Am i using malloc properly? - c

Good day!
I need to use malloc in creating a student list system.... In order to be efficient, our professor asked us to use it on a struct so i created a struct as follows:
struct student {
char studentID[6];
char name[31];
char course [6];
};
struct student *array[30];
everytime i add a record, that is when i use malloc...
array[recordCtr]=(struct student*)malloc(sizeof(struct student));
recordCtr++;
then i free it like this.
for(i = 0; i < recordCtr; i++){
free(array[i]);
}
Am i using malloc properly??? what is the effect if i free it like this instead of the loop above.
free(array);
Thanks in advance. Your opinion will be highly appreciated.

You are doing fine.
free(array); would be undefined behavior because array itself was not allocated via malloc therefore you can't free it and don't need to - the memory will be managed by the compiler.

A good tip is to always do:
type *something;
something = malloc(n * sizeof(*something));
This is because, if you change the type of something, you don't have to change all sorts of other code. And sizeof is really a compiler operation here, it won't turn into anything different at runtime.
Also, don't cast the void* pointer returned by malloc, there's no reason to do so in C and it just further ties your code together.
So in your case, don't do:
(struct student*)malloc(sizeof(struct student));
but
malloc(sizeof(**array));

There is nothing illegal about the way you are using malloc but this isn't a list, it's an array of pointers.
To use a list you do not fix the size in advance and have a pointer to the next element. You can either make this intrusive of non-intrusive.
For an intrusive list you put struct student * next in the declaration of student.
For a non-intrusive list you create another struct student_list_node which contains an instance of struct student and a pointer struct student_list_node * next;
This is an exacmple of the non-intrusive version:
struct student_list_node
{
struct student data;
struct student_list_node * next;
};
struct student_list_node * head;
struct student_list_node * tail;
struct student_list_node * addStudentToTail()
{
struct student_list_node * newnode = (struct student_list_node *)(malloc( sizeof(struct student_list_node ) );
/* check malloc did not fail or use a checking vesrion of malloc */
if( !tail )
{
head = tail = newnode;
}
else
{
tail->next = newnode;
tail = newnode;
}
return newnode; // which is also "tail"
}
int main()
{
struct student_list_node * node = addStudentToTail();
struct student * pstud = &node->data;
/* write to pstud student details */
}
If you do really want to use an array, you might want to make it an array of student rather than student * in which case you can use calloc rather than malloc
struct student * array = (struct student *)calloc( 30, sizeof( student ) );
Then using free(array) would be the correct way to dispose of it. You also have the option of allocating more if you need it later with realloc. (Be careful with this one: you must keep a copy of your original pointer until you know realloc succeeds).

The array itself isn't allocated on the heap. Assuming it's a global variable, it is allocated in global memory at program startup and doesn't need to be freed. Calling free on it will probably corrupt your program.
Your current solution is correct.

What you're doing is correct.
You can think of *array[30] as an array of 30 pointers
When you are allocating memory for each of those pointers, you'd also need to call free() on each of them.

Yes, you are using it correctly. There are better ways to organize the storage than this, but this will work. At least until you need more than 30 students...
Note that you must call free() with each pointer that is returned by malloc(). That means that your loop over the array of pointers is the correct approach for your chosen architecture.
Your attempt to call free on the array itself will not work. It invokes Undefined Behavior because you are passing a pointer (to the base of the array itself) to free() that did not come from a call to malloc().

Looks fine.
You could (if it fits your problem) allocate space for all 30 structs in one go
struct student *array = (struct student *)malloc(30*sizeof(struct student));
whhen you want to dispose of the space, you can then do
free(array)

What you have will work just fine. As others have mentioned, you've created an array of pointers on the stack and need to malloc and free each of them individually as you are doing.
However, you don't have to use malloc and free one struct at a time, you can do something like this:
int arraySize = 30;
student * ourArray = (student*)malloc(sizeof(student) * arraySize);
and a single free on the pointer will take care of it. with this pointer, you can still use the bracket notation and the compiler will understand that it's a typed pointer and behave appropriately, giving you essentially the same thing. Which method you use depends on if you need your array a dynamic size or not as well as personal preference.
Hope that helps some.

Initialize your array of pointer to struct student with NULL values
for(i = 0; i < recordCtr; i++){
array[i] = NULL;
}
Free memory if array[i] is not NULL
for(i = 0; i < recordCtr; i++){
if(NULL != array[i])
{
free(array[i]);
}
}

There's simple rule: Every malloc() should be paired with free() with pointer returned by malloc. Not less, not more.

Related

Where is the error in freeing memory from created hashtable

I am studying C (self-study, not in an educational institution) and have been trying to build a hashtable data structure as part of my learning.
Please refer to this hopefully reproducible example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct table_item {
char *name;
char gender;
char *birthdate;
char *address;
};
struct list_node {
struct table_item *data;
struct list_node *next;
unsigned long long hash_key;
};
struct hashtable {
int table_size;
int num_entries;
struct list_node **entries;
};
struct hashtable* init_hashtable(int size);
void free_hashtable(struct hashtable *table);
int main(void)
{
struct hashtable *hashtable = NULL;
int size_entry = 0;
printf("Input hashtable array size: ");
while (size_entry < 1) {
scanf(" %d", &size_entry);
}
hashtable = init_hashtable(size_entry);
free_hashtable(hashtable);
return 0;
}
struct hashtable* init_hashtable(int size) {
struct hashtable* new_table;
if ((new_table = malloc(sizeof(struct hashtable))) == NULL) {
perror("Error: failed to allocate memory for hash table\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
new_table->table_size = size;
new_table->num_entries = 0;
if ((new_table->entries = malloc(size*sizeof(struct list_node))) == NULL) {
perror("Error: failed to allocate memory for hash table array\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
return new_table;
}
void free_hashtable(struct hashtable *table) {
for (int i = 0; i < table->table_size; i++) {
if (table->entries[i] != NULL) {
free_list(table->entries[i]);
table->entries[i] = NULL;
}
}
free(table->entries);
free(table);
}
My issue is that trying to free the table always fails, even if I have not added anything to it.
I used GDB to check the issue. It seems that, in the above for loop, if (table->entries[i] != NULL) always fires (such as when i=0) even when I haven't added anything. This results in my free_list function trying to free inappropriate memory, which is why I get the stack dump.
Somehow it seems that table->entries[i] is actually not NULL but rather has a struct list_node * type, causing the if condition to fire inappropriately. Could somebody please explain to me why this is?
I was hoping that I could use this for loop to go through the entries array and only free memory where malloced nodes exist, but as it stands this will just crash my program. I am not sure how I can alter this to behave as I'd like it to.
Somehow it seems that table->entries[i] is actually not NULL
Indeed, because you never initialized it to NULL.
init_hashtable allocates space using malloc and points table->entries. Now malloc does not initialize the memory it provides. Its contents are garbage, and in particular, there is no reason why it should consist entirely of NULL pointers as your code expects.
If you want table->entries to be full of NULL pointers then you have to explicitly initialize it, either with a loop, or with memset(entries, 0, size*sizeof(struct list_node *)). Or best of all, by calling calloc instead of malloc, which also avoids bugs in case the multiplication size*sizeof(struct list_node *) overflows.
(Technically memset and calloc initialize memory to all-bits-zero, which in theory does not have to correspond to NULL pointers, but it actually does on all systems you are likely to encounter. But to be pedantic, the loop is the only strictly conforming way to do it.)
but rather has a struct list_node * type,
This has nothing to do with types. Types in C are statically determined from declarations, and there is no way for an object to have an unexpected type at runtime. The type of table->entries[i] is struct list_node * no matter what. The question is about the value of that object; you expect it to be NULL but it's not. "Null pointers" are not a separate type in C; NULL is simply a value that a pointer of any type may have.
As Avi Berger points out, there is another bug in that the size calculation in the malloc should be size*sizeof(struct list_node *) not sizeof(struct list_node). Each element is not a struct list_node but rather a pointer. In this case a struct list_node is larger than a pointer, so it's just wasting memory and not causing any other harm, but it should be fixed.
Somehow it seems that table->entries[i] is actually not NULL but rather has a struct list_node * type, causing the if condition to fire inappropriately. Could somebody please explain to me why this is?
You dynamically allocate space for table->entries. The initial contents of that allocated space are unspecified, so until you assign values to its contents, it is unsafe to have any particular expectations about them. In particular, you cannot assume that any or all elements will contain null pointers.
If you want to rely on those values to tell you something about what kind of cleanup needs to be performed, then you should set them all to appropriate values, I guess NULL, immediately after allocating the space.
Note also that there are null pointer values of every pointer type, so being null and having type struct list_node * are not mutually exclusive.

Freeing a struct within a struct in C

So, I'm working in C and I'm allocating an array of type struct, and within that struct I'm also allocating another array of different struct.
typedef struct {
char name[MAX_NAME + 1];
ITEM *items;
} database;
typedef struct {
char name[NAME_MAX + 1];
}ITEM;
database *array = (database*)malloc(n1 * sizeof(database));
array[i].items = (ITEM*)calloc(n2 * sizeof*(ITEM));
Does the command free(array); take care of freeing the whole thing, including the ITEM array I allocated within it?
No, you need to free every single data allocation done by calloc() or malloc().
A few points
calloc(n2 * sizeof*(ITEM)); is completely wrong. You need write like this
array[i].items = calloc(n2, sizeof(ITEM));
You don't need to typecast the value returned from malloc() and calloc()
Always check whether heap-allocation was successful or not, by checking the pointer against NULL
struct ITEM should be declared before struct database, to avoid forward-declaration error
You need to free the resources using a loop which will iterate till n1
for (size_t i = 0; i < n1; i++)
{
free(array[i].items);
}
free(array);

Memory allocation of fixed size array inside a struct

I have the following tree node struct that holds pointers to other tree nodes:
struct node {
// ...
struct node* children[20];
}
The idea is that I want to check whether there is node* inside the children and based and that go deeper into the tree. So when I allocate the node I want to have children with 20 NULL values.
Currently I am not doin
How should I allocate this array in order to not get errors like Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) (Valgrind)?
Would it be better to use struct node** children and allocate fixed size each time I allocate a new node?
EDIT: Example of one place where Valgrind complains:
for(int i=0;i<20;i++)
if(node->children[i] != NULL)
do_something_with_the_node(node->children[i]);
When you allocate a new instance of struct node, you must set the contained pointers to NULL to mark them as "not pointing anywhere". This will make the Valgrind warning go away, since the pointers will no longer be uninitialized.
Something like this:
struct node * node_new(void)
{
struct node *n = malloc(sizeof *n);
if(n != NULL)
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < sizeof n->children / sizeof *n->children; ++i)
n->children[i] = NULL;
}
return n;
}
You cannot portably use either memset() on n->children nor calloc(), since those will give you "all bits zero" which is not the same as "pointer NULL".
Your struct definition is valid (although it's hard to tell without more context if it fits your requirements).
Valgrind doesn't complain about your struct definition, it probably complains about how you instantiate variables of that type. Ensure that all of the array members get initialized and the complaints will most likely go away.
The problem is that you are using an unintialized value in an if condition.
When you instantiate a struct node, its member struct node* children[20]; is an array of 20 struct node *, all of which are uninitialized.
It would be no different from this:
char *x;
if (x == NULL) {
/* Stuff */
}
At this point, x may have literally any value. In your example, any element of an array may have any value.
To fix this, you need to initialize the elements of an array before using them, for example like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 20; ++i) {
node->children[i] = NULL;
}
Or shorter:
memset(node->children, 0, 20);
If you changed the member to, as you've suggested, node **children, the situation wouldn't be much different - you'll still need to initialize all the members, including array's elements. You could make it shorter by using calloc, which will initialize all bytes to 0; then again, you'll need some code for correct deallocation (and remember to do it), so I think the tradeoff's not worth it.

C generic linked-list

I have a generic linked-list that holds data of type void* I am trying to populate my list with type struct employee, eventually I would like to destruct the object struct employee as well.
Consider this generic linked-list header file (i have tested it with type char*):
struct accListNode //the nodes of a linked-list for any data type
{
void *data; //generic pointer to any data type
struct accListNode *next; //the next node in the list
};
struct accList //a linked-list consisting of accListNodes
{
struct accListNode *head;
struct accListNode *tail;
int size;
};
void accList_allocate(struct accList *theList); //allocate the accList and set to NULL
void appendToEnd(void *data, struct accList *theList); //append data to the end of the accList
void removeData(void *data, struct accList *theList); //removes data from accList
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the employee structure
struct employee
{
char name[20];
float wageRate;
}
Now consider this sample testcase that will be called from main():
void test2()
{
struct accList secondList;
struct employee *emp = Malloc(sizeof(struct employee));
emp->name = "Dan";
emp->wageRate =.5;
struct employee *emp2 = Malloc(sizeof(struct employee));
emp2->name = "Stan";
emp2->wageRate = .3;
accList_allocate(&secondList);
appendToEnd(emp, &secondList);
appendToEnd(emp2, &secondList);
printf("Employee: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList.head->data)->name); //cast to type struct employee
printf("Employee2: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList.tail->data)->name);
}
Why does the answer that I posted below solve my problem? I believe it has something to do with pointers and memory allocation. The function Malloc() that i use is a custom malloc that checks for NULL being returned.
Here is a link to my entire generic linked list implementation: https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/13007/c-linked-list-implementation
The problem is this accList_allocate() and your use of it.
struct accList secondList;
accList_allocate(&secondList);
In the original test2() secondList is memory on the stack. &secondList is a pointer to that memory. When you call accList_allocate() a copy of the pointer is passed in pointing at the stack memory. Malloc() then returns a chunk of memory and assigns it to the copy of the pointer, not the original secondList.
Coming back out, secondList is still pointing at uninitialised memory on the stack so the call to appendToEnd() fails.
The same happens with the answer except secondList just happens to be free of junk. Possibly by chance, possibly by design of the compiler. Either way it is not something you should rely on.
Either:
struct accList *secondList = NULL;
accList_allocate(&secondList);
And change accList_allocate()
accList_allocate(struct accList **theList) {
*theList = Malloc(sizeof(struct accList));
(*theList)->head = NULL;
(*theList)->tail = NULL;
(*theList)->size = 0;
}
OR
struct accList secondList;
accList_initialise(secondList);
With accList_allocate() changed to accList_initialise() because it does not allocate
accList_initialise(struct accList *theList) {
theList->head = NULL;
theList->tail = NULL;
theList->size = 0;
}
I think that your problem is this:
You've allocated secondList on the stack in your original test2 function.
The stack memory is probably dirty, so secondList requires initialization
Your accList_allocate function takes a pointer to the list, but then overwrites it with the Malloc call. This means that the pointer you passed in is never initialized.
When test2 tries to run, it hits a bad pointer (because the memory isn't initialized).
The reason that it works when you allocate it in main is that your C compiler probably zeros the stack when the program starts. When main allocates a variable on the stack, that allocation is persistent (until the program ends), so secondList is actually, and accidentally, properly initialized when you allocate it in main.
Your current accList_allocate doesn't actually initialize the pointer that's been passed in, and the rest of your code will never see the pointer that it allocates with Malloc. To solve your problem, I would create a new function: accList_initialize whose only job is to initialize the list:
void accList_initialize(struct accList* theList)
{
// NO malloc
theList->head = NULL;
theList->tail = NULL;
theList->size = 0;
}
Use this, instead of accList_allocate in your original test2 function. If you really want to allocate the list on the heap, then you should do so (and not mix it with a struct allocated on the stack). Have accList_allocate return a pointer to the allocated structure:
struct accList* accList_allocate(void)
{
struct accList* theList = Malloc( sizeof(struct accList) );
accList_initialize(theList);
return theList;
}
Two things I see wrong here based on the original code, in the above question,
What you've seen is undefined behaviour and arose from that is the bus error message as you were assigning a string literal to the variable, when in fact you should have been using the strcpy function, you've edited your original code accordinly so.. something to keep in mind in the future :)
The usage of the word Malloc is going to cause confusion, especially in peer-review, the reviewers are going to have a brain fart and say "whoa, what's this, should that not be malloc?" and very likely raise it up. (Basically, do not call custom functions that have similar sounding names as the C standard library functions)
You're not checking for the NULL, what if your souped up version of Malloc failed then emp is going to be NULL! Always check it no matter how trivial or your thinking is "Ah sher the platform has heaps of memory on it, 4GB RAM no problem, will not bother to check for NULL"
Have a look at this question posted elsewhere to explain what is a bus error.
Edit: Using linked list structures, in how the parameters in the function is called is crucial to the understanding of it. Notice the usage of &, meaning take the address of the variable that points to the linked list structure, and passing it by reference, not passing by value which is a copy of the variable. This same rule applies to usage of pointers also in general :)
You've got the parameters slightly out of place in the first code in your question, if you were using double-pointers in the parameter list then yes, using &secondList would have worked.
It may depend on how your Employee structure is designed, but you should note that
strcpy(emp->name, "Dan");
and
emp->name = "Dan";
function differently. In particular, the latter is a likely source of bus errors because you generally cannot write to string literals in this way. Especially if your code has something like
name = "NONE"
or the like.
EDIT: Okay, so with the design of the employee struct, the problem is this:
You can't assign to arrays. The C Standard includes a list of modifiable lvalues and arrays are not one of them.
char name[20];
name = "JAMES" //illegal
strcpy is fine - it just goes to the memory address dereferenced by name[0] and copies "JAMES\0" into the memory there, one byte at a time.

Basic Malloc/Free

If I have a snippit of my program like this:
struct Node *node;
while(...){
node = malloc(100);
//do stuff with node
}
This means that every time I loop through the while loop I newly allocate 100 bytes that is pointed to by the node pointer right?
If this is true, then how do I free up all the memory that I have made with all the loops if I only have a pointer left pointing to the last malloc that happened?
Thanks!
Please allocate exactly the size you need: malloc(sizeof *node); -- if you move to a 64-bit platform that doubles the size of all your members, your old 96-byte structure might take 192 bytes in the new environment.
If you don't have any pointers to any of the struct Nodes you have created, then I don't think you should be allocating them with malloc(3) in the first place. malloc(3) is best if your application requires the data to persist outside the calling scope of the current function. I expect that you could re-write your function like this:
struct Node node;
while(...){
//do stuff with node
}
or
while(...){
struct Node node;
//do stuff with node
}
depending if you want access to the last node (the first version) or not (the second version).
Of course, if you actually need those structures outside this piece of code, then you need to store references to them somewhere. Add them to a global list keeping track of struct Node objects, or add each one to the next pointer of the previous struct Node, or add each one to a corresponding struct User that refers to them, whatever is best for your application.
If you set node = NULL before the loop and then use free(node) before node = malloc(100) you should be OK. You will also need to do a free(node) after the loop exits. But then again, it all depends on what "//do stuff with node" actually does. As others have pointed out, malloc(100) is not a good idea. What I would use is malloc(sizeof(*node)). That way, if the type of node changes, you don't have to change the malloc line.
If you don't need the malloc'ed space at the end of one iteration anymore, you should free it right away.
To keep track of the allocated nodes you could save them in a dynamically growing list:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main() {
int i;
void *node;
int prt_len = 0;
void **ptrs = NULL;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
node = malloc(100);
ptrs = realloc(ptrs, sizeof(void*) * ++prt_len);
ptrs[prt_len-1] = node;
/* code */
}
for (i = 0; i < prt_len; i++) {
free(ptrs[i]);
}
free(ptrs);
return 0;
}
Note: You should probably re-think your algorithm if you need to employ such methods!
Otherwise see sarnold's answer.
then how do I free up all the memory that I have made with all the loops if I only have a pointer left pointing to the last malloc that happened?
You can't. You just created a giant memory leak.
You have to keep track of every chunk of memory you malloc() and free() it when you're done using it.
You can not. You need to store all the pointer to free the memory. if you are saving those pointer somewhere then only you can free the memory.

Resources