C strings, strlen and Valgrind - c

I'm trying to understand why Valgrind is spitting out :
==3409== Invalid read of size 8
==3409== at 0x4EA3B92: __GI_strlen (strlen.S:31)
whenever I'm applying strlen on a dynamically allocated string?
Here is a short testcase :
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main() {
char *hello = "Hello World";
char *hello2;
/* Step 1 */
printf("Step 1\n");
printf("strlen : %lu\n",(unsigned long)strlen(hello));
/* Step 2 */
hello2 = calloc(12,sizeof(char));
hello2[0] = 'H';
hello2[1] = 'e';
hello2[2] = 'l';
hello2[3] = 'l';
hello2[4] = 'o';
hello2[5] = ' ';
hello2[6] = 'W';
hello2[7] = 'o';
hello2[8] = 'r';
hello2[9] = 'l';
hello2[10] = 'd';
hello2[11] = 0;
printf("Step 2\n");
printf("strlen : %lu\n",(unsigned long)strlen(hello2));
free(hello2);
return 0;
}
And here is the result output from Valgrind :
lenain#perseus:~/work/leaf$ valgrind ./leaf
==3409== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==3409== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==3409== Using Valgrind-3.5.0-Debian and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==3409== Command: ./leaf
==3409==
Step 1
strlen : 11
Step 2
==3409== Invalid read of size 8
==3409== at 0x4EA3B92: __GI_strlen (strlen.S:31)
==3409== by 0x40098A: main (in /home/lenain/work/leaf/leaf)
==3409== Address 0x5189048 is 8 bytes inside a block of size 12 alloc'd
==3409== at 0x4C234CB: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3409== by 0x4008F0: main (in /home/lenain/work/leaf/leaf)
==3409==
strlen : 11
==3409==
==3409== HEAP SUMMARY:
==3409== in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3409== total heap usage: 1 allocs, 1 frees, 12 bytes allocated
==3409==
==3409== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==3409==
==3409== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==3409== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)
What is the correct way to avoid these warnings? Are they real warnings?

This is most likely related to this bugreport:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518247
As Paul already suggested, strlen() on intel platforms optionally uses SSE optimization to speed up strlen and friends. This speed up involve safe reads behind the allocated blocks, something older versions of valgrind did not understand yet. So upgrade your valgrind and you will be OK.

My guess is that your strlen implementation has been optimised such that it reads 8 bytes at a time and tests for the first zero byte anywhere in the 64 bit word (probably using MMX/SSE). This means that for your 12 byte string example it's reading 4 bytes beyond the end of the string. It's arguable as to whether this is a bug in the strlen implementation or not. I think you'll just have to ignore it. Or make sure your string allocations are always multiples of 8 bytes.

Related

Valgrind leak of memory in a function that concatenates strings

I using valgrind to find a leak of memory. I wrote a function "prefix_to_string" to concatenate any two strings, but when I use the command
valgrind --leak-check=full ./helloworld
it says that I have a lot of leaks of memory. I really don't know where and why. I asked a friend why it was happening and he says that it was for doing malloc 2 times, 1 out the function and 1 in the function, but I don't know how to take care of that leak, because I think that I need to do those memory requests.
Here is the output that Valgrind gives me:
==9078== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==9078== Copyright (C) 2002-2015, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==9078== Using Valgrind-3.11.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==9078== Command: ./holamundo
==9078==
==9078== error calling PR_SET_PTRACER, vgdb might block
150:62
bye
==9078==
==9078== HEAP SUMMARY:
==9078== in use at exit: 63 bytes in 4 blocks
==9078== total heap usage: 5 allocs, 1 frees, 575 bytes allocated
==9078==
==9078== 5 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 4
==9078== at 0x4C2DB8F: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==9078== by 0x400740: prefix_to_string (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078== by 0x4008AC: main (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078==
==9078== 7 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 4
==9078== at 0x4C2DB8F: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==9078== by 0x400740: prefix_to_string (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078== by 0x4008C3: main (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078==
==9078== 8 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3 of 4
==9078== at 0x4C2DB8F: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==9078== by 0x400740: prefix_to_string (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078== by 0x4008D8: main (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078==
==9078== 43 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4 of 4
==9078== at 0x4C2DB8F: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==9078== by 0x400897: main (in /mnt/c/Users/MrRaul/desktop/Tareas_edd/test_en_C/test_informales/holamundo)
==9078==
==9078== LEAK SUMMARY:
==9078== definitely lost: 63 bytes in 4 blocks
==9078== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==9078== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==9078== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==9078== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==9078==
==9078== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==9078== ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
and here is the main of my code, so this way you can reproduce the problem:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <math.h>
char* prefix_to_string(char* first_string,char* second_string){
char* name = first_string;
char* extension = second_string;
char* name_with_extension;
name_with_extension = malloc(strlen(name)*(sizeof(char))+strlen(extension)*(sizeof(char))+1); /* make space for the new string (should check the return value ...) */
strcpy(name_with_extension, name); /* copy name into the new var */
strcat(name_with_extension, extension); /* add the extension */
return name_with_extension;
}
static char *itoa_simple_helper(char *dest, int i) {
if (i <= -10) {
dest = itoa_simple_helper(dest, i/10);
}
*dest++ = '0' - i%10;
return dest;
}
char *itoa_simple(char *dest, int i) {
char *s = dest;
if (i < 0) {
*s++ = '-';
} else {
i = -i;
}
*itoa_simple_helper(s, i) = '\0';
return dest;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int idx = 150;
int id = 62;
char str_idx[20];
char str_id[20];
itoa_simple( str_idx ,idx);
itoa_simple( str_id,id);
char *text_to_write;
text_to_write = malloc(2+sizeof(str_id)+sizeof(str_idx)+1);
text_to_write = prefix_to_string(str_idx,":");
text_to_write = prefix_to_string(text_to_write,str_id);
text_to_write = prefix_to_string(text_to_write,"\n");
printf("%s",text_to_write);
printf("bye\n");
free(text_to_write);
return 1;
}
You don't call free() often enough — you can't expect to avoid memory leaks if you don't call free() to release each separate memory allocation. And your repeated assignments to text_to_write in main() mean that you discard the only pointers to some of the allocated memory, so you can't free what was allocated. C requires endless care with memory management.
You have:
char *text_to_write;
text_to_write = malloc(2+sizeof(str_id)+sizeof(str_idx)+1);
// This assignment throws away the memory from the previous malloc
text_to_write = prefix_to_string(str_idx,":");
// This assignment throws away the memory from the previous prefix_to_string
text_to_write = prefix_to_string(text_to_write,str_id);
// This assignment also throws away the memory from the previous prefix_to_string
text_to_write = prefix_to_string(text_to_write,"\n");
printf("%s",text_to_write);
printf("bye\n");
// Calling free here only releases the last allocation from prefix_to_string
free(text_to_write);
You need something more like:
char *part1 = prefix_to_string(str_idx, ":");
char *part2 = prefix_to_string(part1, str_id);
char *part3 = prefix_to_string(part2, "\n");
printf("%s", part3);
printf("bye\n");
free(part1);
free(part2);
free(part3);

Copying a string - how do I have to deal with memory leaks and error cases?

I am trying to implement the function int *cpy_array(int v[], int size), which copies the array in another and returns the new array as pointer. I also have to watch out for error cases and use dynamic memory.
Ok i know that malloc returns 0 when there is nout enough memory available. I was wondering if there might be any other possible errors as well which I missed out. Then I have to implement free() in the case of succsess as well as in error case.
I tried to implement something like:
if (!w[i]) {
for (k = 0; k < i; ++k)
free(w[k]);
return 0;
}
But there was always an error with this.
In file included from hot.c:2:
C:/mingw-w64/i686-8.1.0-posix-dwarf-rt_v6-rev0/mingw32/i686-w64-mingw32/include/stdlib.h:502:27: note: expected 'void *' but argument is of type 'int'"
void __cdecl free(void *_Memory);
And I am not sure why to free() the new array or should the old array be freed? I tried to free it with pointer in my function, but didnt work either and dont think it should be in the main?
Here is the original code:
int *cpy_array(int v[], int size);
int main(void)
{
int size;
size = 4;
int myArray[4] = {1234};
if (*cpy_array(myArray, size) == 0)
{
printf("No memory available.");
}else{
printf("The new Array: %i", *cpy_array(myArray, size));
}
return 0;
}
int *cpy_array(int v[], int size)
{
int i;
int *a = malloc(size * sizeof(int));
if(*a == 0)
return 0;
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
a[i] = v[i];
}
return a;
}
In your first code snippet, you incorrectly deallocated the array of integers w. You can't free single integers in that array, but what you need to do is simply type in:
free(w);
That will free the entire array.
You can also see from the text of the error - note: expected 'void *' but argument is of type 'int'" void __cdecl free(void *_Memory), that the program expected a pointer to the array and not an integer.
You can't free the old array, because it's statically created and the memory for it allocated at the start of the program and it will be freed at the end of the function in which it was defined by the program itself, so you don't need to worry about that. Whereas it's your job to free the dynamically created arrays such as the one you created through the cpy_array(int v[], int size) function.
More on the difference between static and dynamic allocation, you can look up here:
Difference between static memory allocation and dynamic memory allocation
This part of code, wouldn't proparly print the array (you will just print the first number of the array), and also you are calling the function twice, which is excessive and should be done only once for the same array.
if (*cpy_array(myArray, size) == 0)
{
printf("No memory available.");
}else{
printf("The new Array: %i", *cpy_array(myArray, size));
}
You could easify fix these problems by defining a pointer which could store the return value of the function, so you don't have to call it twice and then to correctly print the array use a for loop:
int * copiedArray = cpy_array(myArray, size);
if (copiedArray == NULL)
{
printf("No memory available.");
}else{
printf("The new Array: ");
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
printf("%i ", copiedArray[i]);
}
I noticed that you are checking whether a pointer is pointing to something or not incorrectly. Once in main:
if (*cpy_array(myArray, size) == 0)
And once in the cpy_array(int v[], int size) function:
if(*a == 0)
This will not work because you are dereferencing the pointer and checking whether the value to which it is pointing is zero. What you want to do is check the value of the pointer itself. If that is NULL then the allocation didn't work:
if (cpy_array(myArray, size) == NULL)
and
if(a == NULL)
You should use NULL instead of zero because you are explicitly stating that you are checking a value of a pointer, and NULL may not be equal to zero on every machine.
More on that topic here:
What is the difference between NULL, '\0' and 0
To detect you problems concerning the memory use valgrind, If I do that gives :
==10947== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==10947== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==10947== Using Valgrind-3.13.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==10947== Command: ./a.out
==10947==
==10947== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==10947== at 0x10548: cpy_array (c.c:25)
==10947== by 0x104B3: main (c.c:11)
==10947==
==10947== Invalid read of size 4
==10947== at 0x104B8: main (c.c:11)
==10947== Address 0x0 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
==10947==
==10947==
==10947== Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
==10947== Access not within mapped region at address 0x0
==10947== at 0x104B8: main (c.c:11)
==10947== If you believe this happened as a result of a stack
==10947== overflow in your program's main thread (unlikely but
==10947== possible), you can try to increase the size of the
==10947== main thread stack using the --main-stacksize= flag.
==10947== The main thread stack size used in this run was 8388608.
==10947==
==10947== HEAP SUMMARY:
==10947== in use at exit: 16 bytes in 1 blocks
==10947== total heap usage: 1 allocs, 0 frees, 16 bytes allocated
==10947==
==10947== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
==10947== at 0x4847568: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==10947== by 0x10533: cpy_array (c.c:24)
==10947== by 0x104B3: main (c.c:11)
==10947==
==10947== LEAK SUMMARY:
==10947== definitely lost: 16 bytes in 1 blocks
==10947== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==10947== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==10947== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==10947== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==10947==
==10947== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==10947== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised values come from
==10947== ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 6 from 3)
The "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)" comes from the *a in if(*a == 0) and "Invalid read of size 4 ..." because you dereference 0 because of the return 0;
after changing if(*a == 0) to if(a == 0) to solve the two previous problems that condition is (a priori) false and _valgrind says :
==11116== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==11116== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==11116== Using Valgrind-3.13.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==11116== Command: ./a.out
==11116==
Mein neuer Array enthaelt folgende Zeichen: 1==11116==
==11116== HEAP SUMMARY:
==11116== in use at exit: 32 bytes in 2 blocks
==11116== total heap usage: 3 allocs, 1 frees, 1,056 bytes allocated
==11116==
==11116== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 2
==11116== at 0x4847568: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==11116== by 0x10523: cpy_array (c.c:24)
==11116== by 0x104A3: main (c.c:11)
==11116==
==11116== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 2
==11116== at 0x4847568: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==11116== by 0x10523: cpy_array (c.c:24)
==11116== by 0x104CF: main (c.c:15)
==11116==
==11116== LEAK SUMMARY:
==11116== definitely lost: 32 bytes in 2 blocks
==11116== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11116== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11116== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11116== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11116==
==11116== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==11116== ERROR SUMMARY: 2 errors from 2 contexts (suppressed: 6 from 3)
so yes you have memory leaks because you lost 2 times the allocation return by cpy_array
you need to have something like :
int * v = cpy_array(myArray, size);
if (*v == 0)
{
printf("Speicher kann nicht freigegeben werden.");
}else{
printf("Mein neuer Array enthaelt folgende Zeichen: %i",
*v);
}
free(v);
Doing that correction valgrind signals nothing :
valgrind --leak-check=full ./a.out
==11224== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==11224== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==11224== Using Valgrind-3.13.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==11224== Command: ./a.out
==11224==
Mein neuer Array enthaelt folgende Zeichen: 1==11224==
==11224== HEAP SUMMARY:
==11224== in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11224== total heap usage: 2 allocs, 2 frees, 1,040 bytes allocated
==11224==
==11224== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==11224==
==11224== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==11224== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 6 from 3)
I encourage you to
compile with all warning detection, like gcc -g -Wall -pedantic ...
when you have problem use valgrind and/or debugger
even you do not see a problem run anyway under valgrind, so problems can be hidden
this is not the correct way to initialize the array
int myArray[4] = {1234};
write
int myArray[4] = { 1,2,3,4 };
or simply
int myArray[] = { 1,2,3,4 };
Calling the function cpy_array .. when you write
if (*cpy_array(myArray, size) == 0)
Is not correct, why? because what if the function returns NULL, then you are dereferencing NULL
In your function cpy_array you are dereferencing a, that is not correct, instead compare the pointer
if ( a == NULL)
and use the standard constant NULL for a null pointer instead of 0 since it may not be 0 on all platforms.

Valgrind shows more memory allocated than actually is

I was writting some simple code in C to test some memory allocation and pointers:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int *randomAlloc(int n) {
int *address = NULL, i = 0;
address = malloc (n * sizeof(int));
for (i = 0; i < n ; i++){
*(address + i) = i ;
}
return address;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[] ) {
int *address;
int n;
printf("Type vector size: ");
scanf("%d", &n);
address = randomAlloc(n);
free(address);
}
Yet for some reason when I type 4 as input valgrind outputs:
==2375== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==2375== Copyright (C) 2002-2015, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==2375== Using Valgrind-3.12.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==2375== Command: ./a.out
==2375==
Type vector size: 4
==2375==
==2375== HEAP SUMMARY:
==2375== in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==2375== total heap usage: 3 allocs, 3 frees, 2,064 bytes allocated
==2375==
==2375== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==2375==
==2375== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==2375== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
There is only one alloc and one free at the code. As n = 4, I'd expect it to alloc 4*4(sizeof(int))=16 bytes. Where is this comming from?
Valgrind keeps track of all memory allocations which occur in your application, including ones made internally by the C library. It is not (and cannot) be limited to allocations you make explicitly, as the C library can return pointers to memory which it has allocated internally.
Many standard I/O implementations will allocate buffers for use by printf() and/or scanf(), which is probably what accounts for the numbers you're seeing.
you should only have 1 memory alloc for the 'address' pointer's memory space. the other 2 memory allocs are for the printf and scanf functions.
to proof this, comment out the printf and scanf statements and you should see 1 alloc and 1 free when you use valgrind to execute the program...

I don't understand why I get this valgrind error

I got the following code:
/* main.c */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main (){
int i;
char *msg = "This is a simple and small message";
int len = strlen (msg);
char *new_msg = (char *) malloc (len);
for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
new_msg[i] = 'A';
printf ("%s\n", new_msg);
free (new_msg);
return 0;
}
I compiled it and then run it using valgrind with this command:
valgrind --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes ./main
I got the this output:
==8286== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==8286== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==8286== Using Valgrind-3.10.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==8286== Command: ./main
==8286==
==8286== Invalid read of size 1
==8286== at 0x4C2C1B4: strlen (vg_replace_strmem.c:412)
==8286== by 0x4EA09FB: puts (ioputs.c:36)
==8286== by 0x400636: main (main.c:12)
==8286== Address 0x51de062 is 0 bytes after a block of size 34 alloc'd
==8286== at 0x4C28C20: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:296)
==8286== by 0x400601: main (main.c:9)
==8286==
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
==8286==
==8286== HEAP SUMMARY:
==8286== in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==8286== total heap usage: 1 allocs, 1 frees, 34 bytes allocated
==8286==
==8286== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==8286==
==8286== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==8286== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
I see that all the allocated memory was released, but I still get an error that I don't understand.
Appreciate the help.
This is a pretty straightforward error: there is an invalid read of new_msg because the null terminator is not there.
You have allocated the number of chars equal to the length of the original string, so currently there's no space to fit '\0' without making undefined behavior. Change your code as follows to fix the problem:
char *new_msg = malloc (len+1);
for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
new_msg[i] = 'A';
new_msg[len] = '\0';
There are a number of things to be changes in your code.
1) len should be of size_t not int, as strlen() returns of type size_t
2) (char *) malloc (len); drop the cast. This isn't an error, although there are reasons one should not cast.
3) new_msg is not NULL terminated \0. This is the reason the error is occurring.
you use strlen() to get length, but not contain the '\0'.
so when you malloc a new array, you should use len + 1, and set new_msg[len] is '\0'.

Valgrind Reports Invalid Realloc

I'm trying to backfill my knowledge of C memory management. I've come from a mostly scripting and managed background, and I want to learn more about C and C++. To that end I've been reading a few books, including one which included this example of using realloc to trim a string of whitespace:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
char* trim(char* phrase)
{
char* old = phrase;
char* new = phrase;
while(*old == ' ') {
old++;
}
while(*old) {
*(new++) = *(old++);
}
*new = 0;
return (char*)realloc(phrase, strlen(phrase)+1);
}
int main ()
{
char* buffer = (char*)malloc(strlen(" cat")+1);
strcpy(buffer, " cat");
printf("%s\n", trim(buffer));
free(buffer);
buffer=NULL;
return 0;
}
I dutifully copied the example, and compiled with c99 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -O3 -pedantic -march=native. I don't get any compile errors, and the app runs and does what's promised in the book, but when I run it against valgrind I get an error about invalid realloc.
==21601== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==21601== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==21601== Using Valgrind-3.10.0.SVN and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==21601== Command: ./trim
==21601==
==21601== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
==21601== at 0x402B3D8: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
==21601== by 0x804844E: main (in /home/mo/programming/learning_pointers/trim)
==21601== Address 0x4202028 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 6 free'd
==21601== at 0x402C324: realloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
==21601== by 0x80485A9: trim (in /home/mo/programming/learning_pointers/trim)
==21601== by 0x804842E: main (in /home/mo/programming/learning_pointers/trim)
==21601==
==21601==
==21601== HEAP SUMMARY:
==21601== in use at exit: 4 bytes in 1 blocks
==21601== total heap usage: 2 allocs, 2 frees, 10 bytes allocated
==21601==
==21601== 4 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
==21601== at 0x402C324: realloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
==21601== by 0x80485A9: trim (in /home/mo/programming/learning_pointers/trim)
==21601== by 0x804842E: main (in /home/mo/programming/learning_pointers/trim)
==21601==
==21601== LEAK SUMMARY:
==21601== definitely lost: 4 bytes in 1 blocks
==21601== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==21601== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==21601== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==21601== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==21601==
==21601== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==21601== ERROR SUMMARY: 2 errors from 2 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
So please help me understand why it's consider an invalid realloc. Is the example crap? Is there something I'm missing? I know that according to the specs, realloc expects the pointer to have been created previously by malloc, so is it because the realloc is in another function? Or is valgrind confused because they're in separate functions? I'm not a complete idiot (most days), but right now I kind of feel like one for not seeing the issue.
Thanks in advance!
You're trying to free the original pointer, not the reallocd one. You can fix it by:
buffer = trim(buffer)

Resources