I've done some research and couldn't find any answer to my problem.
I'm having problems with freeing my struct.
This is how i create my struct:
struct Structure * newStructure(int N)
{
struct Structure * structure;
int i;
structure = (struct Structure * ) malloc(N * sizeof(struct Structure));
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
structure[i].i_Number = (int * ) malloc(sizeof(int));
structure[i].c_Char = (char * ) malloc(sizeof(char));
structure[i].c_Char[0] = '\0';
structure[i].d_Float = (double * ) malloc(sizeof(double));
}
return structure;
}
Everything works to this point. Later I fill every variable with random values so that they are not empty.
I call my freeMemory function like this freeMemory(structure, amountOfStructures);
And here is freeMemory function itself:
void freeMemory (struct Structure* structure, int N)
{
int i;
for( i=0 ; i<N ; i++ )
{
if (structure[i].i_Number!=NULL) free(structure[i].i_Number);
if (structure[i].c_Char!=NULL) free(structure[i].c_Char);
if (structure[i].d_Float!=NULL) free(structure[i].d_Float);
}
free(structure);
}
The free(structure) part works fine. But there are problems with the for loop and I have no idea what I'm doing wrong here.
#EDIT
I'm adding my struct declaration:
struct Structure{
int *i_Number;
char *c_Char;
double *d_Float;
};
#EDIT2
That's the function that initializes struct:
struct Structure* randomizing (int N)
{
struct Structure* structure = newStructure(N); int i;
srand(time(NULL));
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
int _i; char _c; double _d;
_i = rand()%1000000;
_c = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" [rand () % 26];
_d = 0;
setStructureNumber(structure, i,(int*) _i);
setStructureChar(structure, i, (char*) _c);
setStructureDouble(structure, i, &_d);
// I'VE COMMENTED OUT THE MUTATORS ABOVE AND THE ERROR DOES NOT SHOW ANYMORE, SO THERES SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM
}
return structure;
}
And im calling it like this:
struct Structure* structure;
structure = randomizing(amountOfStructures);
The mutators used:
// Mutators
void setStructureNumber (struct Structure* structure, int p, int* num)
{
if (structure[p].i_Number != NULL) free(structure[p].i_Number);
structure[p].i_Number = (int*) malloc (sizeof(int));
structure[p].i_Number = num;
}
void setStructureChar (struct Structure* structure, int p, char* str)
{
if (structure[p].c_Char != NULL) free(structure[p].c_Char);
structure[p].c_Char = (char*) malloc (sizeof(char));
structure[p].c_Char = str;
}
void setStructureDouble (struct Structure* structure, int p, double* dou)
{
if (structure[p].d_Float != NULL) free(structure[p].d_Float);
structure[p].d_Float = (double*) malloc (sizeof(double));
structure[p].d_Float = dou;
}
The most likely reason is that somewhere in your code you go out of bounds of the memory you allocated and thus destroy the integrity of the heap. A frequently encountered practical manifestation of such undefined behavior is a failure at free, when the library detects the problem with the heap.
Inside you allocation cycle you allocate just one object of each respective type for each field of your struct object. For example, you allocate only one character for c_Char field and initialize it with \0. This might suggest that c_Char is intended to hold a string (is it?). If so, then the memory you allocated is sufficient for an empty string only. If you do not reallocate that memory later, any attempts to place a longer string into that memory will break the integrity of the heap and trigger undefined behavior.
The same applies to other fields as well. However, without extra explanations from you it is not possible to say whether it is right or wrong. At least, you have to provide the definition of struct Structure. And you have to explain your intent. Why are you dynamically allocating single-object memory for struct fields instead of just making these objects immediate members of the struct?
The additional code you posted is completely and utterly broken.
Firstly you are calling your mutators as
setStructureNumber(structure, i,(int*) _i);
setStructureChar(structure, i, (char*) _c);
setStructureDouble(structure, i, &_d);
This does not make any sense. Why are you trying to convert integer value _i to pointer type??? If you want to obtain a pointer to _i, it is done as &_i. You already do it correctly in the very last call, where you pass &_d. Why are the first two calls different from the last one? What was your logic behind this?
Secondly, inside your mutator functions
void setStructureNumber (struct Structure* structure, int p, int* num)
{
if (structure[p].i_Number != NULL) free(structure[p].i_Number);
structure[p].i_Number = (int*) malloc (sizeof(int));
structure[p].i_Number = num;
}
you are freeing old memory and allocating new memory. Why? Why don't just reuse the old memory to store the new value? (BTW, there's no need to check the pointer for null before calling free, because free will check it internally anyway.)
Thirdly, after allocating the new memory you immediately leak it by overriding the pointer value returned by malloc with the pointer value passed from the outside
structure[p].i_Number = num;
Again, this does not make any sense. This is actually what causes the crash on free - the pointers you pass from the outside are either meaningless random values (like your (int *) _i or (char *) _c)) or point to a local variable (like your &_d).
There's no way to "correct" your code without knowing what it is you are trying to do in the first place. There are just too many completely unnecessary memory allocations and reallocations and other illogical things. I would simply rewrite the mutator functions as
void setStructureNumber (struct Structure* structure, int p, int num)
{
*structure[p].i_Number = num;
}
Note - no memory reallocations and the argument is passed by value.
The functions would be called as
setStructureNumber(structure, i, _i);
setStructureChar(structure, i, _c);
setStructureDouble(structure, i, _d);
But again, this is so vastly different from what you have that I don't know whether this is what you need.
Technically, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing (except the missing error checks on allocations, unnecessary casts of malloc results, and unnecessary NULL checking before calling free).
This should work fine, assuming that you pass the correct value of N, and that you do not free things more than once:
struct Structure * newStructure(int N) {
struct Structure * structure = malloc(N * sizeof(struct Structure));
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
structure[i].i_Number = malloc(sizeof(int));
structure[i].c_Char = malloc(sizeof(char));
structure[i].c_Char[0] = '\0';
structure[i].d_Float = malloc(sizeof(double));
}
return structure;
}
void freeMemory (struct Structure* structure, int N)
{
for(int i=0 ; i<N ; i++ )
{
free(structure[i].i_Number);
free(structure[i].c_Char);
free(structure[i].d_Float);
}
free(structure);
}
You can use a memory diagnostic tool such as valgrind to ensure that you do not freeing things more than once.
In your mutators you leak memory and then point to local variables (comments mine)
void setStructureChar (struct Structure* structure, int p, char* str)
{
if (structure[p].c_Char != NULL) free(structure[p].c_Char);
// allocates new memory and points c_Char at it.
structure[p].c_Char = (char*) malloc (sizeof(char));
// makes c_Char point to where `str` is pointing; now the allocated memory is leaked
structure[p].c_Char = str;
}
When you later do free on structure[p].c_Char, it causes undefined behaviour because you called this function with a pointer to a local variable. You probably have undefined behaviour elsewhere too if you try to access c_Char anywhere before freeing it.
The other mutators have the same problem.
To "fix" this change structure[p].c_Char = str; to *structure[p].c_Char = *str;.
You also have blunders here:
setStructureNumber(structure, i,(int*) _i);
setStructureChar(structure, i, (char*) _c);
You meant &_i and &_c respectively. I would advise to remove all casts from your code. At best they are redundant; at worst (e.g. in these two lines) they hide an error which the compiler would diagnose.
Also remove all the NULL checks before free, they are redundant and make your code hard to read. Instead, do the NULL checks after calling malloc, and abort the program if malloc returned NULL.
However this whole setup seems like a ghastly design. You could pass the things by value to the mutators. And you could change your struct to not contain pointers, and therefore not need all this extra allocation.
Related
A "Deeltal" keeps track of how many dividers an integer has (count) and keeps them in an array (dividers).
Examples:
value = 8 -> count = 3 and dividers = {1,2,4}
value = 10, count = 3, dividers = {1,2,5}
Hope everything is clear, take a look at the following code:
typedef struct{
int value;
int count;
int* dividers;
} Deeltal;
void free_dividers(Deeltal *g){ /*Deletes the int* dividers of a given Deeltal*/
free (g - > dividers);
}
/* the following two functions have the same purpose: deleting the content of a
given amount of "Deeltal" AND deleting the pointer to it aswell*/
void free_amountOfdeeltal(Deeltal *d, int amount){
int i;
for (i = 0; i < amount; i++){
free_dividers(&d[i]);
}
free(d);
}
void free_amountOfdeeltalVersion2(Deeltal **g, int amount){
int i;
for(i = 0; i < amount; i++){
free_dividers(&(*g)[i]);
}
free(*g);
}
If my main looked something like this
int main(void){
/*EDIT 3/11/2017: forgot to allocate memory for *d and initializing g.
Thanks for pointing this out*/
Deeltal g = 0;
g.value = 6; g.count = 3; g.dividers = {1,2,3};
Deeltal *d = malloc(sizeof(Deeltal));
d->value = 6; d->count = 3; d->dividers = {1,2,3};
free_amountOfdeeltal(&g);
free_amountOfdeeltalVersion2(&d);
}
What is the difference between free_amountOfdeeltal and free_amountOfdeeltalVersion2?
Both should do the same thing: releasing the memory of a Deeltal and also deleting the pointer pointing to that memory.
On a sidenote:
How do you delete the memory as well as the pointer?
Not withstanding calling this function with invalid data as pointed out by others .. I'll attempt to answer the question I think you are asking.
On a sidenote: How do you delete the memory as well as the pointer?
You can't really "delete the pointer" in this context as a pointer is simply a variable that is assigned an address. You delete memory that was allocated to you by passing free a pointer to the memory. Note that free does not modify the value of the pointer at all. (It can't because the pointer is passed by value.) After the call to free the pointer still points to the same memory address.
If what you mean is "how can I assign a meaningful value to the pointer to identify that its memory has already been deleted," then you can use the second form of your function:
void free_amountOfdeeltalVersion2(Deeltal **g, int amount);
and set *g to NULL before returning. You can then use this information than the pointer is NULL to identify the memory has already been deleted.
You didn't allocate any memory for d so your pointer doesn't point to any structure. Therefor, you can't access its properties or free its memory because you didn't reserve it in the first place. There's no way this code could come remotely close to compiling.
First of all you should be allocating memory for a "Deeltal" structure like this:
Deeltal *d = malloc(sizeof(Deeltal));
I recommend you go back and relearn how pointers work, as you're doing some really weird stuff there.
I'm making my library, and just when I thought understanding the pointers syntax, I just get confused, search on the web and get even more confused.
Basically I want to make a pool, here is what I actually want to do:
the following points must be respected :
when I add an object to the pool, the pointers of the current array to the objects are
added to a new array of pointers + 1 (to contain the new object).
the new array is pointed by "objects" of my foo structure.
the old array is free'ing.
when I call the cleanup function, all the object in the pool are
free'd
How should I define my structure ?
typedef struct {
int n;
(???)objects
} foo;
foo *the_pool;
here's the code to manage my pool :
void myc_pool_init ()
{
the_pool = (???)malloc(sizeof(???));
the_pool->n = 0;
the_pool->objects = NULL;
}
void myc_push_in_pool (void* object)
{
if (object != NULL) {
int i;
(???)new_pointers;
the_pool->n++;
new_pointers = (???)malloc(sizeof(???)*the_pool->n);
for (i = 0; i < the_pool->n - 1; ++i) {
new_pointers[i] = (the_pool->objects)[i]; // that doesn't work (as I'm not sure how to handle it)
}
new_array[i] = object;
free(the_pool->objects);
the_pool->objects = new_array; // that must be wrong
}
}
void myc_pool_cleanup ()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < the_pool->n; ++i)
free((the_pool->objects)[i]); // as in myc_push_in_pool, it doesn't work
free(the_pool->objects);
free(the_pool);
}
Note: the type of objects added to the pool are not known in advance, so i should handles all pointers as void
any feedback would be very welcomed.
A straight answer to your question would be: use void *. This type is very powerful as it allows you to put any kind of pointer in your pool. However, it's up to you to do the correct casts when retrieving a void * pointer from your pool.
Your struct would look like this
typedef struct {
int n;
(void **)objects
} foo;
foo *the_pool;
As in, an array of pointers.
Your malloc:
new_pointers = (void **)malloc(sizeof(void *)*the_pool->n);
There is an performance issue here. You could simply allocate an array of a fixed size, and only reallocate if the number of elements exceeds a predefined load factor (= number used/ max size)
Also, instead of allocating a new pointer each time you add something to your pool, you could just use realloc (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/realloc/)
the_pool->objects = (void **)realloc(the_pool->objects, the_pool->n* sizeof(void*));
Realloc tries to increase the current allocated area, without the need to copy everything. Only if the function cannot increase the allocated area contiguously will it allocate a new area and copy everything.
Firstly, you already answered your "What should the type of foo.objects be?" question: void *objects;, malloc already returns void *. Your struct needs to store the size_t item_size;, too. n should probably also be a size_t.
typedef struct {
size_t item_count;
size_t item_size;
void *objects;
} foo;
foo *the_pool;
You could use a home-grown loop, but I'd consider memcpy to be a more convenient way to copy your old items to your new space, and the new item to it's new space.
Dereferencing a void * is a constraint violation, as is pointer arithmetic on a void *, so new_pointers will need to be a different type. You need a type that points to objects of the right size. You could use an array of the right number of unsigned char, like so:
// new_pointers is a pointer to array of the_pool->item_size unsigned chars.
unsigned char (*new_pointers)[the_pool->item_size] = malloc(the_pool->item_count * sizeof *new_pointers);
// copy the old items
memcpy(new_pointers, the_pool->objects, the_pool->item_count * sizeof *new_pointers);
// copy the new items
memcpy(new_pointers + the_pool->item_count, object, sizeof *new_pointers);
Remember, free() is only for pointers returned by malloc(), and there should be a one-to-one correspondence: Each malloc() should be free()d. Look how you malloc: new_pointers = malloc(sizeof(???)*the_pool->n); ... What makes you think you need a loop (in myc_pool_cleanup) to free each item, when you can free them all in one foul swoop?
You could use realloc, but you otherwise seem to be handling malloc/memcpy/free *in myc_push_in_pool* flawlessly. Lots of people tend to mess up when writing realloc code.
i have a struct "cell" defined as
typedef struct{
int id;
terrainType terrain;
} cell;
i then make a 2d array of cells with
cell** makeCellGrid(int sizeX, int sizeY)
{
cell** theArray;
int i;
theArray = (cell**) malloc(sizeX*sizeof(cell*));
for ( i = 0; i < sizeX; i++)
{
theArray[i] = (cell*) malloc(sizeY*sizeof(cell));
}
return theArray;
}
at first i thought this was working fine but a few seg faults later i discovered that with some values (e.g. makeCellGrid(32, 87) ) it breaks.
im fairly fresh with C pointers and memory junk and was hoping some one could point me in the right direction here.
with lower number bounds i had no issue accessing it with
map[i][j].id = x;
and so on
EDIT: forgot to add, from testing, the seg fault originate from
theArray[i] = (cell*) malloc(sizeY*sizeof(cell));
The code lacks error checking for the malloc() system call.
So if the first call to malloc() failed the second one (in the loop) tries to assign memory to NULL which indeed leads to the segmentation violation your are witnessing.
You might consider modifing you code like so:
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct {
int id;
TerrainType terrain;
} CellType;
void freeCellGrid(CellType ** ppCells, size_t sizeX)
{
size_t i = 0;
for (; i < sizeX; ++i)
{
free(ppCells[i]);
}
free(ppCells);
}
CellType ** makeCellGrid(size_t sizeX, size_t sizeY)
{
CellType ** ppCells = malloc(sizeX * sizeof(*ppCells));
if (ppCells)
{
size_t i = 0;
for (; i < sizeX; ++i)
{
ppCells[i] = malloc(sizeY * sizeof(**ppCells));
if (NULL == ppCells[i])
{
freeCellGrid(ppCells, i);
ppCells = NULL;
break;
}
}
}
return ppCells;
}
Notes on my modifications:
Always check system calls for errors (in the case of malloc() on error NULL is returned)
Better use an unsigned type to access memory/array indicies; size_t is meant for this
In C there is no need to cast the value returned by a void * function like malloc()
Always try to initialise variables as soon as possible; un-initilaised variables very easily lead to "irrational" behaviour of the application
If working with pointers, it might be helpfull to 'code' the level of indirection into their names (I did this here by using the prefix pp to indicated that it's a 2-level indirection)
types are different from variables: One way to distinguish this is by starting type names using capitals (CellType) and variables using small letters (ppCells).
If allocating memory to a pointer and it matters that the size of the allocated memory some suits the pointer's type it's always more secure to use the (dereferenced) pointer itself as argument to the sizeof operator then some type. As the declaration of the pointer the memory is allocated to might be changed during develpment and the adjustment of the argument to malloc() will be forgotten. To cut it short: doing as I did is less error prone.
If encapsulating the dynamical creation of structures (including arrays) it is a could idea to also implement a method which de-allocates it (here: freeCellGrid()). Even better start of with coding this deallocator first, as then you have it by hand when coding the allocator's error handling (as shown for the second call to malloc()).
Using what I have learned here: How to use realloc in a function in C, I wrote this program.
int data_length; // Keeps track of length of the dynamic array.
int n; // Keeps track of the number of elements in dynamic array.
void add(int x, int data[], int** test)
{
n++;
if (n > data_length)
{
data_length++;
*test = realloc(*test, data_length * sizeof (int));
}
data[n-1] = x;
}
int main(void)
{
int *data = malloc(2 * sizeof *data);
data_length = 2; // Set the initial values.
n = 0;
add(0,data,&data);
add(1,data,&data);
add(2,data,&data);
return 0;
}
The goal of the program is to have a dynamic array data that I can keep adding values to. When I try to add a value to data, if it is full, the length of the array is increased by using realloc.
Question
This program compiles and does not crash when run. However, printing out data[0],data[1],data[2] gives 0,1,0. The number 2 was not added to the array.
Is this due to my wrong use of realloc?
Additional Info
This program will be used later on with a varying number of "add" and possibly a "remove" function. Also, I know realloc should be checked to see if it failed (is NULL) but that has been left out here for simplicity.
I am still learning and experimenting with C. Thanks for your patience.
Your problem is in your utilisation of data, because it points on the old array's address. Then, when your call realloc, this area is freed. So you are trying to access to an invalid address on the next instruction: this leads to an undefined behavior.
Also you don't need to use this data pointer. test is sufficient.
(*test)[n-1] = x;
You don't need to pass data twice to add.
You could code
void add(int x, int** ptr)
{
n++;
int *data = *ptr;
if (n > data_length) {
data_length++;
*ptr = data = realloc(oldata, data_length * sizeof (int));
if (!data)
perror("realloc failed), exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
data [n-1] = x;
}
but that is very inefficient, you should call realloc only once in a while. You could for instance have
data_length = 3*data_length/2 + 5;
*ptr = data = realloc(oldata, data_length * sizeof (int));
Let's take a look at the POSIX realloc specification.
The description says:
If the new size of the memory object would require movement of the object, the space for the previous instantiation of the object is freed.
The return value (emphasis added) mentions:
Upon successful completion with a size not equal to 0, realloc() returns a pointer to the (possibly moved) allocated space.
You can check to see if the pointer changes.
int *old;
old = *test;
*test = realloc(*test, data_length * sizeof(int));
if (*test != old)
printf("Pointer changed from %p to %p\n", old, *test);
This possible change can interact badly because your code refers to the "same" memory by two different names, data and *test. If *test changes, data still points to the old chunk of memory.
Building on what I learned here: Manipulating dynamic array through functions in C.
void test(int data[])
{
data[0] = 1;
}
int main(void)
{
int *data = malloc(4 * sizeof *data);
test(data);
return 0;
}
This works fine. However, I am also trying to using realloc in a function.
void increase(int data[])
{
data = realloc(data, 5 * sizeof *data);
}
This complies but the program crashes when run.
Question
How should I be using realloc in a function?
I understand that I should assign the result of realloc to a variable and check if it is NULL first. This is just a simplified example.
You want to modify the value of an int* (your array) so need to pass a pointer to it into your increase function:
void increase(int** data)
{
*data = realloc(*data, 5 * sizeof int);
}
Calling code would then look like:
int *data = malloc(4 * sizeof *data);
/* do stuff with data */
increase(&data);
/* more stuff */
free(data);
Keep in mind the difference between a pointer and an array.
An array is a chuck of memory in the stack, and that's all.If you have an array:
int arr[100];
Then arr is an address of memory, but also &arr is an adress of memory, and that address of memory is constant, not stored in any location.So you cannot say arr=NULL, since arr is not a variable that points to something.It's just a symbolic address: the address of where the array starts.Instead a pointer has it's own memory and can point to memory addresses.
It's enough that you change int[] to int*.
Also, variables are passed by copy so you need to pass an int** to the function.
About how using realloc, all the didactic examples include this:
Use realloc;
Check if it's NULL.In this case use perror and exit the program;
If it's not NULL use the memory allocated;
Free the memory when you don't need it anymore.
So that would be a nice example:
int* chuck= (int*) realloc (NULL, 10*sizeof(int)); // Acts like malloc,
// casting is optional but I'd suggest it for readability
assert(chuck);
for(unsigned int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
chunk[i]=i*10;
printf("%d",chunk[i]);
}
free(chunk);
Both code are very problematic, if you use the same pointer to send and receive from realloc, if it fails, you will lose your pointer to free it later.
you should do some thing like this :
{
...
...
more = realloc(area , size);
if( more == NULL )
free(area);
else
area=more;
...
...
}