I wrote the function to concatenate two strings using pointers. Like strcat(s,t), so at the end of s, t will be added..
int main ()
{
char b[] = "Hello";
char b1[] = "world";
string_cat(b,b1);
printf("Concatenated string is %s\n",b);
return 0;
}
int string_cat(char *s, char *d)
{
while(*++s != '\0')
;
*s++ = ' ';
while((*s++ = *d++)!='\0'); // Concatenation
printf("S is %c\n",s[-2]); // Just to see the values
}
Concatenation works fine, but when I want to see the way elements are stored, all the elements are stored in negative direction, what I mean is s[-2] equals to 'd', s[-3] equals 'l' .. Is this the way they are stored?
First up b is too small to hold the concatenated string. It has only enough space to hold Hello\0 so what you are doing is undefined. Second, look at this line:
while((*s++ = *d++)!='\0');
^^^
You're advancing s because you're incrementing it. Each time you increment it you should imagine it points one element forward. When you get to the end, s isn't what it started out to be. So s[-2] is actually farther down the line compared to the original s (b in your case).
EDIT
so, how to declare it, so that it dynamically adjusts to new size?
Making it adjust to the right size it tough, if possible. What you can do:
Declare it like so: char b[LENGTH] = "Hello";
Pass another parameter to string_cat specifying the size
After multiple iterations you will eventually end up with something like strncpy / memcpy.
Its not stored in negative direction but rather, because you are incrementing the pointer (*s++ in the while loop while((*s++ = *d++)!='\0');)while concatenating , so at the end s points to the end of the string.
You may want to save a copy of the pointer to ensure that you don't loose the beginning of the string (if you need) inside string_cat
Your code has other potential problems which would lead to stack buffer overrun.
char b[] = "Hello";
is a fixed size buffer. Concatenating b1 with b would eventually lead to buffer overrun causing a UB and might eventually crash.
Related
I'm getting a seg. fault when I try to subtract 32 from a char type (trying to convert to lowercase without tolower() in C. I have done the prerequisite searching for relevant Q/A threads with no luck. I also tried 'a' - 'A' for the conversion value, '32', casting it as (char*) and anything else I could think of. For an example:
char* s1 = "Bob";
if (*s1 >= 97 && *s1 <= 122)
*s1 -= 32;
}
Any advice?
Edit:
After following the help below, I still get the error. (For this example, I am only trying to change the first letter of the name to lowercase.) Here is what I am trying:
char* s1 = "Bob";
printf("\n %s before", s1);
// below I call my string length function to get actual size instead of 100
char* temp = malloc(100);
temp = s1;
if (*temp >= 'A' && *temp <= 'Z'){
*temp -= 32;
}
printf("\n%s after", temp);
free(temp);
Also, why do I need to allocate memory for a string that already is in memory?
You can't alter literal strings like that - they are (usually) in read-only memory. You need to make a writeable copy of the string literal:
char* name = "Bob";
char* s1 = strdup(name);
...
free(s1); // And you also need this to avoid a memory leak!
There are a number of problems with your code.
char* s1 = "Bob";
A string literal creates a read-only array of char; this array is static meaning that it exists for the entire lifetime of your program. For historical reasons, it's not const, so the compiler won't necessarily warn you if you attempt to modify it, but you should carefully avoid doing so.
s1 points to the first character of that array. You may not modify *s1. For safety, you should declare the pointer as const:
const char *s1 = "Bob";
If you want a modifiable character array, you can create it like this:
char s1[] = "Bob";
Now let's look at the remaining code:
if (*s1 >= 97 && *s1 <= 122)
*s1 -= 32;
}
97 and 122 are the numeric ASCII codes for 'a' and 'z'. 32 is the difference between a lower case letter and the corresponding upper case letter -- again, in ASCII.
The C language doesn't guarantee that characters are represented in ASCII, or in any of the character sets that are compatible with it. On an IBM mainframe, for example, characters are represented in EBCDIC, in which the codes for the letters are not contiguous (there are gaps), and the difference between corresponding lower case and upper case letters is 64, not 32.
EBCDIC systems are rare these days, but even so, portable code tends to be clearer than non-portable code, even aside from any practical issues of whether the code will work on all systems.
As I'm sure you know, the best way to do this is to use the tolower function:
*s1 = tolower((unsigned char)*s1);
Note the cast to unsigned char. The to*() and is*() functions declared in <ctype.h> are oddly behaved, for historical reasons. They don't work on char arguments; rather, they work on int arguments that are within the range of unsigned char. (They also accept EOF, which is typically -1). If plain char is signed, then passing a char value that happens to be negative causes undefined behavior. Yes, it's annoying.
But you say you don't want to use tolower. (Which is fine; learning to do things like this yourself is a good exercise.)
If you're willing to assume that upper case letters are contiguous, and that lower case letters are contiguous, then you can do something like this:
if (*s1 >= 'a' && *s1 <= 'z') {
*s1 -= 'a' - 'A';
}
That's still not portable to non-ASCII systems, but it's a lot easier to read if you don't happen to have the ASCII table memorized.
It also makes it a little more obvious that you've got the logic backwards. You say you want to convert to lower case, but your code converts from lower case to upper case.
Or you can use a lookup table that maps lower case letters to upper case letters:
char to_lower[CHAR_MAX] = { 0 }; /* sets all elements to 0 */
to_lower['A'] = 'a';
to_lower['B'] = 'b';
/* ... */
to_lower['Z'] = 'z';
Or, if your compiler supports compound literals:
const char to_lower[CHAR_MAX] = {
['A'] = 'a',
['B'] = 'b',
/* ... */
};
I'll leave it to you to fill in the rest write the code to use it.
And now you can see why the tolower and toupper functions exist -- so you don't have to deal with all this stuff (apart from the odd unsigned char casts you'll need).
UPDATE :
In response to the new parts of your question:
char* temp = malloc(100);
temp = s1;
That assignment temp = s1; doesn't copy the allocated string; it just copies the pointer. temp points to 100 bytes of allocated space, but then you make temp point to the (read-only) string literal, and you've lost any references to the allocated space, creating a memory leak.
You can't assign strings or arrays in C. To copy a string, use the strcpy() function:
char *temp = malloc(100);
if (temp == NULL) { /* Don't assume the allocation was successful! */
fprintf(stderr, "malloc failed\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
strcpy(temp, s1);
Also, why do I need to allocate memory for a string that already is in memory?
It's in memory, but it's memory that you're not allowed to modify. If you want to modify it, you need to copy it to a modifiable location. Or, as I suggested above, you can put it in read/write memory in the first place:
char s[] = "Bob";
That initialization copies the string into the array s.
Initialize char and use malloc to allocat memory to store all string and than use for loop and convert whole string in lower case.
You need to
Allocate buffer
Copy string "Bob" to your buffer
Loop through the string, editing it as you go.
This fails because string literals are usually stored in read-only memory.
The easiest fix is to use the literal to initialize an array, the array will be modifiable (unless explicitly made const so don't do that):
char s1[] = "Bob";
Also, it's very bad form to hardcode ASCII, use the islower() and tolower() functions from <ctype.h> to make this code proper.
char *s1 = "Bob";
is creating a pointer to a string constant. That means the string "Bob" will be somewhere in the read-only part of the memory and you just have a pointer to it. You can use the string as read-only. You cannot make changes to it.
Example:
s1[0] = 'b';
Is asking for trouble.
To make changes to s1 you should allocate memory for it
s1 = malloc(10); //or what you want
Now changes to s1 can be done easily.
Newbie to programming (school) and I'm a little confused on what/why this is happening.
I have a loop that is iterating over an array of elements, for each element I am taking the integer of the array, converting it to a char using the function getelementsymbol, and using strcat to append to my temp array. The problem I am having is that the elements of my temp array contain the residual of the element proceeding it. This is the snippet of my code. The output I receive is this:
word1
word1word2
word1word2word3
char* elementsBuildWord(const int symbols[], int nbSymbols){
/* ROLE takes a list of elements' atomic numbers and allocate a new string made
of the symbols of each of these elements
PARAMETERS symbols an array of nbSymbols int which each represent the atomic number
of an element
nbSymbols symbols array's size
RETURN VALUE NULL if the array is of size <= 0
or if one of the symbols is not found by our getElementSymbol function
other the address of a newly allocated string representing the concatenation
of the names of all symbols
*/
char s1[MAX_GENERATED_WORD_LENGTH];
int y;
char *s2;
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < nbSymbols; i++){
y = symbols[i];
s2 = getElementSymbol(y);
strcat(s1, s2);
}
printf("%s ", s1);
}
Firstly, your s1 is not initialized. strcat function append a new string to an existing string. This means that your s1 has to be a string from the very beginning. An uninitialized char array is not a string. A good idea would be to declare your s1 as
char s1[MAX_GENERATED_WORD_LENGTH] = { 0 };
or at least do
s1[0] = '\0';
before starting your cycle.
Secondly, your getElementSymbol function returns a char * pointer. Where does that pointer point to? Who manages the memory it points to? This is non-obvious from your code. It is possible that the function returns an invalid pointer (like a pointer to a local buffer), which is why might see various anomalies. There's no way to say without seeing how it is implemented.
strcat is supposed to append to a string. use strcpy if you want to overwrite the existing string. You could also use s1[0] = '\0'; before strcat to "blank" the string if you really want to, but looks like you really want strcpy.
From the snippet above it's not even clear why you need s1 - you could just print s2...
I'm reading K&R and I'm almost through the chapter on pointers. I'm not entirely sure if I'm going about using them the right way. I decided to try implementing itoa(n) using pointers. Is there something glaringly wrong about the way I went about doing it? I don't particularly like that I needed to set aside a large array to work as a string buffer in order to do anything, but then again, I'm not sure if that's actually the correct way to go about it in C.
Are there any general guidelines you like to follow when deciding to use pointers in your code? Is there anything I can improve on in the code below? Is there a way I can work with strings without a static string buffer?
/*Source file: String Functions*/
#include <stdio.h>
static char stringBuffer[500];
static char *strPtr = stringBuffer;
/* Algorithm: n % 10^(n+1) / 10^(n) */
char *intToString(int n){
int p = 1;
int i = 0;
while(n/p != 0)
p*=10, i++;
for(;p != 1; p/=10)
*(strPtr++) = ((n % p)/(p/10)) + '0';
*strPtr++ = '\0';
return strPtr - i - 1;
}
int main(){
char *s[3] = {intToString(123), intToString(456), intToString(78910)};
printf("%s\n",s[2]);
int x = stringToInteger(s[2]);
printf("%d\n", x);
return 0;
}
Lastly, can someone clarify for me what the difference between an array and a pointer is? There's a section in K&R that has me very confused about it; "5.5 - Character Pointers and Functions." I'll quote it here:
"There is an important difference between the definitions:
char amessage[] = "now is the time"; /*an array*/
char *pmessage = "now is the time"; /*a pointer*/
amessage is an array, just big enough to hold the sequence of characters and '\0' that
initializes it. Individual characters within the array may be changed but amessage will
always refer to the same storage. On the other hand, pmessage is a pointer, initialized
to point to a string constant; the pointer may subsequently be modified to point
elsewhere, but the result is undefined if you try to modify the string contents."
What does that even mean?
For itoa the length of a resulting string can't be greater than the length of INT_MAX + minus sign - so you'd be safe with a buffer of that length. The length of number string is easy to determine by using log10(number) + 1, so you'd need buffer sized log10(INT_MAX) + 3, with space for minus and terminating \0.
Also, generally it's not a good practice to return pointers to 'black box' buffers from functions. Your best bet here would be to provide a buffer as a pointer argument in intToString, so then you can easily use any type of memory you like (dynamic, allocated on stack, etc.). Here's an example:
char *intToString(int n, char *buffer) {
// ...
char *bufferStart = buffer;
for(;p != 1; p/=10)
*(buffer++) = ((n % p)/(p/10)) + '0';
*buffer++ = '\0';
return bufferStart;
}
Then you can use it as follows:
char *buffer1 = malloc(30);
char buffer2[15];
intToString(10, buffer1); // providing pointer to heap allocated memory as a buffer
intToString(20, &buffer2[0]); // providing pointer to statically allocated memory
what the difference between an array and a pointer is?
The answer is in your quote - a pointer can be modified to be pointing to another memory address. Compare:
int a[] = {1, 2, 3};
int b[] = {4, 5, 6};
int *ptrA = &a[0]; // the ptrA now contains pointer to a's first element
ptrA = &b[0]; // now it's b's first element
a = b; // it won't compile
Also, arrays are generally statically allocated, while pointers are suitable for any allocation mechanism.
Regarding your code:
You are using a single static buffer for every call to intToString: this is bad because the string produced by the first call to it will be overwritten by the next.
Generally, functions that handle strings in C should either return a new buffer from malloc, or they should write into a buffer provided by the caller. Allocating a new buffer is less prone to problems due to running out of buffer space.
You are also using a static pointer for the location to write into the buffer, and it never rewinds, so that's definitely a problem: enough calls to this function, and you will run off the end of the buffer and crash.
You already have an initial loop that calculates the number of digits in the function. So you should then just make a new buffer that big using malloc, making sure to leave space for the \0, write in to that, and return it.
Also, since i is not just a loop index, change it to something more obvious like length:
That is to say: get rid of the global variables, and instead after computing length:
char *s, *result;
// compute length
s = result = malloc(length+1);
if (!s) return NULL; // out of memory
for(;p != 1; p/=10)
*(s++) = ((n % p)/(p/10)) + '0';
*s++ = '\0';
return result;
The caller is responsible for releasing the buffer when they're done with it.
Two other things I'd really recommend while learning about pointers:
Compile with all warnings turned on (-Wall etc) and if you get an error try to understand what caused it; they will have things to teach you about how you're using the language
Run your program under Valgrind or some similar checker, which will make pointer bugs more obvious, rather than causing silent corruption
Regarding your last question:
char amessage[] = "now is the time"; - is an array. Arrays cannot be reassigned to point to something else (unlike pointers), it points to a fixed address in memory. If the array was allocated in a block, it will be cleaned up at the end of the block (meaning you cannot return such an array from a function). You can however fiddle with the data inside the array as much as you like so long as you don't exceed the size of the array.
E.g. this is legal amessage[0] = 'N';
char *pmessage = "now is the time"; - is a pointer. A pointer points to a block in memory, nothing more. "now is the time" is a string literal, meaning it is stored inside the executable in a read only location. You cannot under any circumstances modify the data it is pointing to. You can however reassign the pointer to point to something else.
This is NOT legal -*pmessage = 'N'; - will segfault most likely (note that you can use the array syntax with pointers, *pmessage is equivalent to pmessage[0]).
If you compile it with gcc using the -S flag you can actually see "now is the time" stored in the read only part of the assembly executable.
One other thing to point out is that arrays decay to pointers when passed as arguments to a function. The following two declarations are equivalent:
void foo(char arr[]);
and
void foo(char* arr);
About how to use pointers and the difference between array and pointer, I recommend you read the "expert c programming" (http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp/0131774298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371439251&sr=8-1&keywords=expert+c+programming).
Better way to return strings from functions is to allocate dynamic memory (using malloc) and fill it with the required string...return this pointer to the calling function and then free it.
Sample code :
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
#define MAX_NAME_SIZE 20
char * func1()
{
char * c1= NULL;
c1 = (char*)malloc(sizeof(MAX_NAME_SIZE));
strcpy(c1,"John");
return c1;
}
main()
{
char * c2 = NULL;
c2 = func1();
printf("%s \n",c2);
free(c2);
}
And this works without the static strings.
I'm not used to C as I'm primarily a Java guy, with some knowledge of C++, so forgive me if this is a trivial question. I could not seem to find an answer while searching online.
I'm initializing a char array...
char tcp[50];
So that I can concatenate a const char and a char. In examples I saw an easy way to do this was by creating that empty char array and then using...
strcat(x,y);
To stick them together.
Problem is, printing out the blank char array when it is set to "50" gives me a result of:
X??|?
When I change it to...
char tcp[100];
And print it, its blank. Why is this?
The array contents are undefined, assuming it is a local (automatic) array.
Use:
char tcp[50] = "";
Or:
char tcp[50] = {0};
Or:
char tcp[50];
tcp[0] = 0;
Or:
char tcp[50];
memset(tcp, 0, sizeof(tcp));
As you like.
Always null terminate you char arrays before doing anything:
tcp[0] = '\0';
C happily allocates the space for the array you declare, but it does not set its content to 0.
Therefore, the content of the array you're printing is random (or rather depending in the previous contents of the memory)
When creating an array, the compiler puts it somewhere in memory but does not initialize it, so whatever is in that memory when the program is started will be the initial "string".
Terminate the string manually after you created the array, either by making the whole array "zeroed" out, or just put zero as the first character:
char tcp[50] = { '\0' };
Or
char tcp[50];
/* ... */
tcp[0] = '\0';
The difference here is, you're essentially working with two empty arrays trying to merge them in the memory space of one (not sure if that makes sense for you).
First of all, in C you have to terminate strings with \0. That's something not exposed or visible in Java. Also you essentially used two undefined strings (as there's no value set).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
char target[256];
const char source_a[] = "Hello";
const char source_b[] = "World!";
int void(main)
{
target[0] = '\0'; // this essentially empties the string as we set the first entry to be the end. Depending on your language version of C, you might as well write "char target[256] = {'\0'};" above.
strcat(target, source_a); // append the first string/char array
strcat(target, " "); // append a const string literal
strcat(target, source_b); // append the second string
printf("%s\n", target);
return 0;
}
Important: Using strcat() can be unsave, as there's no length check performed, and other than Java, these "strings" have a fixed length (the one you set when defining the variables). If there's no length given, but you copy a string on initialization, that length is taken (e.g. char test[] = "Hello!"; will be 7 chars long (due to terminating \0)).
If you'd like a more Java like approach on strings, use C++ and the std::string class, that performs a lot more similar to Java's strings.
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.