I'm trying to document some code to improve my knowledge of pointers and general ANSI C ability.
...
int static_store = 30;
const char * pcg = "String Literal";
int main()
{
int auto_store = 40;
char auto_string[] = "Auto char Array";
int * pi;
char * pcl;
pi = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int));
*pi = 35;
pcl = (char *) malloc(strlen("Dynamic String") + 1);
strcpy(pcl, "Dynamic String");
...
From first looks, two pointers are initialised, pi and pcl, of type int and char respectively.
But the lines after are confusing to me and I don't understand what is happening. I can see that malloc is being called to allocate memory the size of int (40). Is it assigning memory to the variables pi and pcl?
Is it assigning memory to the variables pi and pcl?
Yes malloc is allocating memory to these pointers.
pi is allocated memory equal to sizeof(int)(that may vary) and pcl has be allocated memory equal to length of string plus 1(plus 1 for null character).
From first looks, two pointers are initialised, pi and pcl, of type int and char respectively
They are declared not initialized.
Note- Please don't cast return of malloc
2 pointers are delcared (pi and pcl). At declaration they are not intialized.
pi is then pointed to a block of heap allocated memory that can hold 1 int (the size of this is platform dependant but it would usually be 4 bytes) allocated with the fucntion maloc. Somewhere this memory will have to be explicitely freed with the funtion free - failing to do so will be a memory leak.
The int value 35 is then stored at that memory location. *pi can be read as "what the pointer pi points to" it is effectively the same as pi[0].
pcl is then pointed to a block of heap allocated memory that is large enough to hold 14 char plus a '\0' char (i.e 15 bytes) using the function malloc (as above at some point this memory must be freed).
The 15 characters "Dynamic String\0" is then put in that memory using the function strcpy.
The line:
pi = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int))
Actually allocate memory for one int variable. The line afterwards, puts the value 35 into that variable.
The line:
pcl = (char *) malloc(strlen("Dynamic String") + 1)
Creates a dynamically allocated char array (which is equivalent to a string). The size of that array is of the length of the string ("Dynamic String") plus one. The next line copies the string: "Dynamic String" into the allocated array. The plus one is needed because each string in c ends with the char '\0' which is a sign for the end of a string.
The malloc function reserves a block of memory in the heap (the dynamic memory pool), and returns a pointer to the first element of that block of memory. That memory is reserved until you call free, or the program exits.
In the call
pi = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int));
malloc reserves a block of memory large enough to store a single int value, and the pointer to that memory block is assigned to pi. You do not need to cast the result of malloc1, and it's actually considered bad practice2. A better way to write that would be
pi = malloc( sizeof *pi );
The expression *pi has type int, so sizeof *pi is equivalent to sizeof (int)3. The advantage of using sizeof *pi over sizeof (int) (as well as dropping the cast) is that if you ever change the type of pi (from int * to long *, for example), you won't have to change anything in the malloc call; it will always allocate the right amount of memory regardless of the type of pi. It's one less maintenance headache to worry about.
Similarly, the call
pcl = (char *) malloc(strlen("Dynamic String") + 1);
reserves enough memory to hold the contents of "Dynamic String" (the +1 is necessary for the string terminator) and assigns the pointer to that memory to pcl. Again, this would be better written as
pcl = malloc( strlen("Dynamic String") + 1 ); // no cast
sizeof (char) is 1 by definition, so you don't need an explicit sizeof *pcl in the call above; however, if you ever decide to change the type of pcl from char * to wchar_t *, it would be good to have it in place, although you'd still have to change the string literal and change how you compute the length, so it's not maintenance-free.
The general form a malloc call is
T *p = malloc( num_elements * sizeof *p ); // where num_elements > 1
or
T *p;
...
p = malloc( num_elements * sizeof *p );
There is a similar function named calloc that will zero out the allocated memory block:
T *p = calloc( num_elements, sizeof *p );
or
T *p;
...
p = calloc( num_elements, sizeof *p );
1. In C, anyway; C++ does require the cast, since C++ does not allow implicit conversions between void * and other pointer types. But you shouldn't be using malloc in C++ code, anyway.
So why do people still cast the result of malloc in C? It's largely a holdover from pre-ANSI days (more than a quarter of a century ago), when malloc returned char *, which cannot be assigned to a different pointer type without a cast. The 1989 standard introduced the void * type, which is essentially a "generic" pointer that can be assigned to other pointer types without an explicit cast.
2. Under the C89 standard, if the compiler sees a function call without having seen a declaration for that function, it will assume that the function returns int. Thus, if you forget to include stdlib.h or otherwise don't have a declaration for malloc in scope, the compiler will assume it returns an int value and generate the machine code for the call accordingly. However, int and pointer types aren't compatible, and normally the compiler will issue diagnostic if you try to assign one to the other. By using the cast, however, you supress that diagnostic, and you may run into runtime problems later on.
The 1999 standard did away with implicit int typing for functions, so that's not really a problem anymore, but the cast is still unnecessary and leads to maintenance problems.
3. sizeof is an operator, not a function; parentheses are only required if the operand is a type name like int or double or struct blah.
Related
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int main() {
int *n = malloc(sizeof(int*));//line 1
scanf("%d",n);
printf("%d",*n);
}
I am not sure what is happening here.
Does line 1 (in the snippet above) mean n now simply is a pointer to an int?
And we have started using the memory allocated for a pointer as variable itself?
Is the pointer to pointer cast to pointer to int?
In this line
int *n = malloc(sizeof(int*));//line 1
you allocated memory of the size equal to sizeof( int * ) and its address is assigned to the pointer n having the type int *.
So using this pointer to access the memory it is interpreted as a memory storing an object of the type int
scanf("%d",n);
printf("%d",*n);
Actually the kind of the argument expression used to specify the size of the allocated memory is not very important. For example you could just write
int *n = malloc( 8 );//line 1
malloc knows nothing about types, it only cares about the size.
The correct incantations are
T *t = malloc(sizeof(*t)); // or
T *t = malloc(sizeof(T));
If you pass any other expression to malloc and it by sheer coincidence happens to have the correct value, you get lucky and nothing bad happens. But this is confusing. Do not confuse the readers of your code.
If the value passed to malloc is greater than the correct one, you just waste memory. If it is less, you risk Undefined Behaviour.
It is implementation defined whether sizeof(int) is the same as, larger than, or smaller than sizeof(int*) so just don't do that.
I'm new to C and have a trouble understanding pointers. The part that I'm confused is about char * and int *.
For example, we can directly assign a pointer for char, like
char *c = "c"; and it doesn't make errors.
However, if I assign a pointer for int like I just did, for example int * a = 10;,
it makes errors. I need to make an additional space in memory to assign a pointer for int,
like int *b = malloc(sizeof(int)); *b = 20; free(b);...
Can anyone tell me why?
I think you're misunderstanding what a pointer is and what it means. In this case:
int* a = 10;
You're saying "create a pointer (to an int) and aim it at the literal memory location 0x0000000A (10).
That's not the same as this:
int n = 10;
int* a = &n;
Which is "create a pointer (to an int) and aim it at the memory location of n.
If you want to dynamically allocate this:
int* a = malloc(sizeof(int));
*a = 10;
Which translates to "create a pointer (to an int) and aim it at the block of memory just allocated, then assign to that location the value 10.
Normally you'd never allocate a single int, you'd allocate a bunch of them for an array, in which case you'd refer to it as a[0] through a[n-1] for an array of size n. In C *(x + y) is generally the same as x[y] or in other words *(x + 0) is either just *x or x[0].
In your example, you do not send c to the char 'c'. You used "c" which is a string-literal.
For string-literals it works as explained in https://stackoverflow.com/a/12795948/5280183.
In initialization the right-hand side (RHS) expression must be of or convertible to the type of the variable declared.
If you do
char *cp = ...
int *ip = ...
then what is in ... must be convertible to a pointer to a char or a pointer to an int. Also remember that a char is a single character.
Now, "abc" is special syntax in C - a string literal, for creating an array of (many) immutable characters. It has the type char [size] where size is the number of characters in the literal plus one for the terminating null character. So "c" has type char [2]. It is not char. An array in C is implicitly converted to pointer to the first element, having then the type "pointer to the element type". I.e. "c" of type char [2] in char *cp = "c"; is implicitly converted to type char *, which points to the first of the two characters c and \0 in the two-character array. It is also handily of type char * and now we have char *cp = (something that has type char * after conversions);.
As for int *, you're trying to pass an integer value to a pointer. It does not make sense.
A pointer holds an address. If you'd ask for the address of Sherlock Holmes, the answer would be 221 Baker Street. Now instead what you've done is "address of Sherlock Holmes is this photo I took of him in this morning".
The same incorrect code written for char * would be
char *cp = 'c'; // or more precisely `char *p = (char)'c';
and it would give you precisely the same error proving that char *cp and int *cp work alike.
Unfortunately C does not have int string literals nor literals for integer arrays, though from C99 onwards you could write:
int *ip = (int[]){ 5 };
or
const int *ip = (const int[]){ 5 };
Likewise you can always point a char * or int * to a single object of that type:
char a = 'c';
char *pa = &a;
int b = 42;
int *pb = &b;
now we can say that a and *pa designate the same char object a, and likewise b and *pb designate the same int object b. If you change *pa you will change a and vice versa; and likewise for b and *pb.
A string literal like "c" is actually an array expression (the type of "c" is "2-element array of char).
Unless it is the operand of the sizeof or & operators, or is a string literal used to initialize a character array in a declaration, an expression of type "array of T" will be converted, or "decay" to an expression of type "pointer to T" and its value will be the address of the first element of the array.
So when you write
char *c = "c";
it’s roughly equivalent to writing
char string[] = "c";
char *c = &string[0];
You’re assigning a pointer to a pointer, so the compiler doesn’t complain.
However, when you write
int *a = 10;
you’re assigning an int value to a pointer and the types are not compatible, so the compiler complains. Pointers are not integers; they may have an integer representation, but that’s not guaranteed, and it won’t be the same size as int.
Are there differences between int pointer and char pointer in c?
short answer: NO
All pointers in C are created equal in the last decades. During some time there were pointers of different sizes, in some platforms like Windows, due to a thing called memory model.
Today the compiler sets the code to use 32-bit or 64 or any size pointers depending on the platform, but once set all pointers are equal.
What is not equal is the thing a pointer points to, and it is that you are confused about.
consider a void* pointer. malloc() allocates memory in C. It always return a void* pointer and you then cast it to anything you need
sizeof(void*) is the same as sizeof(int*). And is the same as sizeof(GiantStruct*) and in a 64-bit compiler is 8 bytes or 64 bits
what about char* c = "c"?
you must ask yourself what is "c". is is char[2]. And it is a string literal. Somewhere in memory the system will allocate an area of at least 2 bytes, put a 'c' and a zero there, since string literals are NULL terminated in C, take that address in put in the address allocated to your pointer c.
what about int* a = 10?
it is the same thing. It is somewhat ok until the operating system comes in. What is a? a is int* pointer to an int. And what is *a? an int. At which address? 10. Well, truth is the system will not let you access that address just because you set a pointer to point to it. In the '80s you could. Today there are very strong rules on this: you can only access memory allocated to your processes. Only. So the system aborts your program as soon as you try to access.
an example
if you write
int* a = malloc(300);
the system will allocate a 300-bytes area, take the area address and write it for you at the address allocated to a. When you write *a=3456 the system will write this value to the first sizeof(int) bytes at that address.
You can for sure write over all 300, but you must somewhat manipulate the pointer to point inside the area. Only inside that area.
In fact C language was designed just for that.
Let us write "c" to the end of that 300-byte area alocated to a:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
{
char* c = "c";
int* a = (int*)malloc(300);
*a = 3456;
printf("Area content is %d\n", *a);
char* pToEnd = (char*)a + 298;
*(pToEnd) = 'c';
*(pToEnd + 1) = 0;
printf("At the end of the 300-byte area? [Should be 'c'] '%s'\n", pToEnd);
printf("The pointer c points to '%s'\n", c);
//*c = 'x'; // error: cancel program
c = pToEnd;
printf("The pointer c now points do the end of the 300-byte area:'%s'\n", c);
free(a);
return 0;
};
and see
Area content is 3456
At the end of the 300-byte area? [Should be 'c'] 'c'
The pointer c points to 'c'
The pointer c now points do the end of the 300-byte area:'c'
Also note that as soon as you try to write over c, the char pointer in your example, your program will also cancel. It is a read only area --- see the comment on line 14. But you can point c inside the area in the example and use it, since the pointer in itself is not constant.
And when you write c = pToEnd in the example above access to the string literal is lost forever. In some sense is a memory leak, but it is a static allocated area. The leak is not the area but the address.
Note also that free(a) at the end, even if being a int* will free all 300 bytes
The direct answer to your question, is that, C language is a strict typed language. And before the machine code is produced, a compiler checks for some possible errors. The types are different, and that is all that the compiler wants to know.
But from the bit-byte point of view, there are no difference, for C language, with the above two pointers.
Take a look at your code with online compiler
void main(){
int * a = 10; /* <= this presumably gives you an error. */
}
What I did is copy pasted your code that gives you the error. And online compiler had emitted a warning, not an error. Even more than that. Change the C standard to be of c17 and you still get a mere warning.
The note about assigning a string literal to a pointer had been discussed broadly at SO. It deserves a different topic.
To sum it up. For the C language there is no meaningful difference in the above two pointers. It is a user, who takes a responsibility to know a layout of a memory in his/her program. All in all, the language was designed as a high level tool that operates over linear memory.
for (int a=0; a<10; ++a) {
printf ("%d", a);
}
char *foo;
foo = (char*)malloc(a);
I want to store more than one char value in foo variable.
Should I change it to an array, since the buffer is only allocating 1 char length?
Is 1 the longest length that can be stored in this buffer?
Well, foo now points to some useable address of a bytes, because this is how malloc() works. It doesn't matter if its type is char *, void * or anything else, you can only use a bytes.
Here, you increment a to 10. That means you can store 10 bytes, being 10 chars, (because in the context of C, 1 char = 1 byte), starting at the address where foo points to. Using a pointer or an array is strictly equivalent.
Since the buffer is only allocating 1 char length...
No, it is not the case here.
Quoting from the C11 standard, chapter §7.22.3.4, The malloc function
void *malloc(size_t size);
The malloc function allocates space for an object whose size is specified by size and
whose value is indeterminate.
So, in case of
foo = malloc(a); //yes, the cast is not required
a memory of size same as the value of a will be allocated, considering malloc() is successful.
Simply put, if I write a snippet like
int * p = malloc(10 * sizeof*p);
then, I can also write
for (int i = 0; i < 10, i++)
p[i] = i;
because, I have allocated the required memory for 10 ints.
That said, please see this discussion on why not to cast the return value of malloc() and family in C..
There are a couple of things you could do in a case like this.
If you know at compile time how many chars you want to store you could make it an array char foo[10]; If you know that there is always going to be 10 (or less) characters you want to store.
If you are not sure how many chars it needs to hold at compile time you would typically do dynamic allocation of memory using malloc. Now when using malloc you specify how many bytes of memory you want so for 12 chars you would do malloc(12) or malloc(12 * sizeof(char)). When using malloc you need to manually free the memory when you are done using it so the benefit of being able to ask for arbitrary (within limits) sizes of memory comes at the cost of making memory management harder.
As a side note: You typically do not want to cast the return value of malloc since it can hide some types of bugs and void *, that malloc returns can be implicitly cast to any pointer type anyway.
Here is a little snippet of code from Wikipedia's article on malloc():
int *ptr;
ptr = malloc(10 * sizeof (*ptr)); // Without a cast
ptr = (int*)malloc(10 * sizeof (int)); // With a cast
I was wondering if someone could help me understand what is going on here. So, from what I know, it seems like this is what's happening:
1) initialize an integer pointer that points to NULL. It is a pointer so its size is 4-bytes. Dereferencing this pointer will return the value NULL.
2) Since C allows for this type of automatic casting, it is safe not to include a cast-to-int-pointer. I am having trouble deciphering what exactly is being fed into the malloc function though (and why). It seems like we are getting the size of the dereferenced value of ptr. But isn't this NULL? So the size of NULL is 0, right? And why are we multiplying by 10??
3) The last line is just the same thing as above, except that a cast is explicitly declared. (cast from void pointer to int pointer).
I'm assuming we're talking about C here. The answer is different for C++.
1) is entirely off. ptr is a pointer to an int, that's all. It's uninitialized, so it has no deterministic value. Dereferencing it is undefined behaviour -- you will most certainly not get 0 out! The pointer also will most likely not point to 0. The size of ptr is sizeof(ptr), or sizeof(int*); nothing else. (At best you know that this is no larger than sizeof(void*).)
2/3) In C, never cast the result of malloc: int * p = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);. The code allocates enough memory for 10 integers, i.e. 10 times the size of a single integer; the return value of the call is a pointer to that memory.
The first line declares a pointer to an integer, but doesn't initialize it -- so it points at some random piece of memory, probably invalid. The size of ptr is whatever size pointers to int are, likely either 4 or 8 bytes. The size of what it points at, which you'd get by dereferencing it when it points somewhere valid, is whatever size an int has.
The second line allocates enough memory for 10 ints from the heap, then assigns it to ptr. No cast is used, but the void * returned by malloc() is automatically converted to whatever type of pointer is needed when assigned. The sizeof (*ptr) gives the size of the dereferenced ptr, i.e. the size of what ptr points to (an int). For sizeof, it doesn't matter whether ptr actually points to a valid memory, just what the type would be.
The third line is just like the second, but with two changes: It explicitly casts the void * return from malloc() to an int *, to match the type of ptr; and it uses sizeof with the type name int rather than an expression of that type, like *ptr. The explicit cast is not necessary, and some people strongly oppose its use, but in the end it comes down to preference.
After either of the malloc()s ptr should point to a valid location on the heap and can be dereferenced safely, as long as malloc was successful.
For line 2 malloc() is allocating enough memory to hold 10 pointers.
malloc() is a general purpose function void so it must be cast to whatever type you actually want to use, in the above example pointer to int.
I am new to C and i have this question. why does the following code crash:
int *a = 10;
*a = 100;
Because you are trying to write 100 to the memory location 0x0000000A which is probably not allocated to your program. That is,
int *a = 10;
does not mean that the pointer 'a' will point to a location in memory having the value of 10. It means it is pointing to address 10 (0x0000000A) in the memory. Then, you want to write something into that address, but you don't have the "rights" to do so, since it is not allocated
You can try the following:
int *a = malloc(sizeof(int));
*a = 100;
This would work, although horribly inefficient. If you only need a single int, you should just put it into the stack, not the heap. On a 32-bit architecure, a pointer is 32 bits long, and an int is 32 bits long too, so your pointer-to-an-int structure takes up (at least) 8 bytes of memory space this way instead of 4. And we haven't even mentioned caching issues.
You need to assign the pointer to a memory location, not arbitrary value (10).
int cell = 10;
int *a = &cell; // a points to address of cell
*a = 100; // content of cell changed
See my answer to another question, about being careful with C.
I would like to propose a slight change in the use of malloc(), for all the answers that suggest using it to allocate memory for the int. Instead of:
a = malloc(sizeof(int));
I would suggest not repeating the type of the variable, since that is known by the compiler and repeating it manually both makes the code more dense, and introduces an error risk. If you later change the declaration to e.g.
long *a;
Without changing the allocation, you would end up allocating the wrong amount of memory ( in the general case, on 32-bit machines int and long are often the same size). It's, IMO, better to use:
a = malloc(sizeof *a);
This simply means "the size of the type pointed at by a", in this case int, which is of course exactly right. If you change the type in the declaration as above, this line is still correct. There is still a risk, if you change the name of the variable on the left hand side of the assignment, but at least you no longer repeat information needlessly.
Also note that no parenthesis are needed with sizeof when using it on actual objects (i.e. variables), only with type names, which look like cast expressions. sizeof is not a function, it's an operator.
Because you've never allocated any memory for a. You've just allocated some stack space for a pointer to a.
int *a = NULL;
a = malloc (sizeof (int));
if (a != NULL)
{
*a =10;
}
Will work.
Alternatively you could give a the address of some existing variable, which would work as well.
i.e.
int a* = NULL;
int b = 10;
a = &b;
This will now mean that doing something like
*a = 100;
will also set b to be == 100
Check out this:
http://home.netcom.com/~tjensen/ptr/pointers.pdf
The following line,
int *a = 10;
defines a pointer to an integer a. You then point the pointer a to the memory location 10.
The next line,
*a = 100;
Puts the value 100 in the memory location pointed to by a.
The problem is:
You don't know where a points to. (You don't know the value of memory location 10)
Wherever a points to, you probably have no right changing that value. It's probably some other program/process's memory. You thief!
Because You declare a pointer to int, initialize the pointer to 10 (an address) and then try to assign a value to an int at this address. Since the memory at address 10 does not belong to your process, You get a crash. This should work:
int *a;
a = malloc(sizeof(int));
*a = 10;
printf("a=%i\n", *a);
free(a);
Does this code even compile? 10 isn't convertible to an int *, unless you cast it like so:
int *a = (int *) 10;
*a = 100;
In that case, you're trying to write 100 into the memory address at 10. This isn't usually a valid memory address, hence your program crashes.
It's probably crashing because you are assigning the pointer to some part of memory which you don't have access to and then you're assigning some value to that memory location (which you're not allowed to do!).
You could also write it as:
int* a = 10;
*a = 100;
Note the different spacing on the first line. It's not a popular style, but I personally think it's clearer. It has exactly the same meaning to the compiler.
Then, read it out loud:
"Pointer-to-int 'a' becomes 10"
"Value-pointed-to-by 'a' becomes 100"
Substituting the actual value:
"Value-pointed-to-by 10 becomes 100"
... at which you realise that 10 is unlikely to point to a piece of memory you can use.
You would pretty much never assign to a pointer with a literal:
int* ptr = (int*)10; // You've guessed at a memory address, and probably got it wrong
int* ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); // OS gives you a memory address at runtime
I guess there might be some very low level jobs where you directly specify absolute memory addresses. Kernel implementation for example?
Okay, trying to give the simplest explanation today, while trying to give you more detailed picture about it all. Lets add some parentheses shall we?
(int*) a = 10;
(*a) = 100;
You attempt to write four bytes into the address-range [10-13]. The memory layout of your program starts usually higher, so your application does not accidentally overwrite anything from where it could and still function (from .data, .bss, and stack for instance). So it just ends up crashing instead, because the address-range has not been allocated.
Pointer points to a memory location and C static typing defines a type for a pointer. Though you can override the pointer easily. Simply:
(void*) v = NULL;
Here we go further to things. What is a null pointer? It's simply pointer that points to address 0.
You can also give a struct type for your pointer:
struct Hello {
int id;
char* name;
};
...
struct Hello* hello_ptr = malloc(sizeof Hello);
hello_ptr->id = 5;
hello_ptr->name = "Cheery";
Ok, what is malloc? Malloc allocates memory and returns a pointer to the allocated memory. It has a following type signature:
void* malloc(size_t size);
If you do not have a conservative garbage collector, it is likely that your memory won't end up being freed automatically. Therefore, if you want to get the memory back into use from what you just allocated, you must do:
free(hello_ptr);
Each malloc you do has a size-tag in it, so you do not need to state the size of the chunk you pointed for free -routine.
Ok, yet one thing, what does a character string look like in memory? The one similar to "Cheery" for instance. Simple answer. It's a zero-terminated array of bytes.
0.1.2.3.4.5. 6
C h e e r y \0