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.
Related
I'm new to the C programming language and beginning to mess around with pointers and allocating memory to objects. I wanted to make a simple program that would read in (x) elements from the user and simply print them out using functions.
This was my inital code at the beginning. The code was reading in the user input properly but it gave the wrong output and crashed when displaying elements within the main function.
int main() {
int *myArr;
int myArrSize;
getInputArr(&myArrSize, &myArr);
for (int i = 0; i < myArrSize; i++) {
printf("Element No.%i: %i\n", i, myArr[i]);
}
free(myArr);
return 0;
}
void getInputArr(int *arrSize, int *arr) {
printf("Please Enter Length of Array: \n");
scanf("%i", arrSize);
arr = (int *) malloc(*arrSize * sizeof(int));
printf("Enter %i Numbers!\n", *arrSize);
for (int i = 0; i < *arrSize; i++) {
scanf("%i", &arr[i]);
}
}
After messing around, I finally got it to work using double pointers but I am unsure how it completely works, could someone explain why the code below behaves as expected?
int main() {
int *myArr;
int myArrSize;
getInputArr(&myArrSize, &myArr);
for (int i = 0; i < myArrSize; i++) {
printf("Element No.%i: %i\n", i, myArr[i]);
}
free(myArr);
return 0;
}
void getInputArr(int *arrSize, int **myArr) {
printf("Please Enter Length of Array: \n");
scanf("%i", arrSize);
*myArr = (int *) malloc(*arrSize * sizeof(int));
printf("Enter %i Numbers!\n", *arrSize);
for (int i = 0; i < *arrSize; i++) {
scanf("%i", &((*myArr)[i]));
}
}
There are several surprising things in your implementation, but in the end they all make sense, and indeed they must be present in order for this implementation to work.
You ultimately want int *myArr in main to simulate an array of int, but in getInputArr you refer to it using a "double pointer" int **myArr. But this makes sense, because any time you want to return something from a function "by reference" like this, you need to use a pointer -- an extra pointer. To return an int by reference, you'd use an int *. But to return an int * by reference, you need an int **. The fact that you (correctly) call getInputArr(&myArrSize, &myArr) in main shows that getInputArr's second argument is going to be an int **.
In getInputArr, when you call scanf, you do not have an & next to the argument you pass to scanf for %d to read into. This is highly unusual, but in this case it's absolutely correct, because arrSize is already a pointer.
You then have *myArr = (int *) malloc(*arrSize * sizeof(int)). This was the first thing I spotted in your initial (nonworking) implemenation that was quite wrong. In getInputArr, myArr is a pointer to the pointer that you want to set. So *myArr is the pointer that you want to set.
Finally, you have the jawbreaker call scanf("%i", &((*myArr)[i]));. This looks pretty ugly, and there are probably simpler ways to write it, but it's correct. Let's break it down. Again, myArr is a pointer to the pointer you want to work with. So *myArr is the pointer you want to work with. So (*myArr)[i] is one element of the simulated array (pointed to by the pointer) that you want to work with. You need explicit parentheses, because if you wrote *myArr[i] this would mean, "take the i'th element pointed to by myArr, interpret it as a pointer, and take the contents." But what you want (and, with the parentheses, you have) is "take myArr, interpret it as a pointer, take the thing that it points to, which is *myArr, and interpret that as a pointer, and finally take the i'th element that it (the second pointer) points to."
You've got multiple levels of pointers confusing you. But what if the dynamically allocated array you're dealing with lives inside a struct? Then we only have to deal with the pointer passing ("reference") semantics on that struct.
Consider the below. See the comments for explanation.
/* Basic stuff. */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
/* Here's our struct.
* It contains the size of the array,
* and the pointer to the memory allocated for the array.
*/
typedef struct dyn_int_array {
size_t size;
int * array;
} dyn_int_array_t;
/* Forward declarations for a function which creates and
* returns our dynamic_int_array struct.
*/
dyn_int_array_t * create_dyn_int_array();
/* ... and here's where you see that we don't want to
* pass the struct by value, but rather effectively by
* reference by passing a pointer to it.
*/
void scan_into_dyn_int_array(dyn_int_array_t * da);
int main(void) {
dyn_int_array_t * da = create_dyn_int_array();
/* I never bothered to free up the allocated memory,
* because it's not really critical for demonstration here.
*/
}
The implementations of those functions are below, but aren't really critical to this demonstration, as you've hopefully see the pass by reference use of pointers, without having to directly worry about or get confused by two levels of pointer indirection.
dyn_int_array_t * create_dyn_int_array() {
dyn_int_array_t * result = malloc(sizeof(dyn_int_array_t));
fprintf(stdout, "Input an array size: ");
fscanf(stdin, "%zd", &(result->size));
result->array = malloc(sizeof(int) * result->size);
/* Because "da" is already a pointer to dye_int_array_t
* there's no need to get its address.
*/
scan_into_dyn_int_array(result);
return result;
}
void scan_into_dyn_int_array(dyn_int_array_t * da) {
for (int i = 0; i < da->size; i++) {
/* We do have to pass the address of the current
* element of the array to fscanf.
*/
fscanf(stdin, "%d", &(da->array[i]));
}
}
Before you feel the need to mark this as a duplicate post, please don't. I have read all the threads on pointers, arrays, and functions I could find but almost all of them are far too advanced to be of any help to me.
I'm not getting an error, however my code will not print my array. It seems the issue here is using scanf. I don't think the values entered are actually being put into the array in main(). I've tried using pointers, but then I get the error "Thread 1: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=1, address=0x0)" whenever I try to use scanf to collect user inputted values to put into the array.
What I am working on is limited to declaring my array in the main() function, but all the operations are to be performed in promptData() function. Any help would be great, I'm at my wits end trying to figure this out on my own.
#import <stdio.h>
void promptData(double data[], int numElem);
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
int size, i;
double array[size];
promptData(array, size);
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
printf("%.2lf\n", array[i]);
return 0;
}
void promptData(double data[], int numElem)
{
int i;
printf("Enter integer values for size of array.\n");
scanf("%i", &numElem);
for (i = 0; i < numElem; i++)
{
printf("Enter array values.\n");
scanf("%lf", &data[i]);
}
}
Your program has undefined behaviour because variable size was not initialized and has indeterminate value.
You should at first in main ask the user to enter the size of the array then define the array itself and only after that fill it with values.
For example
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
int size = 0;
printf( "Enter a positive integer value for the size of the array: ");
scanf( "%i", &size);
if ( size == 0 ) exit( 1 );
double array[size];
promptData(array, size);
//...
Also in C there is no such a directive as
#import <stdio.h>
Use instead
#include <stdio.h>
At least in ANSI C 89 and C 90, you can't give a variable as the size of an array. The size of array should be known at compile time. You should be doing something like double array[size];.
Even in C99, where you can have variable sized arrays; the variables should contain proper index values at the time you declare the array. In that case, you should read the number from stdin and then declare the array.
Also in C, all parameters are passed by value. This means every function takes a copy of the parameters in the function. If you want to modify a variable's value, you should pass a pointer to it, and then modify the pointer's dereferenced value, something like:
void change(int *x)
{
*x = 7;
}
void first(void)
{
int x = 5;
change(&x);
printf("%d\n", x);
}
Adding on to the other, correct, answer by Zenith, if you want a dynamically allocated array (like you want to be able to change its size based on user input), then your only option is to use one of the memory allocation functions like malloc().
Once you actually have the size in your main function, declare your array like this:
int *myArray = malloc(sizeof(int) * size));//note that malloc will return a NULL if it fails
//you should always check
if(myArray != null) {
//do stuff with myArray like you were. You can just use myArray[] as long as you
//make SURE that you don't go beyond 'size'
}
free(myArray);
//VERY important that every malloc() has a free() with it
Note: untested, but the idea is there.
Further, to answer your other question.
If you find yourself in a situation where you need to call a function and use things INSIDE that function to change stuff where you called it, you have only two choices in C.
You can either return the value and assign it to a variable in the calling function like this:
int result = myFunction(someVariable, anotherVariable);
//do stuff with result
Or, use pointers.
I'm not explaining pointers here, that's usually several lectures worth of information, and is one of the more difficult concepts to grasp for introductory programmers. All I can tell you is you need to learn them, but this format is not the right way to go about doing that.
You're passing size to promptData as a copy.
Thus changes to numElem inside promptData will not affect the size variable in your main. Hence size remains uninitialized, i.e. has an undefined value and therefore should not be used as a size for an array.
If you need to initialize an array with a size that's only known at run-time, you need to allocate memory for the array dynamically using malloc, for example:
double* array = malloc(size * sizeof(double));
I am very new to C so sorry in advance if this is really basic. This is related to homework.
I have several helper functions, and each changes the value of a given variable (binary operations mostly), i.e.:
void helper1(unsigned short *x, arg1, arg2) --> x = &some_new_x
The main function calls other arguments arg3, arg4, arg5. The x is supposed to start at 0 (16-bit 0) at first, then be modified by helper functions, and after all the modifications, should be eventually returned by mainFunction.
Where do I declare the initial x and how/where do I allocate/free memory? If I declare it within mainFunc, it will reset to 0 every time helpers are called. If I free and reallocate memory inside helper functions, I get the "pointer being freed was not allocated" error even though I freed and allocated everything, or so I thought. A global variable doesn't do, either.
I would say that I don't really fully understand memory allocation, so I assume that my problem is with this, but it's entirely possible I just don't understand how to change variable values in C on a more basic level...
The variable x will exist while the block in which it was declared is executed, even during helper execution, and giving a pointer to the helpers allows them to change its value. If I understand your problem right, you shouldn't need dynamic memory allocation. The following code returns 4 from mainFunction:
void plus_one(unsigned short* x)
{
*x = *x + 1;
}
unsigned short mainFunction(void)
{
unsigned short x = 0;
plus_one(&x);
plus_one(&x);
plus_one(&x);
plus_one(&x);
return x;
}
By your description I'd suggest declaring x in your main function as a local variable (allocated from the stack) which you then pass by reference to your helper functions and return it from your main function by value.
int main()
{
int x; //local variable
helper(&x); //passed by reference
return x; //returned by value
}
Inside your helper you can modify the variable by dereferencing it and assigning whatever value needed:
void helper(int * x)
{
*x = ...; //change value of x
}
The alternative is declaring a pointer to x (which gets allocated from the heap) passing it to your helper functions and free-ing it when you have no use for it anymore. But this route requires more careful consideration and is error-prone.
Functions receive a value-wise copy of their inputs to locally scoped variables. Thus a helper function cannot possibly change the value it was called with, only its local copy.
void f(int n)
{
n = 2;
}
int main()
{
int n = 1;
f(n);
return 0;
}
Despite having the same name, n in f is local to the invocation of f. So the n in main never changes.
The way to work around this is to pass by pointer:
int f(int *n)
{
*n = 2;
}
int main()
{
int n = 1;
f(&n);
// now we also see n == 2.
return 0;
}
Note that, again, n in f is local, so if we changed the pointer n in f, it would have no effect on main's perspective. If we wanted to change the address n in main, we'd have to pass the address of the pointer.
void f1(int* nPtr)
{
nPtr = malloc(sizeof int);
*nPtr = 2;
}
void f2(int** nPtr)
{
// since nPtr is a pointer-to-a-pointer,
// we have to dereference it once to
// reach the "pointer-to-int"
// typeof nPtr = (int*)*
// typeof *nPtr = int*
*nPtr = malloc(sizeof int);
// deref once to get to int*, deref that for int
**nPtr = 2;
}
int main()
{
int *nPtr = NULL;
f1(nPtr); // passes 'NULL' to param 1 of f1.
// after the call, our 'nPtr' is still NULL
f2(&nPtr); // passes the *address* of our nPtr variable
// nPtr here should no-longer be null.
return 0;
}
---- EDIT: Regarding ownership of allocations ----
The ownership of pointers is a messy can of worms; the standard C library has a function strdup which returns a pointer to a copy of a string. It is left to the programmer to understand that the pointer is allocated with malloc and is expected to be released to the memory manager by a call to free.
This approach becomes more onerous as the thing being pointed to becomes more complex. For example, if you get a directory structure, you might be expected to understand that each entry is an allocated pointer that you are responsible for releasing.
dir = getDirectory(dirName);
for (i = 0; i < numEntries; i++) {
printf("%d: %s\n", i, dir[i]->de_name);
free(dir[i]);
}
free(dir);
If this was a file operation you'd be a little surprised if the library didn't provide a close function and made you tear down the file descriptor on your own.
A lot of modern libraries tend to assume responsibility for their resources and provide matching acquire and release functions, e.g. to open and close a MySQL connection:
// allocate a MySQL descriptor and initialize it.
MYSQL* conn = mysql_init(NULL);
DoStuffWithDBConnection(conn);
// release everything.
mysql_close(conn);
LibEvent has, e.g.
bufferevent_new();
to allocate an event buffer and
bufferevent_free();
to release it, even though what it actually does is little more than malloc() and free(), but by having you call these functions, they provide a well-defined and clear API which assumes responsibility for knowing such things.
This is the basis for the concept known as "RAII" in C++
I am supposed to follow the following criteria:
Implement function answer4 (pointer parameter and n):
Prepare an array of student_record using malloc() of n items.
Duplicate the student record from the parameter to the array n
times.
Return the array.
And I came with the code below, but it's obviously not correct. What's the correct way to implement this?
student_record *answer4(student_record* p, unsigned int n)
{
int i;
student_record* q = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
for(i = 0; i < n ; i++){
q[i] = p[i];
}
free(q);
return q;
};
p = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
This is problematic: you're overwriting the p input argument, so you can't reference the data you were handed after that line.
Which means that your inner loop reads initialized data.
This:
return a;
is problematic too - it would return a pointer to a local variable, and that's not good - that pointer becomes invalid as soon as the function returns.
What you need is something like:
student_record* ret = malloc(...);
for (int i=...) {
// copy p[i] to ret[i]
}
return ret;
1) You reassigned p, the array you were suppose to copy, by calling malloc().
2) You can't return the address of a local stack variable (a). Change a to a pointer, malloc it to the size of p, and copy p into. Malloc'd memory is heap memory, and so you can return such an address.
a[] is a local automatic array. Once you return from the function, it is erased from memory, so the calling function can't use the array you returned.
What you probably wanted to do is to malloc a new array (ie, not p), into which you should assign the duplicates and return its values w/o freeing the malloced memory.
Try to use better names, it might help in avoiding the obvious mix-up errors you have in your code.
For instance, start the function with:
student_record * answer4(const student_record *template, size_t n)
{
...
}
It also makes the code clearer. Note that I added const to make it clearer that the first argument is input-only, and made the type of the second one size_t which is good when dealing with "counts" and sizes of things.
The code in this question is evolving quite quickly but at the time of this answer it contains these two lines:
free(q);
return q;
This is guaranteed to be wrong - after the call to free its argument points to invalid memory and anything could happen subsequently upon using the value of q. i.e. you're returning an invalid pointer. Since you're returning q, don't free it yet! It becomes a "caller-owned" variable and it becomes the caller's responsibility to free it.
student_record* answer4(student_record* p, unsigned int n)
{
uint8_t *data, *pos;
size_t size = sizeof(student_record);
data = malloc(size*n);
pos = data;
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < n ; i++, pos=&pos[size])
memcpy(pos,p,size);
return (student_record *)data;
};
You may do like this.
This compiles and, I think, does what you want:
student_record *answer4(const student_record *const p, const unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int i;
student_record *const a = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
for(i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
a[i] = p[i];
}
return a;
};
Several points:
The existing array is identified as p. You want to copy from it. You probably do not want to free it (to free it is probably the caller's job).
The new array is a. You want to copy to it. The function cannot free it, because the caller will need it. Therefore, the caller must take the responsibility to free it, once the caller has done with it.
The array has n elements, indexed 0 through n-1. The usual way to express the upper bound on the index thus is i < n.
The consts I have added are not required, but well-written code will probably include them.
Altought, there are previous GOOD answers to this question, I couldn't avoid added my own. Since I got pascal programming in Collegue, I am used to do this, in C related programming languages:
void* AnyFunction(int AnyParameter)
{
void* Result = NULL;
DoSomethingWith(Result);
return Result;
}
This, helps me to easy debug, and avoid bugs like the one mention by #ysap, related to pointers.
Something important to remember, is that the question mention to return a SINGLE pointer, this a common caveat, because a pointer, can be used to address a single item, or a consecutive array !!!
This question suggests to use an array as A CONCEPT, with pointers, NOT USING ARRAY SYNTAX.
// returns a single pointer to an array:
student_record* answer4(student_record* student, unsigned int n)
{
// empty result variable for this function:
student_record* Result = NULL;
// the result will allocate a conceptual array, even if it is a single pointer:
student_record* Result = malloc(sizeof(student_record)*n);
// a copy of the destination result, will move for each item
student_record* dest = Result;
int i;
for(i = 0; i < n ; i++){
// copy contents, not address:
*dest = *student;
// move to next item of "Result"
dest++;
}
// the data referenced by "Result", was changed using "dest"
return Result;
} // student_record* answer4(...)
Check that, there is not subscript operator here, because of addressing with pointers.
Please, don't start a pascal v.s. c flame war, this is just a suggestion.
Which is considered better style?
int set_int (int *source) {
*source = 5;
return 0;
}
int main(){
int x;
set_int (&x);
}
OR
int *set_int (void) {
int *temp = NULL;
temp = malloc(sizeof (int));
*temp = 5;
return temp;
}
int main (void) {
int *x = set_int ();
}
Coming for a higher level programming background I gotta say I like the second version more. Any, tips would be very helpful. Still learning C.
Neither.
// "best" style for a function which sets an integer taken by pointer
void set_int(int *p) { *p = 5; }
int i;
set_int(&i);
Or:
// then again, minimise indirection
int an_interesting_int() { return 5; /* well, in real life more work */ }
int i = an_interesting_int();
Just because higher-level programming languages do a lot of allocation under the covers, does not mean that your C code will become easier to write/read/debug if you keep adding more unnecessary allocation :-)
If you do actually need an int allocated with malloc, and to use a pointer to that int, then I'd go with the first one (but bugfixed):
void set_int(int *p) { *p = 5; }
int *x = malloc(sizeof(*x));
if (x == 0) { do something about the error }
set_int(x);
Note that the function set_int is the same either way. It doesn't care where the integer it's setting came from, whether it's on the stack or the heap, who owns it, whether it has existed for a long time or whether it's brand new. So it's flexible. If you then want to also write a function which does two things (allocates something and sets the value) then of course you can, using set_int as a building block, perhaps like this:
int *allocate_and_set_int() {
int *x = malloc(sizeof(*x));
if (x != 0) set_int(x);
return x;
}
In the context of a real app, you can probably think of a better name than allocate_and_set_int...
Some errors:
int main(){
int x*; //should be int* x; or int *x;
set_int(x);
}
Also, you are not allocating any memory in the first code example.
int *x = malloc(sizeof(int));
About the style:
I prefer the first one, because you have less chances of not freeing the memory held by the pointer.
The first one is incorrect (apart from the syntax error) - you're passing an uninitialised pointer to set_int(). The correct call would be:
int main()
{
int x;
set_int(&x);
}
If they're just ints, and it can't fail, then the usual answer would be "neither" - you would usually write that like:
int get_int(void)
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
int x;
x = get_int();
}
If, however, it's a more complicated aggregate type, then the second version is quite common:
struct somestruct *new_somestruct(int p1, const char *p2)
{
struct somestruct *s = malloc(sizeof *s);
if (s)
{
s->x = 0;
s->j = p1;
s->abc = p2;
}
return s;
}
int main()
{
struct somestruct *foo = new_somestruct(10, "Phil Collins");
free(foo);
return 0;
}
This allows struct somestruct * to be an "opaque pointer", where the complete definition of type struct somestruct isn't known to the calling code. The standard library uses this convention - for example, FILE *.
Definitely go with the first version. Notice that this allowed you to omit a dynamic memory allocation, which is SLOW, and may be a source of bugs, if you forget to later free that memory.
Also, if you decide for some reason to use the second style, notice that you don't need to initialize the pointer to NULL. This value will either way be overwritten by whatever malloc() returns. And if you're out of memory, malloc() will return NULL by itself, without your help :-).
So int *temp = malloc(sizeof(int)); is sufficient.
Memory managing rules usually state that the allocator of a memory block should also deallocate it. This is impossible when you return allocated memory. Therefore, the second should be better.
For a more complex type like a struct, you'll usually end up with a function to initialize it and maybe a function to dispose of it. Allocation and deallocate should be done separately, by you.
C gives you the freedom to allocate memory dynamically or statically, and having a function work only with one of the two modes (which would be the case if you had a function that returned dynamically allocated memory) limits you.
typedef struct
{
int x;
float y;
} foo;
void foo_init(foo* object, int x, float y)
{
object->x = x;
object->y = y;
}
int main()
{
foo myFoo;
foo_init(&foo, 1, 3.1416);
}
In the second one you would need a pointer to a pointer for it to work, and in the first you are not using the return value, though you should.
I tend to prefer the first one, in C, but that depends on what you are actually doing, as I doubt you are doing something this simple.
Keep your code as simple as you need to get it done, the KISS principle is still valid.
It is best not to return a piece of allocated memory from a function if somebody does not know how it works they might not deallocate the memory.
The memory deallocation should be the responsibility of the code allocating the memory.
The first is preferred (assuming the simple syntax bugs are fixed) because it is how you simulate an Out Parameter. However, it's only usable where the caller can arrange for all the space to be allocated to write the value into before the call; when the caller lacks that information, you've got to return a pointer to memory (maybe malloced, maybe from a pool, etc.)
What you are asking more generally is how to return values from a function. It's a great question because it's so hard to get right. What you can learn are some rules of thumb that will stop you making horrid code. Then, read good code until you internalize the different patterns.
Here is my advice:
In general any function that returns a new value should do so via its return statement. This applies for structures, obviously, but also arrays, strings, and integers. Since integers are simple types (they fit into one machine word) you can pass them around directly, not with pointers.
Never pass pointers to integers, it's an anti-pattern. Always pass integers by value.
Learn to group functions by type so that you don't have to learn (or explain) every case separately. A good model is a simple OO one: a _new function that creates an opaque struct and returns a pointer to it; a set of functions that take the pointer to that struct and do stuff with it (set properties, do work); a set of functions that return properties of that struct; a destructor that takes a pointer to the struct and frees it. Hey presto, C becomes much nicer like this.
When you do modify arguments (only structs or arrays), stick to conventions, e.g. stdc libraries always copy from right to left; the OO model I explained would always put the structure pointer first.
Avoid modifying more than one argument in one function. Otherwise you get complex interfaces you can't remember and you eventually get wrong.
Return 0 for success, -1 for errors, when the function does something which might go wrong. In some cases you may have to return -1 for errors, 0 or greater for success.
The standard POSIX APIs are a good template but don't use any kind of class pattern.