this behaviour is much appreciated! I really am curious to know why.
First fragment:
// cycle through decompressed file until end is reached
while (1) {
char **tmp_data;
read_size = gzread(fh, buf, sizeof buf);
if (read_size <= 0) break;
// allocate/reallocate memory to fit newly read buffer
tmp_data = realloc(file->data, (file->size+read_size) * sizeof *tmp_data );
if ( !tmp_data ) {
printf("Memory reallocation error for requested size %d.\n"
, file->size+read_size);
if (file->data) {
free(file->data)
file->data = NULL;
file->size = 0;
}
return FH_REALLOC_ERROR;
}
file->data = tmp_data;
// copy data from temporary buffer
memcpy(file->data + file->size, buf, read_size);
// update total read file size
file->size += read_size;
}
Second fragment:
unsigned i; // BTW this variable is already present as args->nregexes;
for(i =0; strcmp(argv[i+regindex], "-logs"); i++) {
char **tmp;
tmp = realloc(args->regexes, (i+1) * sizeof *tmp );
if (!tmp) {
printf("Cannot allocate memory for regex patterns array.\n");
return -1;
}
args->regexes = tmp;
args->regexes[i] = strdup( argv[i+regindex] );
if ( !args->regexes[i] ) {
printf("Cannot allocate memory for regex pattern.\n");
return -1;
}
...
return 0;
}
A few notes:
the syntax ptr = malloc ( CNT * sizeof *ptr); is more robust than the sizeof(type) variant.
strdup() does exactly the same as your malloc+strcpy()
the for(;;) loop is less error prone than a while() loop with a loose i++; at the end of the loop body. (it also makes clear that the loopcondition is never checked)
to me if ( !ptr ) {} is easyer to read than if (ptr != NULL) {}
the casts are not needed and sometimes unwanted.
I'm using Visual c++.
I'm trying to implement a circular buffer, this CB must handle a specific type of data...in fact, it's a structure data where we have some kind of raw data to be stored in a char type and a date associated to that data...this has been implemented using a strucuture.
here is the code for more details:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <windows.h>
//data=date_label+raw_data
typedef struct DataFragment
{
char data[4];
clock_t date;
}DataFragment;
typedef struct CircularBuffer
{
DataFragment *buffer; // data buffer
DataFragment *buffer_end; // end of data buffer
size_t capacity; // maximum number of items in the buffer
size_t count; // number of items in the buffer
size_t sz; // size of each item in the buffer
DataFragment *head; // pointer to head
DataFragment *tail; // pointer to tail
} CircularBuffer;
void cb_init(struct CircularBuffer *cb, size_t capacity, size_t sz)
{
if((cb->buffer = (DataFragment*) malloc(capacity * sz))!=NULL)
puts("success alocation");
//if(cb->buffer == NULL)
//handle error
cb->buffer_end = (DataFragment *)cb->buffer + (capacity-1)*sz;
cb->capacity = capacity;
cb->count = 0;
cb->sz = sz;
cb->head = cb->buffer;
cb->tail = cb->buffer;
}
void cb_free(struct CircularBuffer *cb)
{
free(cb->buffer);
// clear out other fields too, just to be safe
}
void cb_push_back(struct CircularBuffer *cb, const DataFragment *item)
{
//if(cb->count == cb->capacity)
//handle error when it's full
memcpy(cb->head->data, item->data,4);
cb->head->date=item->date;
cb->head = (DataFragment*)cb->head + cb->sz;
if(cb->head == cb->buffer_end)
cb->head = cb->buffer;
cb->count++;
}
void cb_pop_front(struct CircularBuffer *cb, DataFragment *item)
{
//if(cb->count == 0)
//handle error
memcpy(item->data, cb->tail->data,4);
item->date=cb->tail->date;
cb->tail = (DataFragment*)cb->tail + cb->sz;
if(cb->tail == cb->buffer_end)
cb->tail = cb->buffer;
cb->count--;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
struct CircularBuffer pbuf;
pbuf.buffer=NULL;
pbuf.buffer_end=NULL;
pbuf.capacity=0;
pbuf.count=0;
pbuf.head=NULL;
pbuf.sz=0;
pbuf.tail=NULL;
struct CircularBuffer *buf= &pbuf;
size_t sizz = sizeof(DataFragment);
//initialisation of the circlar buffer to a total bytes
//of capacity*sizz=100*sizeof(struct DataFragment)
cb_init(buf,100,sizz);
//temporary container of data
DataFragment temp,temp2;
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
temp.data[i]='k';
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
temp2.data[i]='o';
//pushing temporary buffer to the CB...40*2=80<capacity of the CB
for(int i=0;i<40;i++)
{
Sleep(20);
temp.date=clock();
cb_push_back(buf,&temp);
Sleep(10);
temp2.date=clock();
cb_push_back(buf,&temp2);
}
DataFragment temp3;
for(int i=0;i<20;i++)
{
cb_pop_front(buf,&temp3);
printf("%d\n", temp3.data); //print integers....no need of end caracter
}
cb_free(buf);
return 0;
}
When I compile the code, everything is fine, but when I debug, I noticed a problem with the buffer_end pointer, it says bad_pointer....this happens if the capacity is greater than 56...I don't know why the pointer can't point to end of the buffer.But if the capacity is less than 56 the pointer points exactly on the end of the buffer
If anyone knows why this happens like this, and how to fix it, please help me..
thanks in advance
It seems you are misunderstanding pointer arithmetic
cb->buffer_end = (DataFragment *)cb->buffer + (capacity-1)*sz;
cb->head = (DataFragment*)cb->head + cb->sz;
cb->tail = (DataFragment*)cb->tail + cb->sz;
Pointer arithmetic already takes into account the size of the underlying type. All you really need is
++cb->head;
++cb->tail;
If the idea is to hack around sizeof(DataFragment) - perhaps to allocate more storage for one item than the struct's size - for some evil purpose - you'll need to first cast the pointer to a char* (because sizeof(char) == 1).
cb->tail = (DataFragment*)((char*)cb->tail + cb->sz);
Design-wise the struct appears to have too many members: buffer_end and capacity duplicate each other (given one you can always find the other), and the sz member is not necessary (it should always be sizeof(DataFragment).
Also, I believe you can just assign structs
*(cb->head) = *item;
there seem to be completely unnecessary casts (probably resulting from the misunderstanding of pointer arithmetic):
cb->buffer_end = (DataFragment *)cb->buffer + (capacity-1)*sz;
And if it is supposed to be C++, then it contains lots of "C-isms" (typedeffing structs, using struct XXX var; - despite having it typedeffed, etc), and the code is generally designed in a purely C style (not taking advantage of C++'s greatest strength, automatic resource management with RAII).
May I also point out that clock() hardly gives you a date :)
I think you need to remove the * sz. (And I don't think you need the cast.)
cb->buffer_end = cb->buffer + (capacity-1);
Arithmetic on pointers automatically accounts for the size of the type pointed to.
I should also point out boost::circular_buffer.
you are assuming that pointers are 4 byte wide. This may not be the case on all platforms (x86_64). Hence, the memcpy()'s should make use of the sizeof operator.
There seems to be another bug with "end = buffer + (capacity - 1 ) * size. In conjunction with cb_push_back() you are allocating one element too much (or you are not using the last element of the ringbuffer). cb_count gets increased in every push_back too, so your buffer can have more "counts" than elements.
If you are going to code in C++, at least use STL. Try std::list