Related
The following code compiled fine yesterday for a while, started giving the abort trap: 6 error at one point, then worked fine again for a while, and again started giving the same error. All the answers I've looked up deal with strings of some fixed specified length. I'm not very experienced in programming so any help as to why this is happening is appreciated. (The code is for computing the Zeckendorf representation.)
If I simply use printf to print the digits one by one instead of using strings the code works fine.
#include <string.h>
// helper function to compute the largest fibonacci number <= n
// this works fine
void maxfib(int n, int *index, int *fib) {
int fib1 = 0;
int fib2 = 1;
int new = fib1 + fib2;
*index = 2;
while (new <= n) {
fib1 = fib2;
fib2 = new;
new = fib1 + fib2;
(*index)++;
if (new == n) {
*fib = new;
}
}
*fib = fib2;
(*index)--;
}
char *zeckendorf(int n) {
int index;
int newindex;
int fib;
char *ans = ""; // I'm guessing the error is coming from here
while (n > 0) {
maxfib(n, &index, &fib);
n -= fib;
maxfib(n, &newindex, &fib);
strcat(ans, "1");
for (int j = index - 1; j > newindex; j--) {
strcat(ans, "0");
}
}
return ans;
}
Your guess is quite correct:
char *ans = ""; // I'm guessing the error is coming from here
That makes ans point to a read-only array of one character, whose only element is the string terminator. Trying to append to this will write out of bounds and give you undefined behavior.
One solution is to dynamically allocate memory for the string, and if you don't know the size beforehand then you need to reallocate to increase the size. If you do this, don't forget to add space for the string terminator, and to free the memory once you're done with it.
Basically, you have two approaches when you want to receive a string from function in C
Caller allocates buffer (either statically or dynamically) and passes it to the callee as a pointer and size. Callee writes data to buffer. If it fits, it returns success as a status. If it does not fit, returns error. You may decide that in such case either buffer is untouched or it contains all data fitting in the size. You can choose whatever suits you better, just document it properly for future users (including you in future).
Callee allocates buffer dynamically, fills the buffer and returns pointer to the buffer. Caller must free the memory to avoid memory leak.
In your case the zeckendorf() function can determine how much memory is needed for the string. The index of first Fibonacci number less than parameter determines the length of result. Add 1 for terminating zero and you know how much memory you need to allocate.
So, if you choose first approach, you need to pass additional two parameters to zeckendorf() function: char *buffer and int size and write to the buffer instead of ans. And you need to have some marker to know if it's first iteration of the while() loop. If it is, after maxfib(n, &index, &fib); check the condition index+1<=size. If condition is true, you can proceed with your function. If not, you can return error immediately.
For second approach initialize the ans as:
char *ans = NULL;
after maxfib(n, &index, &fib); add:
if(ans==NULL) {
ans=malloc(index+1);
}
and continue as you did. Return ans from function. Remember to call free() in caller, when result is no longer needed to avoid memory leak.
In both cases remember to write the terminating \0 to buffer.
There is also a third approach. You can declare ans as:
static char ans[20];
inside zeckendorf(). Function shall behave as in first approach, but the buffer and its size is already hardcoded. I recommend to #define BUFSIZE 20 and either declare variable as static char ans[BUFSIZE]; and use BUFSIZE when checking available size. Please be aware that it works only in single threaded environment. And every call to zeckendorf() will overwrite the previous result. Consider following code.
char *a,*b;
a=zeckendorf(10);
b=zeckendorf(15);
printf("%s\n",a);
printf("%s\n",b);
The zeckendorf() function always return the same pointer. So a and b would pointer to the same buffer, where the string for 15 would be stored. So, you either need to store the result somewhere, or do processing in proper order:
a=zeckendorf(10);
printf("%s\n",a);
b=zeckendorf(15);
printf("%s\n",b);
As a rule of thumb majority (if not all) Linux standard C library function uses either first or third approach.
I am learning C language. I want to know the size of an array inside a function. This function receive a pointer pointing to the first element to the array. I don't want to send the size value like a function parameter.
My code is:
#include <stdio.h>
void ShowArray(short* a);
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
short vec[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
short* p = &vec[0];
ShowArray(p);
return 0;
}
void ShowArray(short* a)
{
short i = 0;
while( *(a + i) != NULL )
{
printf("%hd ", *(a + i) );
++i;
}
printf("\n");
}
My code doesn't show any number. How can I fix it?
Thanks.
Arrays in C are simply ways to allocate contiguous memory locations and are not "objects" as you might find in other languages. Therefore, when you allocate an array (e.g. int numbers[5];) you're specifying how much physical memory you want to reserve for your array.
However, that doesn't tell you how many valid entries you have in the (conceptual) list for which the physical array is being used at any specific point in time.
Therefore, you're required to keep the actual length of the "list" as a separate variable (e.g. size_t numbers_cnt = 0;).
I don't want to send the size value like a function parameter.
Since you don't want to do this, one alternative is to use a struct and build an array type yourself. For example:
struct int_array_t {
int *data;
size_t length;
};
This way, you could use it in a way similar to:
struct int_array_t array;
array.data = // malloc for array data here...
array.length = 0;
// ...
some_function_call(array); // send the "object", not multiple arguments
Now you don't have to write: some_other_function(data, length);, which is what you originally wanted to avoid.
To work with it, you could simply do something like this:
void display_array(struct int_array_t array)
{
size_t i;
printf("[");
for(i = 0; i < array.length; ++i)
printf("%d, ", array.data[i]);
printf("]\n");
}
I think this is a better and more reliable alternative than another suggestion of trying to fill the array with sentinel values (e.g. -1), which would be more difficult to work with in non-trivial programs (e.g. understand, maintain, debug, etc) and, AFAIK, is not considered good practice either.
For example, your current array is an array of shorts, which would mean that the proposed sentinel value of -1 can no longer be considered a valid entry within this array. You'd also need to zero out everything in the memory block, just in case some of those sentinels were already present in the allocated memory.
Lastly, as you use it, it still wouldn't tell you what the actual length of your array is. If you don't track this in a separate variable, then you'll have to calculate the length at runtime by looping over all the data in your array until you come across a sentinel value (e.g. -1), which is going to impact performance.
In other words, to find the length, you'd have to do something like:
size_t len = 0;
while(arr[len++] != -1); // this is O(N)
printf("Length is %u\n", len);
The strlen function already suffers from this performance problem, having a time-complexity of O(N), because it has to process the entire string until it finds the NULL char to return the length.
Relying on sentinel values is also unsafe and has produced countless bugs and security vulnerabilities in C and C++ programs, to the point where even Microsoft recommends banning their use as a way to help prevent more security holes.
I think there's no need to create this kind of problem. Compare the above, with simply writing:
// this is O(1), does not rely on sentinels, and makes a program safer
printf("Length is %u\n", array.length);
As you add/remove elements into array.data you can simply write array.length++ or array.length-- to keep track of the actual amount of valid entries. All of these are constant-time operations.
You should also keep the maximum size of the array (what you used in malloc) around so that you can make sure that array.length never goes beyond said limit. Otherwise you'd get a segfault.
One way, is to use a terminator that is unique from any value in the array. For example, you want to pass an array of ints. You know that you never use the value -1. So you can use that as your terminator:
#define TERM (-1)
void print(int *arr)
{
for (; *arr != TERM; ++arr)
printf("%d\n", *arr);
}
But this approach is usually not used, because the sentinel could be a valid number. So normally, you will have to pass the length.
You can't use sizeof inside of the function, because as soon as you pass the array, it decays into a pointer to the first element. Thus, sizeof arr will be the size of a pointer on your machine.
#include <stdio.h>
void ShowArray(short* a);
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
short vec[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
short* p = &vec[0];
ShowArray(p);
return 0;
}
void ShowArray(short* a)
{
short i = 0;
short j;
j = sizeof(*a) / sizeof(short);
while( i < j )
{
printf("%hd ", *(a + i) );
++i;
}
printf("\n");
}
Not sure if this will work tho give it a try (I don't have a pc at the moment)
I've allocated an "array" of mystruct of size n like this:
if (NULL == (p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n,1))) {
/* handle error */
}
Later on, I only have access to p, and no longer have n. Is there a way to determine the length of the array given just the pointer p?
I figure it must be possible, since free(p) does just that. I know malloc() keeps track of how much memory it has allocated, and that's why it knows the length; perhaps there is a way to query for this information? Something like...
int length = askMallocLibraryHowMuchMemoryWasAlloced(p) / sizeof(mystruct)
I know I should just rework the code so that I know n, but I'd rather not if possible. Any ideas?
No, there is no way to get this information without depending strongly on the implementation details of malloc. In particular, malloc may allocate more bytes than you request (e.g. for efficiency in a particular memory architecture). It would be much better to redesign your code so that you keep track of n explicitly. The alternative is at least as much redesign and a much more dangerous approach (given that it's non-standard, abuses the semantics of pointers, and will be a maintenance nightmare for those that come after you): store the lengthn at the malloc'd address, followed by the array. Allocation would then be:
void *p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n + sizeof(unsigned long int),1));
*((unsigned long int*)p) = n;
n is now stored at *((unsigned long int*)p) and the start of your array is now
void *arr = p+sizeof(unsigned long int);
Edit: Just to play devil's advocate... I know that these "solutions" all require redesigns, but let's play it out.
Of course, the solution presented above is just a hacky implementation of a (well-packed) struct. You might as well define:
typedef struct {
unsigned int n;
void *arr;
} arrInfo;
and pass around arrInfos rather than raw pointers.
Now we're cooking. But as long as you're redesigning, why stop here? What you really want is an abstract data type (ADT). Any introductory text for an algorithms and data structures class would do it. An ADT defines the public interface of a data type but hides the implementation of that data type. Thus, publicly an ADT for an array might look like
typedef void* arrayInfo;
(arrayInfo)newArrayInfo(unsignd int n, unsigned int itemSize);
(void)deleteArrayInfo(arrayInfo);
(unsigned int)arrayLength(arrayInfo);
(void*)arrayPtr(arrayInfo);
...
In other words, an ADT is a form of data and behavior encapsulation... in other words, it's about as close as you can get to Object-Oriented Programming using straight C. Unless you're stuck on a platform that doesn't have a C++ compiler, you might as well go whole hog and just use an STL std::vector.
There, we've taken a simple question about C and ended up at C++. God help us all.
keep track of the array size yourself; free uses the malloc chain to free the block that was allocated, which does not necessarily have the same size as the array you requested
Just to confirm the previous answers: There is no way to know, just by studying a pointer, how much memory was allocated by a malloc which returned this pointer.
What if it worked?
One example of why this is not possible. Let's imagine the code with an hypothetic function called get_size(void *) which returns the memory allocated for a pointer:
typedef struct MyStructTag
{ /* etc. */ } MyStruct ;
void doSomething(MyStruct * p)
{
/* well... extract the memory allocated? */
size_t i = get_size(p) ;
initializeMyStructArray(p, i) ;
}
void doSomethingElse()
{
MyStruct * s = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) * 10) ; /* Allocate 10 items */
doSomething(s) ;
}
Why even if it worked, it would not work anyway?
But the problem of this approach is that, in C, you can play with pointer arithmetics. Let's rewrite doSomethingElse():
void doSomethingElse()
{
MyStruct * s = malloc(sizeof(MyStruct) * 10) ; /* Allocate 10 items */
MyStruct * s2 = s + 5 ; /* s2 points to the 5th item */
doSomething(s2) ; /* Oops */
}
How get_size is supposed to work, as you sent the function a valid pointer, but not the one returned by malloc. And even if get_size went through all the trouble to find the size (i.e. in an inefficient way), it would return, in this case, a value that would be wrong in your context.
Conclusion
There are always ways to avoid this problem, and in C, you can always write your own allocator, but again, it is perhaps too much trouble when all you need is to remember how much memory was allocated.
Some compilers provide msize() or similar functions (_msize() etc), that let you do exactly that
May I recommend a terrible way to do it?
Allocate all your arrays as follows:
void *blockOfMem = malloc(sizeof(mystruct)*n + sizeof(int));
((int *)blockofMem)[0] = n;
mystruct *structs = (mystruct *)(((int *)blockOfMem) + 1);
Then you can always cast your arrays to int * and access the -1st element.
Be sure to free that pointer, and not the array pointer itself!
Also, this will likely cause terrible bugs that will leave you tearing your hair out. Maybe you can wrap the alloc funcs in API calls or something.
malloc will return a block of memory at least as big as you requested, but possibly bigger. So even if you could query the block size, this would not reliably give you your array size. So you'll just have to modify your code to keep track of it yourself.
For an array of pointers you can use a NULL-terminated array. The length can then determinate like it is done with strings. In your example you can maybe use an structure attribute to mark then end. Of course that depends if there is a member that cannot be NULL. So lets say you have an attribute name, that needs to be set for every struct in your array you can then query the size by:
int size;
struct mystruct *cur;
for (cur = myarray; cur->name != NULL; cur++)
;
size = cur - myarray;
Btw it should be calloc(n, sizeof(struct mystruct)) in your example.
Other have discussed the limits of plain c pointers and the stdlib.h implementations of malloc(). Some implementations provide extensions which return the allocated block size which may be larger than the requested size.
If you must have this behavior you can use or write a specialized memory allocator. This simplest thing to do would be implementing a wrapper around the stdlib.h functions. Some thing like:
void* my_malloc(size_t s); /* Calls malloc(s), and if successful stores
(p,s) in a list of handled blocks */
void my_free(void* p); /* Removes list entry and calls free(p) */
size_t my_block_size(void* p); /* Looks up p, and returns the stored size */
...
really your question is - "can I find out the size of a malloc'd (or calloc'd) data block". And as others have said: no, not in a standard way.
However there are custom malloc implementations that do it - for example http://dmalloc.com/
I'm not aware of a way, but I would imagine it would deal with mucking around in malloc's internals which is generally a very, very bad idea.
Why is it that you can't store the size of memory you allocated?
EDIT: If you know that you should rework the code so you know n, well, do it. Yes it might be quick and easy to try to poll malloc but knowing n for sure would minimize confusion and strengthen the design.
One of the reasons that you can't ask the malloc library how big a block is, is that the allocator will usually round up the size of your request to meet some minimum granularity requirement (for example, 16 bytes). So if you ask for 5 bytes, you'll get a block of size 16 back. If you were to take 16 and divide by 5, you would get three elements when you really only allocated one. It would take extra space for the malloc library to keep track of how many bytes you asked for in the first place, so it's best for you to keep track of that yourself.
This is a test of my sort routine. It sets up 7 variables to hold float values, then assigns them to an array, which is used to find the max value.
The magic is in the call to myMax:
float mmax = myMax((float *)&arr,(int) sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]));
And that was magical, wasn't it?
myMax expects a float array pointer (float *) so I use &arr to get the address of the array, and cast it as a float pointer.
myMax also expects the number of elements in the array as an int. I get that value by using sizeof() to give me byte sizes of the array and the first element of the array, then divide the total bytes by the number of bytes in each element. (we should not guess or hard code the size of an int because it's 2 bytes on some system and 4 on some like my OS X Mac, and could be something else on others).
NOTE:All this is important when your data may have a varying number of samples.
Here's the test code:
#include <stdio.h>
float a, b, c, d, e, f, g;
float myMax(float *apa,int soa){
int i;
float max = apa[0];
for(i=0; i< soa; i++){
if (apa[i]>max){max=apa[i];}
printf("on i=%d val is %0.2f max is %0.2f, soa=%d\n",i,apa[i],max,soa);
}
return max;
}
int main(void)
{
a = 2.0;
b = 1.0;
c = 4.0;
d = 3.0;
e = 7.0;
f = 9.0;
g = 5.0;
float arr[] = {a,b,c,d,e,f,g};
float mmax = myMax((float *)&arr,(int) sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]));
printf("mmax = %0.2f\n",mmax);
return 0;
}
In uClibc, there is a MALLOC_SIZE macro in malloc.h:
/* The size of a malloc allocation is stored in a size_t word
MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE bytes prior to the start address of the allocation:
+--------+---------+-------------------+
| SIZE |(unused) | allocation ... |
+--------+---------+-------------------+
^ BASE ^ ADDR
^ ADDR - MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE
*/
/* The amount of extra space used by the malloc header. */
#define MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE \
(MALLOC_ALIGNMENT < sizeof (size_t) \
? sizeof (size_t) \
: MALLOC_ALIGNMENT)
/* Set up the malloc header, and return the user address of a malloc block. */
#define MALLOC_SETUP(base, size) \
(MALLOC_SET_SIZE (base, size), (void *)((char *)base + MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE))
/* Set the size of a malloc allocation, given the base address. */
#define MALLOC_SET_SIZE(base, size) (*(size_t *)(base) = (size))
/* Return base-address of a malloc allocation, given the user address. */
#define MALLOC_BASE(addr) ((void *)((char *)addr - MALLOC_HEADER_SIZE))
/* Return the size of a malloc allocation, given the user address. */
#define MALLOC_SIZE(addr) (*(size_t *)MALLOC_BASE(addr))
malloc() stores metadata regarding space allocation before 8 bytes from space actually allocated. This could be used to determine space of buffer. And on my x86-64 this always return multiple of 16. So if allocated space is multiple of 16 (which is in most cases) then this could be used:
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
int size_of_buff(void *buff) {
return ( *( ( int * ) buff - 2 ) - 17 ); // 32 bit system: ( *( ( int * ) buff - 1 ) - 17 )
}
void main() {
char *buff = malloc(1024);
printf("Size of Buffer: %d\n", size_of_buff(buff));
}
Output
Size of Buffer: 1024
This is my approach:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct _int_array
{
int *number;
int size;
} int_array;
int int_array_append(int_array *a, int n)
{
static char c = 0;
if(!c)
{
a->number = NULL;
a->size = 0;
c++;
}
int *more_numbers = NULL;
a->size++;
more_numbers = (int *)realloc(a->number, a->size * sizeof(int));
if(more_numbers != NULL)
{
a->number = more_numbers;
a->number[a->size - 1] = n;
}
else
{
free(a->number);
printf("Error (re)allocating memory.\n");
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int_array a;
int_array_append(&a, 10);
int_array_append(&a, 20);
int_array_append(&a, 30);
int_array_append(&a, 40);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < a.size; i++)
printf("%d\n", a.number[i]);
printf("\nLen: %d\nSize: %d\n", a.size, a.size * sizeof(int));
free(a.number);
return 0;
}
Output:
10
20
30
40
Len: 4
Size: 16
If your compiler supports VLA (variable length array), you can embed the array length into the pointer type.
int n = 10;
int (*p)[n] = malloc(n * sizeof(int));
n = 3;
printf("%d\n", sizeof(*p)/sizeof(**p));
The output is 10.
You could also choose to embed the information into the allocated memory yourself with a structure including a flexible array member.
struct myarray {
int n;
struct mystruct a[];
};
struct myarray *ma =
malloc(sizeof(*ma) + n * sizeof(struct mystruct));
ma->n = n;
struct mystruct *p = ma->a;
Then to recover the size, you would subtract the offset of the flexible member.
int get_size (struct mystruct *p) {
struct myarray *ma;
char *x = (char *)p;
ma = (void *)(x - offsetof(struct myarray, a));
return ma->n;
}
The problem with trying to peek into heap structures is that the layout might change from platform to platform or from release to release, and so the information may not be reliably obtainable.
Even if you knew exactly how to peek into the meta information maintained by your allocator, the information stored there may have nothing to do with the size of the array. The allocator simply returned memory that could be used to fit the requested size, but the actual size of the memory may be larger (perhaps even much larger) than the requested amount.
The only reliable way to know the information is to find a way to track it yourself.
I've just started learning C (coming from a C# background.) For my first program I decided to create a program to calculate factors. I need to pass a pointer in to a function and then update the corresponding variable.
I get the error 'Conflicting types for findFactors', I think that this is because I have not shown that I wish to pass a pointer as an argument when I declare the findFactors function. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int *findFactors(int, int);
int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
int numToFind;
do {
printf("Enter a number to find the factors of: ");
scanf("%d", &numToFind);
} while (numToFind > 100);
int factorCount;
findFactors(numToFind, &factorCount);
return 0;
}
int *findFactors(int input, int *numberOfFactors)
{
int *results = malloc(input);
int count = 0;
for (int counter = 2; counter < input; counter++) {
if (input % counter == 0){
results[count] = counter;
count++;
printf("%d is factor number %d\n", counter, count);
}
}
return results;
}
Change the declaration to match the definition:
int *findFactors(int, int *);
I apologise for adding yet another answer but I don't think anyone has covered every point that needs to be covered in your question.
1) Whenever you use malloc() to dynamically allocate some memory, you must also free() it when you're done. The operating system will, usually, tidy up after you, but consider that you have a process during your executable that uses some memory. When said process is done, if you free() that memory your process has more memory available. It's about efficiency.
To use free correctly:
int* somememory = malloc(sizeyouwant * sizeof(int));
// do something
free(somememory);
Easy.
2) Whenever you use malloc, as others have noted, the actual allocation is in bytes so you must do malloc(numofelements*sizeof(type));. There is another, less widely used, function called calloc that looks like this calloc(num, sizeof(type)); which is possibly easier to understand. calloc also initialises your memory to zero.
3) You do not need to cast the return type of malloc. I know a lot of programming books suggest you do and C++ mandates that you must (but in C++ you should be using new/delete). See this question.
4) Your function signature was indeed incorrect - function signatures must match their functions.
5) On returning pointers from functions, it is something I discourage but it isn't wrong per se. Two points to mention: always keep 1) in mind. I asked exactly what the problem was and it basically comes down to keeping track of those free() calls. As a more advanced user, there's also the allocator type to worry about.
Another point here, consider this function:
int* badfunction()
{
int x = 42;
int *y = &x;
return y;
}
This is bad, bad, bad. What happens here is that we create and return a pointer to x which only exists as long as you are in badfunction. When you return, you have an address to a variable that no longer exists because x is typically created on the stack. You'll learn more about that over time; for now, just think that the variable doesn't exist beyond its function.
Note that int* y = malloc(... is a different case - that memory is created on the heap because of the malloc and therefore survives the end of said function.
What would I recommend as a function signature? I would actually go with shybovycha's function with a slight modification:
int findFactors(int* factors, const int N);
My changes are just personal preference. I use const so that I know something is part of the input of a function. It isn't strictly necessary with just an int, but if you're passing in pointers, remember the source memory can be modified unless you use const before it, whereon your compiler should warn you if you try to modify it. So its just habit in this case.
Second change is that I prefer output parameters on the left because I always think that way around, i.e. output = func(input).
Why can you modify function arguments when a pointer is used? Because you've passed a pointer to a variable. This is just a memory address - when we "dereference" it (access the value at that address) we can modify it. Technically speaking C is strictly pass by value. Pointers are themselves variables containing memory addresses and the contents of those variables are copied to your function. So a normal variable (say int) is just a copy of whatever you passed in. int* factors is a copy of the address in the pointer variable you pass in. By design, both the original and this copy point to the same memory, so when we dereference them we can edit that memory in both the caller and the original function.
I hope that clears a few things up.
EDIT: no reference in C (C++ feature)
Don't forget to modify numberOfFactors in the method (or remove this parameter if not useful). The signature at the beginning of your file must also match the signature of the implementation at the end (that's the error you receive).
Finally, your malloc for results is not correct. You need to do this:
int *results = malloc(input * sizeof(int));
int* ip <- pointer to a an int
int** ipp <- pointer to a pointer to an int.
int *findFactors(int, int); line says you wanna return pointer from this function (it's better to use asteriks closer to the type name: int* moo(); - this prevents misunderstandings i think).
If you wanna dynamically change function argument (which is better way than just return pointer), you should just use argument as if you have this variable already.
And the last your mistake: malloc(X) allocates X bytes, so if you want to allocate memory for some array, you should use malloc(N * sizeof(T));, where N is the size of your array and T is its type. E.g.: if you wanna have int *a, you should do this: int *a = (int*) malloc(10 * sizeof(int));.
And now here's your code, fixed (as for me):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int findFactors(int, int*);
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int numToFind, *factors = 0, cnt = 0;
do
{
printf("Enter a number to find the factors of: ");
scanf("%d", &numToFind);
} while (numToFind > 100);
cnt = findFactors(numToFind, factors);
printf("%d has %d factors.\n", numToFind, cnt);
return 0;
}
int findFactors(int N, int* factors)
{
if (!factors)
factors = (int*) malloc(N * sizeof(int));
int count = 0;
for (int i = 2; i < N; i++)
{
if (N % i == 0)
{
factors[count++] = i;
printf("%d is factor number #%d\n", i, count);
}
}
return count;
}
Note: do not forget to initialize your pointers any time (as i did). If you do want to call function, passing a pointer as its argument, you must be sure it has value of 0 at least before function call. Otherwise you will get run-time error.
I know it could be done using malloc, but I do not know how to use it yet.
For example, I wanted the user to input several numbers using an infinite loop with a sentinel to put a stop into it (i.e. -1), but since I do not know yet how many he/she will input, I have to declare an array with no initial size, but I'm also aware that it won't work like this int arr[]; at compile time since it has to have a definite number of elements.
Declaring it with an exaggerated size like int arr[1000]; would work but it feels dumb (and waste memory since it would allocate that 1000 integer bytes into the memory) and I would like to know a more elegant way to do this.
This can be done by using a pointer, and allocating memory on the heap using malloc.
Note that there is no way to later ask how big that memory block is. You have to keep track of the array size yourself.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
/* declare a pointer do an integer */
int *data;
/* we also have to keep track of how big our array is - I use 50 as an example*/
const int datacount = 50;
data = malloc(sizeof(int) * datacount); /* allocate memory for 50 int's */
if (!data) { /* If data == 0 after the call to malloc, allocation failed for some reason */
perror("Error allocating memory");
abort();
}
/* at this point, we know that data points to a valid block of memory.
Remember, however, that this memory is not initialized in any way -- it contains garbage.
Let's start by clearing it. */
memset(data, 0, sizeof(int)*datacount);
/* now our array contains all zeroes. */
data[0] = 1;
data[2] = 15;
data[49] = 66; /* the last element in our array, since we start counting from 0 */
/* Loop through the array, printing out the values (mostly zeroes, but even so) */
for(int i = 0; i < datacount; ++i) {
printf("Element %d: %d\n", i, data[i]);
}
}
That's it. What follows is a more involved explanation of why this works :)
I don't know how well you know C pointers, but array access in C (like array[2]) is actually a shorthand for accessing memory via a pointer. To access the memory pointed to by data, you write *data. This is known as dereferencing the pointer. Since data is of type int *, then *data is of type int. Now to an important piece of information: (data + 2) means "add the byte size of 2 ints to the adress pointed to by data".
An array in C is just a sequence of values in adjacent memory. array[1] is just next to array[0]. So when we allocate a big block of memory and want to use it as an array, we need an easy way of getting the direct adress to every element inside. Luckily, C lets us use the array notation on pointers as well. data[0] means the same thing as *(data+0), namely "access the memory pointed to by data". data[2] means *(data+2), and accesses the third int in the memory block.
The way it's often done is as follows:
allocate an array of some initial (fairly small) size;
read into this array, keeping track of how many elements you've read;
once the array is full, reallocate it, doubling the size and preserving (i.e. copying) the contents;
repeat until done.
I find that this pattern comes up pretty frequently.
What's interesting about this method is that it allows one to insert N elements into an empty array one-by-one in amortized O(N) time without knowing N in advance.
Modern C, aka C99, has variable length arrays, VLA. Unfortunately, not all compilers support this but if yours does this would be an alternative.
Try to implement dynamic data structure such as a linked list
Here's a sample program that reads stdin into a memory buffer that grows as needed. It's simple enough that it should give some insight in how you might handle this kind of thing. One thing that's would probably be done differently in a real program is how must the array grows in each allocation - I kept it small here to help keep things simpler if you wanted to step through in a debugger. A real program would probably use a much larger allocation increment (often, the allocation size is doubled, but if you're going to do that you should probably 'cap' the increment at some reasonable size - it might not make sense to double the allocation when you get into the hundreds of megabytes).
Also, I used indexed access to the buffer here as an example, but in a real program I probably wouldn't do that.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void fatal_error(void);
int main( int argc, char** argv)
{
int buf_size = 0;
int buf_used = 0;
char* buf = NULL;
char* tmp = NULL;
char c;
int i = 0;
while ((c = getchar()) != EOF) {
if (buf_used == buf_size) {
//need more space in the array
buf_size += 20;
tmp = realloc(buf, buf_size); // get a new larger array
if (!tmp) fatal_error();
buf = tmp;
}
buf[buf_used] = c; // pointer can be indexed like an array
++buf_used;
}
puts("\n\n*** Dump of stdin ***\n");
for (i = 0; i < buf_used; ++i) {
putchar(buf[i]);
}
free(buf);
return 0;
}
void fatal_error(void)
{
fputs("fatal error - out of memory\n", stderr);
exit(1);
}
This example combined with examples in other answers should give you an idea of how this kind of thing is handled at a low level.
One way I can imagine is to use a linked list to implement such a scenario, if you need all the numbers entered before the user enters something which indicates the loop termination. (posting as the first option, because have never done this for user input, it just seemed to be interesting. Wasteful but artistic)
Another way is to do buffered input. Allocate a buffer, fill it, re-allocate, if the loop continues (not elegant, but the most rational for the given use-case).
I don't consider the described to be elegant though. Probably, I would change the use-case (the most rational).