I have this structure of Node
typedef struct Node{
unsigned int length;
char *string;
} Node;
And this operation which accepts a pointer to a Node and tries to attach the provided string:
int setString(Node *node, char *string){
char *newString;
if(!isString(node) || !string) return 0;
newString = (char *) malloc(strlen(string)+1);
if(!newString) return 0;
/*THIS PART FAILS*/
strncpy(newString,string,sizeof(newString));
node->string = newString;
node->length = strlen(newString);
/*Which can be seen here*/
printf("Original String: %s\n",string);
printf("Copied String: %s\n",node->string);
return 1;
}
At the indicated part, I can see that the original string doesn't seem be copied over to node->string. It copies over the first two characters, and then what follows is either garbage or just blank.
I checked this post and I am following the third case, which seems to work for the OP. Maybe I overlooked something, but just can't figure out where
strncpy(newString,string,sizeof(newString));
In this context sizeof doesn't do what you want. Pass the size you allocated or don't use strncpy. If you follow your own logic, you already trust string since you took its strlen when you called malloc.
So you can safely use strcpy instead.
If you're willing to go a little non-portable, you could get away with:
newString = strdup(string);
Your sizeof() call is causing your problem:
sizeof(newString);
newString is a pointer to a character is declared here:
char *newString;
And character pointers use (normally) 2,4 or 8 bytes (depending on the machines architecture).
So it's clear, that you are only copy the first 2/4/8 bytes. Use strlen(string) + 1 for the number of characters to copy.
Or you can just use strcpy(). This will take care of the terminating null byte. Since you are calling malloc() correctly with strlen there is no chance to cause a overflow with strcpy().
You can not use the sizeof() in order to determine the string length.
You have to use the strlen(string) function instead.
Also you need to set \0 after copied symbols to terminate the string.
Not sure, but try directly this:
strncpy(node->string,string,strlen(newString));
Changing the length function to strlen.
(i tried to make the changes in code to bold)
Related
C function to remove the first string from an XOR linked list of names:
int remove_string(Node **head, char *deleted_string) {
Node *temp = *head;
*deleted_string = *(*head)->name;
*head = calculate_xor_value(NULL, temp->xor_value);
if (*head != NULL) {
(*head)->xor_value = calculate_xor_value(NULL, calculate_xor_value(temp, (*head)->xor_value));
}
free(temp);
}
In the question, one of the input parameters has to be a char pointer called deleted_string, which is the string that is being removed from the list. The code to remove the string works fine (line 4 onwards), but I am struggling to save the string to the char* deleted_string (line 3) *deleted_string = *(*head)->name;
Everytime I run the code
// printf("%s", deleted_string ); only the first character is being printed; I think I understand that this is because pointers only point to the first character of a string, but is there a way to make the pointer point to the whole string? Perhaps by somehow converting (*head)->name to a string or an array?
Any help would be appreciated, sorry if this is a silly question. I have spent hours trying to find another page about this but I didn't so I thought I'd ask.
Assuming (*head)->name is of type char*, you are dereferencing both the char *deleted_string and char *name, hence operating on something of type char.
The line
*deleted_string = *(*head)->name;
is equivalent of doing something like
char a;
char b = 0;
a = b;
If you want to copy the contents of (*head)->name into the deleted_string, you can use strcpy or strncpy like,
strncpy( deleted_string, (*head)->name, SIZE );
Where the SIZE is whatever maximum size the deleted_string can hold. strcpy is the same, just without the size argument.
As comments suggested, both should be used with care, as strcpy can attempt to copy more characters than the destination can hold, causing write violations, and strncpy will truncate if the source is bigger than the destination, the resulting string will not necessarily be null-terminated. In such case, functions that assume the string is null-terminated will misbehave, such as printf( "%s" ... ), causing read violations. For more information, you can check this post.
I have a string function that accepts a pointer to a source string and returns a pointer to a destination string. This function currently works, but I'm worried I'm not following the best practice regrading malloc, realloc, and free.
The thing that's different about my function is that the length of the destination string is not the same as the source string, so realloc() has to be called inside my function. I know from looking at the docs...
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/realloc/
that the memory address might change after the realloc. This means I have can't "pass by reference" like a C programmer might for other functions, I have to return the new pointer.
So the prototype for my function is:
//decode a uri encoded string
char *net_uri_to_text(char *);
I don't like the way I'm doing it because I have to free the pointer after running the function:
char * chr_output = net_uri_to_text("testing123%5a%5b%5cabc");
printf("%s\n", chr_output); //testing123Z[\abc
free(chr_output);
Which means that malloc() and realloc() are called inside my function and free() is called outside my function.
I have a background in high level languages, (perl, plpgsql, bash) so my instinct is proper encapsulation of such things, but that might not be the best practice in C.
The question: Is my way best practice, or is there a better way I should follow?
full example
Compiles and runs with two warnings on unused argc and argv arguments, you can safely ignore those two warnings.
example.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *net_uri_to_text(char *);
int main(int argc, char ** argv) {
char * chr_input = "testing123%5a%5b%5cabc";
char * chr_output = net_uri_to_text(chr_input);
printf("%s\n", chr_output);
free(chr_output);
return 0;
}
//decodes uri-encoded string
//send pointer to source string
//return pointer to destination string
//WARNING!! YOU MUST USE free(chr_result) AFTER YOU'RE DONE WITH IT OR YOU WILL GET A MEMORY LEAK!
char *net_uri_to_text(char * chr_input) {
//define variables
int int_length = strlen(chr_input);
int int_new_length = int_length;
char * chr_output = malloc(int_length);
char * chr_output_working = chr_output;
char * chr_input_working = chr_input;
int int_output_working = 0;
unsigned int uint_hex_working;
//while not a null byte
while(*chr_input_working != '\0') {
//if %
if (*chr_input_working == *"%") {
//then put correct char in
sscanf(chr_input_working + 1, "%02x", &uint_hex_working);
*chr_output_working = (char)uint_hex_working;
//printf("special char:%c, %c, %d<\n", *chr_output_working, (char)uint_hex_working, uint_hex_working);
//realloc
chr_input_working++;
chr_input_working++;
int_new_length -= 2;
chr_output = realloc(chr_output, int_new_length);
//output working must be the new pointer plys how many chars we've done
chr_output_working = chr_output + int_output_working;
} else {
//put char in
*chr_output_working = *chr_input_working;
}
//increment pointers and number of chars in output working
chr_input_working++;
chr_output_working++;
int_output_working++;
}
//last null byte
*chr_output_working = '\0';
return chr_output;
}
It's perfectly ok to return malloc'd buffers from functions in C, as long as you document the fact that they do. Lots of libraries do that, even though no function in the standard library does.
If you can compute (a not too pessimistic upper bound on) the number of characters that need to be written to the buffer cheaply, you can offer a function that does that and let the user call it.
It's also possible, but much less convenient, to accept a buffer to be filled in; I've seen quite a few libraries that do that like so:
/*
* Decodes uri-encoded string encoded into buf of length len (including NUL).
* Returns the number of characters written. If that number is less than len,
* nothing is written and you should try again with a larger buffer.
*/
size_t net_uri_to_text(char const *encoded, char *buf, size_t len)
{
size_t space_needed = 0;
while (decoding_needs_to_be_done()) {
// decode characters, but only write them to buf
// if it wouldn't overflow;
// increment space_needed regardless
}
return space_needed;
}
Now the caller is responsible for the allocation, and would do something like
size_t len = SOME_VALUE_THAT_IS_USUALLY_LONG_ENOUGH;
char *result = xmalloc(len);
len = net_uri_to_text(input, result, len);
if (len > SOME_VALUE_THAT_IS_USUALLY_LONG_ENOUGH) {
// try again
result = xrealloc(input, result, len);
}
(Here, xmalloc and xrealloc are "safe" allocating functions that I made up to skip NULL checks.)
The thing is that C is low-level enough to force the programmer to get her memory management right. In particular, there's nothing wrong with returning a malloc()ated string. It's a common idiom to return mallocated obejcts and have the caller free() them.
And anyways, if you don't like this approach, you can always take a pointer to the string and modify it from inside the function (after the last use, it will still need to be free()d, though).
One thing, however, that I don't think is necessary is explicitly shrinking the string. If the new string is shorter than the old one, there's obviously enough room for it in the memory chunk of the old string, so you don't need to realloc().
(Apart from the fact that you forgot to allocate one extra byte for the terminating NUL character, of course...)
And, as always, you can just return a different pointer each time the function is called, and you don't even need to call realloc() at all.
If you accept one last piece of good advice: it's advisable to const-qualify your input strings, so the caller can ensure that you don't modify them. Using this approach, you can safely call the function on string literals, for example.
All in all, I'd rewrite your function like this:
char *unescape(const char *s)
{
size_t l = strlen(s);
char *p = malloc(l + 1), *r = p;
while (*s) {
if (*s == '%') {
char buf[3] = { s[1], s[2], 0 };
*p++ = strtol(buf, NULL, 16); // yes, I prefer this over scanf()
s += 3;
} else {
*p++ = *s++;
}
}
*p = 0;
return r;
}
And call it as follows:
int main()
{
const char *in = "testing123%5a%5b%5cabc";
char *out = unescape(in);
printf("%s\n", out);
free(out);
return 0;
}
It's perfectly OK to return newly-malloc-ed (and possibly internally realloced) values from functions, you just need to document that you are doing so (as you do here).
Other obvious items:
Instead of int int_length you might want to use size_t. This is "an unsigned type" (usually unsigned int or unsigned long) that is the appropriate type for lengths of strings and arguments to malloc.
You need to allocate n+1 bytes initially, where n is the length of the string, as strlen does not include the terminating 0 byte.
You should check for malloc failing (returning NULL). If your function will pass the failure on, document that in the function-description comment.
sscanf is pretty heavy-weight for converting the two hex bytes. Not wrong, except that you're not checking whether the conversion succeeds (what if the input is malformed? you can of course decide that this is the caller's problem but in general you might want to handle that). You can use isxdigit from <ctype.h> to check for hexadecimal digits, and/or strtoul to do the conversion.
Rather than doing one realloc for every % conversion, you might want to do a final "shrink realloc" if desirable. Note that if you allocate (say) 50 bytes for a string and find it requires only 49 including the final 0 byte, it may not be worth doing a realloc after all.
I would approach the problem in a slightly different way. Personally, I would split your function in two. The first function to calculate the size you need to malloc. The second would write the output string to the given pointer (which has been allocated outside of the function). That saves several calls to realloc, and will keep the complexity the same. A possible function to find the size of the new string is:
int getNewSize (char *string) {
char *i = string;
int size = 0, percent = 0;
for (i, size; *i != '\0'; i++, size++) {
if (*i == '%')
percent++;
}
return size - percent * 2;
}
However, as mentioned in other answers there is no problem in returning a malloc'ed buffer as long as you document it!
Additionally what was already mentioned in the other postings, you should also document the fact that the string is reallocated. If your code is called with a static string or a string allocated with alloca, you may not reallocate it.
I think you are right to be concerned about splitting up mallocs and frees. As a rule, whatever makes it, owns it and should free it.
In this case, where the strings are relatively small, one good procedure is to make the string buffer larger than any possible string it could contain. For example, URLs have a de facto limit of about 2000 characters, so if you malloc 10000 characters you can store any possible URL.
Another trick is to store both the length and capacity of the string at its front, so that (int)*mystring == length of string and (int)*(mystring + 4) == capacity of string. Thus, the string itself only starts at the 8th position *(mystring+8). By doing this you can pass around a single pointer to a string and always know how long it is and how much memory capacity the string has. You can make macros that automatically generate these offsets and make "pretty code".
The value of using buffers this way is you do not need to do a reallocation. The new value overwrites the old value and you update the length at the beginning of the string.
I've been studying C, and I decided to practice using my knowledge by creating some functions to manipulate strings. I wrote a string reverser function, and a main function that asks for user input, sends it through stringreverse(), and prints the results.
Basically I just want to understand how my function works. When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0], right?
I guess answering this question would tell me: Would there be any difference if I assigned a char* pointer to my tempstr array and then sent that to stringreverse() as the first param, versus how I'm doing it now? I want to know whether I'm sending a duplicate of the array tempstr, or a memory address.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
printf("\nEnter a string:\n\t");
char tempstr[1024];
gets(tempstr);
char *revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr); //Assigns revstr the address of the first character of the reversed string.
printf("\nReversed string:\n"
"\t%s\n", revstr);
main();
return 0;
}
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr)
{
char revstr[1024] = {0};
int i, j = 0;
for (i = strlen(tempstr) - 1; i >= 0; i--, j++)
{
revstr[j] = tempstr[i]; //string reverse algorithm
}
returnptr = &revstr[0];
return returnptr;
}
Thanks for your time. Any other critiques would be helpful . . only a few weeks into programming :P
EDIT: Thanks to all the answers, I figured it out. Here's my solution for anyone wondering:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
void stringreverse(char* s);
int main(void)
{
printf("\nEnter a string:\n\t");
char userinput[1024] = {0}; //Need to learn how to use malloc() xD
gets(userinput);
stringreverse(userinput);
printf("\nReversed string:\n"
"\t%s\n", userinput);
main();
return 0;
}
void stringreverse(char* s)
{
int i, j = 0;
char scopy[1024]; //Update to dynamic buffer
strcpy(scopy, s);
for (i = strlen(s) - 1; i >= 0; i--, j++)
{
*(s + j) = scopy[i];
}
}
First, a detail:
int main()
{
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
That prototype should go outside main(), like this:
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
int main()
{
As to your main question: the variable tempstr is a char*, i.e. the address of a character. If you use C's index notation, like tempstr[i], that's essentially the same as *(tempstr + i). The same is true of revstr, except that in that case you're returning the address of a block of memory that's about to be clobbered when the array it points to goes out of scope. You've got the right idea in passing in the address of some memory into which to write the reversed string, but you're not actually copying the data into the memory pointed to by that block. Also, the line:
returnptr = &revstr[0];
Doesn't do what you think. You can't assign a new pointer to returnptr; if you really want to modify returnptr, you'll need to pass in its address, so the parameter would be specified char** returnptr. But don't do that: instead, create a block in your main() that will receive the reversed string, and pass its address in the returnptr parameter. Then, use that block rather than the temporary one you're using now in stringreverse().
Basically I just want to understand how my function works.
One problem you have is that you are using revstr without initializing it or allocating memory for it. This is undefined behavior since you are writing into memory doesn't belong to you. It may appear to work, but in fact what you have is a bug and can produce unexpected results at any time.
When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0], right?
Yes. When arrays are passed as arguments to a function, they are treated as regular pointers, pointing to the first element in the array. There is no difference if you assigned &temp[0] to a char* before passing it to stringreverser, because that's what the compiler is doing for you anyway.
The only time you will see a difference between arrays and pointers being passed to functions is in C++ when you start learning about templates and template specialization. But this question is C, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.
When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the
address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0],
right?
char tempstr[1024];
tempstr is an array of characters. When passed tempstr to a function, it decays to a pointer pointing to first element of tempstr. So, its basically same as sending &tempstr[0].
Would there be any difference if I assigned a char* pointer to my tempstr array and then sent that to stringreverse() as the first param, versus how I'm doing it now?
No difference. You might do -
char* pointer = tempstr ; // And can pass pointer
char *revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr);
First right side expression's is evaluavated and the return value is assigned to revstr. But what is revstr that is being passed. Program should allocate memory for it.
char revstr[1024] ;
char *retValue = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr) ;
// ^^^^^^ changed to be different.
Now, when passing tempstr and revstr, they decayed to pointers pointing to their respective first indexes. In that case why this would go wrong -
revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr) ;
Just because arrays are not pointers. char* is different from char[]. Hope it helps !
In response to your question about whether the thing passed to the function is an array or a pointer, the relevant part of the C99 standard (6.3.2.1/3) states:
Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type ‘‘array of type’’ is converted to an expression with type ‘‘pointer to type’’ that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue.
So yes, other than the introduction of another explicit variable, the following two lines are equivalent:
char x[] = "abc"; fn (x);
char x[] = "abc"; char *px = &(x[0]); fn (px);
As to a critique, I'd like to raise the following.
While legal, I find it incongruous to have function prototypes (such as stringreverse) anywhere other than at file level. In fact, I tend to order my functions so that they're not usually necessary, making one less place where you have to change it, should the arguments or return type need to be changed. That would entail, in this case, placing stringreverse before main.
Don't ever use gets in a real program.. It's unprotectable against buffer overflows. At a minimum, use fgets which can be protected, or use a decent input function such as the one found here.
You cannot create a local variable within stringreverse and pass back the address of it. That's undefined behaviour. Once that function returns, that variable is gone and you're most likely pointing to whatever happens to replace it on the stack the next time you call a function.
There's no need to pass in the revstr variable either. If it were a pointer with backing memory (i.e., had space allocated for it), that would be fine but then there would be no need to return it. In that case you would allocate both in the caller:
char tempstr[1024];
char revstr[1024];
stringreverse (tempstr, revstr); // Note no return value needed
// since you're manipulating revstr directly.
You should also try to avoid magic numbers like 1024. Better to have lines like:
#define BUFFSZ 1024
char tempstr[BUFFSZ];
so that you only need to change it in one place if you ever need a new value (that becomes particularly important if you have lots of 1024 numbers with different meanings - global search and replace will be your enemy in that case rather than your friend).
In order to make you function more adaptable, you may want to consider allowing it to handle any length. You can do that by passing both buffers in, or by using malloc to dynamically allocate a buffer for you, something like:
char *reversestring (char *src) {
char *dst = malloc (strlen (src) + 1);
if (dst != NULL) {
// copy characters in reverse order.
}
return dst;
}
This puts the responsibility for freeing that memory on the caller but that's a well-worn way of doing things.
You should probably use one of the two canonical forms for main:
int main (int argc, char *argv[]);
int main (void);
It's also a particularly bad idea to call main from anywhere. While that may look like a nifty way to get an infinite loop, it almost certainly will end up chewing up your stack space :-)
All in all, this is probably the function I'd initially write. It allows the user to populate their own buffer if they want, or to specify they don't have one, in which case one will be created for them:
char *revstr (char *src, char *dst) {
// Cache size in case compiler not smart enough to do so.
// Then create destination buffer if none provided.
size_t sz = strlen (src);
if (dst == NULL) dst = malloc (sz + 1);
// Assuming buffer available, copy string.
if (dst != NULL) {
// Run dst end to start, null terminator first.
dst += sz; *dst = '\0';
// Copy character by character until null terminator in src.
// We end up with dst set to original correct value.
while (*src != '\0')
*--dst = *src++;
}
// Return reversed string (possibly NULL if malloc failed).
return dst;
}
In your stringreverse() function, you are returning the address of a local variable (revstr). This is undefined behaviour and is very bad. Your program may appear to work right now, but it will suddenly fail sometime in the future for reasons that are not obvious.
You have two general choices:
Have stringreverse() allocate memory for the returned string, and leave it up to the caller to free it.
Have the caller preallocate space for the returned string, and tell stringreverse() where it is and how big it is.
I have a variable 'jmp_code' that is declared as a char *. When I run the following commands
printf("char by char, the code is '%c%c%c%c'\n", *jmp_code, *(jmp_code+1), *(jmp_code+2),*(jmp_code+3));
printf("printing the string, the code is '%s'\n", jmp_code);
I get the following results
char by char, the code is '0,0,0, ,'
printing the string, the code is 'ö\├w≡F┴w'
I am using codeblocks. Here is the sample code I am playing with.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
char * some_func(char * code);
char * some_func(char * code) {
char char_array[4];
strcpy(char_array, "000");
code = char_array;
return code;
}
int main ( void ) {
char * jmp_code = NULL;
jmp_code = some_func(jmp_code);
printf("char by char, the code is '%c,%c,%c,%c,'\n", *jmp_code, *(jmp_code+1), *(jmp_code+2),*(jmp_code+3));
printf("printing the string, the code is '%s'\n", jmp_code);
return 0;
}
I am quite confused by this. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Some quick observations:
char * some_func(char * code) {
char char_array[4];
strcpy(char_array, "000");
code = char_array;
return code;
}
You can't assign strings using = in C. That messes things up - you're assigning code the pointer of your locally allocated char_array to code, but you're not copying the contents of the memory. Also note that since char_array is allocated on the stack (usually), you'll find it disappears when you return from that function. You could work around that with the static keyword, but I don't think that's the nicest of solutions here. You should use something along the lines of (big warning this example is not massively secure, you do need to check string lengths, but for the sake of brevity):
void some_func(char * code) {
strcpy(code, "000");
return;
}
(Refer to this (and this) for secure string handling advice).
And call it via some_func(jmp_code) in main. If you're not sure what this does, read up on pointers.
Second problem.
char * jmp_code = NULL;
Currently, you've declared space enough for a pointer to a char type. If you want to use my suggestion above, you'll need either to use malloc() and free() or else declare char jmp_code[4] instead, such that the space is allocated.
What do I think's happening? Well, on my system, I'm getting:
and the code is '0,0,0,,' and the code
is ''
But I think it's chance that jmp_code points to the zeros on the stack provided by your some_func function. I think on your system that data has been overwritten.
Instead you're reading information that your terminal interprets as said character. Have a read of character encoding. I particularly recommend starting with The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
You're returning a reference to a temporary array. char_array goes away when some_func() retuns, but you keep using the address of it. You need to use malloc() to allocate an array and then free() it after you use it.
You're printing from an invalid pointer. char_array is on the stack of some_func() function.
The function returns the pointer of something that is on the stack and will be no more after the function returns!
The first printf finds the stack still unchanged, the second, maybe, found it filled with... garbage!
It might be interesting to see:
const char *pos = jmp_code;
while (*pos)
printf("%d ", *pos++);
I think char type can not use non-ascii char codes. Meaning your string contains UTF-8 or like symbols which code could be in (0, over9000) range, while char codes could be in (0, 255) range.
I radically re-edited the question to explain better my application, as the xample I made up wasn't correct in many ways as you pointed out:
I have one pointer to char and I want to copy it to another pointer and then add a NULL character at the end (in my real application, the first string is a const, so I cannot jsut modify it, that's why I need to copy it).
I have this function, "MLSLSerialWriteBurst" which I have to fill with some code adapt to my microcontroller.
tMLError MLSLSerialWriteBurst( unsigned char slaveAddr,
unsigned char registerAddr,
unsigned short length,
const unsigned char *data )
{
unsigned char *tmp_data;
tmp_data = data;
*(tmp_data+length) = NULL;
// this function takes a tmp_data which is a char* terminated with a NULL character ('\0')
if(EEPageWrite2(slaveAddr,registerAddr,tmp_data)==0)
return ML_SUCCESS;
else
return ML_ERROR;
}
I see there's a problem here: tha fact that I do not initialize tmp_data, but I cannot know it's length.
For starters, you are missing a bunch of declarations in your code. For example, what is lungh? Also, I'm assuming you initialized your two pointers so they point to memory you can use. However, maybe that's not a safe assumption.
Beyond that, you failed to terminate your from string. So getting the length of the string will not work.
There seems to be numerous errors here. It's hard to know where to start. Is this really what your actual code looks like? I don't think it would even compile.
Finally, there seems to be a bit of confusion in your terminology. Copying a pointer is different from copying the memory being pointed to. A pointer is a memory address. If you simply copy the pointer, then both pointers will refer to the same address.
I would create a copy of a string using code similar to this:
char *from_string = "ciao";
char *to_string;
int len;
len = strlen(from_string);
to_string = (char *)malloc(len + 1);
if (to_string != NULL)
strcpy(to_string, from_string);
Be fully aware that you do not want to copy a pointer. You want to copy the memory that is pointed to by the pointer. It does sound like you should learn more about pointers and the memory environment of your system before proceeding too much farther.
When you say tmp_data = data, you are pointing tmp_data to the same memory pointed to by data. Instead, you need to allocate a new block of memory and copy the memory from data into it.
The standard way to do this is with malloc. If you do not have malloc, your libraries may have some other way of acquiring a pointer to usable memory.
unsigned char * tmp_data = malloc(length + 1);
if(tmp_data != 0) {
memcpy(tmp_data, data, length);
tmp_data[length] = 0;
// ...
free(tmp_data);
}
You could also use a fixed-size array on the stack:
unsigned char tmp_data[256];
if(length >= sizeof(tmp_data)) length = sizeof(tmp_data) - 1;
memcpy(tmp_data, data, length); // or equivalent routine
tmp_data[length] = 0;
C99 introduced variable-length arrays, which may be what you seek here, if your compiler supports them:
unsigned char tmp_data[length];
memcpy(tmp_data, data, length); // or equivalent routine
tmp_data[length] = 0;