Programs executes correctly and then segfaults - c

I'm trying to learn C programming and spent some time practicing with pointers this morning, by writing a little function to replace the lowercase characters in a string to their uppercase counterparts. This is what I got:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
char *to_upper(char *src);
int main(void) {
char *a = "hello world";
printf("String at %p is \"%s\"\n", a, a);
printf("Uppercase becomes \"%s\"\n", to_upper(a));
printf("Uppercase becomes \"%s\"\n", to_upper(a));
return 0;
}
char *to_upper(char *src) {
char *dest;
int i;
for (i=0;i<strlen(src);i++) {
if ( 71 < *(src + i) && 123 > *(src + i)){
*(dest+i) = *(src + i) ^ 32;
} else {
*(dest+i) = *(src + i);
}
}
return dest;
}
This runs fine and prints exactly what it should (including the repetition of the "HELLO WORLD" line), but afterwards ends in a Segmentation fault. What I can't understand is that the function is clearly compiling, executing and returning successfully, and the flow in main continues. So is the Segmentation fault happening at return 0?

dest is uninitialised in your to_upper() function. So, you're overwriting some random part of memory when you do that, and evidently that causes your program to crash as you try to return from main().
If you want to modify the value in place, initialise dest:
char *dest = src;
If you want to make a copy of the value, try:
char *dest = strdup(src);
If you do this, you will need to make sure somebody calls free() on the pointer returned by to_upper() (unless you don't care about memory leaks).

Like everyone else has pointed out, the problem is that dest hasn't been initialized and is pointing to a random location that contains something important. You have several choices of how to deal with this:
Allocate the dest buffer dynamically and return that pointer value, which the caller is responsible for freeing;
Assign dest to point to src and modify the value in place (in which case you'll have to change the declaration of a in main() from char *a = "hello world"; to char a[] = "hello world";, otherwise you'll be trying to modify the contents of a string literal, which is undefined);
Pass the destination buffer as a separate argument.
Option 1 -- allocate the target buffer dynamically:
char *to_upper(char *src)
{
char *dest = malloc(strlen(src) + 1);
...
}
Option 2 -- have dest point to src and modify the string in place:
int main(void)
{
char a[] = "hello world";
...
}
char *to_upper(char *src)
{
char *dest = src;
...
}
Option 3 -- have main() pass the target buffer as an argument:
int main(void)
{
char *a = "hello world";
char *b = malloc(strlen(a) + 1); // or char b[12];
...
printf("Uppercase becomes %s\n", to_upper(a,b));
...
free(b); // omit if b is statically allocated
return 0;
}
char *to_upper(char *src, char *dest)
{
...
return dest;
}
Of the three, I prefer the third option; you're not modifying the input (so it doesn't matter whether a is an array of char or a pointer to a string literal) and you're not splitting memory management responsibilities between functions (i.e., main() is solely responsible for allocating and freeing the destination buffer).
I realize you're trying to familiarize yourself with how pointers work and some other low-level details, but bear in mind that a[i] is easier to read and follow than *(a+i). Also, there are number of functions in the standard library such as islower() and toupper() that don't rely on specific encodings (such as ASCII):
#include <ctype.h>
...
if (islower(src[i])
dest[i] = toupper(src[i]);

As others have said, your problem is not allocating enough space for dest. There is another, more subtle problem with your code.
To convert to uppercase, you are testing a given char to see if it lies between 71 ans 123, and if it does, you xor the value with 32. This assumes ASCII encoding of characters. ASCII is the most widely used encoding, but it is not the only one.
It is better to write code that works for every type of encoding. If we were sure that 'a', 'b', ..., 'z', and 'A', 'B', ..., 'Z', are contiguous, then we could calculate the offset from the lowercase letters to the uppercase ones and use that to change case:
/* WARNING: WRONG CODE */
if (c >= 'a' && c <= 'z') c = c + 'A' - 'a';
But unfortunately, there is no such guarantee given by the C standard. In fact EBCDIC encoding is an example.
So, to convert to uppercase, you can either do it the easy way:
#include <ctype.h>
int d = toupper(c);
or, roll your own:
/* Untested, modifies it in-place */
char *to_upper(char *src)
{
static const char *lower = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
static const char *upper = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
static size_t n = strlen(lower);
size_t i;
size_t m = strlen(src);
for (i=0; i < m; ++i) {
char *tmp;
while ((tmp = strchr(lower, src[i])) != NULL) {
src[i] = upper[tmp-lower];
}
}
}
The advantage of toupper() is that it checks the current locale to convert characters to upper case. This may make æ to Æ for example, which is usually the correct thing to do. Note: I use only English and Hindi characters myself, so I could be wrong about my particular example!

As noted by others, your problem is that char *dest is uninitialized. You can modify src's memory in place, as Greg Hewgill suggests, or you can use malloc to reserve some:
char *dest = (char *)malloc(strlen(src) + 1);
Note that the use of strdup suggested by Greg performs this call to malloc under the covers. The '+ 1' is to reserve space for the null terminator, '\0', which you should also be copying from src to dest. (Your current example only goes up to strlen, which does not include the null terminator.) Can I suggest that you add a line like this after your loop?
*(dest + i) = 0;
This will correctly terminate the string. Note that this only applies if you choose to go the malloc route. Modifying the memory in place or using strdup will take care of this problem for you. I'm just pointing it out because you mentioned you were trying to learn.
Hope this helps.

Related

Simple question on dynamically allocating memory to a char pointer

I am studying for a Data Structures and Algorithms exam. One of the sample questions related to dynamic memory allocation requires you to create a function that passes a string, which takes it at copies it to a user defined char pointer. The question provides the struct body to start off.
I did something like this:
typedef struct smart_string {
char *word;
int length;
} smart_string;
smart_string* create_smart_string(char *str)
{
smart_string *s = (smart_string*)malloc(sizeof(smart_string));
s->length = strlen(str);
s->word = malloc(s->length);
strcpy(s->word, str);
return s;
}
But the answer was this
typedef struct smart_string {
char *word;
int length;
} smart_string;
smart_string *create_smart_string(char *str)
{
smart_string *s = malloc(sizeof(smart_string));
s->length = strlen(str);
s->word = malloc(sizeof(char) * (s->length + 1));
strcpy(s->word, str);
return s;
}
I went on code:blocks and tested them both to see any major differences. As far as I'm aware, their outputs were the same.
I did my code the way it is because I figured if we were to allocate a specific block of memory to s->word, then it should be the same number of bytes as s ->length, because that's the string we want to copy.
However the correct answer below multiplies sizeof(char) (which is just 1 byte), with s->length + 1. Why the need to add 1 to s->length? What's the importance of multiplying s->length by sizeof(char)? What mistakes did I make in my answer that I should look out for?
sizeof(char) == 1 by definition, so that doesn't matter.
You should not cast the result of malloc: Do I cast the result of malloc?
And your only real difference is that strlen returns the length of the string, not including the terminating NUL ('\0') character, so you need to add + 1 to the size of the buffer as in the solution.
If you copy there the string, the terminating character won't be copied (or worse, it will be copied on some other memory), and therefore, any function that deals with strings (unless you use special safety functions such as strscpy) will run through the buffer and past it since they won't find the end. At that point it is undefined behaviour and everything can happen, even working as expected, but can't rely on that.
The reason it is working as expected is because probably the memory just next to the buffer will be 0 and therefore it is being interpreted as the terminating character.
Your answer is incorrect because it doesn't account for the terminating '\0'-character. In C strings are terminated by 0. That's how their length can be determined. A typical implementation of strlen() would look like
size_t strlen(char const *str)
{
for (char const *p = str; *p; ++p); // as long as p doesn't point to 0 increment p
return p - str; // the length of the string is determined by the distance of
} // the '\0'-character to the beginning of the string.
But both "solutions" are fubar, though. Why would one allocate a structure consisting of an int and a pointer on the free-store ("heap")!? smart_string::length being an int is the other wtf.
#include <stddef.h> // size_t
typedef struct smart_string_tag { // *)
char *word;
size_t length;
} smart_string_t;
#include <assert.h> // assert()
#include <string.h> // strlen(), strcpy()
#include <stdlib.h> // malloc()
smart_string_t create_smart_string(char const *str)
{
assert(str); // make sure str isn't NULL
smart_string_t new_smart_string;
new_smart_string.length = strlen(str);
new_smart_string.word = calloc(new_smart_string.length + 1, sizeof *new_smart_string.word);
if(!new_smart_string.word) {
new_smart_string.length = 0;
return new_smart_string;
}
strcpy(new_smart_string.word, str);
return new_smart_string;
}
*) Understanding C Namespaces

How to create a copy of strcat?

I have to create a copy of some elements of the standard library in C and I have to create a copy of strcat. So I have to create a function that concatenate two strings in C. I know arrays in C can't change the allocated size. The only fonction i'm allowed to use is copies i made of strlen, strstr, and write() ... My code looks like this :
char *my_strcat(char *dest, char *src)
{
int dest_size;
int src_size;
int current_pos;
int free_space;
int pos_in_src;
src_size = my_strlen(src);
dest_size = my_strlen(dest);
while (dest[current_pos] != '\0')
current_pos = current_pos + 1;
free_space = dest_size - current_pos;
if (free_space < src_size)
return (0);
while (src[pos_in_src] != '\0')
{
dest[current_pos] = src[pos_in_src];
pos_in_src = pos_in_src + 1;
current_pos = current_pos + 1;
}
return (dest);
}
But I don't know how to declare my dest and src in the main.
I don't know how to create an array with a big size, declare it as a string like dest = "Hello\0" but this array has to still contains more than 6 characters.
Can you help me please ?
char dest[19] = "epite";
char *src = "chor42spotted";
my_strcat(dest, src);
Also, read the man for strcat(3)
the dest string must have enough space for the result.
https://linux.die.net/man/3/strcat
So your function is behaving incorrectly, you do not need to check that you have enough free space in dest
You want a function mystrcat which behaves exactly like stdlib strcat.
So the prototype is
/*
concatenate src to dest
dest [in / out] - the string to add to (buffer must be large enough)
src [in] - the string to concatenate.
Returns: dest (useless little detail for historical reasons).
*/
char *mystrcat(char *dest, const char *src);
Now we call it like this
int main(void)
{
char buff[1024]; // nice big buffer */
strcpy(buff, "Hello ");
mystrcat(buff, "world");
/* print the output to test it */
printf("%s\n", buff);
return 0;
}
But I'm not going to write mystrcat for you. That would make your homework exercise pointless.
The 1st parameter of the array simply has to be large enough to contain both strings + one null terminator. So if you for example have "hello" and "world", you need 5 + 5 +1 = 11 characters. Example:
#define LARGE_ENOUGH 11
int main (void)
{
char str[LARGE_ENOUGH] = "hello";
my_strcat(str, "world");
puts(str); // gives "helloworld"
}
In real world applications, you would typically allocate space for the array to either be same large number (couple of hundred bytes) or with a length based on strlen calls.
As for the implementation itself, your solution is needlessly complicated. Please note that the real strcat leaves all error checking to the caller. It is most likely implemented like this:
char* strcat (char* restrict s1, const char* restrict s2)
{
return strcpy(&s1[strlen(s1)], s2);
}
The most important part here is to note the const-correctness of the s2 parameter.
The restrict keywords are just micro-optimizations from the C standard, that tells the compiler that it can assume that the pointers point at different memory areas.
If you wish to roll out your own version with no library function calls just for fun, it is still rather easy, you just need two loops. Something like this perhaps:
char* lolcat (char* restrict s1, const char* restrict s2)
{
char* s1_end = s1;
while(*s1_end != '\0') // find the end of s1
{
s1_end++;
}
do // overwrite the end of s1 including null terminator
{
*s1_end = *s2;
s1_end++;
s2++;
} while(*s1_end != '\0'); // loop until the null term from s2 is copied
return s1;
}

C: One error In strcpy function and cannot find it

I know that this strcpy function below is incorrect, but I cannot seem to figure out the one or two things I need to change to fix it. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am completely stuck on this:
void strcpy(char *destString, char *sourceString)
{
char *marker, *t;
for(marker = sourceString, t = destString; *marker; marker++, t++)
*t = *marker;
}
Well it depends on your environment..
For example I see a few things I don't like:
You do not check for input parameters to be != NULL. This will cause a *0 access
I see you are not terminating your string with the '\0' character (or 0).. So, after the loop (please intent.) add *t = 0;
strcpy() is a predefined function and you are trying to create your own strcpy function. so, when you compile your program, you are getting conflicting types error. So, first rename your function name.
If you want to implement your own strcpy(), then i would suggest to implement strncpy(). It will copy at-most n-1 bytes from source null-terminated character array to destination character array and also add null character at the end of the destination character array.
void strcpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t n)
{
if ((dest == NULL) || (src == NULL))
return;
int i;
for(i=0; i<(n-1) && src[i]; i++)
dest[i] = src[i];
dest[i]='\0';
}
It wouldn't let buffer overflow.
Note - My implementation is different from standard library strncpy() implementation. The standard library function strncpy() copies at most n bytes of src. If there is no null byte among the first n bytes of src, the string placed in dest will not be null-terminated.
I know that this strcpy function below is incorrect, but I cannot seem to figure out the one or two things I need to change to fix it.
You only need to add null character at the end of destination array.
void strcpy(char *destString, char *sourceString)
{
char *marker, *t;
for(marker = sourceString, t = destString; *marker; marker++, t++)
*t = *marker;
*t='\0';
}
This is a very simple aproach:
void copy(char * src, char * dst){
while(*src != '\0'){
*dst = *src;
src++;
dst++;
}
*dst = '\0';
}
int main(int argc, char** argv){
char src [] = "hello";
char dst [] = "----";
copy(src, dst);
printf("src: %s\n", src);
printf("dst: %s\n", dst );
}
It's more or less like wildplasser comment. First you iterate over the src pointer. In c, if you have '\0' (in a well formed string) then you can exit because it is the final character. Ok, you iterate over the src pointer and assign the value of src (*src) to the value of dst (*dst) and then you only have to increase both pointers...
It's all
A very easy strcpy function would be:
int strcpy(char *dest,char *source)
{
if (source==NULL)
{
printf("The source pointer is NULL");
return 0;
}
if (dest==NULL)
{
dest=(char*)malloc((strlen(source)+1)*sizeof(char));
}
int i;
for (i=0;source[i]!='\0';i++)
{
dest[i]=source[i];
}
dest[i]='\0';
return 1;
}
You should have no problem copying strings this way. Always use indexes instead of pointer operations, it's easier imo.
If you use an IDE, you should learn to use the debug function to discover the errors and problems, usually when you deal with strings one of the most common RUNTIME problems is the lack of a '\0', which automatically make your string functions go to memory zones where they shouldn`t be.

String concatenation without strcat in C

I am having trouble concatenating strings in C, without strcat library function. Here is my code
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int main()
{
char *a1=(char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(a1,"Vivek");
char *b1=(char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(b1,"Ratnavel");
int i;
int len=strlen(a1);
for(i=0;i<strlen(b1);i++)
{
a1[i+len]=b1[i];
}
a1[i+len]='\0';
printf("\n\n A: %s",a1);
return 0;
}
I made corrections to the code. This is working. Now can I do it without strcpy?
Old answer below
You can initialize a string with strcpy, like in your code, or directly when declaring the char array.
char a1[100] = "Vivek";
Other than that, you can do it char-by-char
a1[0] = 'V';
a1[1] = 'i';
// ...
a1[4] = 'k';
a1[5] = '\0';
Or you can write a few lines of code that replace strcpy and make them a function or use directly in your main function.
Old answer
You have
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
a1 [V|i|v|e|k|0|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_]
b1 [R|a|t|n|a|v|e|l|0|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_]
and you want
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
a1 [V|i|v|e|k|R|a|t|n|a|v|e|l|0|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_]
so ...
a1[5] = 'R';
a1[6] = 'a';
// ...
a1[12] = 'l';
a1[13] = '\0';
but with loops and stuff, right? :D
Try this (remember to add missing bits)
for (aindex = 5; aindex < 14; aindex++) {
a1[aindex] = b1[aindex - 5];
}
Now think about the 5 and 14 in the loop above.
What can you replace them with? When you answer this, you have solved the programming problem you have :)
char a1[] = "Vivek";
Will create a char array a1 of size 6. You are trying to stuff it with more characters than it can hold.
If you want to be able to accommodate concatenation "Vivek" and "Ratnavel" you need to have a char array of size atleast 14 (5 + 8 + 1).
In your modified program you are doing:
char *a1=(char*)malloc(100); // 1
a1 = "Vivek"; // 2
1: Will allocate a memory chunk of size 100 bytes, makes a1 point to it.
2: Will make a1 point to the string literal "Vivek". This string literal cannot be modified.
To fix this use strcpy to copy the string into the allocated memory:
char *a1=(char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(a1,"Vivek");
Also the for loop condition i<strlen(b1)-1 will not copy last character from the string, change it to i<strlen(b1)
And
a1[i]='\0';
should be
a1[i + len]='\0';
as the new length of a1 is i+len and you need to have the NUL character at that index.
And don't forget to free your dynamically allocated memory once you are done using it.
You cannot safely write into those arrays, since you have not made sure that enough space is available. If you use malloc() to allocate space, you can't then overwrite the pointer by assigning to string literal. You need to use strcpy() to copy a string into the newly allocated buffers, in that case.
Also, the length of a string in C is computed by the strlen() function, not length() that you're using.
When concatenating, you need to terminate at the proper location, which your code doesn't seem to be doing.
Here's how I would re-implement strcat(), if needed for some reason:
char * my_strcat(char *out, const char *in)
{
char *anchor = out;
size_t olen;
if(out == NULL || in == NULL)
return NULL;
olen = strlen(out);
out += olen;
while(*out++ = *in++)
;
return anchor;
}
Note that this is just as bad as strcat() when it comes to buffer overruns, since it doesn't support limiting the space used in the output, it just assumes that there is enough space available.
Problems:
length isn't a function. strlen is, but you probably shouldn't call it in a loop - b1's length won't change on us, will it? Also, it returns a size_t, which may be the same size as int on your platform but will be unsigned. This can (but usually won't) cause errors, but you should do it right anyway.
a1 only has enough space for the first string, because the compiler doesn't know to allocate extra stack space for the rest of the string since. If you provide an explicit size, like [100], that should be enough for your purposes. If you need robust code that doesn't make assumptions about what is "enough", you should look into malloc and friends, though that may be a lesson for another day.
Your loop stops too early. i < b1_len (assuming you have a variable, b1_len, that was set to the length of b1 before the loop began) would be sufficient - strlen doesn't count the '\0' at the end.
But speaking of counting the '\0' at the end, a slightly more efficient implementation could use sizeof a1 - 1 instead of strlen(a1) in this case, since a1 (and b1) are declared as arrays, not pointers. It's your choice, but remember that sizeof won't work for pointers, so don't get them mixed up.
EDIT: New problems:
char *p = malloc(/*some*/); p = /* something */ is a problem. = with pointers doesn't copy contents, it copies the value, so you're throwing away the old pointer value you got from malloc. To copy the contents of a string into a char * (or a char [] for that matter) you'd need to use strcpy, strncpy, or (my preference) memcpy. (Or just a loop, but that's rather silly. Then again, it may be good practice if you're writing your own strcat.)
Unless you're using C++, I wouldn't cast the return value of malloc, but that's a religious war and we don't need one of those.
If you have strdup, use it. If you don't, here is a working implementation:
char *strdup(const char *c)
{
size_t l = strlen(c);
char *d = malloc(l + 1);
if(d) memcpy(d, c, l + 1);
return d;
}
It is one of the most useful functions not in the C standard library.
You can do it using strcpy() too ;)
char *a = (char *) malloc(100);
char *b = (char *) malloc(100);
strcpy(a, "abc"); // initializes a
strcpy(b, "def"); // and b
strcpy((a + strlen(a)), b); // copy b at end of a
printf("%s\n",a); // will produce: "abcdef"
i think this is an easy one.
#include<stdio.h>
int xstrlen(char *);
void xstrcat(char *,char *,int);
void main()
{
char source[]="Sarker";
char target[30]="Maruf";
int j=xstrlen(target);
xstrcat(target,source,j);
printf("Source String: %s\nTarget String: %s",source,target);
}
int xstrlen(char *s)
{
int len=0;
while(*s!='\0')
{
len++;
s++;
}
return len;
}
void xstrcat(char *t,char *s,int j)
{
while(*t!='\0')
{
*t=*t;
t++;
}
while(*s!='\0')
{
*t=*s;
s++;
t++;
}
}
It is better to factor out your strcat logic to a separate function. If you make use of pointer arithmetic, you don't need the strlen function:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h> /* To completely get rid of this,
implement your our strcpy as well */
static void
my_strcat (char* dest, char* src)
{
while (*dest) ++dest;
while (*src) *(dest++) = *(src++);
*dest = 0;
}
int
main()
{
char* a1 = malloc(100);
char* b1 = malloc(100);
strcpy (a1, "Vivek");
strcpy (b1, " Ratnavel");
my_strcat (a1, b1);
printf ("%s\n", a1); /* => Vivek Ratnavel */
free (a1);
free (b1);
return 0;
}

Reversing a string in C

I know this has been asked thousands of times but I just can't find the error in my code. Could someone kindly point out what I'm doing wrong?
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
void reverseString(char *myString){
char temp;
int len = strlen(myString);
char *left = myString;
// char *right = &myString[len-1];
char *right = myString + strlen(myString) - 1;
while(left < right){
temp = *left;
*left = *right; // this line seems to be causing a segfault
*right = temp;
left++;
right--;
}
}
int main(void){
char *somestring = "hello";
printf("%s\n", somestring);
reverseString(somestring);
printf("%s", somestring);
}
Ultimately, it would be cleaner to reverse it in place, like so:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
void
reverse(char *s)
{
int a, b, c;
for (b = 0, c = strlen(s) - 1; b < c; b++, c--) {
a = s[b];
s[b] = s[c];
s[c] = a;
}
return;
}
int main(void)
{
char string[] = "hello";
printf("%s\n", string);
reverse(string);
printf("%s\n", string);
return 0;
}
Your solution is essentially a semantically larger version of this one. Understand the difference between a pointer and an array. The standard explicitly states that the behviour of such an operation (modification of the contents of a string literal) is undefined. You should also see this excerpt from eskimo:
When you initialize a character array with a string constant:
char string[] = "Hello, world!";
you end up with an array containing the string, and you can modify the array's contents to your heart's content:
string[0] = 'J';
However, it's possible to use string constants (the formal term is string literals) at other places in your code. Since they're arrays, the compiler generates pointers to their first elements when they're used in expressions, as usual. That is, if you say
char *p1 = "Hello";
int len = strlen("world");
it's almost as if you'd said
char internal_string_1[] = "Hello";
char internal_string_2[] = "world";
char *p1 = &internal_string_1[0];
int len = strlen(&internal_string_2[0]);
Here, the arrays named internal_string_1 and internal_string_2 are supposed to suggest the fact that the compiler is actually generating little temporary arrays every time you use a string constant in your code. However, the subtle fact is that the arrays which are ``behind'' the string constants are not necessarily modifiable. In particular, the compiler may store them in read-only-memory. Therefore, if you write
char *p3 = "Hello, world!";
p3[0] = 'J';
your program may crash, because it may try to store a value (in this case, the character 'J') into nonwritable memory.
The moral is that whenever you're building or modifying strings, you have to make sure that the memory you're building or modifying them in is writable. That memory should either be an array you've allocated, or some memory which you've dynamically allocated by the techniques which we'll see in the next chapter. Make sure that no part of your program will ever try to modify a string which is actually one of the unnamed, unwritable arrays which the compiler generated for you in response to one of your string constants. (The only exception is array initialization, because if you write to such an array, you're writing to the array, not to the string literal which you used to initialize the array.) "
the problem is here
char *somestring = "hello";
somestring points to the string literal "hello". the C++ standard doesn't gurantee this, but on most machines, this will be read-only data, so you won't be allowed to modify it.
declare it this way instead
char somestring[] = "hello";
You are invoking Undefined Behavior by trying to modify a potentially read-only memory area (string literals are implicitly const -- it's ok to read them but not to write them). Create a new string and return it, or pass a large enough buffer and write the reversed string to it.
You can use the following code
#include<stdio.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<malloc.h>
char * reverse(char*);
int main()
{
char* string = "hello";
printf("The reverse string is : %s", reverse(string));
return 0;
}
char * reverse(char* string)
{
int var=strlen(string)-1;
int i,k;
char *array;
array=malloc(100);
for(i=var,k=0;i>=0;i--)
{
array[k]=string[i];
k++;
}
return array;
}
I take it calling strrev() is out of the question?
Your logic seems correct. Instead of using pointers, it is cleaner to deal with char[].

Resources