I'm learning about the pointers in C. I don't understand why this code fails during the compilation process.
#include <stdio.h>
void set_error(int *err);
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
const char *err;
set_error(&err);
return 0;
}
void set_error(int *err) {
*err = "Error message";
}
You declare the function to expect a pointer-to-int (int *). But you give it a pointer-to-pointer-to-char and set_error treats it as such. Change the declaration thusly:
void set_error(const char ** err)
If you had compiled with warnings enabled (-Wall for GCC) it would give the following warnings:
In function 'main':
warning: passing argument 1 of 'set_error' from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
set_error(&err);
^
note: expected 'int *' but argument is of type 'const char **'
void set_error(int *err);
^
In function 'set_error':
warning: assignment makes integer from pointer without a cast [enabled by default]
*err = "Error message";
^
Your function expects int * type argument but you are passing to it const char ** type argument.
Change your function declaration to
void set_error(const char **err);
The issue you have unearths an important facts about strings in C.
It also raises an interesting fact about scoping.
1. There is no such thing as a string in C; only a pointer to an array of characters.
Therefore, your statement *err = "Error message"; is wrong because by derefencing err you're not getting to the value of the string, but it's first character. (You can't quantify the 'value of a string' in C because there's no such thing as a string in C)
*err is actually undefined because nothing is yet assigned.
Note that the usual definition of a string is const char * or char * so I've changed this from what you had for the note below:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void){
char * a = "hello";
if (*a == 'h'){
printf("it's an 'H'\n");
}
else{
printf("no it isn't\n");
}
}
You'll see that *err actually returns the value of the first character because a[0] == *a
2. You cannot return pointers to locally scoped data in C
set_error() has the correct intentions, but is doomed to fail. Although "Error message"looks like a value, it is actually already a pointer (because strings in C are pointers to character arrays, as mentioned above).
Therefore, taking (1) into account you might expect to be able to do this:
void set_int(int *myint) {
*myint = 1; //works just fine because 1 is a value, not a reference
}
void set_error(char *err) {
// doesn't work because you're trying to assign a pointer to a char
*err = "Error message";
void set_error_new(char *err) {
//doesn't work because when the function returns, "Error Message" is no longer available on the stack" (assignment works, but when you later try to get at that data, you'll segfault
err = "Error message";
}
You need to take a different approach to how you play with so-called 'strings' in C. Think of them as a pointer to a character array and you'll get better at understanding these issues. Also see C: differences between char pointer and array
One problem is that set_error expects an int * parameter, but you're passing the address of a char *, which makes it a char **. In addition, as noted by #Kninnug there's a buffer overwrite problem here which needs to be dealt with. Try rewriting your code as:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
void set_error(char *err, size_t errbuf_size);
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
char err_buf[1000];
set_error(err_buf, sizeof(err_buf));
printf("err_buf = '%s'\n", err_buf);
return 0;
}
void set_error(char *err, size_t errbuf_size) {
strncpy(err, "Error message", errbuf_size-1);
}
As you'll notice in the rewritten version of set_error, another problem is that you can't just assign a value to a pointer and have the target buffer changed - you need to use the string functions from the standard library (here I'm use strncpy to copy the constant "Error message" to the buffer pointed to by the char * variable err). You may want to get familiar with these.
Share and enjoy.
Firstly you have to change your function's declaration to
void set_error(char **err);
The body of the function is the same. Also you declared err variable as const char *err and tried change it. It generates a warning.
Let's start by talking about types. In your main function, you declare err as
const char *err;
and when you call the set_error function, you pass the expression &err, which will have type "pointer to const char *", or const char **.
However, in your function declaration and definition, you declare the parameter err as
int *err;
The types const char ** and int * aren't compatible, which is why the compiler is yakking. C doesn't allow you to assign pointer values of one type to pointer variables of a different type (unless one is a void *, which is a "generic" pointer type). Different pointer types are not guaranteed to have the same size or representation on a particular platform.
So that's where the compiler issue is coming from; what's the solution?
In C, string literals like "Error message" have type char *1 (const char * in C++), so whatever I assign it to needs to have a type of either char * or const char *. Since we're dealing with a string literal, the latter is preferable (attempting to modify the contents of a string literal invokes undefined behavior; some platforms put string literals in read-only memory, some don't). So you need to make the following changes to your code2:
void set_error( const char **err )
{
*err = "Error message";
}
int main( void ) // you're not dealing with command line arguments, so for this
{ // exercise you can use `void` for your parameter list
const char *err;
set_error( &err );
return 0;
}
Remember that C passes all function arguments by value; this means that the formal parameter err in set_error is a different object in memory than the actual parameter err in main; if the code had been
void set_error( const char *err )
{
err = "Error message";
}
int main( void )
{
const char *err;
set_error( err );
return 0;
}
then the change to err in set_error would not be reflected in the variable err in main. If we want set_error to modify the value of err in main, we need to pass set_error a pointer to err and dereference it in the function. Since the parameter err has type const char **, the expression *err has type const char *, which is the type we need for this assignment to succeed.
1. Actually, that's not true; string literals have type "N-element array of char", where N is the number of characters in the string plus the 0 terminator. However, for reasons that aren't really worth going into here, the compiler will convert expressions of array type to expressions of pointer type in most circumstances. In this case, the string literal "Error message" is converted from an expression of type "14-element array of char" to "pointer to char".
2. A function definition also serves as a declaration; I typically put the called function before the caller so I don't have to mess with separate declarations. It means my code reads "backwards" or from the bottom up, but it saves some maintenance headaches.
1st error--> You are noticing is due to the fact that your function expects a pointer to int and you are passing a pointer to const char
2nd error--> You dereferenced the pointer and inserted the value "Error Message" which is a string and you pointer was pointer to char.
3rd error--> set_error(&err); --> This statement is wrong as err itself stores an address so there is no need to put & putting & means you are passing the address of the pointer *err and not the address which it is holding. So try this.
include <stdio.h>
void set_error(const char* err[]); //Function Declaration
int main()
{
const char* err[1000];
set_error(err);
printf("%s",*err);
return 0;
}
void set_error(const char* err[])
{
*err = "Error Message";
}
Related
I am sorry if this has been asked previously but i have tried all the solutions available but still getting this error. someone please explain the meaning of this error and also the solution to avoid this.
char *find_char( char const *source,char const *chars ){
char const *result=NULL;
for(int i=0;*(chars+i);i++){
for(int j=0;*(source+j);j++){
if(*(chars+i)==*(source+j)){
result=chars+i;
return result;
}
}
}
return result;
}
when compiling, the following error occurs:
6_1.c: In function ‘find_char’:
6_1.c:8:12: warning: return discards ‘const’ qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
return result;
^
6_1.c:12:9: warning: return discards ‘const’ qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
return result;
can constants cannot be returned?
Your title is a bit misleading, and probably you misinterpreted the warning, too:
warning: return discards ‘const’ qualifier from pointer target type
[-Wdiscarded-qualifiers] return result;
The function is declared as non-const, i.e. char *find_char(..., while result is declared as const, i.e. char const *result; Hence, statement return result would mean to return a pointer that is declared as const as being non-const, and thus the warning.
I'd suggest to define your function as const char *find_char(....
Since result is of type char const *, use const in the function signature to match it:
char const *find_char( char const *source,char const *chars )
The return type of the function find_char does not match the type of result. They are char * and char const * respectively.
Change the return type of the function find_char to char const *.
This relates to a well-known shortcoming in the C language, which I will discuss below. Presuming we want find_char to return a char * even though its inputs are const char *, you should use an explicit cast in the return statement:
return (char *) result;
With return result;, there is an implicit conversion from char * to the incompatible type const char *. The compiler warns because this could be a mistake. With the explicit cast, you show the compiler the conversion is intentional, and it is not likely to warn. (If it does, you can turn off that particular warning category.)
Regarding the shortcoming in C, consider the nature of find_char. It is similar to the C library routine strstr, which suffers from the same issue:
The caller may have a char * and want a char * as a result.
We would like the function parameters to be const char * to inform the compiler that the function does not alter the strings it is passed, because this may create some optimization opportunities.
The function returns a pointer into one of its input strings. So it internally has a const char * but must return a char *, so it must convert it.
In other words, we have a char *, and we want to tell the compiler “Ths function will accept a char *, and it will not change the content, but it will return a char * result.” To do this in C, it is necessary to declare the parameter to be const char * but to convert the result pointer to char * before returning it.
While compiling the following code, the compiler produces the warning:
assignment discards ‘const’ qualifier from pointer target type
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
char * cp;
const char *ccp;
cp = ccp;
}
And this code is ok(no warning).Why?
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
char * cp;
const char *ccp;
ccp = cp;
}
Edit: Then why isn't this ok?
int foo(const char **p)
{
// blah blah blah ...
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
foo(argv);
}
Because adding constness is a "safe" operation (you are restricting what you can do to the pointed object, which is no big deal), while removing constness is not (you promised not to touch the pointed object through that pointer, and now you are trying to take back your promise).
As for the additional question, it's explained in the C-Faq: http://c-faq.com/ansi/constmismatch.html. Simply told, allowing that conversion would allow another kind of "unsafe" behavior:
int give_me_a_string(const char **p)
{
const char *str="asd";
*p=str; // p is a pointer to a const pointer, thus writing
// a in *p is allowed
}
int main()
{
char *p;
give_me_a_string(&ptrs); //< not actually allowed in C
p[5]='a'; // wooops - I'm allowed to edit str, which I promised
// not to touch
}
In the first case, you're taking a pointer to data that must not be modified (const), and assigning it to a pointer that allows modification of it's data. Bad and dangerous.
In the second case, you're taking a non-const pointer and assigning it to a pointer that can cause less trouble than the original. You're not opening yourself up to any harmful, illegal or undefined actions.
The following code is producing a warning:
const char * mystr = "\r\nHello";
void send_str(char * str);
void main(void){
send_str(mystr);
}
void send_str(char * str){
// send it
}
The error is:
Warning [359] C:\main.c; 5.15 illegal conversion between pointer types
pointer to const unsigned char -> pointer to unsigned char
How can I change the code to compile without warnings? The send_str() function also needs to be able to accept non-const strings.
(I am compiling for the PIC16F77 with the Hi-Tech-C compiler)
Thanks
You need to add a cast, since you're passing constant data to a function that says "I might change this":
send_str((char *) mystr); /* cast away the const */
Of course, if the function does decide to change the data that is in reality supposed to be constant (such as a string literal), you will get undefined behavior.
Perhaps I mis-understood you, though. If send_str() never needs to change its input, but might get called with data that is non-constant in the caller's context, then you should just make the argument const since that just say "I won't change this":
void send_str(const char *str);
This can safely be called with both constant and non-constant data:
char modifiable[32] = "hello";
const char *constant = "world";
send_str(modifiable); /* no warning */
send_str(constant); /* no warning */
change the following lines
void send_str(char * str){
// send it
}
TO
void send_str(const char * str){
// send it
}
your compiler is saying that the const char pointer your sending is being converted to char pointer. changing its value in the function send_str may lead to undefined behaviour.(Most of the cases calling and called function wont be written by the same person , someone else may use your code and call it looking at the prototype which is not right.)
Straight to the code:
#define PRO_SIGNAL( func, param ) (*func)(param)
void PRO_SIGNAL( paint[0], Pro_Window* );
signal->paint = realloc( signal->paint, sizeof( void (*)(Pro_Window*) ) * signal->paint_count );
The Error:
error: incompatible types when assigning to type 'void (*[])(struct Pro_Window *)' from type 'void *'|
It appears that you are assigning to an array not a pointer.
From your output error message:
'void (*[])(struct Pro_Window *)' from type 'void *'|
Note the [] in there (and it certainly isn't a lambda!) rather than a *
If this is an "extendable" struct you need to realloc the entire struct not just the array member.
By the way, a tip: if realloc fails it returns a NULL pointer and if you assign it to the variable that was being realloc'ed, the original memory it was pointing to will be lost forever. So always realloc into a temp first, check the value, and then assign back to the original pointer if it worked.
You don't show us the definition of singal->paint, but I infer from the error message that it's declared as an array of function pointers, meaning signal is a struct with a flex array (paint[]). You can't assign to an array, you need to realloc the whole struct.
Not sure what you're trying to do, but this works perfectly here:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
void (**foobar) (int a, int b);
void (**tmp) (int a, int b);
foobar = NULL;
if (!(foobar = malloc(sizeof(*foobar)*4))
return 1;
if (!(tmp = realloc(foobar, sizeof(*foobar)*5)) {
free(foobar);
return 1;
} else {
foobar = tmp;
}
free(foobar);
return 0;
}
So, either you're trying to realloc an array like Kevin says, or perhaps you're compiling in C++ mode, where I believe that the cast is not implicit.
Edit: I've added some error handling.
I am aware that in C you can't implicitly convert, for instance, char** to const char** (c.f. C-Faq, SO question 1, SO Question 2).
On the other hand, if I see a function declared like so:
void foo(char** ppData);
I must assume the function may change the data passed in.
Therefore, if I am writing a function that will not change the data, it is better, in my opinion, to declare:
void foo(const char** ppData);
or even:
void foo(const char * const * ppData);
But that puts the users of the function in an awkward position.
They might have:
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
foo(argv); // Oh no, compiler error (or warning)
...
}
And in order to cleanly call my function, they would need to insert a cast.
I come from a mostly C++ background, where this is less of an issue due to C++'s more in-depth const rules.
What is the idiomatic solution in C?
Declare foo as taking a char**, and just document the fact that it won't change its inputs? That seems a bit gross, esp. since it punishes users who might have a const char** that they want to pass it (now they have to cast away const-ness)
Force users to cast their input, adding const-ness.
Something else?
Although you already have accepted an answer, I'd like to go for 3) namely macros. You can write these in a way that the user of your function will just write a call foo(x); where x can be const-qualified or not. The idea would to have one macro CASTIT that does the cast and checks if the argument is of a valid type, and another that is the user interface:
void totoFunc(char const*const* x);
#define CASTIT(T, X) ( \
(void)sizeof((T const*){ (X)[0] }), \
(T const*const*)(X) \
)
#define toto(X) totoFunc(CASTIT(char, X))
int main(void) {
char * * a0 = 0;
char const* * b0 = 0;
char *const* c0 = 0;
char const*const* d0 = 0;
int * * a1 = 0;
int const* * b1 = 0;
int *const* c1 = 0;
int const*const* d1 = 0;
toto(a0);
toto(b0);
toto(c0);
toto(d0);
toto(a1); // warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
toto(b1); // warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
toto(c1); // warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
toto(d1); // warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
}
The CASTIT macro looks a bit complicated, but all it does is to first check if X[0] is assignment compatible with char const*. It uses a compound literal for that. This then is hidden inside a sizeof to ensure that actually the compound literal is never created and also that X is not evaluated by that test.
Then follows a plain cast, but which by itself would be too dangerous.
As you can see by the examples in the main this exactly detects the erroneous cases.
A lot of that stuff is possible with macros. I recently cooked up a complicated example with const-qualified arrays.
2 is better than 1. 1 is pretty common though, since huge volumes of C code don't use const at all. So if you're writing new code for a new system, use 2. If you're writing maintenance code for an existing system where const is a rarity, use 1.
Go with option 2. Option 1 has the disadvantage that you mentioned and is less type-safe.
If I saw a function that takes a char ** argument and I've got a char *const * or similar, I'd make a copy and pass that, just in case.
Modern (C11+) way using _Generic to preserve type-safety and function pointers:
// joins an array of words into a new string;
// mutates neither *words nor **words
char *join_words (const char *const words[])
{
// ...
}
#define join_words(words) join_words(_Generic((words),\
char ** : (const char *const *)(words),\
char *const * : (const char *const *)(words),\
default : (words)\
))
// usage :
int main (void)
{
const char *const words_1[] = {"foo", "bar", NULL};
char *const words_2[] = {"foo", "bar", NULL};
const char *words_3[] = {"foo", "bar", NULL};
char *words_4[] = {"foo", "bar", NULL};
// none of the calls generate warnings:
join_words(words_1);
join_words(words_2);
join_words(words_3);
join_words(words_4);
// type-checking is preserved:
const int *const numbers[] = { (int[]){1, 2}, (int[]){3, 4}, NULL };
join_words(numbers);
// warning: incompatible pointer types passing
// 'const int *const [2]' to parameter of type 'const char *const *'
// since the macro is defined after the function's declaration and has the same name,
// we can also get a pointer to the function
char *(*funcptr) (const char *const *) = join_words;
}