Related
I try something like below but all the time I have a segmentation fault.
I don't really want to use (e.g.) #define N 1000 and then declare int buffer[N].
Just in case..I'm not allowed to use any headers except stdio.h as well as dynamic memory.
void input (int *buffer, int *length);
int main()
{
int length, *buffer = NULL, *numbers = NULL;
input(buffer, &length);
}
void input(int *buffer, int *length) {
scanf("%d", length);
if (*length < 0) {
error = 1;
return;
}
for (int i = 0; i < *length; i++) {
scanf("%d", *buffer[i]);
}
}
How to pass an array with unknown 1-d dimension into function
In C, arrays cannot exist until their size is known.
There are other approaches though.
In C, code cannot pass an array to a function. some_function(some_array) converts the array some_array to the address of the first element of the array: &some_array[0]. That is what the function receives, a pointer, not an array. The original size information of the array is not passed, thus also pass the length to the function.
Sample:
Read desired length.
{
int length = 0;
scanf("%d", &length);
Form a variable length array, length >= 1.
if (length <= 0) {
return NULL;
}
int buffer[length];
Now call a function, passing the length and the address of the first element of the array.
// Do stuff with length and buf, like read data
foo1(length, buffer);
// foo1() receives the length & address of the first element of the array as an int *
// Do more stuff with length and buf, like write data
foo2(length, buffer);
}
At the end of the block }, buffer no longer available.
In C, you can't create an array if you can't know its size at compile time (or at least not in certain implementations and standards), so doing something like buffer[length] won't work (again at least not in certain implementations/standards).
What you need to do to make sure this works everywhere is to use a pointer (as I see you're trying to use here). However, what you're doing wrong here that causes your segfault with the pointers is you assign them the value of NULL. This also won't work due to how when you assign a pointer an arbitrary value, there is no memory allocated for the pointer (This applies for everything other than addresses of "regular" variables using the & operator and assigning other pointers that are checked to be OK). Your pointers are just pointing to address 0 and can't be used for anything.
What you need to do here to fix the pointers is to use dynamic memory allocation, so you can have a truly variable-sized array. Specifically, you need to use a function like malloc or calloc to allocate memory for the pointers so they are usable. In your case, using calloc and reading its documentation, we see that it takes 2 parameters: The number of elements it should allocate memory for and the size of each element. We also know that it returns a pointer to the starting address of the allocated memory and that in case of failure (which can only happen if you're out of memory), it returns NULL. Using this, we understand that in your case the call to calloc would be like this:
int *buffer = (int *) calloc(length, sizeof(int));
The sizeof() function returns the size of a data type in bytes. Here you allocated enough memory for the pointer to hold length integers (since you'll use it as an array you need enough memory for all the integers, you're not just pointing to 1 integer but storing all of them), and calloc is also noted to initialize every allocated element to 0, so you have an array of integers that are all initialized to 0 (Also note that type casting has been used to make sure the allocated memory block is appropriate for use with an integer array, you can read more about type casting in this small article from Tutorialspoint if you'd like). Then, after this has been allocated, you can start reading your integers into the array. The complete code looks like this:
void input (int *buffer, int *length);
int main() {
// NOTE: I don't see the numbers pointer used here, maybe remove it?
int length, *buffer, *numbers;
input(buffer, &length);
}
void input(int *buffer, int *length) {
scanf("%d", length);
if (*length < 0) {
// Consider printing the exact error here
error = 1;
return;
}
buffer = (int *) calloc(length, sizeof(int));
if (buffer == NULL) {
printf("Couldn't allocate memory for buffer\n");
error = 1;
return;
}
// Accessing the elements of an array doesn't need * and in fact * here can (and probably will) cause terrible things
for (int i = 0; i < *length; i++) {
scanf("%d", buffer[i]);
}
}
Also don't forget to call free() on the pointer after you're done using it to avoid memory leaks (in your case that'd be after the call to input()).
Hope this helped, good luck!
You cannot use arrays because their memory size must be known to the compiler at compile time. Also you can't use Variable Length Arrays because they are allocated at the point of declaration and deallocated when the block scope containing the declaration exits.
The solution to your problem might be to use malloc
Alright so i have my array:
unsiged int *arr = (unsigned int*)malloc(200 * sizeof(unsigned int));
Declared like this, and i have wrote a loop that loops through each element of the array and calls a function with the element as its argument, which looks like this:
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]); i++) {
sprintf(buffer, "/proc/%zu/cmdline", arr[i]);
printf("/proc/%x/cmdline", arr[0]);
printf("/proc/%zu/cmdline", arr[i]);
checkIfRunning(buffer);
}
the checkIfRunning function contains:
void checkIfRunning(char *filepath) {
FILE *fh;
char buf[500];
fh = fopen(filepath, "r");
if (!fh)
exit(1);
My code always exits at exit(1), i get the following (wrong) outputs from both the printf statements:
/proc/bbb07a63/cmdline
/proc/3148905059/cmdline
What am i doing wrong
Please note that i am new to c and i'm sorry if newbie question, also note that the output of printf is different each time, which i assume means its garbage.
For an unsigned int *arr, expression sizeof(arr) is the size of a pointer value (e.g. 4 bytes on a 32 bit system), not the "length" of something this pointer points to. This is different from a declaration like unsigned int arr[100], where sizeof(arr) would give you 100*sizeof(unsigned int). You probably took over the pattern sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]) from an array declaration like unsigned int[100], yet this cannot be used for dynamically allocated memory. So you'd rather write for (size_t i = 0; i < 200; i++), or write #define ARRSIZE 200 and use ARRSIZE then for the malloc and for the loop.
Second, as mentioned by GrahamS, you do not show any code initialising the memory. If there isn't such initialisation, the behaviour of your program is undefined.
You allocated the memory for the array, but you haven't set the contents of that memory to anything. So your array is just filled with random garbage.
So, to start off I've already looked at a few questions including this one and none of them seem to help.
I'm simply trying to write a function that extends the size of an array using realloc().
My code currently looks like this:
unsigned char *xtnd = malloc(4);
xtndc(&xtnd, 4);
// sizeof(*xtnd) should now be 8
void xtndc ( unsigned char ** bytesRef , uint8_t count ) {
*bytesRef = realloc(*bytesRef, (sizeof(**bytesRef)) + count);
}
But no matter what I do it seems that the size of xtnd is always 4. After running xtndc() on it it should now be 8 bytes long.
Any suggestions?
The type of **bytesRef is unsigned char, so sizeof(**bytesRef) is 1. sizeof doesn't keep track of dynamic allocations, it's a compile time tool that gives you the size of a type, in this case unsigned char.
You have to keep track of the array size manually to calculate the new required size.
Your program does in fact change the size of the memory block. It changes the size of your original memory block from 4 bytes to 5 bytes. It changes to 5 bytes because you are essentially doing sizeof(unsigned char) + 4 which 1 + 4 = 5. If you want to double the size instead, do count*sizeof(unsigned char) + count. There are two points to be noted here:
The sizeof function returns the size of the data type, not the size of the allocated bytes. There is no way to know the size of the dynamically allocated memory.
The function realloc (and malloc and calloc as well) is not always guaranteed to return the requested reallocation. It may or may not succeed all the time.
I fixed the problem with the following code.
typedef struct CArrPtr {
unsigned char* ptr;
size_t size;
} CArrPtr;
void xtndc ( CArrPtr *bytesRef, uint8_t count );
. . .
CArrPtr xtnd = { .ptr = malloc(4), .size = 4 };
xtndc( &xtnd, 4 );
// xtnd.size is now 8 bytes
. . .
void xtndc ( CArrPtr *bytesRef, uint8_t count ) {
unsigned char *nptr;
if((nptr = realloc(bytesRef->ptr, bytesRef->size + count)) != 0)
{
bytesRef->ptr = nptr;
bytesRef->size = bytesRef->size + count;
}
}
As I am somewhat new to C, what I learned from this is that malloc specifically creates a pointer to a memory block, but you have no direct access to information about the memory block. Instead, you must store the size of the array that you created with malloc somewhere as well.
Since in the past I'd been initializing arrays with unsigned char arr[size]; and then using sizeof on it, I was under the impression that sizeof returned the size of the array, which is of course wrong as it gives you the size of a type.
Glad I could learn something from this.
sizeof is used to calculate size of data type or array. Pointer and array are very similar, but they are different things. For int *ap, sizeof(ap) will return 4 on x86, sizeof(*ap) will return 4; for int a[10], sizeof(a) will return 40.
sizeof expression is processed at compile time, so it will be a constant written into the executable file before you run the program.
malloc and realloc don't maintain size.
If realloc succeeds, it will reallocate the requested size. So you don't need to check the size after realloc returns, but you should check the return value of realloc to ensure that realloc succeeds.
I've allocated an "array" of mystruct of size n like this:
if (NULL == (p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n,1))) {
/* handle error */
}
Later on, I only have access to p, and no longer have n. Is there a way to determine the length of the array given just the pointer p?
I figure it must be possible, since free(p) does just that. I know malloc() keeps track of how much memory it has allocated, and that's why it knows the length; perhaps there is a way to query for this information? Something like...
int length = askMallocLibraryHowMuchMemoryWasAlloced(p) / sizeof(mystruct)
I know I should just rework the code so that I know n, but I'd rather not if possible. Any ideas?
No, there is no way to get this information without depending strongly on the implementation details of malloc. In particular, malloc may allocate more bytes than you request (e.g. for efficiency in a particular memory architecture). It would be much better to redesign your code so that you keep track of n explicitly. The alternative is at least as much redesign and a much more dangerous approach (given that it's non-standard, abuses the semantics of pointers, and will be a maintenance nightmare for those that come after you): store the lengthn at the malloc'd address, followed by the array. Allocation would then be:
void *p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n + sizeof(unsigned long int),1));
*((unsigned long int*)p) = n;
n is now stored at *((unsigned long int*)p) and the start of your array is now
void *arr = p+sizeof(unsigned long int);
Edit: Just to play devil's advocate... I know that these "solutions" all require redesigns, but let's play it out.
Of course, the solution presented above is just a hacky implementation of a (well-packed) struct. You might as well define:
typedef struct {
unsigned int n;
void *arr;
} arrInfo;
and pass around arrInfos rather than raw pointers.
Now we're cooking. But as long as you're redesigning, why stop here? What you really want is an abstract data type (ADT). Any introductory text for an algorithms and data structures class would do it. An ADT defines the public interface of a data type but hides the implementation of that data type. Thus, publicly an ADT for an array might look like
typedef void* arrayInfo;
(arrayInfo)newArrayInfo(unsignd int n, unsigned int itemSize);
(void)deleteArrayInfo(arrayInfo);
(unsigned int)arrayLength(arrayInfo);
(void*)arrayPtr(arrayInfo);
...
In other words, an ADT is a form of data and behavior encapsulation... in other words, it's about as close as you can get to Object-Oriented Programming using straight C. Unless you're stuck on a platform that doesn't have a C++ compiler, you might as well go whole hog and just use an STL std::vector.
There, we've taken a simple question about C and ended up at C++. God help us all.
keep track of the array size yourself; free uses the malloc chain to free the block that was allocated, which does not necessarily have the same size as the array you requested
Just to confirm the previous answers: There is no way to know, just by studying a pointer, how much memory was allocated by a malloc which returned this pointer.
What if it worked?
One example of why this is not possible. Let's imagine the code with an hypothetic function called get_size(void *) which returns the memory allocated for a pointer:
typedef struct MyStructTag
{ /* etc. */ } MyStruct ;
void doSomething(MyStruct * p)
{
/* well... extract the memory allocated? */
size_t i = get_size(p) ;
initializeMyStructArray(p, i) ;
}
void doSomethingElse()
{
MyStruct * s = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) * 10) ; /* Allocate 10 items */
doSomething(s) ;
}
Why even if it worked, it would not work anyway?
But the problem of this approach is that, in C, you can play with pointer arithmetics. Let's rewrite doSomethingElse():
void doSomethingElse()
{
MyStruct * s = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) * 10) ; /* Allocate 10 items */
MyStruct * s2 = s + 5 ; /* s2 points to the 5th item */
doSomething(s2) ; /* Oops */
}
How get_size is supposed to work, as you sent the function a valid pointer, but not the one returned by malloc. And even if get_size went through all the trouble to find the size (i.e. in an inefficient way), it would return, in this case, a value that would be wrong in your context.
Conclusion
There are always ways to avoid this problem, and in C, you can always write your own allocator, but again, it is perhaps too much trouble when all you need is to remember how much memory was allocated.
Some compilers provide msize() or similar functions (_msize() etc), that let you do exactly that
May I recommend a terrible way to do it?
Allocate all your arrays as follows:
void *blockOfMem = malloc(sizeof(mystruct)*n + sizeof(int));
((int *)blockofMem)[0] = n;
mystruct *structs = (mystruct *)(((int *)blockOfMem) + 1);
Then you can always cast your arrays to int * and access the -1st element.
Be sure to free that pointer, and not the array pointer itself!
Also, this will likely cause terrible bugs that will leave you tearing your hair out. Maybe you can wrap the alloc funcs in API calls or something.
malloc will return a block of memory at least as big as you requested, but possibly bigger. So even if you could query the block size, this would not reliably give you your array size. So you'll just have to modify your code to keep track of it yourself.
For an array of pointers you can use a NULL-terminated array. The length can then determinate like it is done with strings. In your example you can maybe use an structure attribute to mark then end. Of course that depends if there is a member that cannot be NULL. So lets say you have an attribute name, that needs to be set for every struct in your array you can then query the size by:
int size;
struct mystruct *cur;
for (cur = myarray; cur->name != NULL; cur++)
;
size = cur - myarray;
Btw it should be calloc(n, sizeof(struct mystruct)) in your example.
Other have discussed the limits of plain c pointers and the stdlib.h implementations of malloc(). Some implementations provide extensions which return the allocated block size which may be larger than the requested size.
If you must have this behavior you can use or write a specialized memory allocator. This simplest thing to do would be implementing a wrapper around the stdlib.h functions. Some thing like:
void* my_malloc(size_t s); /* Calls malloc(s), and if successful stores
(p,s) in a list of handled blocks */
void my_free(void* p); /* Removes list entry and calls free(p) */
size_t my_block_size(void* p); /* Looks up p, and returns the stored size */
...
really your question is - "can I find out the size of a malloc'd (or calloc'd) data block". And as others have said: no, not in a standard way.
However there are custom malloc implementations that do it - for example http://dmalloc.com/
I'm not aware of a way, but I would imagine it would deal with mucking around in malloc's internals which is generally a very, very bad idea.
Why is it that you can't store the size of memory you allocated?
EDIT: If you know that you should rework the code so you know n, well, do it. Yes it might be quick and easy to try to poll malloc but knowing n for sure would minimize confusion and strengthen the design.
One of the reasons that you can't ask the malloc library how big a block is, is that the allocator will usually round up the size of your request to meet some minimum granularity requirement (for example, 16 bytes). So if you ask for 5 bytes, you'll get a block of size 16 back. If you were to take 16 and divide by 5, you would get three elements when you really only allocated one. It would take extra space for the malloc library to keep track of how many bytes you asked for in the first place, so it's best for you to keep track of that yourself.
This is a test of my sort routine. It sets up 7 variables to hold float values, then assigns them to an array, which is used to find the max value.
The magic is in the call to myMax:
float mmax = myMax((float *)&arr,(int) sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]));
And that was magical, wasn't it?
myMax expects a float array pointer (float *) so I use &arr to get the address of the array, and cast it as a float pointer.
myMax also expects the number of elements in the array as an int. I get that value by using sizeof() to give me byte sizes of the array and the first element of the array, then divide the total bytes by the number of bytes in each element. (we should not guess or hard code the size of an int because it's 2 bytes on some system and 4 on some like my OS X Mac, and could be something else on others).
NOTE:All this is important when your data may have a varying number of samples.
Here's the test code:
#include <stdio.h>
float a, b, c, d, e, f, g;
float myMax(float *apa,int soa){
int i;
float max = apa[0];
for(i=0; i< soa; i++){
if (apa[i]>max){max=apa[i];}
printf("on i=%d val is %0.2f max is %0.2f, soa=%d\n",i,apa[i],max,soa);
}
return max;
}
int main(void)
{
a = 2.0;
b = 1.0;
c = 4.0;
d = 3.0;
e = 7.0;
f = 9.0;
g = 5.0;
float arr[] = {a,b,c,d,e,f,g};
float mmax = myMax((float *)&arr,(int) sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]));
printf("mmax = %0.2f\n",mmax);
return 0;
}
In uClibc, there is a MALLOC_SIZE macro in malloc.h:
/* The size of a malloc allocation is stored in a size_t word
MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE bytes prior to the start address of the allocation:
+--------+---------+-------------------+
| SIZE |(unused) | allocation ... |
+--------+---------+-------------------+
^ BASE ^ ADDR
^ ADDR - MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE
*/
/* The amount of extra space used by the malloc header. */
#define MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE \
(MALLOC_ALIGNMENT < sizeof (size_t) \
? sizeof (size_t) \
: MALLOC_ALIGNMENT)
/* Set up the malloc header, and return the user address of a malloc block. */
#define MALLOC_SETUP(base, size) \
(MALLOC_SET_SIZE (base, size), (void *)((char *)base + MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE))
/* Set the size of a malloc allocation, given the base address. */
#define MALLOC_SET_SIZE(base, size) (*(size_t *)(base) = (size))
/* Return base-address of a malloc allocation, given the user address. */
#define MALLOC_BASE(addr) ((void *)((char *)addr - MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE))
/* Return the size of a malloc allocation, given the user address. */
#define MALLOC_SIZE(addr) (*(size_t *)MALLOC_BASE(addr))
malloc() stores metadata regarding space allocation before 8 bytes from space actually allocated. This could be used to determine space of buffer. And on my x86-64 this always return multiple of 16. So if allocated space is multiple of 16 (which is in most cases) then this could be used:
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
int size_of_buff(void *buff) {
return ( *( ( int * ) buff - 2 ) - 17 ); // 32 bit system: ( *( ( int * ) buff - 1 ) - 17 )
}
void main() {
char *buff = malloc(1024);
printf("Size of Buffer: %d\n", size_of_buff(buff));
}
Output
Size of Buffer: 1024
This is my approach:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct _int_array
{
int *number;
int size;
} int_array;
int int_array_append(int_array *a, int n)
{
static char c = 0;
if(!c)
{
a->number = NULL;
a->size = 0;
c++;
}
int *more_numbers = NULL;
a->size++;
more_numbers = (int *)realloc(a->number, a->size * sizeof(int));
if(more_numbers != NULL)
{
a->number = more_numbers;
a->number[a->size - 1] = n;
}
else
{
free(a->number);
printf("Error (re)allocating memory.\n");
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int_array a;
int_array_append(&a, 10);
int_array_append(&a, 20);
int_array_append(&a, 30);
int_array_append(&a, 40);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < a.size; i++)
printf("%d\n", a.number[i]);
printf("\nLen: %d\nSize: %d\n", a.size, a.size * sizeof(int));
free(a.number);
return 0;
}
Output:
10
20
30
40
Len: 4
Size: 16
If your compiler supports VLA (variable length array), you can embed the array length into the pointer type.
int n = 10;
int (*p)[n] = malloc(n * sizeof(int));
n = 3;
printf("%d\n", sizeof(*p)/sizeof(**p));
The output is 10.
You could also choose to embed the information into the allocated memory yourself with a structure including a flexible array member.
struct myarray {
int n;
struct mystruct a[];
};
struct myarray *ma =
malloc(sizeof(*ma) + n * sizeof(struct mystruct));
ma->n = n;
struct mystruct *p = ma->a;
Then to recover the size, you would subtract the offset of the flexible member.
int get_size (struct mystruct *p) {
struct myarray *ma;
char *x = (char *)p;
ma = (void *)(x - offsetof(struct myarray, a));
return ma->n;
}
The problem with trying to peek into heap structures is that the layout might change from platform to platform or from release to release, and so the information may not be reliably obtainable.
Even if you knew exactly how to peek into the meta information maintained by your allocator, the information stored there may have nothing to do with the size of the array. The allocator simply returned memory that could be used to fit the requested size, but the actual size of the memory may be larger (perhaps even much larger) than the requested amount.
The only reliable way to know the information is to find a way to track it yourself.
I want to create an integer pointer p, allocate memory for a 10-element array, and then fill each element with the value of 5. Here's my code:
//Allocate memory for a 10-element integer array.
int array[10];
int *p = (int *)malloc( sizeof(array) );
//Fill each element with the value of 5.
int i = 0;
printf("Size of array: %d\n", sizeof(array));
while (i < sizeof(array)){
*p = 5;
printf("Current value of array: %p\n", *p);
*p += sizeof(int);
i += sizeof(int);
}
I've added some print statements around this code, but I'm not sure if it's actually filling each element with the value of 5.
So, is my code working correctly? Thanks for your time.
First:
*p += sizeof(int);
This takes the contents of what p points to and adds the size of an integer to it. That doesn't make much sense. What you probably want is just:
p++;
This makes p point to the next object.
But the problem is that p contains your only copy of the pointer to the first object. So if you change its value, you won't be able to access the memory anymore because you won't have a pointer to it. (So you should save a copy of the original value returned from malloc somewhere. If nothing else, you'll eventually need it to pass to free.)
while (i < sizeof(array)){
This doesn't make sense. You don't want to loop a number of times equal to the number of bytes the array occupies.
Lastly, you don't need the array for anything. Just remove it and use:
int *p = malloc(10 * sizeof(int));
For C, don't cast the return value of malloc. It's not needed and can mask other problems such as failing to include the correct headers. For the while loop, just keep track of the number of elements in a separate variable.
Here's a more idiomatic way of doing things:
/* Just allocate the array into your pointer */
int arraySize = 10;
int *p = malloc(sizeof(int) * arraySize);
printf("Size of array: %d\n", arraySize);
/* Use a for loop to iterate over the array */
int i;
for (i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i)
{
p[i] = 5;
printf("Value of index %d in the array: %d\n", i, p[i]);
}
Note that you need to keep track of your array size separately, either in a variable (as I have done) or a macro (#define statement) or just with the integer literal. Using the integer literal is error-prone, however, because if you need to change the array size later, you need to change more lines of code.
sizeof of an array returns the number of bytes the array occupies, in bytes.
int *p = (int *)malloc( sizeof(array) );
If you call malloc, you must #include <stdlib.h>. Also, the cast is unnecessary and can introduce dangerous bugs, especially when paired with the missing malloc definition.
If you increment a pointer by one, you reach the next element of the pointer's type. Therefore, you should write the bottom part as:
for (int i = 0;i < sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]);i++){
*p = 5;
p++;
}
*p += sizeof(int);
should be
p += 1;
since the pointer is of type int *
also the array size should be calculated like this:
sizeof (array) / sizeof (array[0]);
and indeed, the array is not needed for your code.
Nope it isn't. The following code will however. You should read up on pointer arithmetic. p + 1 is the next integer (this is one of the reasons why pointers have types). Also remember if you change the value of p it will no longer point to the beginning of your memory.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <assert.h>
#define LEN 10
int main(void)
{
/* Allocate memory for a 10-element integer array. */
int array[LEN];
int i;
int *p;
int *tmp;
p = malloc(sizeof(array));
assert(p != NULL);
/* Fill each element with the value of 5. */
printf("Size of array: %d bytes\n", (int)sizeof(array));
for(i = 0, tmp = p; i < LEN; tmp++, i++) *tmp = 5;
for(i = 0, tmp = p; i < LEN; i++) printf("%d\n", tmp[i]);
free(p);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
//Allocate memory for a 10-element integer array.
int array[10];
int *p = (int *)malloc( sizeof(array) );
At this point you have allocated twice as much memory -- space for ten integers in the array allocated on the stack, and space for ten integers allocated on the heap. In a "real" program that needed to allocate space for ten integers and stack allocation wasn't the right thing to do, the allocation would be done like this:
int *p = malloc(10 * sizeof(int));
Note that there is no need to cast the return value from malloc(3). I expect you forgot to include the <stdlib> header, which would have properly prototyped the function, and given you the correct output. (Without the prototype in the header, the C compiler assumes the function would return an int, and the cast makes it treat it as a pointer instead. The cast hasn't been necessary for twenty years.)
Furthermore, be vary wary of learning the habit sizeof(array). This will work in code where the array is allocated in the same block as the sizeof() keyword, but it will fail when used like this:
int foo(char bar[]) {
int length = sizeof(bar); /* BUG */
}
It'll look correct, but sizeof() will in fact see an char * instead of the full array. C's new Variable Length Array support is keen, but not to be mistaken with the arrays that know their size available in many other langauges.
//Fill each element with the value of 5.
int i = 0;
printf("Size of array: %d\n", sizeof(array));
while (i < sizeof(array)){
*p = 5;
*p += sizeof(int);
Aha! Someone else who has the same trouble with C pointers that I did! I presume you used to write mostly assembly code and had to increment your pointers yourself? :) The compiler knows the type of objects that p points to (int *p), so it'll properly move the pointer by the correct number of bytes if you just write p++. If you swap your code to using long or long long or float or double or long double or struct very_long_integers, the compiler will always do the right thing with p++.
i += sizeof(int);
}
While that's not wrong, it would certainly be more idiomatic to re-write the last loop a little:
for (i=0; i<array_length; i++)
p[i] = 5;
Of course, you'll have to store the array length into a variable or #define it, but it's easier to do this than rely on a sometimes-finicky calculation of the array length.
Update
After reading the other (excellent) answers, I realize I forgot to mention that since p is your only reference to the array, it'd be best to not update p without storing a copy of its value somewhere. My little 'idiomatic' rewrite side-steps the issue but doesn't point out why using subscription is more idiomatic than incrementing the pointer -- and this is one reason why the subscription is preferred. I also prefer the subscription because it is often far easier to reason about code where the base of an array doesn't change. (It Depends.)
//allocate an array of 10 elements on the stack
int array[10];
//allocate an array of 10 elements on the heap. p points at them
int *p = (int *)malloc( sizeof(array) );
// i equals 0
int i = 0;
//while i is less than 40
while (i < sizeof(array)){
//the first element of the dynamic array is five
*p = 5;
// the first element of the dynamic array is nine!
*p += sizeof(int);
// incrememnt i by 4
i += sizeof(int);
}
This sets the first element of the array to nine, 10 times. It looks like you want something more like:
//when you get something from malloc,
// make sure it's type is "____ * const" so
// you don't accidentally lose it
int * const p = (int *)malloc( 10*sizeof(int) );
for (int i=0; i<10; ++i)
p[i] = 5;
A ___ * const prevents you from changing p, so that it will always point to the data that was allocated. This means free(p); will always work. If you change p, you can't release the memory, and you get a memory leak.