Related
I am working on a short program that reads a .txt file. Intially, I was playing around in main function, and I had gotten to my code to work just fine. Later, I decided to abstract it to a function. Now, I cannot seem to get my code to work, and I have been hung up on this problem for quite some time.
I think my biggest issue is that I don't really understand what is going on at a memory/hardware level. I understand that a pointer simply holds a memory address, and a pointer to a pointer simply holds a memory address to an another memory address, a short breadcrumb trail to what we really want.
Yet, now that I am introducing malloc() to expand the amount of memory allocated, I seem to lose sight of whats going on. In fact, I am not really sure how to think of memory at all anymore.
So, a char takes up a single byte, correct?
If I understand correctly, then by a char* takes up a single byte of memory?
If we were to have a:
char* str = "hello"
Would it be say safe to assume that it takes up 6 bytes of memory (including the null character)?
And, if we wanted to allocate memory for some "size" unknown at compile time, then we would need to dynamically allocate memory.
int size = determine_size();
char* str = NULL;
str = (char*)malloc(size * sizeof(char));
Is this syntactically correct so far?
Now, if you would judge my interpretation. We are telling the compiler that we need "size" number of contiguous memory reserved for chars. If size was equal to 10, then str* would point to the first address of 10 memory addresses, correct?
Now, if we could go one step further.
int size = determine_size();
char* str = NULL;
file_read("filename.txt", size, &str);
This is where my feet start to leave the ground. My interpretation is that file_read() looks something like this:
int file_read(char* filename, int size, char** buffer) {
// Set up FILE stream
// Allocate memory to buffer
buffer = malloc(size * sizeof(char));
// Add characters to buffer
int i = 0;
char c;
while((c=fgetc(file))!=EOF){
*(buffer + i) = (char)c;
i++;
}
Adding the characters to the buffer and allocating the memory is what is I cannot seem to wrap my head around.
If **buffer is pointing to *str which is equal to null, then how do I allocate memory to *str and add characters to it?
I understand that this is lengthy, but I appreciate the time you all are taking to read this! Let me know if I can clarify anything.
EDIT:
Whoa, my code is working now, thanks so much!
Although, I don't know why this works:
*((*buffer) + i) = (char)c;
So, a char takes up a single byte, correct?
Yes.
If I understand correctly, by default a char* takes up a single byte of memory.
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous. A char takes up a single byte of memory. A char * can point to one char, i.e. one byte of memory, or a char array, i.e. multiple bytes of memory.
The pointer itself takes up more than a single byte. The exact value is implementation-defined, usually 4 bytes (32bit) or 8 bytes (64bit). You can check the exact value with printf( "%zd\n", sizeof char * ).
If we were to have a char* str = "hello", would it be say safe to assume that it takes up 6 bytes of memory (including the null character)?
Yes.
And, if we wanted to allocate memory for some "size" unknown at compile time, then we would need to dynamically allocate memory.
int size = determine_size();
char* str = NULL;
str = (char*)malloc(size * sizeof(char));
Is this syntactically correct so far?
Do not cast the result of malloc. And sizeof char is by definition always 1.
If size was equal to 10, then str* would point to the first address of 10 memory addresses, correct?
Yes. Well, almost. str* makes no sense, and it's 10 chars, not 10 memory addresses. But str would point to the first of the 10 chars, yes.
Now, if we could go one step further.
int size = determine_size();
char* str = NULL;
file_read("filename.txt", size, &str);
This is where my feet start to leave the ground. My interpretation is that file_read() looks something like this:
int file_read(char* filename, int size, char** buffer) {
// Set up FILE stream
// Allocate memory to buffer
buffer = malloc(size * sizeof(char));
No. You would write *buffer = malloc( size );. The idea is that the memory you are allocating inside the function can be addressed by the caller of the function. So the pointer provided by the caller -- str, which is NULL at the point of the call -- needs to be changed. That is why the caller passes the address of str, so you can write the pointer returned by malloc() to that address. After your function returns, the caller's str will no longer be NULL, but contain the address returned by malloc().
buffer is the address of str, passed to the function by value. Allocating to buffer would only change that (local) pointer value.
Allocating to *buffer, on the other hand, is the same as allocating to str. The caller will "see" the change to str after your file_read() returns.
Although, I don't know why this works: *((*buffer) + i) = (char)c;
buffer is the address of str.
*buffer is, basically, the same as str -- a pointer to char (array).
(*buffer) + i) is pointer arithmetic -- the pointer *buffer plus i means a pointer to the ith element of the array.
*((*buffer) + i) is dereferencing that pointer to the ith element -- a single char.
to which you are then assigning (char)c.
A simpler expression doing the same thing would be:
(*buffer)[i] = (char)c;
with char **buffer, buffer stands for the pointer to the pointer to the char, *buffer accesses the pointer to a char, and **buffer accesses the char value itself.
To pass back a pointer to a new array of chars, write *buffer = malloc(size).
To write values into the char array, write *((*buffer) + i) = c, or (probably simpler) (*buffer)[i] = c
See the following snippet demonstrating what's going on:
void generate0to9(char** buffer) {
*buffer = malloc(11); // *buffer dereferences the pointer to the pointer buffer one time, i.e. it writes a (new) pointer value into the address passed in by `buffer`
for (int i=0;i<=9;i++) {
//*((*buffer)+i) = '0' + i;
(*buffer)[i] = '0' + i;
}
(*buffer)[10]='\0';
}
int main(void) {
char *b = NULL;
generate0to9(&b); // pass a pointer to the pointer b, such that the pointer`s value can be changed in the function
printf("b: %s\n", b);
free(b);
return 0;
}
Output:
0123456789
I'm reading K&R and I'm almost through the chapter on pointers. I'm not entirely sure if I'm going about using them the right way. I decided to try implementing itoa(n) using pointers. Is there something glaringly wrong about the way I went about doing it? I don't particularly like that I needed to set aside a large array to work as a string buffer in order to do anything, but then again, I'm not sure if that's actually the correct way to go about it in C.
Are there any general guidelines you like to follow when deciding to use pointers in your code? Is there anything I can improve on in the code below? Is there a way I can work with strings without a static string buffer?
/*Source file: String Functions*/
#include <stdio.h>
static char stringBuffer[500];
static char *strPtr = stringBuffer;
/* Algorithm: n % 10^(n+1) / 10^(n) */
char *intToString(int n){
int p = 1;
int i = 0;
while(n/p != 0)
p*=10, i++;
for(;p != 1; p/=10)
*(strPtr++) = ((n % p)/(p/10)) + '0';
*strPtr++ = '\0';
return strPtr - i - 1;
}
int main(){
char *s[3] = {intToString(123), intToString(456), intToString(78910)};
printf("%s\n",s[2]);
int x = stringToInteger(s[2]);
printf("%d\n", x);
return 0;
}
Lastly, can someone clarify for me what the difference between an array and a pointer is? There's a section in K&R that has me very confused about it; "5.5 - Character Pointers and Functions." I'll quote it here:
"There is an important difference between the definitions:
char amessage[] = "now is the time"; /*an array*/
char *pmessage = "now is the time"; /*a pointer*/
amessage is an array, just big enough to hold the sequence of characters and '\0' that
initializes it. Individual characters within the array may be changed but amessage will
always refer to the same storage. On the other hand, pmessage is a pointer, initialized
to point to a string constant; the pointer may subsequently be modified to point
elsewhere, but the result is undefined if you try to modify the string contents."
What does that even mean?
For itoa the length of a resulting string can't be greater than the length of INT_MAX + minus sign - so you'd be safe with a buffer of that length. The length of number string is easy to determine by using log10(number) + 1, so you'd need buffer sized log10(INT_MAX) + 3, with space for minus and terminating \0.
Also, generally it's not a good practice to return pointers to 'black box' buffers from functions. Your best bet here would be to provide a buffer as a pointer argument in intToString, so then you can easily use any type of memory you like (dynamic, allocated on stack, etc.). Here's an example:
char *intToString(int n, char *buffer) {
// ...
char *bufferStart = buffer;
for(;p != 1; p/=10)
*(buffer++) = ((n % p)/(p/10)) + '0';
*buffer++ = '\0';
return bufferStart;
}
Then you can use it as follows:
char *buffer1 = malloc(30);
char buffer2[15];
intToString(10, buffer1); // providing pointer to heap allocated memory as a buffer
intToString(20, &buffer2[0]); // providing pointer to statically allocated memory
what the difference between an array and a pointer is?
The answer is in your quote - a pointer can be modified to be pointing to another memory address. Compare:
int a[] = {1, 2, 3};
int b[] = {4, 5, 6};
int *ptrA = &a[0]; // the ptrA now contains pointer to a's first element
ptrA = &b[0]; // now it's b's first element
a = b; // it won't compile
Also, arrays are generally statically allocated, while pointers are suitable for any allocation mechanism.
Regarding your code:
You are using a single static buffer for every call to intToString: this is bad because the string produced by the first call to it will be overwritten by the next.
Generally, functions that handle strings in C should either return a new buffer from malloc, or they should write into a buffer provided by the caller. Allocating a new buffer is less prone to problems due to running out of buffer space.
You are also using a static pointer for the location to write into the buffer, and it never rewinds, so that's definitely a problem: enough calls to this function, and you will run off the end of the buffer and crash.
You already have an initial loop that calculates the number of digits in the function. So you should then just make a new buffer that big using malloc, making sure to leave space for the \0, write in to that, and return it.
Also, since i is not just a loop index, change it to something more obvious like length:
That is to say: get rid of the global variables, and instead after computing length:
char *s, *result;
// compute length
s = result = malloc(length+1);
if (!s) return NULL; // out of memory
for(;p != 1; p/=10)
*(s++) = ((n % p)/(p/10)) + '0';
*s++ = '\0';
return result;
The caller is responsible for releasing the buffer when they're done with it.
Two other things I'd really recommend while learning about pointers:
Compile with all warnings turned on (-Wall etc) and if you get an error try to understand what caused it; they will have things to teach you about how you're using the language
Run your program under Valgrind or some similar checker, which will make pointer bugs more obvious, rather than causing silent corruption
Regarding your last question:
char amessage[] = "now is the time"; - is an array. Arrays cannot be reassigned to point to something else (unlike pointers), it points to a fixed address in memory. If the array was allocated in a block, it will be cleaned up at the end of the block (meaning you cannot return such an array from a function). You can however fiddle with the data inside the array as much as you like so long as you don't exceed the size of the array.
E.g. this is legal amessage[0] = 'N';
char *pmessage = "now is the time"; - is a pointer. A pointer points to a block in memory, nothing more. "now is the time" is a string literal, meaning it is stored inside the executable in a read only location. You cannot under any circumstances modify the data it is pointing to. You can however reassign the pointer to point to something else.
This is NOT legal -*pmessage = 'N'; - will segfault most likely (note that you can use the array syntax with pointers, *pmessage is equivalent to pmessage[0]).
If you compile it with gcc using the -S flag you can actually see "now is the time" stored in the read only part of the assembly executable.
One other thing to point out is that arrays decay to pointers when passed as arguments to a function. The following two declarations are equivalent:
void foo(char arr[]);
and
void foo(char* arr);
About how to use pointers and the difference between array and pointer, I recommend you read the "expert c programming" (http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp/0131774298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371439251&sr=8-1&keywords=expert+c+programming).
Better way to return strings from functions is to allocate dynamic memory (using malloc) and fill it with the required string...return this pointer to the calling function and then free it.
Sample code :
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
#define MAX_NAME_SIZE 20
char * func1()
{
char * c1= NULL;
c1 = (char*)malloc(sizeof(MAX_NAME_SIZE));
strcpy(c1,"John");
return c1;
}
main()
{
char * c2 = NULL;
c2 = func1();
printf("%s \n",c2);
free(c2);
}
And this works without the static strings.
I have a string function that accepts a pointer to a source string and returns a pointer to a destination string. This function currently works, but I'm worried I'm not following the best practice regrading malloc, realloc, and free.
The thing that's different about my function is that the length of the destination string is not the same as the source string, so realloc() has to be called inside my function. I know from looking at the docs...
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/realloc/
that the memory address might change after the realloc. This means I have can't "pass by reference" like a C programmer might for other functions, I have to return the new pointer.
So the prototype for my function is:
//decode a uri encoded string
char *net_uri_to_text(char *);
I don't like the way I'm doing it because I have to free the pointer after running the function:
char * chr_output = net_uri_to_text("testing123%5a%5b%5cabc");
printf("%s\n", chr_output); //testing123Z[\abc
free(chr_output);
Which means that malloc() and realloc() are called inside my function and free() is called outside my function.
I have a background in high level languages, (perl, plpgsql, bash) so my instinct is proper encapsulation of such things, but that might not be the best practice in C.
The question: Is my way best practice, or is there a better way I should follow?
full example
Compiles and runs with two warnings on unused argc and argv arguments, you can safely ignore those two warnings.
example.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *net_uri_to_text(char *);
int main(int argc, char ** argv) {
char * chr_input = "testing123%5a%5b%5cabc";
char * chr_output = net_uri_to_text(chr_input);
printf("%s\n", chr_output);
free(chr_output);
return 0;
}
//decodes uri-encoded string
//send pointer to source string
//return pointer to destination string
//WARNING!! YOU MUST USE free(chr_result) AFTER YOU'RE DONE WITH IT OR YOU WILL GET A MEMORY LEAK!
char *net_uri_to_text(char * chr_input) {
//define variables
int int_length = strlen(chr_input);
int int_new_length = int_length;
char * chr_output = malloc(int_length);
char * chr_output_working = chr_output;
char * chr_input_working = chr_input;
int int_output_working = 0;
unsigned int uint_hex_working;
//while not a null byte
while(*chr_input_working != '\0') {
//if %
if (*chr_input_working == *"%") {
//then put correct char in
sscanf(chr_input_working + 1, "%02x", &uint_hex_working);
*chr_output_working = (char)uint_hex_working;
//printf("special char:%c, %c, %d<\n", *chr_output_working, (char)uint_hex_working, uint_hex_working);
//realloc
chr_input_working++;
chr_input_working++;
int_new_length -= 2;
chr_output = realloc(chr_output, int_new_length);
//output working must be the new pointer plys how many chars we've done
chr_output_working = chr_output + int_output_working;
} else {
//put char in
*chr_output_working = *chr_input_working;
}
//increment pointers and number of chars in output working
chr_input_working++;
chr_output_working++;
int_output_working++;
}
//last null byte
*chr_output_working = '\0';
return chr_output;
}
It's perfectly ok to return malloc'd buffers from functions in C, as long as you document the fact that they do. Lots of libraries do that, even though no function in the standard library does.
If you can compute (a not too pessimistic upper bound on) the number of characters that need to be written to the buffer cheaply, you can offer a function that does that and let the user call it.
It's also possible, but much less convenient, to accept a buffer to be filled in; I've seen quite a few libraries that do that like so:
/*
* Decodes uri-encoded string encoded into buf of length len (including NUL).
* Returns the number of characters written. If that number is less than len,
* nothing is written and you should try again with a larger buffer.
*/
size_t net_uri_to_text(char const *encoded, char *buf, size_t len)
{
size_t space_needed = 0;
while (decoding_needs_to_be_done()) {
// decode characters, but only write them to buf
// if it wouldn't overflow;
// increment space_needed regardless
}
return space_needed;
}
Now the caller is responsible for the allocation, and would do something like
size_t len = SOME_VALUE_THAT_IS_USUALLY_LONG_ENOUGH;
char *result = xmalloc(len);
len = net_uri_to_text(input, result, len);
if (len > SOME_VALUE_THAT_IS_USUALLY_LONG_ENOUGH) {
// try again
result = xrealloc(input, result, len);
}
(Here, xmalloc and xrealloc are "safe" allocating functions that I made up to skip NULL checks.)
The thing is that C is low-level enough to force the programmer to get her memory management right. In particular, there's nothing wrong with returning a malloc()ated string. It's a common idiom to return mallocated obejcts and have the caller free() them.
And anyways, if you don't like this approach, you can always take a pointer to the string and modify it from inside the function (after the last use, it will still need to be free()d, though).
One thing, however, that I don't think is necessary is explicitly shrinking the string. If the new string is shorter than the old one, there's obviously enough room for it in the memory chunk of the old string, so you don't need to realloc().
(Apart from the fact that you forgot to allocate one extra byte for the terminating NUL character, of course...)
And, as always, you can just return a different pointer each time the function is called, and you don't even need to call realloc() at all.
If you accept one last piece of good advice: it's advisable to const-qualify your input strings, so the caller can ensure that you don't modify them. Using this approach, you can safely call the function on string literals, for example.
All in all, I'd rewrite your function like this:
char *unescape(const char *s)
{
size_t l = strlen(s);
char *p = malloc(l + 1), *r = p;
while (*s) {
if (*s == '%') {
char buf[3] = { s[1], s[2], 0 };
*p++ = strtol(buf, NULL, 16); // yes, I prefer this over scanf()
s += 3;
} else {
*p++ = *s++;
}
}
*p = 0;
return r;
}
And call it as follows:
int main()
{
const char *in = "testing123%5a%5b%5cabc";
char *out = unescape(in);
printf("%s\n", out);
free(out);
return 0;
}
It's perfectly OK to return newly-malloc-ed (and possibly internally realloced) values from functions, you just need to document that you are doing so (as you do here).
Other obvious items:
Instead of int int_length you might want to use size_t. This is "an unsigned type" (usually unsigned int or unsigned long) that is the appropriate type for lengths of strings and arguments to malloc.
You need to allocate n+1 bytes initially, where n is the length of the string, as strlen does not include the terminating 0 byte.
You should check for malloc failing (returning NULL). If your function will pass the failure on, document that in the function-description comment.
sscanf is pretty heavy-weight for converting the two hex bytes. Not wrong, except that you're not checking whether the conversion succeeds (what if the input is malformed? you can of course decide that this is the caller's problem but in general you might want to handle that). You can use isxdigit from <ctype.h> to check for hexadecimal digits, and/or strtoul to do the conversion.
Rather than doing one realloc for every % conversion, you might want to do a final "shrink realloc" if desirable. Note that if you allocate (say) 50 bytes for a string and find it requires only 49 including the final 0 byte, it may not be worth doing a realloc after all.
I would approach the problem in a slightly different way. Personally, I would split your function in two. The first function to calculate the size you need to malloc. The second would write the output string to the given pointer (which has been allocated outside of the function). That saves several calls to realloc, and will keep the complexity the same. A possible function to find the size of the new string is:
int getNewSize (char *string) {
char *i = string;
int size = 0, percent = 0;
for (i, size; *i != '\0'; i++, size++) {
if (*i == '%')
percent++;
}
return size - percent * 2;
}
However, as mentioned in other answers there is no problem in returning a malloc'ed buffer as long as you document it!
Additionally what was already mentioned in the other postings, you should also document the fact that the string is reallocated. If your code is called with a static string or a string allocated with alloca, you may not reallocate it.
I think you are right to be concerned about splitting up mallocs and frees. As a rule, whatever makes it, owns it and should free it.
In this case, where the strings are relatively small, one good procedure is to make the string buffer larger than any possible string it could contain. For example, URLs have a de facto limit of about 2000 characters, so if you malloc 10000 characters you can store any possible URL.
Another trick is to store both the length and capacity of the string at its front, so that (int)*mystring == length of string and (int)*(mystring + 4) == capacity of string. Thus, the string itself only starts at the 8th position *(mystring+8). By doing this you can pass around a single pointer to a string and always know how long it is and how much memory capacity the string has. You can make macros that automatically generate these offsets and make "pretty code".
The value of using buffers this way is you do not need to do a reallocation. The new value overwrites the old value and you update the length at the beginning of the string.
I've been studying C, and I decided to practice using my knowledge by creating some functions to manipulate strings. I wrote a string reverser function, and a main function that asks for user input, sends it through stringreverse(), and prints the results.
Basically I just want to understand how my function works. When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0], right?
I guess answering this question would tell me: Would there be any difference if I assigned a char* pointer to my tempstr array and then sent that to stringreverse() as the first param, versus how I'm doing it now? I want to know whether I'm sending a duplicate of the array tempstr, or a memory address.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
printf("\nEnter a string:\n\t");
char tempstr[1024];
gets(tempstr);
char *revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr); //Assigns revstr the address of the first character of the reversed string.
printf("\nReversed string:\n"
"\t%s\n", revstr);
main();
return 0;
}
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr)
{
char revstr[1024] = {0};
int i, j = 0;
for (i = strlen(tempstr) - 1; i >= 0; i--, j++)
{
revstr[j] = tempstr[i]; //string reverse algorithm
}
returnptr = &revstr[0];
return returnptr;
}
Thanks for your time. Any other critiques would be helpful . . only a few weeks into programming :P
EDIT: Thanks to all the answers, I figured it out. Here's my solution for anyone wondering:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
void stringreverse(char* s);
int main(void)
{
printf("\nEnter a string:\n\t");
char userinput[1024] = {0}; //Need to learn how to use malloc() xD
gets(userinput);
stringreverse(userinput);
printf("\nReversed string:\n"
"\t%s\n", userinput);
main();
return 0;
}
void stringreverse(char* s)
{
int i, j = 0;
char scopy[1024]; //Update to dynamic buffer
strcpy(scopy, s);
for (i = strlen(s) - 1; i >= 0; i--, j++)
{
*(s + j) = scopy[i];
}
}
First, a detail:
int main()
{
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
That prototype should go outside main(), like this:
char* stringreverse(char* tempstr, char* returnptr);
int main()
{
As to your main question: the variable tempstr is a char*, i.e. the address of a character. If you use C's index notation, like tempstr[i], that's essentially the same as *(tempstr + i). The same is true of revstr, except that in that case you're returning the address of a block of memory that's about to be clobbered when the array it points to goes out of scope. You've got the right idea in passing in the address of some memory into which to write the reversed string, but you're not actually copying the data into the memory pointed to by that block. Also, the line:
returnptr = &revstr[0];
Doesn't do what you think. You can't assign a new pointer to returnptr; if you really want to modify returnptr, you'll need to pass in its address, so the parameter would be specified char** returnptr. But don't do that: instead, create a block in your main() that will receive the reversed string, and pass its address in the returnptr parameter. Then, use that block rather than the temporary one you're using now in stringreverse().
Basically I just want to understand how my function works.
One problem you have is that you are using revstr without initializing it or allocating memory for it. This is undefined behavior since you are writing into memory doesn't belong to you. It may appear to work, but in fact what you have is a bug and can produce unexpected results at any time.
When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0], right?
Yes. When arrays are passed as arguments to a function, they are treated as regular pointers, pointing to the first element in the array. There is no difference if you assigned &temp[0] to a char* before passing it to stringreverser, because that's what the compiler is doing for you anyway.
The only time you will see a difference between arrays and pointers being passed to functions is in C++ when you start learning about templates and template specialization. But this question is C, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.
When I call it with 'tempstr' as the first param, is that to be understood as the
address of the first element in the array? Basically like saying &tempstr[0],
right?
char tempstr[1024];
tempstr is an array of characters. When passed tempstr to a function, it decays to a pointer pointing to first element of tempstr. So, its basically same as sending &tempstr[0].
Would there be any difference if I assigned a char* pointer to my tempstr array and then sent that to stringreverse() as the first param, versus how I'm doing it now?
No difference. You might do -
char* pointer = tempstr ; // And can pass pointer
char *revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr);
First right side expression's is evaluavated and the return value is assigned to revstr. But what is revstr that is being passed. Program should allocate memory for it.
char revstr[1024] ;
char *retValue = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr) ;
// ^^^^^^ changed to be different.
Now, when passing tempstr and revstr, they decayed to pointers pointing to their respective first indexes. In that case why this would go wrong -
revstr = stringreverse(tempstr, revstr) ;
Just because arrays are not pointers. char* is different from char[]. Hope it helps !
In response to your question about whether the thing passed to the function is an array or a pointer, the relevant part of the C99 standard (6.3.2.1/3) states:
Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type ‘‘array of type’’ is converted to an expression with type ‘‘pointer to type’’ that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue.
So yes, other than the introduction of another explicit variable, the following two lines are equivalent:
char x[] = "abc"; fn (x);
char x[] = "abc"; char *px = &(x[0]); fn (px);
As to a critique, I'd like to raise the following.
While legal, I find it incongruous to have function prototypes (such as stringreverse) anywhere other than at file level. In fact, I tend to order my functions so that they're not usually necessary, making one less place where you have to change it, should the arguments or return type need to be changed. That would entail, in this case, placing stringreverse before main.
Don't ever use gets in a real program.. It's unprotectable against buffer overflows. At a minimum, use fgets which can be protected, or use a decent input function such as the one found here.
You cannot create a local variable within stringreverse and pass back the address of it. That's undefined behaviour. Once that function returns, that variable is gone and you're most likely pointing to whatever happens to replace it on the stack the next time you call a function.
There's no need to pass in the revstr variable either. If it were a pointer with backing memory (i.e., had space allocated for it), that would be fine but then there would be no need to return it. In that case you would allocate both in the caller:
char tempstr[1024];
char revstr[1024];
stringreverse (tempstr, revstr); // Note no return value needed
// since you're manipulating revstr directly.
You should also try to avoid magic numbers like 1024. Better to have lines like:
#define BUFFSZ 1024
char tempstr[BUFFSZ];
so that you only need to change it in one place if you ever need a new value (that becomes particularly important if you have lots of 1024 numbers with different meanings - global search and replace will be your enemy in that case rather than your friend).
In order to make you function more adaptable, you may want to consider allowing it to handle any length. You can do that by passing both buffers in, or by using malloc to dynamically allocate a buffer for you, something like:
char *reversestring (char *src) {
char *dst = malloc (strlen (src) + 1);
if (dst != NULL) {
// copy characters in reverse order.
}
return dst;
}
This puts the responsibility for freeing that memory on the caller but that's a well-worn way of doing things.
You should probably use one of the two canonical forms for main:
int main (int argc, char *argv[]);
int main (void);
It's also a particularly bad idea to call main from anywhere. While that may look like a nifty way to get an infinite loop, it almost certainly will end up chewing up your stack space :-)
All in all, this is probably the function I'd initially write. It allows the user to populate their own buffer if they want, or to specify they don't have one, in which case one will be created for them:
char *revstr (char *src, char *dst) {
// Cache size in case compiler not smart enough to do so.
// Then create destination buffer if none provided.
size_t sz = strlen (src);
if (dst == NULL) dst = malloc (sz + 1);
// Assuming buffer available, copy string.
if (dst != NULL) {
// Run dst end to start, null terminator first.
dst += sz; *dst = '\0';
// Copy character by character until null terminator in src.
// We end up with dst set to original correct value.
while (*src != '\0')
*--dst = *src++;
}
// Return reversed string (possibly NULL if malloc failed).
return dst;
}
In your stringreverse() function, you are returning the address of a local variable (revstr). This is undefined behaviour and is very bad. Your program may appear to work right now, but it will suddenly fail sometime in the future for reasons that are not obvious.
You have two general choices:
Have stringreverse() allocate memory for the returned string, and leave it up to the caller to free it.
Have the caller preallocate space for the returned string, and tell stringreverse() where it is and how big it is.
My structure looks as follows:
typedef struct {
unsigned long attr;
char fileName[128];
} entity;
Then I try to assign some values but get an error message...
int attribute = 100;
char* fileNameDir = "blabla....etc";
entity* aEntity;
aEntity->attr = attributes;
aEntity->fileName = fileNameDir;
Compiler tells me:
Error: #137: expression must be a modifiable lvalue
aEntity->fileName = fileNameDir;
Why cant I assign here this character to the one in the structure?
Thanks
You're treating a char[] (and a char*, FTM) as if it was a string. Which is is not. You can't assign to an array, you'll have to copy the values. Also, the length of 128 for file names seems arbitrary and might be a potential source for buffer overflows. What's wrong with using std::string? That gets your rid of all these problems.
You're defining a pointer to some entity, don't initialize it, and then use it as if at the random address it points to was a valid entity object.
There's no need to typedef a struct in C++, as, unlike to C, in C++ struct names live in the same name space as other names.
If you absolutely must use the struct as it is defined in your question (it is pre-defined), then look at the other answers and get yourself "The C Programming Language". Otherwise, you might want to use this code:
struct entity {
unsigned long attr;
std::string fileName;
};
entity aEntity;
aEntity.attr = 100;
aEntity.filename = "blabla....etc";
You can't assign a pointer to an array. Use strncpy() for copying the string:
strncpy( aEntity->fileName, fileNameDir, 128 );
This will leave the destination not null-terminated if the source is longer than 128. I think the best solution is to have a bigger-by-one buffer, copy only N bytes and set the N+1th byte to zero:
#define BufferLength 128
typedef struct {
unsigned long attr;
char fileName[BufferLength + 1];
} entity;
strncpy( aEntity->FileName, fileNameDir, BufferLength );
*( aEntity->FileName + BufferLength ) = 0;
You should be copying the filename string, not changing where it points to.
Are you writing C or C++? There is no language called C/C++ and the answer to your question differs depending on the language you are using. If you are using C++, you should use std::string rather than plain old C strings.
There is a major problem in your code which I did not see other posters address:
entity* aEntity;
declares aEntity (should be anEntity) as a pointer to an entity but it is not initialized. Therefore, like all uninitialized pointers, it points to garbage. Hence:
aEntity->attr = attributes;
invokes undefined behavior.
Now, given a properly initialized anEntity, anEntity->fileName is an array, not a pointer to a character array (see question 6.2 in the C FAQ list). As such, you need to copy over the character string pointed to by fileNameDir to the memory block reserved for anEntity->fileName.
I see a lot of recommendations to use strncpy. I am not a proponent of thinking of strncpy as a safer replacement for strcpy because it really isn't. See also Why is strncpy insecure?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct st_entity {
unsigned long attr;
char fileName[FILENAME_MAX + 1];
} entity;
int main(void) {
int status = EXIT_FAILURE;
unsigned long attribute = 100;
char *fileNameDir = "blabla....etc";
entity *anEntity = malloc(sizeof(*anEntity));
if ( anEntity ) {
anEntity->attr = attribute;
anEntity->fileName[0] = '\0';
strncat(anEntity->fileName, fileNameDir, sizeof(anEntity->fileName) - 1);
printf("%lu\n%s\n", anEntity->attr, anEntity->fileName);
status = EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
else {
fputs("Memory allocation failed", stderr);
}
return status;
}
See strncat.
You're trying to use char* as if it was a string, which it is not. In particular, you're telling the compiler to set filename, a 128-sized char array, to the memory address pointed by fileNameDir.
Use strcpy: http://cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstring/strcpy/
You can't assign a pointer to char to a char array, they're not compatible that way, you need to copy contents from one to another, strcpy, strncpy...
Use strncpy():
strncpy( aEntity->fileName, fileNameDir, sizeof(entity.fileName) );
aEntity.fileName[ sizeof(entity.fileName) - 1 ] = 0;
The strncpy() function is similar,
except that not more than n bytes of
src are copied. Thus, if there is no
null byte among the first n bytes of
src, the result will not be
null-terminated. See man page.
1) The line char* fileNameDir = "blabla....etc" creates a pointer to char and assigns the pointer an address; the address in this case being the address of the text "blabla....etc" residing in memory.
2) Furthermore, arrays (char fileName[128]) cannot be assigned to at all; you can only assign to members of an array (e.g. array[0] = blah).
Knowing (1) and (2) above, it should be obvious that assigning an address to an array is not a valid thing to do for several reasons.
What you must do instead is to copy the data that fileNameDir points to, to the array (i.e. the members of the array), using for example strncpy.
Also note that you have merely allocated a pointer to your struct, but no memory to hold the struct data itself!
First of all, is this supposed to be C or C++? The two are not the same or freely interchangeable, and the "right" answer will be different for each.
If this is C, then be aware you cannot assign strings to arrays using the '=' operator; you must either use strcpy() or strncpy():
/**
* In your snippet above, you're just declaring a pointer to entity but not
* allocating it; is that just an oversight?
*/
entity *aEntity = malloc(sizeof *aEntity);
...
strcpy(aEntity->fileName, fileNameDir);
or
strncpy(aEntity->fileName, fileNameDir, sizeof aEntity->fileName);
with appropriate checks for a terminating nul character.
If this is C++, you should be using the std::string type for instead of char* or char[]. That way, you can assign string data using the '=' operator:
struct entity {unsigned long attr; std::string fileName};
entity *aEntity = new entity;
std::string fileNameDir = "...";
...
entity->fileName = fileNameDir;
The major problem is that you declared a pointer to a struct, but allocated no space to it (unless you left some critical code out). And the other problems which others have noted.
The problem lies in the fact that you cannot just use a pointer without initialising it to a variable of that same datatype, which in this is a entity variable. Without this, the pointer will point to some random memory location containing some garbage values. You will get segmentation faults when trying to play with such pointers.
The second thing to be noted is that you can't directly assign strings to variables with the assignment operator(=). You have to use the strcpy() function which is in the string.h header file.
The output of the code is:
100 blabla......etc
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef struct
{
unsigned long attr;
char fileName[128];
} entity;
void main()
{
unsigned long int attribute = 100;
char *fileNameDir = "blabla....etc";
entity struct_entity;
entity *aEntity = &struct_entity;
aEntity->attr = attribute;
strcpy(aEntity->fileName, fileNameDir);
printf("%ld %s", struct_entity.attr, struct_entity.fileName);
}
For char fileName[128], fileName is the array which is 128 char long. you canot change the fileName.
You can change the content of the memory that filename is pointing by using strncpy( aEntity->fileName, fileNameDir, 128 );