I have a function which creates an array, of say, size 5.
Is it possible for the function to accept a pointer (or maybe it needs a pointer to a pointer?) and then point said pointer at an array, so that when the callee then looks at the pointer, it can see all values of the array.
Something along the lines of this (except this will not work):
#define LENGTH 5
void assignArray(int *pointer)
{
int arr[LENGTH] = {0,1,2,3,4};
// Point the pointer at the array, without manually copying each element
pointer = arr;
}
void main()
{
int *pointer;
pointer = malloc(sizeof(int) * LENGTH);
assignArray(pointer);
int i;
for (i = 0 ; i < LENGTH ; i++) printf("%d\n", pointer[i]);
}
C assign array without element by element copy
In C, arrays (compile-time allocated) cannot be assigned. You need to copy the elements from one array to another.
To avoid element-by-element copy, you can copy the whole array all at a time using library function.
I'm not very sure what you want to ask here, but it seems, you need to do memcpy() to achieve your goal.
If you have a secondary array arr to copy from, you can write
memcpy( pointer, arr, ( (sizeof arr[0]) * LENGTH ));
The code to do what you are describing might look like:
#define LENGTH 5
void assignArray(int **pp)
{
static int arr[LENGTH] = {0,1,2,3,4};
// Point the pointer at the array, without manually copying each element
*pp = arr;
}
int main()
{
int *pointer;
assignArray(&pointer);
for (int i = 0 ; i < LENGTH ; i++)
printf("%d\n", pointer[i]);
}
Note that one does not simply point *pp at a non-static local variable arr. That is because int arr[] = .... would go out of scope when assignArray returns.
If you want each call to assignArray to "return" a different array then of course you will have to allocate space and use memcpy each time you want to make a copy of the original array.
int arr[LENGTH] = {0,1,2,3,4}; will be stack allocated, so attempting to return the pointer to any of its elements will give you undefined behaviour as the whole thing will be out of scope when the function returns.
If you want to change what a pointer is pointing to then use 2 levels of indirection ** (i.e. pass a pointer to a pointer). You'll need to allocate the array arr on the heap using malloc or something similar.
As you are trying to do it, it is not possible due to the fact that your local arr is saved to the stack and is cleaned up after the function assignArry finished. As already mentioned you need to memcpy.
This answer will have two parts:
As mentioned in other answers, this is now how you're supposed to do it. A common construct in similar code is:
void assignArray(int *dest, size_t size)
{
int i;
// initialize with some data
for (i=0; i<size; i++)
dest[i] = i;
}
This way you're not wasting space and time with an intermediate buffer.
Second part of this answer is about wrapping arrays in a struct. It's a silly trick, that in a way achieves exactly what you asked, and also something that you probably don't want because of extra data copying.
Example code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define LENGTH 5
struct foo { int arr[LENGTH]; };
struct foo assignArray()
{
struct foo bar = { .arr = {0,1,2,3,4} };
/* return the array wrapper in struct on stack */
return bar;
}
int main()
{
struct foo *pointer;
pointer = malloc(sizeof(*pointer));
*pointer = assignArray(); /* this will copy the data, not adjust pointer location */
int i;
for (i = 0 ; i < LENGTH ; i++) printf("%d\n", pointer->arr[i]);
return 0;
}
Related
I saw the following code:
#include <stdlib.h>
void foo(char n)
{
int (*vals)[n] = malloc(sizeof(int[n]));
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
(*vals)[i] = i;
free(vals);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
foo(*(argv[1]));
return 0;
}
This lines makes me very uncomfortable:
free(vals);
vals is a pointer pointing to an array. This looks right, but I just have a difficult time internalizing it, I do not know why.
I am more used to the following style:
int *p = (int*)malloc(n * sizeof(int));
......
free(p);
In this code, p is a pointer pointing to the start of a memory region for some integers, the malloc and free are symmetric in that they both work on a pointer type; yet the original code has malloc() working on a pointer to an array and free() a pointer.
Out of curiosity, I modified the original code:
free(vals); ==> free(*vals);
I was expecting this change will fail at compiler, the reason is *vals is an array now. But gcc is fine and valgrind does not complain memory leak.
I know C has a thing called array degenerates to pointer at function call. But I just cannot internalize this stuff. Sorry writing so long to describe a problem, wish you could see my struggle. Is there a definitive doc/stackoverflow/blog to clear this up - best C99 or later?
Thanks!
writing free(*vals); is same as writing free(vals);
edited your code to clear that a little bit
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void foo(char n)
{
int (*vals)[n] = malloc(sizeof(int[n]));
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
(*vals)[i] = i;
printf("*val is %p\n", *vals);
printf("val is %p\n", vals);
printf("&val is %p\n", &vals);
free(vals);
}
int main()
{
foo(10);
return 0;
}
and this is the output:
*val is 0000018190365d50
val is 0000018190365d50
&val is 0000005d9dbff7b8
note that vals is Array pointer which means that its base type is an array of n integers where the pointer val is created in that stack and points to the whole array, not the first element only and that array is created in the heap, to illustrate, look at the following graph:
so for example if you write:
printf("val is %p\n", vals);
printf("val+1 is %p\n", vals+1);
the output will be :
val is 00000207ef0c5d50
val+1 is 00000207ef0c5d78
note the difference between the 2 is about 40 bytes as val points to the whole array not only one element as in case of int *p = (int*)malloc(n * sizeof(int));
note that when I say it points to the whole array, I also mean it points to the base address of the array.
in case of *Vals, look at the next graph:
*Vals is just an address of the first element of the array which is by the way is same as the base address of the array.
refer to free() manual, they said:
The free() function frees the memory space pointed to by ptr, which
must have been returned by a previous call to malloc(), calloc() or
realloc(). Otherwise, or if free(ptr) has already been called before,
undefined behavior occurs. If ptr is NULL, no operation is performed.
and what does malloc() function return ?
it returns the base address of your reserved space in heap, so writing free(vals); is same as writing free(vals);
This codes uses dynamic VLA.
I think that it may be easier to understand if the code is reformulated with a typedef.
void foo(char n)
{
typedef int T[n];
T *vals = malloc(sizeof(T));
...
free(vals);
}
Now it looks like a tivial use of a single dynamic object.
To access elements of an array first the pointer has to be dereferenced *vals forming an array, which decays to int* pointer suitable for [] operator.
I want to use a struct to contain some data and passing them between different functions in my program,this struct has to contain a dynamic 2D array (i need a matrix) the dimensions change depending on program arguments.
So this is my struct :
struct mystruct {
int **my2darray;
}
I have a function that read numbers from a file and has to assign each of them to a cell of the struct array.
I tried doing this :
FILE *fp = fopen(filename, "r");
int rows;
int columns;
struct mystruct *result = malloc(sizeof(struct mystruct));
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int)*rows);
int tmp[rows][columns];
for(int i = 0;i<rows;i++) {
for(int j = 0;j<columns;j++) {
fscanf(fp, "%d", &tmp[i][j]);
}
result->my2darray[i]=malloc(sizeof(int)*columns);
memcpy(result->my2darray[i],tmp[i],sizeof(tmp[i]));
}
But this is giving me a strange result : all the rows are correctly stored except for the first.
(I'm sure that the problem is not in the scanning of file).
While if i change the fourth line of code in this :
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int)*(rows+1));
it works fine.
Now my question is why this happens?
Here's an answer using some "new" features of the language: flexible array members and pointers to VLA.
First of all, please check Correctly allocating multi-dimensional arrays. You'll want a 2D array, not some look-up table.
To allocate such a true 2D array, you can utilize flexible array members:
typedef struct
{
size_t x;
size_t y;
int flex[];
} array2d_t;
It will be allocated as a true array, although "mangled" into a single dimension:
size_t x = 2;
size_t y = 3;
array2d_t* arr2d = malloc( sizeof *arr2d + sizeof(int[x][y]) );
Because the problem with flexible array members is that they can neither be VLA nor 2-dimensional. And although casting it to another integer array type is safe (in regards of aliasing and alignment), the syntax is quite evil:
int(*ptr)[y] = (int(*)[y]) arr2d->flex; // bleh!
It would be possible hide all this evil syntax behind a macro:
#define get_array(arr2d) \
_Generic( (arr2d), \
array2d_t*: (int(*)[(arr2d)->y])(arr2d)->flex )
Read as: if arr2d is a of type array2d_t* then access that pointer to get the flex member, then cast it to an array pointer of appropriate type.
Full example:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
size_t x;
size_t y;
int flex[];
} array2d_t;
#define get_array(arr2d) \
_Generic( (arr2d), \
array2d_t*: (int(*)[(arr2d)->y])(arr2d)->flex )
int main (void)
{
size_t x = 2;
size_t y = 3;
array2d_t* arr = malloc( sizeof *arr + sizeof(int[x][y]) );
arr->x = x;
arr->y = y;
for(size_t i=0; i<arr->x; i++)
{
for(size_t j=0; j<arr->y; j++)
{
get_array(arr)[i][j] = i+j;
printf("%d ", get_array(arr)[i][j]);
}
printf("\n");
}
free(arr);
return 0;
}
Advantages over pointer-to-pointer:
An actual 2D array that can be allocated/freed with a single function call, and can be passed to functions like memcpy.
For example if you have two array2d_t* pointing at allocated memory, you can copy all the contents with a single memcpy call, without needing to access individual members.
No extra clutter in the struct, just the array.
No cache misses upon array access due to the memory being segmented all over the heap.
The code above never sets rows and columns, so the code has undefined behavior from reading those values.
Assuming you set those values properly, this isn't allocating the proper amount of memory:
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int)*rows);
You're actually allocating space for an array of int instead of an array of int *. If the latter is larger (and it most likely is) then you haven't allocated enough space for the array and you again invoke undefined behavior by writing past the end of allocated memory.
You can allocate the proper amount of space like this:
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(int *)*rows);
Or even better, as this doesn't depend on the actual type:
result->my2darray = malloc(sizeof(*result->my2darray)*rows);
Also, there's no need to create a temporary array to read values into. Just read them directly into my2darray:
for(int i = 0;i<rows;i++) {
result->my2darray[i]=malloc(sizeof(int)*columns);
for(int j = 0;j<columns;j++) {
fscanf(fp, "%d", &result->my2darray[i][j]);
}
}
In your provided code example, the variables rows and columns have not been initialized before use, so they can contain anything, but are likely to be equal to 0. Either way, as written, the results will always be unpredictable.
When a 2D array is needed in C, it is useful to encapsulate the memory allocation, and freeing of memory into functions to simplify the task, and improve readability. For example, in your code the following line will create an array of 5 pointers, each pointing to 20 int storage locations: (creating 100 index addressable int locations.)
int main(void)
{
struct mystruct result = {0};
result.my2darray = Create2D(5, 20);
if(result.my2darray)
{
// use result.my2darray
result.my2darray[0][3] = 20;// for simple example, but more likely in a read loop
// then free result.my2darray
free2D(result.my2darray, 5);
}
return 0;
}
Using the following two functions:
int ** Create2D(int c, int r)
{
int **arr;
int y;
arr = calloc(c, sizeof(int *)); //create c pointers (columns)
for(y=0;y<c;y++)
{
arr[y] = calloc(r, sizeof(int)); //create r int locations for each pointer (rows)
}
return arr;
}
void free2D(int **arr, int c)
{
int i;
if(!arr) return;
for(i=0;i<c;i++)
{
if(arr[i])
{
free(arr[i]);
arr[i] = NULL;
}
}
free(arr);
arr = NULL;
}
Keep in mind that what you have created using this technique is actually 5 different pointer locations each pointing to a set of 20 int locations. This is what facilitates the use of array like indexing, i.e. we can say result.my2darray[1][3] represents the second column, forth row element of a 5X20 array, when it is not really an array at all.
int some_array[5][20] = {0};//init all elements to zero
Is what is commonly referred to in C an int array, also allowing access to each element via indexing. In actuality (Even though commonly referred to as an array.) it is not an array. The location of elements in this variable are stored in one contiguous location in memory.
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0... (~ 82 more)
But C maintains the locations such that they are all indexable as an 2D array.
I have an array of pointers to structs and I'm trying to find a way to fill the first NULL pointer in an array with a new pointer to a struct. i.e. I want to add a new element onto the end of an array.
I tried a for loop like this:
struct **structs;
int i;
for(i = 0; i < no_of_pointers; i++) {
if (structs[i] == NULL) {
structs[i] = &struct;
}
}
In theory, this would go through the array and when it finds a null pointer it would initialise it. I realise now that it would initialise all null pointers, not just the first, but when I run it it doesn't even do that. I've tried a while loop with the condition while(structs[i] != NULL) and that just goes on forever, making me think that the issue is with how I'm using NULL.
What is the correct way to add a new element to an array of this kind?
Is there some function like append(structs, struct) that I don't know of?
Thanks!
The length of an array in C is fixed, you cannot change it after you defined an array, which means you cannot add an element to the end of an array. However, unless you defined a constant array, you could assign new values to elements of an array. According to your question description, I believe this is what you want.
Also note that, as other already pointed it out in comments, struct is a keyword of C, therefore
you cannot use it as a type name (as you did in struct **structs)
you also cannot use it as a variable name (as you did in structs[i] = &struct;)
Here is one way to do it:
define an array properly
struct struct_foo **structp;
structp = malloc (no_of_elements * sizeof(*structp));
if (structp == NULL) {
/* error handle */
}
Note, at here the elements of structp is not initialized, you need to initialize them properly. That is what we are going to do in step 2.
do something with structp, maybe initialize all its elements to NULL or some no-NULL value
find the first no-NULL element in structp, and assign it a new value
struct struct_foo foo;
for (i = 0; i < no_of_elements; i++) {
if (structp[i] == NULL) {
structp[i] = &foo;
break;
}
}
Note that this foo also is uninitialized, you may want to initialize it first, or you could initialize it later.
According to man malloc:
void *malloc(size_t size);
void free(void *ptr);
void *calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t size);
void *realloc(void *ptr, size_t size);
void *reallocarray(void *ptr, size_t nmemb, size_t size);
...
The reallocarray() function changes the size of the memory block
pointed to by ptr to be large enough for an array of nmemb elements,
each of which is size bytes. It is equivalent to the call
realloc(ptr, nmemb * size);
Try implementing a system like this
struct **structs;
int new_struct() {
static int i = 0; // index of last allocated struct
i++;
struct *structp = malloc(sizeof(struct)); // new structure
// initialize structp here
reallocarray(structs, i, sizeof(struct));
structs[i] = structp;
return i; // use structs[index] to get
}
Then you may invoke new_struct(), which resizes the structs array and appends structp to it. The important part is that
a) create_struct returns the index of the newly created struct, and
b) it stores a static int i, which keeps track of the size of the structs.
I have a function that I pass an array into and an int into from my main function. I am doing operations to the array inside this new function, let's call it foo. In foo, I initialize another array with 52 cells all with 0. I do operations on the array that I passed from main, and transfer that data to the newly initialized array. I want to return the new array back to the main function. But of course, I can't return data structures like arrays. So I instead return an int pointer that points to this array. Inside the int main, I pass the pointer to have it point to various cells in the array. When I print the results of what the pointer is pointing to, it should either be pointing to 0 or an integer greater than 0. But instead, I get inconsistent results. For some reason, some of the values that SHOULD be 0, prints out garbage data. I've been trying to spot the bug for some time, but I just wanted a second hand look at it. Here is just the GENERAL idea for the code for this portion anyways...
int main(){
int *retPtr;
char input[] = "abaecedg";
retPtr = foo(input, size);
for(i=0; i<52; i++){
// error displayed here
printf("%d\n", *(retPr + i));
}
}
int foo(char input[], int size)
{
int arr[52] = {0}; // should initialize all 52 cells with 0.
int i=0, value; // looking for non-zero results in the end.
int *ptr = &arr[0];
for(i=0; i<size; i++){
if(arr[i] > 64 && arr[i] < 91){
value = input[i] - 65;
arr[value]++;
}
}
return ptr;
}
Hopefully this makes sense of what I'm trying to do. In the foo function, I am trying to find the frequency of certain alphabets. I know this might be a bit cryptic, but the code is quite long with comments and everything so I wanted to make it as succinct as possible. Is there any possible reason why I'm getting correct values for some (numbers > 0, 0) and garbage values in the other?
The reason you get garbage back is that the array created in foo is allocated in foos stack frame, and you then return a pointer into that frame. That frame is discarded when foo returns.
You should allocate the array on the heap (using malloc and friends) if you want it to remain after foo returns. Don't forget to free() it when you're done with the array.
int main(){
char input[] = "abaecedg";
int retPtr[] = foo(input, size); //An array and a pointer is the same thing
...
free(retPtr);
}
int *foo(char input[], int size)
{
int arr[] = calloc(52*sizeof(int); // should initialize all 52 cells with 0.
...
arr[value]++;
...
return arr;
}
Another way is to let foo take an array as a parameter and work with that, in this way:
int main(){
int ret[52] = {0};
...
foo(input, size, ret);
...
}
void foo(char input[], int size, int *arr)
{
...
arr[value]++;
...
return; //Don't return anything, you have changed the array in-place
}
The reason this works is because an array is the exact same thing as a pointer, so you are really passing the array by reference into foo. arr will be pointing to the same place as ret, into the stack frame of main.
In function foo the array arr is a local array, that is, allocated on the stack. You must not return any pointer of data allocated on the stack, since the stack is rewinded after you return from the function, and its content is no more guaratneed.
If you want to return an array you should allocate it on the heap using malloc, for example, and return the pointer malloc returned. But you will then have to free that memory somewhere in your program. If you fail to free it you will have what's called a "memory leak", which may or may not crash/disturb this program from running again, depending on your environment. A not clean situation, that's for sure.
That's why I consider C not so good for functional programing idioms, such as returning things from function (unless they are primitive types). I would achieve what you tried to do by passing another array to foo - an output array, companioned by a size variable, and fill that array.
Alternately, you could wrap the array within a struct and return that struct. Structs can be returned by value, in which case they are copied via the stack to the caller function's returned value.
I am supposed to follow the following criteria:
Implement function answer4 (pointer parameter and n):
Prepare an array of student_record using malloc() of n items.
Duplicate the student record from the parameter to the array n
times.
Return the array.
And I came with the code below, but it's obviously not correct. What's the correct way to implement this?
student_record *answer4(student_record* p, unsigned int n)
{
int i;
student_record* q = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
for(i = 0; i < n ; i++){
q[i] = p[i];
}
free(q);
return q;
};
p = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
This is problematic: you're overwriting the p input argument, so you can't reference the data you were handed after that line.
Which means that your inner loop reads initialized data.
This:
return a;
is problematic too - it would return a pointer to a local variable, and that's not good - that pointer becomes invalid as soon as the function returns.
What you need is something like:
student_record* ret = malloc(...);
for (int i=...) {
// copy p[i] to ret[i]
}
return ret;
1) You reassigned p, the array you were suppose to copy, by calling malloc().
2) You can't return the address of a local stack variable (a). Change a to a pointer, malloc it to the size of p, and copy p into. Malloc'd memory is heap memory, and so you can return such an address.
a[] is a local automatic array. Once you return from the function, it is erased from memory, so the calling function can't use the array you returned.
What you probably wanted to do is to malloc a new array (ie, not p), into which you should assign the duplicates and return its values w/o freeing the malloced memory.
Try to use better names, it might help in avoiding the obvious mix-up errors you have in your code.
For instance, start the function with:
student_record * answer4(const student_record *template, size_t n)
{
...
}
It also makes the code clearer. Note that I added const to make it clearer that the first argument is input-only, and made the type of the second one size_t which is good when dealing with "counts" and sizes of things.
The code in this question is evolving quite quickly but at the time of this answer it contains these two lines:
free(q);
return q;
This is guaranteed to be wrong - after the call to free its argument points to invalid memory and anything could happen subsequently upon using the value of q. i.e. you're returning an invalid pointer. Since you're returning q, don't free it yet! It becomes a "caller-owned" variable and it becomes the caller's responsibility to free it.
student_record* answer4(student_record* p, unsigned int n)
{
uint8_t *data, *pos;
size_t size = sizeof(student_record);
data = malloc(size*n);
pos = data;
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < n ; i++, pos=&pos[size])
memcpy(pos,p,size);
return (student_record *)data;
};
You may do like this.
This compiles and, I think, does what you want:
student_record *answer4(const student_record *const p, const unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int i;
student_record *const a = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
for(i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
a[i] = p[i];
}
return a;
};
Several points:
The existing array is identified as p. You want to copy from it. You probably do not want to free it (to free it is probably the caller's job).
The new array is a. You want to copy to it. The function cannot free it, because the caller will need it. Therefore, the caller must take the responsibility to free it, once the caller has done with it.
The array has n elements, indexed 0 through n-1. The usual way to express the upper bound on the index thus is i < n.
The consts I have added are not required, but well-written code will probably include them.
Altought, there are previous GOOD answers to this question, I couldn't avoid added my own. Since I got pascal programming in Collegue, I am used to do this, in C related programming languages:
void* AnyFunction(int AnyParameter)
{
void* Result = NULL;
DoSomethingWith(Result);
return Result;
}
This, helps me to easy debug, and avoid bugs like the one mention by #ysap, related to pointers.
Something important to remember, is that the question mention to return a SINGLE pointer, this a common caveat, because a pointer, can be used to address a single item, or a consecutive array !!!
This question suggests to use an array as A CONCEPT, with pointers, NOT USING ARRAY SYNTAX.
// returns a single pointer to an array:
student_record* answer4(student_record* student, unsigned int n)
{
// empty result variable for this function:
student_record* Result = NULL;
// the result will allocate a conceptual array, even if it is a single pointer:
student_record* Result = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
// a copy of the destination result, will move for each item
student_record* dest = Result;
int i;
for(i = 0; i < n ; i++){
// copy contents, not address:
*dest = *student;
// move to next item of "Result"
dest++;
}
// the data referenced by "Result", was changed using "dest"
return Result;
} // student_record* answer4(...)
Check that, there is not subscript operator here, because of addressing with pointers.
Please, don't start a pascal v.s. c flame war, this is just a suggestion.