In a program I am writing I made a Tokenize struct that says:
TokenizerT *Tokenize(TokenizerT *str) {
TokenizerT *tok;
*tok->array = malloc(sizeof(TokenizerT));
char * arr = malloc(sizeof(50));
const char *s = str->input_strng;
int i = 0;
char *ds = malloc(strlen(s) + 1);
strcpy(ds, s);
*tok->array[i] = strtok(ds, " ");
while(*tok->array[i]) {
*tok->array[++i] = strtok(NULL, " ");
}
free(ds);
return tok;
}
where TokenizeT is defined as:
struct TokenizerT_ {
char * input_strng;
int count;
char **array[];
};
So what I am trying to do is create smaller tokens out of a large token that I already created. I had issues returning an array so I made array part of the TokenizerT struct so I can access it by doing tok->array. I am getting no errors when I build the program, but when I try to print the tokens I get issues.
TokenizerT *ans;
TokenizerT *a = Tokenize(tkstr);
char ** ab = a->array;
ans = TKCreate(ab[0]);
printf("%s", ans->input_strng);
TKCreate works because I use it to print argv but when i try to print ab it does not work. I figured it would be like argv so work as well. If someone can help me it would be greatl appreciated. Thank you.
Creating the Tokenizer
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that the intent of:
TokenizerT *tok;
*tok->array = malloc(sizeof(TokenizerT));
char * arr = malloc(sizeof(50));
was to dynamically allocate a single TokenizerT with the capacity to contain 49 strings and a NULL endmarker. arr is not used anywhere in the code, and tok is never given a value; it seems to make more sense if the values are each shifted one statement up, and corrected:
// Note: I use 'sizeof *tok' instead of naming the type because that's
// my style; it allows me to easily change the type of the variable
// being assigned to. I leave out the parentheses because
// that makes sure that I don't provide a type.
// Not everyone likes this convention, but it has worked pretty
// well for me over the years. If you prefer, you could just as
// well use sizeof(TokenizerT).
TokenizerT *tok = malloc(sizeof *tok);
// (See the third section of the answer for why this is not *tok->array)
tok->array = malloc(50 * sizeof *tok->array);
(tok->array is not a great name. I would have used tok->argv since you are apparently trying to produce an argument vector, and that's the conventional name for one. In that case, tok->count would probably be tok->argc, but I don't know what your intention for that member is since you never use it.)
Filling in the argument vector
strtok will overwrite (some) bytes in the character string it is given, so it is entirely correct to create a copy (here ds), and your code to do so is correct. But note that all of the pointers returned by strtok are pointers to character in the copy. So when you call free(ds), you free the storage occupied by all of those tokens, which means that your new freshly-created TokenizerT, which you are just about to return to an unsuspecting caller, is full of dangling pointers. So that will never do; you need to avoid freeing those strings until the argument vector is no longer needed.
But that leads to another problem: how will the string be freed? You don't save the value of ds, and it is possible that the first token returned by strtok does not start at the beginning of ds. (That will happen if the first character in the string is a space character.) And if you don't have a pointer to the very beginning of the allocated storage, you cannot free the storage.
The TokenizerT struct
char is a character (usually a byte). char* is a pointer to a character, which is usually (but not necessarily) a pointer to the beginning of a NUL-terminated string. char** is a pointer to a character pointer, which is usually (but not necessarily) the first character pointer in an array of character pointers.
So what is char** array[]? (Note the trailing []). "Obviously", it's an array of unspecified length of char**. Because the length of the array is not specified, it is an "incomplete type". Using an incomplete array type as the last element in a struct is allowed by modern C, but it requires you to know what you're doing. If you use sizeof(TokenizerT), you'll end up with the size of the struct without the incomplete type; that is, as though the size of the array had been 0 (although that's technically illegal).
At any rate, that wasn't what you wanted. What you wanted was a simple char**, which is the type of an argument vector. (It's not the same as char*[] but both of those pointers can be indexed by an integer i to return the ith string in the vector, so it's probably good enough.)
That's not all that's wrong with this code, but it's a good start at fixing it. Good luck.
Related
C function to remove the first string from an XOR linked list of names:
int remove_string(Node **head, char *deleted_string) {
Node *temp = *head;
*deleted_string = *(*head)->name;
*head = calculate_xor_value(NULL, temp->xor_value);
if (*head != NULL) {
(*head)->xor_value = calculate_xor_value(NULL, calculate_xor_value(temp, (*head)->xor_value));
}
free(temp);
}
In the question, one of the input parameters has to be a char pointer called deleted_string, which is the string that is being removed from the list. The code to remove the string works fine (line 4 onwards), but I am struggling to save the string to the char* deleted_string (line 3) *deleted_string = *(*head)->name;
Everytime I run the code
// printf("%s", deleted_string ); only the first character is being printed; I think I understand that this is because pointers only point to the first character of a string, but is there a way to make the pointer point to the whole string? Perhaps by somehow converting (*head)->name to a string or an array?
Any help would be appreciated, sorry if this is a silly question. I have spent hours trying to find another page about this but I didn't so I thought I'd ask.
Assuming (*head)->name is of type char*, you are dereferencing both the char *deleted_string and char *name, hence operating on something of type char.
The line
*deleted_string = *(*head)->name;
is equivalent of doing something like
char a;
char b = 0;
a = b;
If you want to copy the contents of (*head)->name into the deleted_string, you can use strcpy or strncpy like,
strncpy( deleted_string, (*head)->name, SIZE );
Where the SIZE is whatever maximum size the deleted_string can hold. strcpy is the same, just without the size argument.
As comments suggested, both should be used with care, as strcpy can attempt to copy more characters than the destination can hold, causing write violations, and strncpy will truncate if the source is bigger than the destination, the resulting string will not necessarily be null-terminated. In such case, functions that assume the string is null-terminated will misbehave, such as printf( "%s" ... ), causing read violations. For more information, you can check this post.
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have this code:
char** SplitToWords(char* str);
int main()
{
char** wordarr;
char str[] = "This is a sentence";
wordarr = SplitToWords(str);
return 0;
}
After the main comes the function implementation.
I am not sure the following does what I want it to do (i.e. receive an array of strings from a function):
wordarr = SplitToWords(str);
I somehow managed to convince the compiler that it's ok, but I assume it just does something else.
If it does, how do I find out the length of the array (the number of strings in it).
Thanks
I'll try to quickly visit all aspects you might not yet fully understand:
A string in C is described as a contiguous sequence of chars, ending with a char of value 0 (as a literal: '\0'). It is not a first class object, therefore hasn't its own type. So what you use to hold a string is an array of char. Therefore, taking your question by the word, "receive an array of strings from a function" is not possible.
An array is a contiguous sequence of objects of the same type. In C, the identifier of an array doesn't have a value itself; when it's evaluated, it decays as a pointer to the array's first element instead. This is especially important when passing arrays to functions or returning them from functions -- you can't actually pass the array, you always pass a pointer
e.g. you could write:
char x[] = "foo"; // initialize a char array from a string literal
char *xp = x; // here, x evaluates as a pointer to the first element of the array
You already use pointer types for your function's argument and return value, I just think it's quite important to understand what happens entirely.
You write char** SplitToWords(char* str); and ask whether this returns an "array of strings" -- well, sort of, as you should understand after reading 1. and 2. -- What it does is returning a pointer to char *. This pointer could be a pointer to the first element of an array. So in this case, it would return a pointer to an array of char * pointers. Each of these pointers could itself be a pointer to an array of chars, therefore point to a string. But what's very important is to understand you never return an array, you always return a pointer to it. It's so important because:
You might get the idea to do something like this:
char** SplitToWords(char* str)
{
char *words[16];
// code to fill `words` with pointers to the actual words
return words; // WRONG!
}
Here, because you're not returning the array words but a pointer to it (see point 2), you return a pointer to an object that no longer exists. words is in the scope of your function and has automatic storage duration, that means it only lives as long as the execution is inside of the function. One solution would be to declare words with the static storage class specifier. This way, it lives for the entire execution time of the program. But be aware that this also means there's only a single instance ever, it's always the same object. This will be a major headache for threaded programs, for example. The other way around is to dynamically allocate words using malloc(). But then, the caller of the function must free() it later.
As for your second question, how to let the caller know the number of words -- it's in the comments already, but just for completeness, a typical approach to solve this is to append another entry that is a NULL pointer. So the caller can iterate over the pointers until it finds NULL.
Regarding your comment, of course you can create the array outside the function and pass a pointer to the function, so the function only fills it. This is a common idiom in C (e.g. think about fgets(), which takes a pointer to the char array that's filled with a string by the function).
Functions working this way will need an additional size_t parameter, so they know the size of the array they should fill through the pointer, otherwise you'd have the risk of buffer overflows (this is why gets() was finally removed from the C standard). If you decide that the caller provides the storage, your function should have this prototype:
// returns the number of words found, up to `nwords`
size_t SplitToTwords(char **words, size_t nwords, char *str);
It should be called e.g. like this:
char *words[16];
size_t nwords = SplitToWords(words, 16, "the quick brown fox"); // returns 4
Remember that the strings holding the words themselves need storage as well. You can either manipulate the bytes in str to insert a '\0' after each word, overwriting the first whitespace character (this is what strtok() does) or you can copy the words to new strings, but then you would have to malloc() each of them again and the caller has to free() them later.
Yes, you could solve it by using a function with return value char **. However, there's no way to find out how many words there are afterwards.
You can solve this by allocating one more element for the return pointer and set it to NULL. Then you can get the number of words with this code:
wordarr = SplitToWords(str);
char **ptr=wordarr;
int noWords=0;
while(!*(ptr+noWords))
noWords++;
But if you want to return multiple data in C, you either need to define a return struct or using return arguments. In this case, it could look like this for the first option:
typedef struct wordList {
char **wordarr;
int noWords;
}
wordList SplitToWords(char* str);
And the second:
char** SplitToWords(char* str, int *noWords);
or
void SplitToWords(char* str, char*** wordarr, int *noWords);
Note that there's three *. That's because we want it to be a pointer to char **
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define MAXSTRINGS 5000
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
char *stringTable[MAXSTRINGS];
char sentence[] = "This is a sentence";
char *token = NULL;
int i = 0;
while ((token = strtok(token == NULL ? sentence : NULL, " ")) != NULL)
{
printf("%s\n\r", token);
stringTable[i] = (char *)malloc(strlen(token) + 1); //have no "plain" C compiler - VS C++ used so cast needed :)
strcpy(stringTable[i++], token);
}
stringTable[i] = NULL; // if you need to iterate through later
printf("%d tokens found\n\r", i);
for (int y = 0; y < i; y++)
free(stringTable[y]);
}
I'm attempting to run execvp using the data from a char[][] type (aka an array of strings). Now I know that execvp() takes a pointer to a string as its first parameter and then a pointer to an array of strings as its second - in fact I have even used it successfully before as such - however I cannot seem to get the correct combination of pointers & strings to get it to work out below - whatever I try is deemed incompatible!
Any help very grateful :) - I've removed my headers to compact down the code a bit!
struct userinput {
char anyargs[30][30]; //The tokenised command
};
int main() {
struct userinput input = { { { 0 } } }; //I believe is valid to set input to 0's
struct userinput *inPtr = &input; //Pointer to input (direct access will be unavailable)
strcpy(inPtr->anyargs[0], "ls"); //Hard code anyargs to arbitary values
strcpy(inPtr->anyargs[1], "-lh");
char (*arrPointer)[30]; //Pointer to an array of char *
arrPointer = &(inPtr->anyargs[0]);
printf("arrPointer[0]: %s, arrPointer[1]: %s\n", arrPointer[0],
arrPointer[1]);
printf("At exec case; ");
execvp( arrPointer[0], arrPointer);
perror("Command not recognised"); //Prints string then error message from errno
return 0;
}
There is no such thing as char[][] in C. execvp requires an array of pointers to const char. This can be written as either char * const * or char * const [].
You however have an array of 30-characters-long arrays, not an array of pointers. The two types are not compatible, not interchangeable, and not convertible one to another in either direction.
In this line
char (*arrPointer)[30]; //Pointer to an array of char *
you attempt to declare a pointer to an array of char*, incorrectly. What you have declared instead is a pointer to char[30], which is very different from what execvp expects.
The next line
arrPointer = &(inPtr->anyargs[0]);
purports to initialize a pointer to an array of char* with a pointer to char[30], which cannot possibly be correct even if you declare a pointer to an array of char*, because the right hand side of the assignment is not a pointer to an array of char*, it's a pointer to char[30] and no sequence of casts, indices, addresses and dereferences will turn one to the other.
An array of 30 pointers to char is declared like this:
char* arguments[30];
A dynamically-sized array of pointers to char is made like this:
char** arguments = calloc (nargs, sizeof(char*));
You need to use one of those if you want to call execvp.
In either case each pointer in the array of pointers must be initialized to point to an individual NUL-terminated character array (possibly to elements of your char[30][30] array) and the last pointer (one after all the argumenrs we want to pass) must be set to NULL. (I wonder how you expected to find a NULL in a char[30][30]).
The execvp() expects as second argument a char *const argv[]. This means an array of pointers to char. This is different from a char[30][30] which is represented in memory as 30x30 contiguous chars (so no pointer).
To solve this, define your structure
struct userinput {
char *anyargs[30]; //space for 30 char* pointers
};
You could as well define anyargs as char** and initalize if dynamically with (char**)calloc(number_of_args+1,sizeof(char*))
Later, assign directly the pointers:
inPtr->anyargs[0] = "ls"; //Hard code (or use strdup() )
inPtr->anyargs[1] = "-lh";
inPtr->anyargs[2] = NULL; // end of the argument list !!!
char **arrPointer; //Pointer to an array of char *
arrPointer = inPtr->anyargs;
Edit: Caution: "The array of pointers must be terminated by a NULL pointer.".
I've been studying C, and I decided to practice using my knowledge by creating some functions to manipulate strings. I wrote a string reverser function, and a main function that asks for user input, sends it through stringreverse(), and prints the results.
Basically I just want to understand how my function works. When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0], right?
I guess answering this question would tell me: Would there be any difference if I assigned a char* pointer to my tempstr array and then sent that to stringreverse() as the first param, versus how I'm doing it now? I want to know whether I'm sending a duplicate of the array tempstr, or a memory address.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
printf("\nEnter a string:\n\t");
char tempstr[1024];
gets(tempstr);
char *revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr); //Assigns revstr the address of the first character of the reversed string.
printf("\nReversed string:\n"
"\t%s\n", revstr);
main();
return 0;
}
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr)
{
char revstr[1024] = {0};
int i, j = 0;
for (i = strlen(tempstr) - 1; i >= 0; i--, j++)
{
revstr[j] = tempstr[i]; //string reverse algorithm
}
returnptr = &revstr[0];
return returnptr;
}
Thanks for your time. Any other critiques would be helpful . . only a few weeks into programming :P
EDIT: Thanks to all the answers, I figured it out. Here's my solution for anyone wondering:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
void stringreverse(char* s);
int main(void)
{
printf("\nEnter a string:\n\t");
char userinput[1024] = {0}; //Need to learn how to use malloc() xD
gets(userinput);
stringreverse(userinput);
printf("\nReversed string:\n"
"\t%s\n", userinput);
main();
return 0;
}
void stringreverse(char* s)
{
int i, j = 0;
char scopy[1024]; //Update to dynamic buffer
strcpy(scopy, s);
for (i = strlen(s) - 1; i >= 0; i--, j++)
{
*(s + j) = scopy[i];
}
}
First, a detail:
int main()
{
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
That prototype should go outside main(), like this:
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
int main()
{
As to your main question: the variable tempstr is a char*, i.e. the address of a character. If you use C's index notation, like tempstr[i], that's essentially the same as *(tempstr + i). The same is true of revstr, except that in that case you're returning the address of a block of memory that's about to be clobbered when the array it points to goes out of scope. You've got the right idea in passing in the address of some memory into which to write the reversed string, but you're not actually copying the data into the memory pointed to by that block. Also, the line:
returnptr = &revstr[0];
Doesn't do what you think. You can't assign a new pointer to returnptr; if you really want to modify returnptr, you'll need to pass in its address, so the parameter would be specified char** returnptr. But don't do that: instead, create a block in your main() that will receive the reversed string, and pass its address in the returnptr parameter. Then, use that block rather than the temporary one you're using now in stringreverse().
Basically I just want to understand how my function works.
One problem you have is that you are using revstr without initializing it or allocating memory for it. This is undefined behavior since you are writing into memory doesn't belong to you. It may appear to work, but in fact what you have is a bug and can produce unexpected results at any time.
When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0], right?
Yes. When arrays are passed as arguments to a function, they are treated as regular pointers, pointing to the first element in the array. There is no difference if you assigned &temp[0] to a char* before passing it to stringreverser, because that's what the compiler is doing for you anyway.
The only time you will see a difference between arrays and pointers being passed to functions is in C++ when you start learning about templates and template specialization. But this question is C, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.
When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the
address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0],
right?
char tempstr[1024];
tempstr is an array of characters. When passed tempstr to a function, it decays to a pointer pointing to first element of tempstr. So, its basically same as sending &tempstr[0].
Would there be any difference if I assigned a char* pointer to my tempstr array and then sent that to stringreverse() as the first param, versus how I'm doing it now?
No difference. You might do -
char* pointer = tempstr ; // And can pass pointer
char *revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr);
First right side expression's is evaluavated and the return value is assigned to revstr. But what is revstr that is being passed. Program should allocate memory for it.
char revstr[1024] ;
char *retValue = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr) ;
// ^^^^^^ changed to be different.
Now, when passing tempstr and revstr, they decayed to pointers pointing to their respective first indexes. In that case why this would go wrong -
revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr) ;
Just because arrays are not pointers. char* is different from char[]. Hope it helps !
In response to your question about whether the thing passed to the function is an array or a pointer, the relevant part of the C99 standard (6.3.2.1/3) states:
Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type ‘‘array of type’’ is converted to an expression with type ‘‘pointer to type’’ that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue.
So yes, other than the introduction of another explicit variable, the following two lines are equivalent:
char x[] = "abc"; fn (x);
char x[] = "abc"; char *px = &(x[0]); fn (px);
As to a critique, I'd like to raise the following.
While legal, I find it incongruous to have function prototypes (such as stringreverse) anywhere other than at file level. In fact, I tend to order my functions so that they're not usually necessary, making one less place where you have to change it, should the arguments or return type need to be changed. That would entail, in this case, placing stringreverse before main.
Don't ever use gets in a real program.. It's unprotectable against buffer overflows. At a minimum, use fgets which can be protected, or use a decent input function such as the one found here.
You cannot create a local variable within stringreverse and pass back the address of it. That's undefined behaviour. Once that function returns, that variable is gone and you're most likely pointing to whatever happens to replace it on the stack the next time you call a function.
There's no need to pass in the revstr variable either. If it were a pointer with backing memory (i.e., had space allocated for it), that would be fine but then there would be no need to return it. In that case you would allocate both in the caller:
char tempstr[1024];
char revstr[1024];
stringreverse (tempstr, revstr); // Note no return value needed
// since you're manipulating revstr directly.
You should also try to avoid magic numbers like 1024. Better to have lines like:
#define BUFFSZ 1024
char tempstr[BUFFSZ];
so that you only need to change it in one place if you ever need a new value (that becomes particularly important if you have lots of 1024 numbers with different meanings - global search and replace will be your enemy in that case rather than your friend).
In order to make you function more adaptable, you may want to consider allowing it to handle any length. You can do that by passing both buffers in, or by using malloc to dynamically allocate a buffer for you, something like:
char *reversestring (char *src) {
char *dst = malloc (strlen (src) + 1);
if (dst != NULL) {
// copy characters in reverse order.
}
return dst;
}
This puts the responsibility for freeing that memory on the caller but that's a well-worn way of doing things.
You should probably use one of the two canonical forms for main:
int main (int argc, char *argv[]);
int main (void);
It's also a particularly bad idea to call main from anywhere. While that may look like a nifty way to get an infinite loop, it almost certainly will end up chewing up your stack space :-)
All in all, this is probably the function I'd initially write. It allows the user to populate their own buffer if they want, or to specify they don't have one, in which case one will be created for them:
char *revstr (char *src, char *dst) {
// Cache size in case compiler not smart enough to do so.
// Then create destination buffer if none provided.
size_t sz = strlen (src);
if (dst == NULL) dst = malloc (sz + 1);
// Assuming buffer available, copy string.
if (dst != NULL) {
// Run dst end to start, null terminator first.
dst += sz; *dst = '\0';
// Copy character by character until null terminator in src.
// We end up with dst set to original correct value.
while (*src != '\0')
*--dst = *src++;
}
// Return reversed string (possibly NULL if malloc failed).
return dst;
}
In your stringreverse() function, you are returning the address of a local variable (revstr). This is undefined behaviour and is very bad. Your program may appear to work right now, but it will suddenly fail sometime in the future for reasons that are not obvious.
You have two general choices:
Have stringreverse() allocate memory for the returned string, and leave it up to the caller to free it.
Have the caller preallocate space for the returned string, and tell stringreverse() where it is and how big it is.
I radically re-edited the question to explain better my application, as the xample I made up wasn't correct in many ways as you pointed out:
I have one pointer to char and I want to copy it to another pointer and then add a NULL character at the end (in my real application, the first string is a const, so I cannot jsut modify it, that's why I need to copy it).
I have this function, "MLSLSerialWriteBurst" which I have to fill with some code adapt to my microcontroller.
tMLError MLSLSerialWriteBurst( unsigned char slaveAddr,
unsigned char registerAddr,
unsigned short length,
const unsigned char *data )
{
unsigned char *tmp_data;
tmp_data = data;
*(tmp_data+length) = NULL;
// this function takes a tmp_data which is a char* terminated with a NULL character ('\0')
if(EEPageWrite2(slaveAddr,registerAddr,tmp_data)==0)
return ML_SUCCESS;
else
return ML_ERROR;
}
I see there's a problem here: tha fact that I do not initialize tmp_data, but I cannot know it's length.
For starters, you are missing a bunch of declarations in your code. For example, what is lungh? Also, I'm assuming you initialized your two pointers so they point to memory you can use. However, maybe that's not a safe assumption.
Beyond that, you failed to terminate your from string. So getting the length of the string will not work.
There seems to be numerous errors here. It's hard to know where to start. Is this really what your actual code looks like? I don't think it would even compile.
Finally, there seems to be a bit of confusion in your terminology. Copying a pointer is different from copying the memory being pointed to. A pointer is a memory address. If you simply copy the pointer, then both pointers will refer to the same address.
I would create a copy of a string using code similar to this:
char *from_string = "ciao";
char *to_string;
int len;
len = strlen(from_string);
to_string = (char *)malloc(len + 1);
if (to_string != NULL)
strcpy(to_string, from_string);
Be fully aware that you do not want to copy a pointer. You want to copy the memory that is pointed to by the pointer. It does sound like you should learn more about pointers and the memory environment of your system before proceeding too much farther.
When you say tmp_data = data, you are pointing tmp_data to the same memory pointed to by data. Instead, you need to allocate a new block of memory and copy the memory from data into it.
The standard way to do this is with malloc. If you do not have malloc, your libraries may have some other way of acquiring a pointer to usable memory.
unsigned char * tmp_data = malloc(length + 1);
if(tmp_data != 0) {
memcpy(tmp_data, data, length);
tmp_data[length] = 0;
// ...
free(tmp_data);
}
You could also use a fixed-size array on the stack:
unsigned char tmp_data[256];
if(length >= sizeof(tmp_data)) length = sizeof(tmp_data) - 1;
memcpy(tmp_data, data, length); // or equivalent routine
tmp_data[length] = 0;
C99 introduced variable-length arrays, which may be what you seek here, if your compiler supports them:
unsigned char tmp_data[length];
memcpy(tmp_data, data, length); // or equivalent routine
tmp_data[length] = 0;