Values in array of structs turning into garbage values - c

I have an issue that's really confusing me... Below I am calling an initialize function:
void Initialize (List *L) {
char* initialize = "initialize";
int i;
for (i=0; i<MAXLISTSIZE; i++) {
strncpy(L->items[i].name,initialize,MAXNAMESIZE);
L->items[i].name[MAXNAMESIZE - 1] = '\0';
L->items[i].grade = 0;
printf("L->items[i].name = %s\n", L->items[i].name);
printf("L->items[i].grade = %d\n", L->items[i].grade);
}
L->count = 0;
}
And it seems to work, I print the values in the loop and it's fine. If I also print inside an identical loop in main to double check it works as well but If I just print the values in main after the initialize function (no print statements in Initialize) I get complete garbage.
It seems the memory I'm storing my values in isn't staying consistent and I can't figure out why.
Do I need to malloc memory for the structs? Since I don't need a variable amount of storage I thought it was not necessary... I am unsure of how to go about that.
My Structs:
typedef Student Item;
#define MAXLISTSIZE 4
typedef struct {
Item items[MAXLISTSIZE];
int count;
} List;
#define MAXNAMESIZE 20
typedef struct {
char name[MAXNAMESIZE];
int grade;
} Student;
I am simply calling Initialize from main:
int main () {
List *newList;
/*call initialize function*/
newList = callInitialize();
return 0;
}
callInitialize:
List *callInitialize () {
List *L;
List studentList;
L = &studentList;
Initialize(L);
return L;
}

Now that you posted the function that causes the actual problem, we see what's wrong: You are returning the address of a local variable that goes out of scope! This is not valid.
List * foo()
{
List x; // <--- x comes to life
return &x; // <--- x dies here...
}
int main()
{
List * p = foo(); // ... but its address is used here!
p->name ... // dereferencing an invalid address!!
}
Your situation calls for dynamic (or "manual") allocation, which means memory allocation whose lifetime is controlled only by you, and not by the local scope.
List * initList()
{
return malloc(sizeof(List)); // this memory is permanent
}
Any manual allocation needs to come with a clean-up routine:
void freeList(List * p)
{
free(p);
}

Now that you've posted the remainder of your code, the problem is obvious:
List *callInitialize () {
List *L;
List studentList;
L = &studentList;
Initialize(L);
return L;
}
Within this function you create a local variable studentList which you the pass to Initialize to set it up.
Unfortunately, the scope of the studentList variable ends when you exit the callInitialize function. That's why it may contain rubbish when you attempt to use it later on.
Despite your comment about not needing malloc because the structure is small, you do need it if you want the scope of the data to exist beyond the function it's created in.
Probably the "minimal-change" solution would be:
List *callInitialize (void) {
List *L = malloc (sizeof (List));
if (L != NULL)
Initialize(&L);
return L;
}
and then remember that it needs to be freed at some point by the caller, unless the malloc fails and this function therefore returns NULL.

Related

I can alter a struct member from one location but not from the other

I am trying to implement a linked list in C - starting simple, with one list containing one node. However, I stumble upon some issues when trying to add data to the node. Here's my implementation thus far:
struct mylist_node {
int data;
};
struct mylist {
struct mylist_node *head_pt;
};
void mylist_init(struct mylist* l){
struct mylist_node head_node;
head_node.data = 5; //First try
l->head_pt = &head_node;
l->head_pt->data = 5; //Second try
};
And my main method:
int main()
{
struct mylist ml, *ml_pointer;
ml_pointer = &ml;
mylist_init(ml_pointer);
printf("%d\n", ml_pointer->head_pt->data);
ml_pointer->head_pt->data = 4;
printf("%d\n", ml_pointer->head_pt->data);
return 0;
}
This should print out
5
4
If my knowledge of pointers is correct. However, it prints out
0
4
As you can see I try to set the node data twice within the mylist_init method. Neither appears to be working - meanwhile, writing to and reading from it from my main method works just fine. What am I doing wrong?
In mylist_init, you're storing the address of a local variable in the struct pointed to by l. That variable goes out of scope when the function returns, so the memory it occupied is no longer valid, and thus the pointer that previously pointed to it now points to an invalid location. Returning the address of a local variable a dereferencing that address invokes undefined behavior.
Your function needs to allocate memory dynamically using malloc so the memory will still be valid when the function returns.
void mylist_init(struct mylist* l){
struct mylist_node *head_node = malloc(sizeof(*head_node));
l->head_pt = head_node;
l->head_pt->data = 5;
};
Also, don't forget to free the memory when you're done using it.
For starters, you have to allocate memory for your node, the way you were doing it, your node is a local variable on the stack which will likely get overwritten after the function exits.
void mylist_init(struct mylist* l)
{
struct mylist_node *head_node = (struct mylist_node *)malloc(sizeof(struct mylist_node));
head_node.data = 5; //First try
l->head_pt = head_node;
};

C language: why do these two printf statements print different things

#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
int data;
char * string;
}Node;
Node * init(){
Node node;
node.data = 5;
node.string = "hello";
Node * point = &node;
return point;
}
int main() {
Node * test = init();
printf("%d\n", test->data);
printf("%d", test->data);
}
Why do the last two printf statements produce different results. I suspect is has something to do with how I assigned my test pointer, but I don't know how to fix it.
In your case, node is a variable local to the function init() and yet, you return the address of this. So, once the function is returned, there's no existence of node anymore.
After the function returns accessing the return value is accessing invalid memory which causes undefined behavior.
You can, however, return the structure variable itself, not a pointer to it and collect the return value in the caller in another variable, it'll work out.
Yes, your code has undefined behavior on account of returning a pointer to a function local object. But it seems your approach is misguided to begin with. Your init function is supposed to initialize a structure with a proper initial value, there's no need to return a pointer to do this. You have three options:
Return by value, like another answer suggested.
Pass the address of a structure for the function to initialize. This frees up the return value, so you can signal success or failure:
bool init(Node *node) { // must include stdbool.h
if(!node)
return false;
node->data = 5;
node->string = "hello";
return true;
}
//...
Node test;
if(!init(&test)) {
//failed to initialize, handle the error
}
Forgo the function entirely and supply a macro that stands for the nodes initial value:
#define NODE_INIT_VAL { \
.data = 5, .string = "hello", \
}
This allows you to simply write Node test = NODE_INIT_VAL;. It's also how you'd prefer to initialize any objects with static storage duration.
node is defined as local variable in the function init() so it's memory is freed after the function returns.
You should either define node as global variable (I don't like globals :-)) or allocate memory by calling malloc.
node = malloc(sizeof(Node));
Don't forget to free the memory if you no longer need node.
Update init() to return struct:
Node init(){
Node node;
node.data = 5;
node.string = "hello";
return node;
}
then access it like the following :
Node testNode = init();
printf("%d\n", testNode.data);
printf("%d", testNode.data);
Or if you want to use pointer like this :
Node testNode = init();
Node* pointerToNode = &testNode;
printf("%d\n", pointerToNode->data);
printf("%d", pointerToNode->data);
And the reason for this is as #Sourav answered that the data will be no longer valid.
Hope this is useful.

why and when is a double-pointer required?

I have been a sysadmin most of my life, but recently decided to practice some my dev knowledge and attempt a devops position. I have as such been practicing some C and Python skills and wrote some code for inserting a number into a linked list.
void list_insert(struct list *h, int d)
{
struct list *elem = malloc(sizeof(struct list));
elem->data = d;
elem->next = NULL;
if (!h) {
h = elem;
} else {
elem->next = h;
h = elem;
}
}
I noticed that this function doesn't seem to alter the outside view of the variable h (i.e whatever is passed to list_insert) and I noticed that printing at the end of the insert function seems to work. So having tried to look for answers online, I couldn't find anything, obvious but I found most list implementations would have double-pointers. I changed my function to use double-pointers and then it suddenly started working. Could someone help me understand what's happening here as I know pointer management is an important concept and I think I understand what a pointer is and how it relates to memory, but I don't think I get why a single pointer does not get changed, whereas a double-pointer does.
Thanks!
In C, arguments to function are passed by values. Even pointers are passed by values.
For example:
#include<malloc.h>
#include<stdio.h>
int allocatingMemory(int* ptr)
{
ptr = malloc(sizeof(int));
if(ptr==NULL)
return -1;
else
return 0;
}// We are not returning the pointer to allocated memory
int main(void)
{
int* ptr;
int allocated = allocatingMemory(ptr);
if(allocated == 0)
{
*ptr = 999;// Boom!!!
free(ptr);
}
return 0;
}
To overcome this issue, we use
int allocatingMemory(int** ptr)
{
*ptr = malloc(sizeof(int));
if(*ptr == NULL)
return -1;
else
return 0;
}
int main(void)
{
int* ptr;
int isAllocated = allocatingMemory(&ptr);
if(isAllocated == 0)
{
*ptr = 999;
free(ptr);
}
return 0;
}
If you are working with linked lists and say for example, you want to modify the head. You will pass a pointer to pointer (Note that, it is not called as double pointer) to head node.
To change memory in the caller's context, a function needs to have a pointer to that memory.
If the caller of your function has an empty list in a variable, and does an insert on that list like so:
struct list *numbers = NULL;
list_insert(numbers, 4711);
then of course inside list_insert() all we have is the NULL pointer, so we can't change the value of the variable numbers in the caller's context.
If, on the other hand, we're given a pointer to the variable, we can change the variable.
That said, it's much cleaner (in my opinion) to return the new head of the list, i.e. make the function's signature be struct list * list_insert(struct list *head, int x);.
h is actually a copy of the original pointer, so your original pointer doesnot get modified. That is why you should use a double pointer.
There are numerous questions related to that on SO. for example Using single versus double pointers in Linked lists implemented in C

c - creating a linked list without malloc

in order to create a linked list(which will contain an attribute of next and previous node),i will be using pointers for the 2 next and previous nodes,yet i was wondering if i could complete the code without using malloc(allocating memory):
for example:
instead of malloc-ing:
link *const l = (link *)malloc(sizeof(link));
if(l == NULL)
/* Handle allocation failure. */
...
l->data = d;
l->next = list->head;
head = l;
can i simply create a new link variable with the attributes formatted(value,pointer to next and previous link),and simply link the last link in my last link in the chain to this one?
my list file is b,for example.
link i;
i.date=d;
getlast(b).next=&i
i appologize ahead for the fact i am new to c,and will be more than glad to receive an honest solution :D
edit:
i tried using malloc to solve the matter.i will be glad if anyone could sort out my error in the code,as i can not seem to find it.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
struct Node{
int value;
struct Node * Next;
struct Node * Previous;
};
typedef struct Node Node;
struct List{
int Count;
int Total;
Node * First;
Node * Last;
};
typedef struct List List;
List Create();
void Add(List a,int value);
void Remove(List a,Node * b);
List Create()
{
List a;
a.Count=0;
return a;
}
void Add(List a,int value)
{
Node * b = (Node *)malloc(sizeof(Node));
if(b==NULL)
printf("Memory allocation error \n");
b->value=value;
if(a.Count==0)
{
b->Next=NULL;
b->Previous=NULL;
a.First=b;
}
else
{
b->Next=NULL;
b->Previous=a.Last;
a.Last->Next=b;
}
++a.Count;
a.Total+=value;
a.Last=b;
}
void Remove(List a,Node * b)
{
if(a.Count>1)
{
if(a.Last==b)
{
b->Previous->Next=NULL;
}
else
{
b->Previous->Next=b->Next;
b->Next->Previous=b->Previous;
}
}
free(b);
}
Yes - you can do that.
e.g.
link l1,l2;
l1.next = &l2;
l2.next = NULL;
Is a perfectly fine and valid linked list of 2 nodes.
You could also create a bunch of nodes, and link them together based on your needs, e.g. create a linked list of the argv:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
int i;
link links[100];
for (i = 0; i < argc && i < 100; i++) {
//assuming the nodes can hold a char*
links[i].data = argv[i];
links[i].next = NULL;
if (i > 0)
links[i-1].next = &links[i];
}
There are of course some drawbacks:
The number of nodes is determined at compile time in these examples. (in the last example one could malloc a buffer for argc
nodes instead of hardcoding 100 though)
The lifetime of these nodes are the scope they are declared in, they no longer exists when the scope ends.
So you cannot do something like this:
void append_link(link *n, char *data)
{
link new_link;
n->next = &new_link;
new_link.next = NULL;
new_link.data = data;
}
That is invalid, since when append_link ends, the new_link is gone. And the passed in n->next now points to a local variable that is invalid. If new_link instead was malloc'ed, it will live beyond this function - and all is ok.
Not really.
You could create a variable for each and every node in your list, but what happens when you want another node? Fifty more nodes? These variables also won't hang around after you've left the scope they were defined in, which means you'd either have to make everything global or use static storage and expose a pointer to them. This means that all pointers to them after that scope will be invalid. These are both very ugly solutions.
If you don't understand what I mean by scope, here's a quick example:
int main() { /* Entering function scope. */
int x = 5;
{ /* Entering block scope. */
int y = 7;
printf("%d\n", y);
} /* Exiting block scope, all variables of this scope are gone. (y) */
printf("%d %d\n", x, y); /* Won't compile because y doesn't exist here. */
} /* Exiting function scope, all non-static storage variables are gone. (x)
You could also create a global array, thinking that this gets around having a lot of different variables, but if your solution is to implement this using an array, why are you using a linked list and not an array? You've lost the benefits of a linked list by this point.
There are only two ways in C to create in-memory data structures that don't have a fixed-at-compile-time size:
with allocated storage duration, i.e. via malloc.
with automatic storage duration, which in terms of implementation, means "on the stack", either using variable-length arrays or recursion (so that you get a new instance at each level of recursion).
The latter (automatic storage) has the property that its lifetime ends when execution of the block where it's declared terminates, so it's difficult to use for long-lived data. There's also typically a bound on the amount of such storage you can obtain, and no way to detect when you've exceeded that bound (typically this results in a crash or memory corruption). So from a practical standpoint, malloc is the only way to make runtime-dynamic-sized data structures.
Note that in cases where your linked list does not need to have dynamic size (i.e. it's of fixed or bounded size) you can use static storage duration for it, too.
Memory for new nodes has to come from somwhere. You can certainly create individual variables and link them manually:
link a, b, c;
...
a.next = &b;
b.next = &c;
c.next = NULL;
As you can imagine, this approach doesn't scale; if you want more than 3 elements in your list, you'd have to allocate more than 3 link variables. Note that the following won't work:
void addToList( link *b )
{
link new;
...
b->next = &new;
}
because new ceases to exist when the addToList exits, so that pointer is no longer meaningful1.
What you can do is use an array of link as your "heap", and allocate from that array. You'll need to keep track of which elements are available for use; an easy way of doing that is initializing the array so that each a[i] points to a[i+1] (except for the last element, which points to NULL), then have a pointer which points to the first available element. Something like the following:
// You really want your "heap" to have static storage duration
static link a[HEAP_SIZE];
// Initialize the "heap"
for ( size_t i = 0; i < SIZE - 1; i++ )
a[i].next = &a[i+1];
a[i].next = NULL;
// Set up the freeList pointer; points to the first available element in a
link *freeList = &a[0];
// Get an element from the "heap"
link *newNode = freeList;
freeList = freeList->next;
newNode->next = NULL;
// Add a node back to the "heap" when you're done with it:
deletedNode->next = freeList;
freeList = deletedNode;
Again, you're limited in how many list nodes you can create, but this way you can create a large enough "heap" to satisfy your requirements.
1. Obviously, the phsyical memory location that new occupied still exists, but it's now free for other processes/threads to use, so the value contained in that address will no longer be what you expect.

How is this statically allocated struct data available outside the function?

Here is a quick test C program that I've coded to see how struct memory allocation works...
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct _node {
int kk;
int zz;
} node;
node ** createNode(){
node** res = (node**) malloc(sizeof(node*)*10);
int i,j;
for(i= 0;i<10;i++){
res[i] = (node*) malloc(sizeof(node)*10);
for(j=0;j<10;j++){
res[i][j].kk=33;
}
}
return res;
}
int main(void) {
node ** g = createNode();
printf("%d",g[0][0].kk);
return 0;
}
This program prints the value "33". Now this has become obvious to me, but reflecting on it, I don't understand why...
Now that I think about it, shouldn't the variable g be of type node *** ?
And the print statement look something like printf("%d",g[0][0]->kk); ?
Where in the second version, I've essentially done the same thing as my original code, but I have a pointer to a node instead of the actual node.
What is the difference between the two in terms of the first being statically allocated (I think) and the second being dynamically allocated... and shouldn't the node values I created in my createNode() function be destroyed once outside the scope of that function?
Just a little confused is all :S I need someone to clarify this for me, what is the difference between node** and node***
Let's use a simpler function to make samples. For example we want to create a function which will be allocate memory for integer and assign some value. The function does the same thing as your one.
int* createInt() {
int *res = malloc(sizeof(int));
*res = 5;
return res;
}
This function creates a pointer and allocate dynamic memory for int. After this the function returns an address of memory where the int is but the res pointer won't exist. By the way look at this answer to similar question, it's worth reading.
As you understand in main function you use
int *myInt = createInt();
Because you want to assign an address of allocated memory to pointer to deal with that and free after all.
But you could do this
int** createInt() {
static int *res;
res = malloc(sizeof(int));
*res = 5;
return &res;
}
And in main
int **myInt = createInt();
Here you do the same things as above but create static pointer so it is retained from one call of the function to another. So you can return an address of this pointer. It will point to actual data after function ends.
As mentioned in comments my code isn't safe because if you call this function twice it leads to memory leak. You could do
int* createSingletonInt() {
static int *res;
if (res != NULL) {
return res;
}
res = malloc(sizeof(int));
*res = 5;
return res;
}
That can be useful if you want to deal with the same int. And more useful if you deal with something but not int :>
I think it can be applied to your example.

Resources