This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why does simple C code receive segmentation fault?
Hey Everyone, I'm sure this is a very basic question, but apparently I'm not quite understanding something here.
I've been playing around with C a lot over winter break and just came across something that I thought would work but is giving me a segmentation fault.
if I declare a string as:
char name[5] = "Mike";
I can manipulate the string: *(name+1) = 'a'; This works fine, name becomes "Make".
If I declare as:
char *name = "Mike";
and then try the same thing: *(name+1) = 'a'; I get a segmentation fault. Why can't I do that?
If I malloc the space for the string: char *name = (char*)malloc(5*sizeof(char)); and then copy the string to name: strcpy(name,"Mike"); I can manipulate it like above just fine. *(name+1) = 'a'; works.
What is the difference between char *name = "Mike"', and char *name = (char*)malloc(5*sizeof(char)); strcpy(name,"Mike");? Aren't they both just pointing to memory containing the string?
Sorry for the noobish question!
char name[5] = "Mike" declares a local array and copies the string "Mike" into it. char* name = "Mike" assigns a pointer to "Mike" without copying. In both cases, "Mike" is a constant string held in a read-only page, and so in the second case you are trying to modify the original constant.
So far everybody has said it, but I'm not sure it's clear enough.
char array[5] = "Mike"
creates a constant string "Mike", allocates an array on the stack of size 5, and copies the constant string into it ( theoretically... the compiler will probably optimize a step out )
char *array = "Mike"
creates the same constant string "Mike", but then just assigns the pointer to it instead of copying it to the local stack.
By "constant string", it may be a string allocated in memory and marked read-only by the operating system, so your attempt to modify it causes the segmentation fault.
You are trying to modify a string literal which invokes Undefined Behavior
char *array="Mike"; /* String Literal is stored in read only section of memory */
*array='P'; /* Undefined Behavior */
C99 Section 6.4.5.6 (Section-- String Literals) clearly states:
It is unspecified whether these arrays are distinct provided their elements have the appropriate values. If the program attempts to modify such an array, the behavior is undefined.
Whereas,
char array[5] = "Mike";/*Creates a local array and copies the string "Mike" into it*/
*array='P';/*Fine*/
When you declare a character array, the memory is allocated on the stack and you can write to that.
When you later call malloc(), you allocate memory in the heap and you can write to that.
When you do the thing in the middle that crashes, you've declared a pointer to a string that lives in memory you're not allowed to change. It is static and read-only.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
strcpy(temp1,temp2);
if I want to copy a string literal to an array, it works well, but if I do it in the opposite way, I get an error:
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
strcpy(temp2,temp1);
The feedback from compiler is "Segmentation fault".
So what's the differences? Is there anyway to copy a string to a string literal?
Thx.
You need to understand the subtle difference between these 2 lines
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
The first one creates a 4 character variable and copies "abc\0" to it.
You can overwrite that if you want to. You can do e.g. temp1[0] = 'x' if you want.
The second one creates a pointer that points to the constant literal "123\0".
You cannot overwrite that, its typically in memory that is declared read only to the OS.
What you have is more complicated than a string literal and what you attempt to do cannot be described as "copying to string literal". Which is good, because copying to a string literal is literally impossible. (Excuse the pun.)
First, what you are successfully doing in the first code quote is copying from a string literal into an array of chars of size 4 (you knew that). You are however doing this with the added detail of copying via a pointer to that string literal (temp2). Also note that what the pointer is pointing to is not a variable which can be edited in any way. It is "just a string which the linker knows about".
In the second code quote you attempt to copy a string (strictly speaking a zero-terminated sequence of chars which is stored in an array, temp1, but not a string literal) to a place where a pointer to char (temp2) points to, but which happens not to be a variable which is legal to write to.
The types of the involved variables allow such an operation basically, but in this case it is forbidden/impossible; which causes the segmentation fault.
Now what IS possible and might be what you actually attempt, is to repoint temp2 to the address at the beginning of temp1. I believe that is what gives you the desired effect:
char temp1[4] = "abc";
char *temp2 = "123";
/* Some code, in which temp2 is used with a meaningful
initialisation value, which is represented by "123".
Then, I assume you want to change the pointer, so that it points
to a dynamically determined string, which is stored in a changeable
variable.
To do that: */
temp2=temp1;
/* But make sure to keep the variable, the name you chose makes me worry. */
Note that an array identifier can be used as a pointer to the type of the array entries.
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to write code to reverse a string in place (I'm just trying to get better at C programming and pointer manipulation), but I cannot figure out why I am getting a segmentation fault:
#include <string.h>
void reverse(char *s);
int main() {
char* s = "teststring";
reverse(s);
return 0;
}
void reverse(char *s) {
int i, j;
char temp;
for (i=0,j = (strlen(s)-1); i < j; i++, j--) {
temp = *(s+i); //line 1
*(s+i) = *(s+j); //line 2
*(s+j) = temp; //line 3
}
}
It's lines 2 and 3 that are causing the segmentation fault. I understand that there may be better ways to do this, but I am interested in finding out what specifically in my code is causing the segmentation fault.
Update: I have included the calling function as requested.
There's no way to say from just that code. Most likely, you are passing in a pointer that points to invalid memory, non-modifiable memory or some other kind of memory that just can't be processed the way you process it here.
How do you call your function?
Added: You are passing in a pointer to a string literal. String literals are non-modifiable. You can't reverse a string literal.
Pass in a pointer to a modifiable string instead
char s[] = "teststring";
reverse(s);
This has been explained to death here already. "teststring" is a string literal. The string literal itself is a non-modifiable object. In practice compilers might (and will) put it in read-only memory. When you initialize a pointer like that
char *s = "teststring";
the pointer points directly at the beginning of the string literal. Any attempts to modify what s is pointing to are deemed to fail in general case. You can read it, but you can't write into it. For this reason it is highly recommended to point to string literals with pointer-to-const variables only
const char *s = "teststring";
But when you declare your s as
char s[] = "teststring";
you get a completely independent array s located in ordinary modifiable memory, which is just initialized with string literal. This means that that independent modifiable array s will get its initial value copied from the string literal. After that your s array and the string literal continue to exist as completely independent objects. The literal is still non-modifiable, while your s array is modifiable.
Basically, the latter declaration is functionally equivalent to
char s[11];
strcpy(s, "teststring");
You code could be segfaulting for a number of reasons. Here are the ones that come to mind
s is NULL
s points to a const string which is held in read only memory
s is not NULL terminated
I think #2 is the most likely. Can you show us the call site of reverse?
EDIT
Based on your sample #2 is definitely the answer. A string literal in C/C++ is not modifiable. The proper type is actually const char* and not char*. What you need to do is pass a modifiable string into that buffer.
Quick example:
char* pStr = strdup("foobar");
reverse(pStr);
free(pStr);
Are you testing this something like this?
int main() {
char * str = "foobar";
reverse(str);
printf("%s\n", str);
}
This makes str a string literal and you probably won't be able to edit it (segfaults for me). If you define char * str = strdup(foobar) it should work fine (does for me).
Your declaration is completely wrong:
char* s = "teststring";
"teststring" is stored in the code segment, which is read-only, like code. And, s is a pointer to "teststring", at the same time, you're trying to change the value of a read-only memory range. Thus, segmentation fault.
But with:
char s[] = "teststring";
s is initialized with "teststring", which of course is in the code segment, but there is an additional copy operation going on, to the stack in this case.
See Question 1.32 in the C FAQ list:
What is the difference between these initializations?
char a[] = "string literal";
char *p = "string literal";
My program crashes if I try to assign a new value to p[i].
Answer:
A string literal (the formal term for a double-quoted string in C source) can be used in two slightly different ways:
As the initializer for an array of char, as in the declaration of char a[], it specifies the initial values of the characters in that array (and, if necessary, its size).
Anywhere else, it turns into an unnamed, static array of characters, and this unnamed array may be stored in read-only memory, and which therefore cannot necessarily be modified. In an expression context, the array is converted at once to a pointer, as usual (see section 6), so the second declaration initializes p to point to the unnamed array's first element.
Some compilers have a switch controlling whether string literals are writable or not (for compiling old code), and some may have options to cause string literals to be formally treated as arrays of const char (for better error catching).
(emphasis mine)
See also Back to Basics by Joel.
Which compiler and debugger are you using? Using gcc and gdb, I would compile the code with -g flag and then run it in gdb. When it segfaults, I would just do a backtrace (bt command in gdb) and see which is the offending line causing the problem. Additionally, I would just run the code step by step, while "watching" the pointer values in gdb and know where exactly is the problem.
Good luck.
As some of the answers provided above, the string memory is read-only. However, some compilers provide an option to compile with writable strings. E.g. with gcc, 3.x versions supported -fwritable-strings but newer versions don't.
I think strlen can not work since s is not NULL terminated. So the behaviour of your for iteration is not the one you expect.
Since the result of strlen will be superior than s length you will write in memory where you should not be.
In addition s points to a constant strings hold by a read only memory. You can not modify it. Try to init s by using the gets function as it is done in the strlen example
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to write code to reverse a string in place (I'm just trying to get better at C programming and pointer manipulation), but I cannot figure out why I am getting a segmentation fault:
#include <string.h>
void reverse(char *s);
int main() {
char* s = "teststring";
reverse(s);
return 0;
}
void reverse(char *s) {
int i, j;
char temp;
for (i=0,j = (strlen(s)-1); i < j; i++, j--) {
temp = *(s+i); //line 1
*(s+i) = *(s+j); //line 2
*(s+j) = temp; //line 3
}
}
It's lines 2 and 3 that are causing the segmentation fault. I understand that there may be better ways to do this, but I am interested in finding out what specifically in my code is causing the segmentation fault.
Update: I have included the calling function as requested.
There's no way to say from just that code. Most likely, you are passing in a pointer that points to invalid memory, non-modifiable memory or some other kind of memory that just can't be processed the way you process it here.
How do you call your function?
Added: You are passing in a pointer to a string literal. String literals are non-modifiable. You can't reverse a string literal.
Pass in a pointer to a modifiable string instead
char s[] = "teststring";
reverse(s);
This has been explained to death here already. "teststring" is a string literal. The string literal itself is a non-modifiable object. In practice compilers might (and will) put it in read-only memory. When you initialize a pointer like that
char *s = "teststring";
the pointer points directly at the beginning of the string literal. Any attempts to modify what s is pointing to are deemed to fail in general case. You can read it, but you can't write into it. For this reason it is highly recommended to point to string literals with pointer-to-const variables only
const char *s = "teststring";
But when you declare your s as
char s[] = "teststring";
you get a completely independent array s located in ordinary modifiable memory, which is just initialized with string literal. This means that that independent modifiable array s will get its initial value copied from the string literal. After that your s array and the string literal continue to exist as completely independent objects. The literal is still non-modifiable, while your s array is modifiable.
Basically, the latter declaration is functionally equivalent to
char s[11];
strcpy(s, "teststring");
You code could be segfaulting for a number of reasons. Here are the ones that come to mind
s is NULL
s points to a const string which is held in read only memory
s is not NULL terminated
I think #2 is the most likely. Can you show us the call site of reverse?
EDIT
Based on your sample #2 is definitely the answer. A string literal in C/C++ is not modifiable. The proper type is actually const char* and not char*. What you need to do is pass a modifiable string into that buffer.
Quick example:
char* pStr = strdup("foobar");
reverse(pStr);
free(pStr);
Are you testing this something like this?
int main() {
char * str = "foobar";
reverse(str);
printf("%s\n", str);
}
This makes str a string literal and you probably won't be able to edit it (segfaults for me). If you define char * str = strdup(foobar) it should work fine (does for me).
Your declaration is completely wrong:
char* s = "teststring";
"teststring" is stored in the code segment, which is read-only, like code. And, s is a pointer to "teststring", at the same time, you're trying to change the value of a read-only memory range. Thus, segmentation fault.
But with:
char s[] = "teststring";
s is initialized with "teststring", which of course is in the code segment, but there is an additional copy operation going on, to the stack in this case.
See Question 1.32 in the C FAQ list:
What is the difference between these initializations?
char a[] = "string literal";
char *p = "string literal";
My program crashes if I try to assign a new value to p[i].
Answer:
A string literal (the formal term for a double-quoted string in C source) can be used in two slightly different ways:
As the initializer for an array of char, as in the declaration of char a[], it specifies the initial values of the characters in that array (and, if necessary, its size).
Anywhere else, it turns into an unnamed, static array of characters, and this unnamed array may be stored in read-only memory, and which therefore cannot necessarily be modified. In an expression context, the array is converted at once to a pointer, as usual (see section 6), so the second declaration initializes p to point to the unnamed array's first element.
Some compilers have a switch controlling whether string literals are writable or not (for compiling old code), and some may have options to cause string literals to be formally treated as arrays of const char (for better error catching).
(emphasis mine)
See also Back to Basics by Joel.
Which compiler and debugger are you using? Using gcc and gdb, I would compile the code with -g flag and then run it in gdb. When it segfaults, I would just do a backtrace (bt command in gdb) and see which is the offending line causing the problem. Additionally, I would just run the code step by step, while "watching" the pointer values in gdb and know where exactly is the problem.
Good luck.
As some of the answers provided above, the string memory is read-only. However, some compilers provide an option to compile with writable strings. E.g. with gcc, 3.x versions supported -fwritable-strings but newer versions don't.
I think strlen can not work since s is not NULL terminated. So the behaviour of your for iteration is not the one you expect.
Since the result of strlen will be superior than s length you will write in memory where you should not be.
In addition s points to a constant strings hold by a read only memory. You can not modify it. Try to init s by using the gets function as it is done in the strlen example
I read this on wikipedia
int main(void)
{
char *s = "hello world";
*s = 'H';
}
When the program containing this code is compiled, the string "hello world" is placed in the section of the program executable file marked as read-only; when loaded, the operating system places it with other strings and constant data in a read-only segment of memory. When executed, a variable, s, is set to point to the string's location, and an attempt is made to write an H character through the variable into the memory, causing a segmentation fault**
i don't know why the string is placed in read only segment.please someone could explain this.
String literals are stored in read-only memory, that's just how it works. Your code uses a pointer initialized to point at the memory where a string literal is stored, and thus you can't validly modify that memory.
To get a string in modifiable memory, do this:
char s[] = "hello world";
then you're fine, since now you're just using the constant string to initialize a non-constant array.
There is a big difference between:
char * s = "Hello world";
and
char s[] = "Hello world";
In the first case, s is a pointer to something that you can't change. It's stored in read-only memory (typically, in the code section of your application).
In the latter case, you allocate an array in read-write memory (typically plain RAM), that you can modify.
When you do: char *s = "hello world"; then s is a pointer that points to a memory that is in the code part, so you can't change it.
When you do: char s[] = "Hello World"; then s is an array of chars
that are on the stack, so you can change it.
If you don't want the string to be changed during the program, it is better to do: char
const *s = ....;. Then, when you try to change the string, your program will not crash with segmentation fault, it will arise a compiler error (which is much better).
first have a good understanding of pointers, I will give u a short demo:
First let us analyze your code line by line. Lets start from main onwards
char *s = "Some_string";
first of all, you are declaring a pointer to a char variable, now *s is a address in memory, and C will kick you if you try to change its memory value, thats illegal, so u better declare a character array, then assign s to its address, then change s.
Hope you get, it. For further reference and detailed understanding, refer KN King: C programming A Modern Approach
Per the language definition, string literals have to be stored in such a way that their lifetime extends over the lifetime of the program, and that they are visible over the entire program.
Exactly what this means in terms of where the string gets stored is up to the implementation; the language definition does not mandate that string literals are stored in read-only memory, and not all implementations do so. It only says that attempting to modify the contents of a string literal results in undefined behavior, meaning the implementation is free to do whatever it wants.
This question already has answers here:
Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a "char *s" initialized with a string literal, but not "char s[]"?
(19 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to write code to reverse a string in place (I'm just trying to get better at C programming and pointer manipulation), but I cannot figure out why I am getting a segmentation fault:
#include <string.h>
void reverse(char *s);
int main() {
char* s = "teststring";
reverse(s);
return 0;
}
void reverse(char *s) {
int i, j;
char temp;
for (i=0,j = (strlen(s)-1); i < j; i++, j--) {
temp = *(s+i); //line 1
*(s+i) = *(s+j); //line 2
*(s+j) = temp; //line 3
}
}
It's lines 2 and 3 that are causing the segmentation fault. I understand that there may be better ways to do this, but I am interested in finding out what specifically in my code is causing the segmentation fault.
Update: I have included the calling function as requested.
There's no way to say from just that code. Most likely, you are passing in a pointer that points to invalid memory, non-modifiable memory or some other kind of memory that just can't be processed the way you process it here.
How do you call your function?
Added: You are passing in a pointer to a string literal. String literals are non-modifiable. You can't reverse a string literal.
Pass in a pointer to a modifiable string instead
char s[] = "teststring";
reverse(s);
This has been explained to death here already. "teststring" is a string literal. The string literal itself is a non-modifiable object. In practice compilers might (and will) put it in read-only memory. When you initialize a pointer like that
char *s = "teststring";
the pointer points directly at the beginning of the string literal. Any attempts to modify what s is pointing to are deemed to fail in general case. You can read it, but you can't write into it. For this reason it is highly recommended to point to string literals with pointer-to-const variables only
const char *s = "teststring";
But when you declare your s as
char s[] = "teststring";
you get a completely independent array s located in ordinary modifiable memory, which is just initialized with string literal. This means that that independent modifiable array s will get its initial value copied from the string literal. After that your s array and the string literal continue to exist as completely independent objects. The literal is still non-modifiable, while your s array is modifiable.
Basically, the latter declaration is functionally equivalent to
char s[11];
strcpy(s, "teststring");
You code could be segfaulting for a number of reasons. Here are the ones that come to mind
s is NULL
s points to a const string which is held in read only memory
s is not NULL terminated
I think #2 is the most likely. Can you show us the call site of reverse?
EDIT
Based on your sample #2 is definitely the answer. A string literal in C/C++ is not modifiable. The proper type is actually const char* and not char*. What you need to do is pass a modifiable string into that buffer.
Quick example:
char* pStr = strdup("foobar");
reverse(pStr);
free(pStr);
Are you testing this something like this?
int main() {
char * str = "foobar";
reverse(str);
printf("%s\n", str);
}
This makes str a string literal and you probably won't be able to edit it (segfaults for me). If you define char * str = strdup(foobar) it should work fine (does for me).
Your declaration is completely wrong:
char* s = "teststring";
"teststring" is stored in the code segment, which is read-only, like code. And, s is a pointer to "teststring", at the same time, you're trying to change the value of a read-only memory range. Thus, segmentation fault.
But with:
char s[] = "teststring";
s is initialized with "teststring", which of course is in the code segment, but there is an additional copy operation going on, to the stack in this case.
See Question 1.32 in the C FAQ list:
What is the difference between these initializations?
char a[] = "string literal";
char *p = "string literal";
My program crashes if I try to assign a new value to p[i].
Answer:
A string literal (the formal term for a double-quoted string in C source) can be used in two slightly different ways:
As the initializer for an array of char, as in the declaration of char a[], it specifies the initial values of the characters in that array (and, if necessary, its size).
Anywhere else, it turns into an unnamed, static array of characters, and this unnamed array may be stored in read-only memory, and which therefore cannot necessarily be modified. In an expression context, the array is converted at once to a pointer, as usual (see section 6), so the second declaration initializes p to point to the unnamed array's first element.
Some compilers have a switch controlling whether string literals are writable or not (for compiling old code), and some may have options to cause string literals to be formally treated as arrays of const char (for better error catching).
(emphasis mine)
See also Back to Basics by Joel.
Which compiler and debugger are you using? Using gcc and gdb, I would compile the code with -g flag and then run it in gdb. When it segfaults, I would just do a backtrace (bt command in gdb) and see which is the offending line causing the problem. Additionally, I would just run the code step by step, while "watching" the pointer values in gdb and know where exactly is the problem.
Good luck.
As some of the answers provided above, the string memory is read-only. However, some compilers provide an option to compile with writable strings. E.g. with gcc, 3.x versions supported -fwritable-strings but newer versions don't.
I think strlen can not work since s is not NULL terminated. So the behaviour of your for iteration is not the one you expect.
Since the result of strlen will be superior than s length you will write in memory where you should not be.
In addition s points to a constant strings hold by a read only memory. You can not modify it. Try to init s by using the gets function as it is done in the strlen example