Creating a struct on the heap? - c

I've been instructed to write a model strdup by creating a String struct on the heap the holds a copy of the source. I think I have successfully coded the strdup, but I'm not sure if I've created a Struct on the heap...
typedef
struct String {
int length;
int capacity;
unsigned check;
char ptr[0];
} String;
char* modelstrdup(char* src){
int capacity =0, length=0, i = 0 ;
char *string;
while ( src[length] != '\0'){
length++;
}
capacity = length;
string = malloc(sizeof(String) + capacity + 1);
while ( i < length ){
string[i] = src[i];
i++;
}
string[i+1] = '\0';
return string;
}

Yes, you've created a struct on the heap. You haven't populated it correctly, and you are going to face problems deleting it - I'm not sure whether the homework covered that or not. As it stands, you're more likely to get memory corruption or, if you're lucky, a memory leak than to release one of these strings.
Code that works with standard C89 and C99
Your code, somewhat fixed up...
typedef
struct String {
int length;
int capacity;
char *ptr;
} String;
char* modelstrdup(char* src){
int length = strlen(src);
char *space = malloc(sizeof(String) + length + 1);
//String *string = space; // Original code - compilers are not keen on it
String *string = (String *)space;
assert(space != 0);
string->ptr = space + sizeof(String); // or sizeof(*string)
string->length = length;
string->capacity = length + 1;
strcpy(string->ptr, src);
return string->ptr;
}
This code will work in C89 as well as C99 (except for the C99/C++ comments). You can probably optimize it to work with the 'struct hack' (saves a pointer in the structure - but only if you have a C99 compiler). The assert is sub-optimal error handling. The code doesn't defend itself against a null pointer for input. In this context, neither the length nor the capacity provides any benefit - there must be other functions in the suite that will be able to make use of that information.
As already intimated, you are going to face problems deleting the string structure when the value handed back is not a pointer to the string. You have some delicate pointer adjustments to make.
Code that works with standard C99 only
In C99, section 6.7.2.1 paragraph 16 describes 'flexible array members':
As a special case, the last element of a structure with more than one named member may
have an incomplete array type; this is called a flexible array member. With two
exceptions, the flexible array member is ignored. First, the size of the structure shall be
equal to the offset of the last element of an otherwise identical structure that replaces the
flexible array member with an array of unspecified length.106) Second, when a . (or ->)
operator has a left operand that is (a pointer to) a structure with a flexible array member
and the right operand names that member, it behaves as if that member were replaced
with the longest array (with the same element type) that would not make the structure
larger than the object being accessed; the offset of the array shall remain that of the
flexible array member, even if this would differ from that of the replacement array. If this
array would have no elements, it behaves as if it had one element but the behavior is
undefined if any attempt is made to access that element or to generate a pointer one past
it.
106 The length is unspecified to allow for the fact that implementations may give array members different
alignments according to their lengths.
Using a 'flexible array member', your code could become:
typedef
struct String {
int length;
int capacity;
char ptr[];
} String;
char* modelstrdup(char* src){
int length = strlen(src);
String *string = malloc(sizeof(String) + length + 1);
assert(string != 0);
string->length = length;
string->capacity = length + 1;
strcpy(string->ptr, src);
return string->ptr;
}
This code was accepted as clean by GCC 4.0.1 apart from a declaration for the function (options -Wall -Wextra). The previous code needs a cast on 'String *string = (String *)space;' to tell the compiler I meant what I said; I've now fixed that and left a comment to show the original.
Using the 'struct hack'
Before C99, people often used the 'struct hack' to handle this. It is very similar to the code shown in the question, except the dimension of the array is 1, not 0. Standard C does not allow array dimensions of size zero.
typedef struct String {
size_t length;
size_t capacity;
char ptr[1];
} String;
char* modelstrdup(char* src)
{
size_t length = strlen(src);
String *string = malloc(sizeof(String) + length + 1);
assert(string != 0);
string->length = length;
string->capacity = length + 1;
strcpy(string->ptr, src);
return string->ptr;
}
Code that uses a GCC non-standard extension to C89 and C99
The zero-size array notation is accepted by GCC unless you poke it hard - specify the ISO C standard and request pedantic accuracy. This code, therefore, compiles OK unless you get to use gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c99 -pedantic:
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef
struct String {
int length;
int capacity;
char ptr[0];
} String;
char* modelstrdup(char* src){
int length = strlen(src);
String *string = malloc(sizeof(String) + length + 1);
assert(string != 0);
string->length = length;
string->capacity = length + 1;
strcpy(string->ptr, src);
return string->ptr;
}
However, you should not be being trained in non-standard extensions to the C language before you have a thorough grasp of the basics of standard C. That is simply unfair to you; you can't tell whether what you're being told to do is sensible, but your tutors should not be misguiding you by forcing you to use non-standard stuff. Even if they alerted you to the fact that it is non-standard, it is not fair to you. C is hard enough to learn without learning tricksy stuff that is somewhat compiler specific.

You have allocated some memory on the heap, but you're not using it as if it were your structure. The string variable in your function is of type char *, not of type struct String. I think you're duplicating the functionality of strdup() reasonably enough, but I don't understand the reason for the structure.
Note: You should probably check your call to malloc() for failure, and return appropriately. The man page for strdup() should explains exactly what your function should be doing.

You have. Malloc, new, etc all use the heap.

Yes, malloc returns memory on the heap.

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 do I make a function return a pointer to a new string in C?

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.

best practice for returning a variable length string in c

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.

Ugly Macro Interpretation (just 1 line)

#define STRING(s) (((String*)s)-1)
what in the world is (((String*)s)-1)?
typedef
struct String {
int length;
int capacity;
unsigned check;
char ptr[0];
} String;
You're casting s to a String *. Then you're subtracting one from it (making it point to the previous whatever).
Anything more specific would need to know the definition of String - but (WILD SPECULATION) I would guess the application uses dual VB/C-style strings (null terminated, preceded by the length), and this function changes it from a form suitable for C functions (pointer to the first character) into one usable for the other type (pointer to the length).
Mechanically, the macro works as others have already described it. Semantically, though, you can think of this as a form of casting from char *s to String *s.
The String structure is the header of a counted string, ie, one where you know the total length without having to scan for a NUL byte. This particular version also keeps the total allocated. You would create one as follows:
struct String *str = malloc(sizeof(*s) + maxlen);
str->length = 0;
str->capacity = maxlen;
str->checked = /* ??? */;
There should be some assorted functions around somewhere to manipulate these counted strings.
The macro itself is a hack to go from a plain char *, assumed to point to the first character of the a String as allocated above, back to a String *. It would be used something like this:
/* allocate str as above */
char *s = str->p;
Now, through a chain of function calls or returns, you somehow loose track of the String structure containing s, and you need to find it again. You write:
String *str2 = STRING(s);
This is not a particularly good way to implement a counted string in C, but it demonstrates a technique that one sees from time to time.
Others have answered your question. The technique of declaring ptr inside struct String with zero size is called "the struct hack", and wasn't portable until C99 (although it was widely used even before C99, and seems to work everywhere). The idea is that ptr uses 0 bytes, so if you have a pointer to ptr, and want one to the original struct, you would use the STRING macro. You are subtracting the size of the struct from the address of the ptr member, and thus getting the start address of the struct.
A better way to get the start address of a struct given a pointer to any of its members is to use offsetof() macro defined in stddef.h. offsetof(struct type, member), as the name implies, gives the offset of member in struct type:
#define STRING(x) ((String *)(((char *)(x) - offsetof(struct String, ptr))))
Then you can do:
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <assert.h>
typedef struct String {
int length;
int capacity;
unsigned check;
char ptr[0];
} String;
#define STRING(x) ((String *)(((char *)(x) - offsetof(struct String, ptr))))
int main(void)
{
String *s = malloc(sizeof *s + 100);
String *t;
char *mystring = s->ptr;
t = STRING(mystring);
assert(t == s);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
offsetof() is defined in stddef.h.
Note that in C99, "struct hack" would declare ptr inside the struct as:
char ptr[];
i.e., without a size.
(String*) = type cast to pointer to String object,
s = the string,
-1 = point to one String object's length before in the memory block
Don't know why the macro is made this way. Possibly the definition of String requires this, but that's just a wild guess.

Structure Problem in C

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 );

Resources