My code is crashing because of a lack of the char '\0' at the end of some strings.
It's pretty clear to me why we have to use this termination char. My question is,
is there a problem adding a potential 2nd null character to a character array - to solve string problems?
I think it's cheaper just add a '\0' to every string than verify if it needs and then add it, but I don't know if it's a good thing to do.
is there a problem to have this char ('\0') twice at the end of a string?
This question lacks clarity as "string" means different things to people.
Let us use the C specification definition as this is a C post.
A string is a contiguous sequence of characters terminated by and including the first null character. C11 ยง7.1.1 1
So a string, cannot have 2 null characters as the string ends upon reaching its first one. #Michael Walz
Instead, re-parse to "is there a problem adding a potential 2nd null character to a character array - to solve string problems?"
A problem with attempting to add a null character to a string is confusion. The str...() functions work with C strings as defined above.
// If str1 was not a string, strcpy(str1, anything) would be undefined behavior.
strcpy(str1, "\0"); // no change to str1
char str2[] = "abc";
str2[strlen(str2)] = '\0'; // OK but only, re-assigns the \0 to a \0
// attempt to add another \0
str2[strlen(str2)+1] = '\0'; // Bad: assigning outside `str2[]` as the array is too small
char str3[10] = "abc";
str3[strlen(str3)+1] = '\0'; // OK, in this case
puts(str3); // Adding that \0 served no purpose
As many have commented, adding a spare '\0' is not directly attending the code's fundamental problem. #Haris #Malcolm McLean
That unposted code is the real issue that need solving #Yunnosch, and not by attempting to append a second '\0'.
I think it's cheaper just add a '\0' to every string than verify if it needs and then add it, but I don't know if it's a good thing to do.
Where would you add it? Let's assume we've done something like this:
char *p = malloc(32);
Now, if we know the allocated length, we could put a '\0' as the last character of the allocated area, as in p[31] = '\0'. But we don't how long the contents of the string are supposed to be. If there's supposed to be just foobar, then there'd still be 25 bytes of garbage, which might cause other issues if processed or printed.
Let alone the fact that if all you have is the pointer to the string, it's hard to know the length of the allocated area.
Probably better to fix the places where you build the strings to do it correctly.
Having '\0' is not a problem, unless you have not gone out of bounds of that char array.
You do have to understand that, having '\0' twice would mean, any string operation would not even know that there is a second '\0'. They will just read till the first '\0', and be with it. For them, the first '\0' is the Null terminating character and there should not be anything after that.
Why does the second strncpy give incorrect weird symbols when printing?
Do I need something like fflush(stdin) ?
Note that I used scanf("%s",aString); to read an entire string, the input that is entered starts first off with a space so that it works correctly.
void stringMagic(char str[], int index1, int index2)
{
char part1[40],part2[40];
strncpy(part1,&str[0],index1);
part1[sizeof(part1)-1] = '\0';//strncpy doesn't always put '\0' where it should
printf("\n%s\n",part1);
strncpy(part2,&str[index1+1],(index2-index1));
part2[sizeof(part2)-1] = '\0';
printf("\n%s\n",part2);
}
EDIT
The problem seems to lie in
scanf("%s",aString);
because when I use printf("\n%s",aString); and I have entered something like "Enough with the hello world" I only get as output "Enough" because of the '\0'.
How can I correctly input the entire sentence with whitespace stored? Reading characters?
Now I use: fgets (aString, 100, stdin);
(Reading string from input with space character?)
In order to print a char sequence correctly using %s it needs to be null-terminated. In addition the terminating symbol should be immediately after the last symbol to be printed. However this section in your code: part2[sizeof(part2)-1] = '\0'; always sets the 39th cell of part2 to be the 0 character. Note that sizeof(part2) will always return the memory size allocated for part2 which in this case is 40. The value of this function does not depend on the contents of part2.
What you should do instead is to set the (index2-index1) character in part2 to 0. You know you've copied that many characters to part2, so you know what is the expected length of the resulting string.
I have an archive file that looks like this:
!<arch>
file1.txt/ 1350248044 45503 13036 100660 28 `
hello
this is sample file 1
Now in here, the number 28 in the header is the file1.txt size. To get that number, I use:
int curr_char;
char file_size[10];
int int_file_size;
curr_char = fgetc(arch_file);
while(curr_char != ' '){
strcat(file_size, &curr_char);
curr_char = fgetc(arch_file);
}
// Convert the characters to the corresponding integer value using atoi()
int_file_size = atoi(file_size);
However, values in the file_size array change every time I run my code. Sometimes it's correct, but mostly not. Here are some examples of what I get for file_size:
?28`U
2U8U
28 <--- Correct!
pAi?28
I believe the problem is with my strcat() function, but not sure. Any help would be appreciated.
You shouldn't read the file character wise. There are higher level functions doing this. As larsmans already pointed out, you can use fscanf() for this task:
fscanf(arch_file, "%d", &int_file_size);
&curr_char is an int*, so you're copying over the bits of an int as if they represented a string.
You should be using scanf.
The expression &curr_char points to a single character (well, actually an integer as that's how you declared it). strcat looks for a string, and string as you should know are terminated by a '\0' character. So what strcat does in your case is use the &curr_char pointer as the address of a string and looks for the terminator. Since that is not found weird stuff will happen.
One way of solving this is to make curr_char an array, initialized to zero (the string terminator character) and read into the first entry:
char curr_char[2] = { '\0' }; /* Will make all character in array be zero */
...
curr_char[0] = fgetc(...);
There is also another problem, and that is that you are trying to concatenate into a string that is not initialized. When running your program, the array file_size can contain any data, it's not automatically zeroed out. This leads to the weird characters before the number. This is solved partially the same way as the above problem, by initializing the array:
char file_size[10] = { '\0' };
I have a little problem here with memcpy()
When I write this
char ipA[15], ipB[15];
size_t b = 15;
memcpy(ipA,line+15,b);
It copies b bytes from array line starting at 15th element (fine, this is what i want)
memcpy(ipB,line+31,b);
This copies b bytes from line starting at 31st element, but it also attaches to it the result for previous command i.e ipA.
Why? ipB size is 15, so it shouldnt have enough space to copy anything else. whats happening here?
result for ipA is 192.168.123.123
result for ipB becomes 205.123.123.122 192.168.123.123
Where am I wrong? I dont actually know alot about memory allocation in C.
It looks like you're not null-terminating the string in ipA. The compiler has put the two variables next to one another in memory, so string operations assume that the first null terminator is sometime after the second array (whenever the next 0 occurs in memory).
Try:
char ipA[16], ipB[16];
size_t b = 15;
memcpy(ipA,line+15,b);
ipA[15] = '\0';
memcpy(ipB,line+31,b);
ipB[15] = '\0';
printf("ipA: %s\nipB: %s\n", ipA, ipB)
This should confirm whether this is the problem. Obviously you could make the code a bit more elegant than my test code above. As an alternative to manually terminating, you could use printf("%.*s\n", b, ipA); or similar to force printf to print the correct number of characters.
Are you checking the content of the arrays by doing printf("%s", ipA) ? If so, you'll end up with the described effect since your array is interpreted as a C string which is not null terminated. Do this instead: printf("%.*s", sizeof(ipA), ipA)
Character strings in C require a terminating mark. It is the char value 0.
As your two character strings are contiguous in memory, if you don't terminate the first character string, then when reading it, you will continue until memory contains the end-of-string character.
I am new to C and I am very much confused with the C strings. Following are my questions.
Finding last character from a string
How can I find out the last character from a string? I came with something like,
char *str = "hello";
printf("%c", str[strlen(str) - 1]);
return 0;
Is this the way to go? I somehow think that, this is not the correct way because strlen has to iterate over the characters to get the length. So this operation will have a O(n) complexity.
Converting char to char*
I have a string and need to append a char to it. How can i do that? strcat accepts only char*. I tried the following,
char delimiter = ',';
char text[6];
strcpy(text, "hello");
strcat(text, delimiter);
Using strcat with variables that has local scope
Please consider the following code,
void foo(char *output)
{
char *delimiter = ',';
strcpy(output, "hello");
strcat(output, delimiter);
}
In the above code,delimiter is a local variable which gets destroyed after foo returned. Is it OK to append it to variable output?
How strcat handles null terminating character?
If I am concatenating two null terminated strings, will strcat append two null terminating characters to the resultant string?
Is there a good beginner level article which explains how strings work in C and how can I perform the usual string manipulations?
Any help would be great!
Last character: your approach is correct. If you will need to do this a lot on large strings, your data structure containing strings should store lengths with them. If not, it doesn't matter that it's O(n).
Appending a character: you have several bugs. For one thing, your buffer is too small to hold another character. As for how to call strcat, you can either put the character in a string (an array with 2 entries, the second being 0), or you can just manually use the length to write the character to the end.
Your worry about 2 nul terminators is unfounded. While it occupies memory contiguous with the string and is necessary, the nul byte at the end is NOT "part of the string" in the sense of length, etc. It's purely a marker of the end. strcat will overwrite the old nul and put a new one at the very end, after the concatenated string. Again, you need to make sure your buffer is large enough before you call strcat!
O(n) is the best you can do, because of the way C strings work.
char delimiter[] = ",";. This makes delimiter a character array holding a comma and a NUL Also, text needs to have length 7. hello is 5, then you have the comma, and a NUL.
If you define delimiter correctly, that's fine (as is, you're assigning a character to a pointer, which is wrong). The contents of output won't depend on delimiter later on.
It will overwrite the first NUL.
You're on the right track. I highly recommend you read K&R C 2nd Edition. It will help you with strings, pointers, and more. And don't forget man pages and documentation. They will answer questions like the one on strcat quite clearly. Two good sites are The Open Group and cplusplus.com.
A "C string" is in reality a simple array of chars, with str[0] containing the first character, str[1] the second and so on. After the last character, the array contains one more element, which holds a zero. This zero by convention signifies the end of the string. For example, those two lines are equivalent:
char str[] = "foo"; //str is 4 bytes
char str[] = {'f', 'o', 'o', 0};
And now for your questions:
Finding last character from a string
Your way is the right one. There is no faster way to know where the string ends than scanning through it to find the final zero.
Converting char to char*
As said before, a "string" is simply an array of chars, with a zero terminator added to the end. So if you want a string of one character, you declare an array of two chars - your character and the final zero, like this:
char str[2];
str[0] = ',';
str[1] = 0;
Or simply:
char str[2] = {',', 0};
Using strcat with variables that has local scope
strcat() simply copies the contents of the source array to the destination array, at the offset of the null character in the destination array. So it is irrelevant what happens to the source after the operation. But you DO need to worry if the destination array is big enough to hold the data - otherwise strcat() will overwrite whatever data sits in memory right after the array! The needed size is strlen(str1) + strlen(str2) + 1.
How strcat handles null terminating character?
The final zero is expected to terminate both input strings, and is appended to the output string.
Finding last character from a string
I propose a thought experiment: if it were generally possible to find the last character
of a string in better than O(n) time, then could you not also implement strlen
in better than O(n) time?
Converting char to char*
You temporarily can store the char in an array-of-char, and that will decay into
a pointer-to-char:
char delimiterBuf[2] = "";
delimiterBuf[0] = delimiter;
...
strcat(text, delimiterBuf);
If you're just using character literals, though, you can simply use string literals instead.
Using strcat with variables that has local scope
The variable itself isn't referenced outside the scope. When the function returns,
that local variable has already been evaluated and its contents have already been
copied.
How strcat handles null terminating character?
"Strings" in a C are NUL-terminated sequences of characters. Both inputs to
strcat must be NUL-terminated, and the result will be NUL-terminated. It
wouldn't be useful for strcat to write an extra NUL-byte to the result if it
doesn't need to.
(And if you're wondering what if the input strings have multiple trailing
NUL bytes already, I propose another thought experiment: how would strcat know
how many trailing NUL-bytes there are in a string?)
BTW, since you tagged this with "best-practices", I'll also recommend that you take care not to write past the end of your destination buffers. Typically this means avoiding strcat and strcpy (unless you've already checked that the input strings won't overflow the destination) and using safer versions (e.g. strncat. Note that strncpy has its own pitfalls, so that's a poor substitute. There also are safer versions that are non-standard, such as strlcpy/strlcat and strcpy_s/strcat_s.)
Similarly, functions like your foo function always should take an additional argument specifying what the size of the destination buffer is (and documentation should make it explicitly clear whether that size accounts for a NUL terminator or not).
How can I find out the last character
from a string?
Your technique with str[strlen(str) - 1] is fine. As pointed out, you should avoid repeated, unnecessary calls to strlen and store the results.
I somehow think that, this is not the
correct way because strlen has to
iterate over the characters to get the
length. So this operation will have a
O(n) complexity.
Repeated calls to strlen can be a bane of C programs. However, you should avoid premature optimization. If a profiler actually demonstrates a hotspot where strlen is expensive, then you can do something like this for your literal string case:
const char test[] = "foo";
sizeof test // 4
Of course if you create 'test' on the stack, it incurs a little overhead (incrementing/decrementing stack pointer), but no linear time operation involved.
Literal strings are generally not going to be so gigantic. For other cases like reading a large string from a file, you can store the length of the string in advance as but one example to avoid recomputing the length of the string. This can also be helpful as it'll tell you in advance how much memory to allocate for your character buffer.
I have a string and need to append a
char to it. How can i do that? strcat
accepts only char*.
If you have a char and cannot make a string out of it (char* c = "a"), then I believe you can use strncat (need verification on this):
char ch = 'a';
strncat(str, &ch, 1);
In the above code,delimiter is a local
variable which gets destroyed after
foo returned. Is it OK to append it to
variable output?
Yes: functions like strcat and strcpy make deep copies of the source string. They don't leave shallow pointers behind, so it's fine for the local data to be destroyed after these operations are performed.
If I am concatenating two null
terminated strings, will strcat
append two null terminating characters
to the resultant string?
No, strcat will basically overwrite the null terminator on the dest string and write past it, then append a new null terminator when it's finished.
How can I find out the last character from a string?
Your approach is almost correct. The only way to find the end of a C string is to iterate throught the characters, looking for the nul.
There is a bug in your answer though (in the general case). If strlen(str) is zero, you access the character before the start of the string.
I have a string and need to append a char to it. How can i do that?
Your approach is wrong. A C string is just an array of C characters with the last one being '\0'. So in theory, you can append a character like this:
char delimiter = ',';
char text[7];
strcpy(text, "hello");
int textSize = strlen(text);
text[textSize] = delimiter;
text[textSize + 1] = '\0';
However, if I leave it like that I'll get zillions of down votes because there are three places where I have a potential buffer overflow (if I didn't know that my initial string was "hello"). Before doing the copy, you need to put in a check that text is big enough to contain all the characters from the string plus one for the delimiter plus one for the terminating nul.
... delimiter is a local variable which gets destroyed after foo returned. Is it OK to append it to variable output?
Yes that's fine. strcat copies characters. But your code sample does no checks that output is big enough for all the stuff you are putting into it.
If I am concatenating two null terminated strings, will strcat append two null terminating characters to the resultant string?
No.
I somehow think that, this is not the correct way because strlen has to iterate over the characters to get the length. So this operation will have a O(n) complexity.
You are right read Joel Spolsky on why C-strings suck. There are few ways around it. The ways include either not using C strings (for example use Pascal strings and create your own library to handle them), or not use C (use say C++ which has a string class - which is slow for different reasons, but you could also write your own to handle Pascal strings more easily than in C for example)
Regarding adding a char to a C string; a C string is simply a char array with a nul terminator, so long as you preserve the terminator it is a string, there's no magic.
char* straddch( char* str, char ch )
{
char* end = &str[strlen(str)] ;
*end = ch ;
end++ ;
*end = 0 ;
return str ;
}
Just like strcat(), you have to know that the array that str is created in is long enough to accommodate the longer string, the compiler will not help you. It is both inelegant and unsafe.
If I am concatenating two null
terminated strings, will strcat append
two null terminating characters to the
resultant string?
No, just one, but what ever follows that may just happen to be nul, or whatever happened to be in memory. Consider the following equivalent:
char* my_strcat( char* s1, const char* s2 )
{
strcpy( &str[strlen(str)], s2 ) ;
}
the first character of s2 overwrites the terminator in s1.
In the above code,delimiter is a local
variable which gets destroyed after
foo returned. Is it OK to append it to
variable output?
In your example delimiter is not a string, and initialising a pointer with a char makes no sense. However if it were a string, the code would be fine, strcat() copies the data from the second string, so the lifetime of the second argument is irrelevant. Of course you could in your example use a char (not a char*) and the straddch() function suggested above.