The following C program regarding pointers is not working - c

#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int *pc;
*pc=100;
printf("\n Address of Pointer : %d",pc);
printf("\n Contents of Pointer : %d",*pc);
}
When I run the code in eclipse, it is saying "Pointers.exe has stopped working". What is the error?

Assigning a value to *pc is particularly dangerous. If pc contains the valid memory address , then the assignment
*pc = 100;
will attempt to modify the data stored at that address.
If the location modified by this assignment belongs to the program, it may behave erratically; if it belongs to operating system, the program will most likely crash.
Your compiler should raise a warning that pc is uninitialized.

Change it to:
int a;
int *pc;
pc = &a;
*pc = 100;
Your pc pointer was not initialized in your program.
Moreover the way your are printing a pointer value is incorrect, use this:
printf("\n Address of Pointer : %p", (void *) pc);

You forgot to point pc to somewhere useful. When you write
int *pc;
The compiler creates a pointer for you. The pointer points somewhere in memory, and you have no way of knowing where. Chances are, it points to a bad place in memory. When you overwrite it with *pc=... you overwrite a place in memory that shouldn't be overwritten.
So you need to have pc point somewhere.
int a, *pc=&a;
will do the trick. Now the compiler prepares an int for you then and you point pc to it. That way, when you write through the pointer, nothing bad will happen - you're writing on an area of memory that you know is safe.
Another way to initialize pc is like so:
int *pc = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)); // Allocate an integer on the heap
Now *pc=100; will also work. Just don't forget to free(pc) when you're done.

You have:
int *pc;
*pc=100;
When you define the pointer to integer pc above, this pointer is not initialized, so it points to some memory that you have not allocated and you have not the right to access.
So your executable is crashing.
Just use a valid pointer, e.g. you can allocate some heap memory using malloc(sizeof(int)) (and later release it using free()), or just use stack-based memory for local automatic variables, e.g.:
/* An integer stack-allocated variable */
int n = 64;
/* Pointer to that integer */
int * pn = &n;
/* Change its value */
*pn = 100;
Moreover, to print an address, considering using the %p specifier for printf().
e.g.:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int n = 64;
int *pn = &n;
printf("n (before): %d\n", n);
*pn = 100;
printf("n (after): %d\n", n);
printf("Address of n: %p", (void *)pn);
return 0;
}
Output:
n (before): 64
n (after): 100
Address of n: 003AF7CC

Pointers need to POINT! A pointer is a variable that contains the adress of another variable.
int *pc;
This pointer contains some garbage value. Who knows what was in that memory before. The adress that it's pointing to could be an adress of memory that is occupied by another program. You need to assign a valid adress to a pointer if you want to change the value in that adress.
If you want to calculate sum of all the members of an array you would have to initialize the variable sum to 0 because it could contain other values.
The same is with pointers. They have to contain a valid adress of a variable if you want to modify the value.
Your program would work if you comment line *pc = 100;. You can display the adress of an uninitialized pointer but the program will crash if you try to change the value in that adress.

Related

How does the int *ptr= 5; is different than that of int *ptr= address of variable?

Though it is very basic and might seem silly, I am trying to understand what is difference between the int *ptr = 45 or 0xc8750; (some number) vs. int *ptr= &a; (address of variable).
What I already know is:
Pointers are made to store address of variables and to modify contents of pointed variables ( but I want to know how it will be achieved)
In latter case, I can assign *ptr to different address that is legal.
But, in first case it is illegal!.
Why the latter is illegal if both address/number are integers?
How differently will they be treated while storing in memory?
I have two piece of code/programs basically to highlight the same:
case-1:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int *ptr = 0xc42; // is this stored in read only memory?!! which later leads to seg faults in further assignments?!
*ptr = 45; //illegal leads seg fault.
return 0;
}
case-2:
int main()
{
int a=10, b=20;
int *ptr = &a; // is here get any special treatment and object will be created for *ptr!!!
*ptr = &b; //legal
printf(" *ptr = %d \n", *ptr);
*ptr = 20; //legal !!
printf(" *ptr = %d \n", *ptr);
*ptr = 50; //legal
printf(" *ptr = %d \n", *ptr);
return 0;
}
As we can see the *ptr = 20 and *ptr = 50 are legal and fine! (No segmentation faults).
Why is this assignment of int *ptr = 0xc989 or 5 different from int *ptr = &variable?.
Let's start from basics: a pointer is a variable containing the address pointing to data of a given type. If we declare
datatype* foo;
foo (that is currently not initialized) will contain the address of a variable of type datatype, and deferencing it
*foo = ...;
we are accessing that address and storing there its value.
In both cases we have * foo, but they're not the same!
In the first case the asterisk refers to datatype. The variable type is datatype *; the variable name is foo. foo contains an address.
In the second case we are dereferencing the address, in order to access it. The asterisk refers to the variable in order to perform the pointer dereferentiation.
So, when you write
int *ptr = 0xc42; // is this stored in read only memory?!!
// which later leads to seg faults in further assignments?!
*ptr = 45; //illegal leads seg fault.
With int *ptr = 0xc42; you are saying to the compiler that you are declaring a variable named ptr, of type int * and whose first value is 0xC42. (Note: as correctly stated by user Lundin, this assignment requires a further cast in order to be valid C).
With *ptr = 45; you are accessing the address pointed by ptr and assigning value 45. Is it legal? Well, it is if you previously assigned a valid address (and generally speaking it is if you assign to a pointer another variable's address with & operator, e.g int *ptr = &a;). But if you assign a random integer to it... it will likely lead to a segmentation fault.
Logically, if you are sure that the location, 0xc989, preserves what you need, int *ptr = 0xc989 perfectly valid (with regard to your thinking concept, as said by Roberto Caboni).
Technically, as said by Lundin, you need to cast it according to C standards.
First of all int *ptr = 0xc42; is not valid C and will not compile cleanly on a compiler configured to strict standard C. With gcc, clang and icc this means compiling with -std=c11 -pedantic-errors. For details, see "Pointer from integer/integer from pointer without a cast" issues.
int *ptr = (int*)0xc42; is valid C but fishy. To clarify, this stores an address inside the pointer variable itself, it doesn't store a value. So if you know that there is an int-sized item at memory address 0xc42, such as a memory-mapped hardware register, then you can point directly do it. But when doing so, it will only be meaningful to do that using volatile: volatile int *ptr = (volatile int*)0xc42;. Code like that mostly makes sense in embedded systems and other hardware-related programming.
As for why your second example works fine, the addresses there are assigned by the linker and not by the programmer, so they will point at valid, allocated data.

Understanding of pointers with malloc and free

Pointers are a really tricky thing in C. For a lot of people is hard to understand it, so for a good understanding I wrote following code:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int *p; // pointer -> will be dynamic allocated
int *a; // array -> will be dynamic allocated
// print before allocate memory (1)
printf("&p: %p\tp: %p\t*p: %d\n", &p, p, *p);
printf("&a: %p\ta: %p\t*a: %d\n", &a, a, *a);
printf("\n");
// allocate memory (2)
p = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
a = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
// print after allocate, but before give a value to poinetrs (3)
printf("&p: %p\tp: %p\t*p: %d\n", &p, p, *p);
printf("&a: %p\ta: %p\t*a: %d\n", &a, a, *a);
printf("\n");
// give a value to poinetrs (4)
*p = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { a[i] = i; }
// print after we gave a value to pointers (5)
printf("&p: %p\tp: %p\t*p: %d\n", &p, p, *p);
printf("&a: %p\ta: %p\t*a: ", &a, a);
// because a is an array we must use a loop for print
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { printf("%d ", a[i]); }
printf("\n");
printf("\n");
// free pointers (6)
free(p);
free(a);
// print pointers after free (7)
printf("&p: %p\tp: %p\t*p: %d\n", &p, p, *p);
printf("&a: %p\ta: %p\t*a: ", &a, a);
// because a is an array we must use a loop for print
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { printf("%d ", a[i]); }
printf("\n");
printf("\n");
// try to change values after free (8)
*p = 12;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { a[i] = 3; }
// print after (8)
printf("&p: %p\tp: %p\t*p: %d\n", &p, p, *p);
printf("&a: %p\ta: %p\t*a: ", &a, a);
// because a is an array we must use a loop for print
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { printf("%d ", a[i]); }
printf("\n");
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Output:
&p: 0xbfe5db64 p: 0xbfe5dc24 *p: -1075452506
&a: 0xbfe5db68 a: 0xbfe5dc2c *a: -1075452502
&p: 0xbfe5db64 p: 0x8716008 *p: 0
&a: 0xbfe5db68 a: 0x8716018 *a: 0
&p: 0xbfe5db64 p: 0x8716008 *p: 1
&a: 0xbfe5db68 a: 0x8716018 *a: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
&p: 0xbfe5db64 p: 0x8716008 *p: 0
&a: 0xbfe5db68 a: 0x8716018 *a: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
&p: 0xbfe5db64 p: 0x8716008 *p: 12
&a: 0xbfe5db68 a: 0x8716018 *a: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Now, questions and observations:
When I print pointers before give memory for it, why pointer have a random value and a random address to point to it and why it isn't NULL?
After we use malloc, we can see the address where pointer points to changed and its value is NULL, so what malloc really does?
After we give a value to it and print it, we free it and print it again, but values and address are same as behind for array, but not for the integer, why? So what free really does?
After we freed space, we can continue to change values of array and integer, why is this possible after free space? We don't need to reuse malloc?
Because the language specification says so. The value of the pointer (i.e. the address it points to) is indeterminate. It can point anywhere, just like an int could hold any value. Reading those values, (as you do with *p and *a in the first printfs) is actually undefined behaviour.
If you mean the data it points to is 0, that is by chance. The memory allocated does not have to be zeroed out. For example, it could be part of a block previously allocated with malloc and then freed (free doesn't zero out the memory, see point 3. below.)
That is also by chance. When you free the memory, it is not zeroed out, and it does not have to be used immediately. It can keep storing old values until it is used for something else (for instance, by another allocation)
That is also undefined behaviour. You are writing to memory you no longer own. Anything can happen. The program could have crashed. By chance, it seems like you can successfully write to the array, probable because the memory is still not used by anything else that would cause a more apparent run time error.
1.When I print pointers before give memory for it, why pointer have a random value and a random address to point to it and why it isn't NULL?
You didn't make the pointer NULL. you are just declaring it. After declaring the pointer, it may have any value.
To make NULL-
int *p = NULL;
int *a = NULL;
2.After we use malloc, we can see the address where pointer points to changed and its value is NULL, so what malloc really does?
Man Page says-
void *malloc(size_t size);
The malloc() function allocates size bytes and returns a pointer to the allocated memory. The memory is not initialized. If size is 0, then malloc() returns either NULL, or a unique pointer value that can later be successfully passed to free().
If your allocated memory have 0 means that is by a chance only! The memory allocated by malloc doesn't freed out. But calloc does!
3.After we give a value to it and print it, we free it and print it again, but values and address are same as behind for array, but not for the integer, why? So what free really does?
free does not mean that it will actually delete the memory! It will inform to the OS that I don't want this memory any more, use it for some other process!
You can certainly continue to use memory a after calling free(...) and nothing will stop you. However the results will be completely undefined and unpredictable. It works by luck only. This is a common programming error called "use after free" which works in many programs for literally years without "problems" -- until it causes a problem.
4.After we freed space, we can continue to change values of array and integer, why is this possible after free space? We don't need to reuse malloc?
This is totally Undefined behavior! After freeing the memory also the pointer still points to the same memory location. It is called Dangling Pointer.
To avoid dangling pointer, Make pointer to null after free!
But after freeing the memory, you need to use memory means use malloc to allocate memory and use it!
What are pointers
Pointer declarations look much like other declarations: but don't be misled. When pointers are declared, the keyword at the beginning declares the type of variable that the pointer will point to. The pointer itself is not of that type, it is of type pointer to that type. A given pointer only points to one particular type, not to all possible types. In practice, all pointers are treated as integers, but the compiler will most likely complain about an assignment between incompatible types.
int *p;
The pointer p hasn't been assigned an address, so it still contains whatever random value was in the memory it occupies (whatever value was there before it was used for p). So, provided that a pointer holds the address of something, the notation *p is equivalent to giving the name of the something directly. What benefit do we get from all this? Well, straight away it gets round the call-by-value restriction of functions. Imagine a function that has to return, say, two integers representing a month and a day within that month.
Summary
Arrays always index from zero—end of story.
There are no multidimensional arrays; you use arrays of arrays instead.
Pointers point to things; pointers to different types are themselves different types.
They have nothing in common with each other or any other types in C; there are no automatic conversions between pointers and other types.
Pointers can be used to simulate ‘call by reference’ to functions, but it takes a little work to do it.
Incrementing or adding something to a pointer can be used to step along arrays.
To facilitate array access by incrementing pointers, the Standard guarantees that in an n element array, although element n does not exist, use of its address is not an error.
Pointer arithmetic
Not only can you add an integral value to a pointer, but you can also compare or subtract two pointers of the same type. They must both point into the same array, or the result is undefined. The difference between two pointers is defined to be the number of array elements separating them; the type of this difference is implementation defined and will be one of short, int, or long. This next example shows how the difference can be calculated and used, but before you read it, you need to know an important point.
In an expression the name of an array is converted to a pointer to the first element of the array. The only places where that is not true are when an array name is used in conjunction with sizeof, when a string is used to initialize an array or when the array name is the subject of the address-of operator (unary &). We haven't seen any of those cases yet, they will be discussed later. Here's the example.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define ARSZ 10
main(){
float fa[ARSZ], *fp1, *fp2;
fp1 = fp2 = fa; /* address of first element */
while(fp2 != &fa[ARSZ]){
printf("Difference: %d\n", (int)(fp2-fp1));
fp2++;
}
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
freed Pointers
Calling free() on a pointer doesn't change it, only marks memory as free. Your pointer will still point to the same location which will contain the same value, but that vluae can now get overwritten at any time, so you should never use a pointer after it is freed. To ensure that it is a good idea to always set the pointer to NULL after free'ing it.
Regarding 1), reading an uninitialised value is undefined behaviour. Undefined behaviour means that the C standard does not specify what the compiler should do with your program when you attempt to read an uninitialised value, and therefore the compiler writer is free to pretend that uninitialised values will never be read from - and aren't required to account for that happening in a program.
Within the context of your code, you are presumably using GCC or Clang to compile your program. Your two pointer variables are local variables, and local variables are stored on the stack in GCC and Clang C code. The stack may contain 'random' bytes in it; a pointer on 64-bit computers is generally a 64-bit (8-byte) number that corresponds to an address of memory.
For each of the two pointer variables, these randomly initialised 8 bytes are interpreted as a memory address. You can attempt to read from this random memory address, and if you do this (and your program is allowed to access that particular memory address), you will read some garbage values that will be interpreted as the datatype that your pointer points to. For example, in your case, a regular int.
Regarding 4), not to add to what the accepted answer has already said - I'm curious whether, if you malloc a number of objects and you free one of them and you make no further memory allocations, you are not creating new malloc metadata since you have no new allocations. It would be reasonable that the free'd block does not have its contents mutated, right?
To my knowledge, free does not actually return memory to the operating system. Therefore, one would expect that the answer to the above be yes - the block is not mutated.

Allocating a value to a pointer in c

I am trying to give a value to a pointer.
this code works fine
int i =5;
int *ptr ;
ptr = &i;
printf(" %d\n",*ptr);
but this code shows an error
int i =5;
int *ptr ;
*ptr = 5;
printf(" %d\n",*ptr);
can someone explain this to me?
int *ptr gets initialized to a random location, which possibly points to invalid memory, and you try to write 5 to that location.
When you declare int *ptr, you're creating a variable called ptr which can hold the address of an int. When you dereference it in *ptr = 5, you're saying "store 5 in the address that ptr points to" - but as ptr is uninitialised, where it points to is undefined. So you're invoking undefined behaviour.
An int * does not store an int, but just an address that points to one. There still has to be a real int at that address.
If you want to allocate an int that exists outside of the local scope, you can use malloc. A simple conversion of your example without error checking:
int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int));
*ptr = 5;
printf(" %d\n",*ptr);
If you do use malloc, just remember to free the allocated memory when you're finished:
free(ptr);
The second version assigns 5 to the memory pointed to by ptr, but you haven't yet initialized ptr to point to a known location.
So it writes the value to the memory at whatever address happens to be in ptr, which is whatever was in memory where ptr was declared.
You can't deterrence a pointer that doesn't point to somewhere you own.
int* ptr;
That allocates space for the pointer, but it doesn't allocate space for the chunk the pointer points to.
Also, since it's not initialized, ptr has an indeterminate value. This means that not only does it likely point to something you don't own, it also would be rather difficult to check if it's a valid pointer. It's usually a good idea to initialize pointers to either NULL (or nullptr if available) or an actual location (like you did in the first example).

C pointer manipulation for strings gives unexpected output

The following two programs use some basic pointer manipulation. But they perform differently.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
int main(void){
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int *pb, *pc;
pb = &a;
pc = pb;
pb = &b;
printf("%d %d\n", *pb, *pc);
}
This program prints two different numbers(1 and 2) as expected while,
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
int main(void){
char *ptr, s[10];
ptr = s;
gets(s);
printf("%s %s\n", ptr, s);
}
This program prints the same string two times, whereas it also must have printed different strings.
Why this difference?
How does gets() read a string?
The second example only contains a single string buffer, the array s.
Making ptr point to s doesn't in any way create a second copy of the character data, so when you print both ptr and s, they result in the same string since they evaluate to the exact same address.
After your code runs this:
ptr = s;
ptr points to the beginning of s, so when you invoke printf() you get the same address passed twice there - no wonder the same is being printed twice.
In your second example you have only one array (s) plus a second pointer pointing to the same memory. The two addresses ptr and s are identical and so of course using then in printf() results in the same output. In your first example you have two different integers which can hold different values.
Because those two character pointers are still pointing to the same memory. You are just assigning data to the pointed memory.
But in the case of that integer pointer, you are changed the memory address pointed by the first pointer.
If you did like this:
pb = &a;
pc = pb;
*pb = 7;
It'll print 7 in both case. This is what you did with the character pointer.
Explanation with images:
When you did pb = &a; pb will point to the memory address of a.
When you did pc = pb; pb & pc will point to the memory address of a.
When you did pb = &b; pb will point to the memory address of b. But pc will still point to memory address of a.
Disclaimer: I have attached images with the answer, there is some technical issues in SO. That is why the 3 images are not showing. Check https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/186466/intermittent-error-with-imgur-when-uploading-images
This program prints the same string two times, whereas it also must have printed different strings.
It mustn't. In your first example, the pointers point to different objects. In the second one, the explicit pointer and the one s decays into point to the same array in memory (obviously...)

Putting an int in an int pointer gives runtime error in C .

The following code works fine in ideone but it gives a runtime error in codeblocks IDE . Is my IDE broken or is there any programming language specific issues .
#include<stdio.h>
int main(){
int *pointer;
int num = 45;
*pointer = num;
printf("pointer points to value %d", *pointer);
return 0;
}
replace this
*pointer = num;
by
pointer = &num;
Your pointer should be pointed to a memory space before assignment of value to it.
When you define pointer in this way:
int *pointer;
This meas that you have defined pointer but the pointer is not yet pointing to a memory space. And if you use the pointer directly without pointing it to a memory space (like you did in your code) then you will get undefined behaviour.
pointing the pointer to amemory space could be done by one of the following way:
1) pointing to a static memory
int num;
int *pointer = &num;
num is an int defined as a static. So the pointer could be pointed to the num memory
2) pointing to a dynamic memory
int *pointer = malloc(sizeof(int));
the pointer could be pointed to a dynamic memory. the dynamic memory could be allocated with malloc() and when the memory became useless we can free memory with free(pointer)
Assign address of num to pointer as pointer is supposed to hold address not value. You can read more about pointers here
pointer = &num;
Change value of variable through pointer
*pointer = 11;
First,you have defined a pointer by "int *pointer".
Then, you try to use "*pointer = num" to realize indirect access —— assign num's value to the memory space which the pointer "pointer" has pointed to.
OK, here is the problem! From your codes, you only have defined a pointer, but you have not made it pointed to a memory space. Making indirect access without doing it is very dangerous. So, you see the runtime error.
Now, you should add "int value;pointer = &value;" to your codes. It will make the pointer "pointer" point to "value". And you can assign "num" to "value" through indirect access "*pointer = num".
In my opinion, you should distinguish definition and indirect access when you study pointer.
I'm a person with poor English. This is my first answer in stack overflow. I hope that my answer can help you. Thank you.
First of all u should initialize the pointer as to which its trying to point then use it to modify the pointed value..as...
pointer=&num;
now use the pointer to change or access the value to which its pointing.

Resources