#include <stdio.h>
char strA[80] = "A string to be used for demonstration purposes";
char strB[80];
char *my_strcpy(char *destination, char *source)
{
char *p = destination;
while (*source != '\0')
{
*p++ = *source++;
}
*p = '\0';
return destination;
}
int main(void)
{
my_strcpy(strB, strA);
puts(strB);
}
so my question here is that when i take out the portion:
//*p= '\0';
it prints the exact same answer, so why is this necessary? from my understanding, \0 is a nul portion of memory after a string but since the array strA already contains the nul portion since its in "" is it really necessary?
It seems you already know the importance of the null terminator, but the point is, you defined char strB[80]; in external namespace (with static life span), which causes initialization of the array strB, which sets all bytes of it to zero. That's why you can't observe the difference （because even if you don't append a null character, the rest of strB already is).
Moving the definition of strB makes this visible. strA doesn't need moving because it doesn't matter.
In actuality, this code
while (*source != '\0')
{
*p++ = *source++;
}
// *p = '\0';
When *source reaches a null character, it's not copied to *p, so you need to manualky add a terminator for that.
Your loop stops when it sees the \0 and so it is not copied to the destination and the destination is not NUL terminated. Is that a problem?
Not if your destination buffer is initialized to all 0s
Not if your code is willing to deal with fixed length strings (so the my_strcpy signature would need to change to return the length)
In general YES - the 0 terminated C string is such a common thing that not following the convention is asking for trouble,
Whether you 0 terminate or not the rest of the values will be the same as they were when you started. The 0 termination just makes your character array a "standard C string".
For arguments sake: Assuming you knew every string had space for 80 chars you could just do
for(int i = 0; i < 80; i++)
{
dest[i] = src[i];
}
The effect is the same and assuming the source is 0 terminated the destination will be too.
Related
Why does this code produce runtime issues:
char stuff[100];
strcat(stuff,"hi ");
strcat(stuff,"there");
but this doesn't?
char stuff[100];
strcpy(stuff,"hi ");
strcat(stuff,"there");
strcat will look for the null-terminator, interpret that as the end of the string, and append the new text there, overwriting the null-terminator in the process, and writing a new null-terminator at the end of the concatenation.
char stuff[100]; // 'stuff' is uninitialized
Where is the null terminator? stuff is uninitialized, so it might start with NUL, or it might not have NUL anywhere within it.
In C++, you can do this:
char stuff[100] = {}; // 'stuff' is initialized to all zeroes
Now you can do strcat, because the first character of 'stuff' is the null-terminator, so it will append to the right place.
In C, you still need to initialize 'stuff', which can be done a couple of ways:
char stuff[100]; // not initialized
stuff[0] = '\0'; // first character is now the null terminator,
// so 'stuff' is effectively ""
strcpy(stuff, "hi "); // this initializes 'stuff' if it's not already.
In the first case, stuff contains garbage. strcat requires both the destination and the source to contain proper null-terminated strings.
strcat(stuff, "hi ");
will scan stuff for a terminating '\0' character, where it will start copying "hi ". If it doesn't find it, it will run off the end of the array, and arbitrarily bad things can happen (i.e., the behavior is undefined).
One way to avoid the problem is like this:
char stuff[100];
stuff[0] = '\0'; /* ensures stuff contains a valid string */
strcat(stuff, "hi ");
strcat(stuff, "there");
Or you can initialize stuff to an empty string:
char stuff[100] = "";
which will fill all 100 bytes of stuff with zeros (the increased clarity is probably worth any minor performance issue).
Because stuff is uninitialized before the call to strcpy. After the declaration stuff isn't an empty string, it is uninitialized data.
strcat appends data to the end of a string - that is it finds the null terminator in the string and adds characters after that. An uninitialized string isn't gauranteed to have a null terminator so strcat is likely to crash.
If there were to intialize stuff as below you could perform the strcat's:
char stuff[100] = "";
strcat(stuff,"hi ");
strcat(stuff,"there");
Strcat append a string to existing string. If the string array is empty, it is not going go find end of string ('\0') and it will cause run time error.
According to Linux man page, simple strcat is implemented this way:
char*
strncat(char *dest, const char *src, size_t n)
{
size_t dest_len = strlen(dest);
size_t i;
for (i = 0 ; i < n && src[i] != '\0' ; i++)
dest[dest_len + i] = src[i];
dest[dest_len + i] = '\0';
return dest;
}
As you can see in this implementation, strlen(dest) will not return correct string length unless dest is initialized to correct c string values. You may get lucky to have an array with the first value of zero at char stuff[100]; , but you should not rely on it.
Also, I would advise against using strcpy or strcat as they can lead to some unintended problems.
Use strncpy and strncat, as they help prevent buffer overflows.
Do you guys know why the following code crash during the runtime?
char* word;
word = new char[20];
word = "HeLlo";
for (auto it = word; it != NULL; it++){
*it = (char) tolower(*it);
I'm trying to lowercase a char* (string). I'm using visual studio.
Thanks
You cannot compare it to NULL. Instead you should be comparing *it to '\0'. Or better yet, use std::string and never worry about it :-)
In summary, when looping over a C-style string. You should be looping until the character you see is a '\0'. The iterator itself will never be NULL, since it is simply pointing a place in the string. The fact that the iterator has a type which can be compared to NULL is an implementation detail that you shouldn't touch directly.
Additionally, you are trying to write to a string literal. Which is a no-no :-).
EDIT:
As noted by #Cheers and hth. - Alf, tolower can break if given negative values. So sadly, we need to add a cast to make sure this won't break if you feed it Latin-1 encoded data or similar.
This should work:
char word[] = "HeLlo";
for (auto it = word; *it != '\0'; ++it) {
*it = tolower(static_cast<unsigned char>(*it));
}
You're setting word to point to the string literal, but literals are read-only, so this results in undefined behavior when you assign to *it. You need to make a copy of it in the dynamically-allocated memory.
char *word = new char[20];
strcpy(word, "HeLlo");
Also in your loop you should compare *it != '\0'. The end of a string is indicated by the character being the null byte, not the pointer being null.
Given code (as I'm writing this):
char* word;
word = new char[20];
word = "HeLlo";
for (auto it = word; it != NULL; it++){
*it = (char) tolower(*it);
This code has Undefined Behavior in 2 distinct ways, and would have UB also in a third way if only the text data was slightly different:
Buffer overrun.
The continuation condition it != NULL will not be false until the pointer it has wrapped around at the end of the address range, if it does.
Modifying read only memory.
The pointer word is set to point to the first char of a string literal, and then the loop iterates over that string and assigns to each char.
Passing possible negative value to tolower.
The char classification functions require a non-negative argument, or else the special value EOF. This works fine with the string "HeLlo" under an assumption of ASCII or unsigned char type. But in general, e.g. with the string "Blåbærsyltetøy", directly passing each char value to tolower will result in negative values being passed; a correct invocation with ch of type char is (char) tolower( (unsigned char)ch ).
Additionally the code has a memory leak, by allocating some memory with new and then just forgetting about it.
A correct way to code the apparent intent:
using Byte = unsigned char;
auto to_lower( char const c )
-> char
{ return Byte( tolower( Byte( c ) ) ); }
// ...
string word = "Hello";
for( char& ch : word ) { ch = to_lower( ch ); }
There are already two nice answers on how to solve your issues using null terminated c-strings and poitners. For the sake of completeness, I propose you an approach using c++ strings:
string word; // instead of char*
//word = new char[20]; // no longuer needed: strings take care for themseves
word = "HeLlo"; // no worry about deallocating previous values: strings take care for themselves
for (auto &it : word) // use of range for, to iterate through all the string elements
it = (char) tolower(it);
Its crashing because you are modifying a string literal.
there is a dedicated functions for this
use
strupr for making string uppercase and strlwr for making the string lower case.
here is an usage example:
char str[ ] = "make me upper";
printf("%s\n",strupr(str));
char str[ ] = "make me lower";
printf("%s\n",strlwr (str));
I wrote a very simple encryption program to practice c++ and i came across this weird behavior. When i convert my char* array to a string by setting the string equal to the array, then i get a wrong string, however when i create an empty string and add append the chars in the array individually, it creates the correct string. Could someone please explain why this is happening, i just started programming in c++ last week and i cannot figure out why this is not working.
Btw i checked online and these are apparently both valid ways of converting a char array to a string.
void expandPassword(string* pass)
{
int pHash = hashCode(pass);
int pLen = pass->size();
char* expPass = new char[264];
for (int i = 0; i < 264; i++)
{
expPass[i] = (*pass)[i % pLen] * (char) rand();
}
string str;
for (int i = 0; i < 264; i++)
{
str += expPass[i];// This creates the string version correctly
}
string str2 = expPass;// This creates much shorter string
cout <<str<<"\n--------------\n"<<str2<<"\n---------------\n";
delete[] expPass;
}
EDIT: I removed all of the zeros from the array and it did not change anything
When copying from char* to std::string, the assignment operator stops when it reaches the first NULL character. This points to a problem with your "encryption" which is causing embedded NULL characters.
This is one of the main reasons why encoding is used with encrypted data. After encryption, the resulting data should be encoded using Hex/base16 or base64 algorithms.
a c-string as what you are constructing is a series of characters ending with a \0 (zero) ascii value.
in the case of
expPass[i] = (*pass)[i % pLen] * (char) rand();
you may be inserting \0 into the array if the expression evaluates to 0, as well as you do not append a \0 at the end of the string either to assure it being a valid c-string.
when you do
string str2 = expPass;
it can very well be that the string gets shorter since it gets truncated when it finds a \0 somewhere in the string.
This is because str2 = expPass interprets expPass as a C-style string, meaning that a zero-valued ("null") byte '\0' indicates the end of the string. So, for example, this:
char p[2];
p[0] = 'a';
p[1] = '\0';
std::string s = p;
will cause s to have length 1, since p has only one nonzero byte before its terminating '\0'. But this:
char p[2];
p[0] = 'a';
p[1] = '\0';
std::string s;
s += p[0];
s += p[1];
will cause s to have length 2, because it explicitly adds both bytes to s. (A std::string, unlike a C-style string, can contain actual null bytes — though it's not always a good idea to take advantage of that.)
I guess the following line cuts your string:
expPass[i] = (*pass)[i % pLen] * (char) rand();
If rand() returns 0 you get a string terminator at position i.
I have a header file which contains a member variable declaration of a static char array:
class ABC
{
public:
static char newArray[4];
// other variables / functions
private:
void setArray(int i, char * ptr);
}
In the CPP file, I have the array initialized to NULL:
char ABC::newArray[4] = {0};
In the ABC constructor, I need to overwrite this value with a value constructed at runtime, such as the encoding of an integer:
ABC::ABC()
{
int i; //some int value defined at runtime
memset(newArray, 0, 4); // not sure if this is necessary
setArray(i,newArray);
}
...
void setArray(int i, char * value)
{
// encoding i to set value[0] ... value [3]
}
When I return from this function, and print the modified newArray value, it prints out many more characters than the 4 specified in the array declaration.
Any ideas why this is the case.
I just want to set the char array to 4 characters and nothing further.
Thanks...
How are you printing it? In C++ (and C), strings are terminated with a nul. (\0). If you're doing something like:
char arr[4] = {'u', 'h', 'o', 'h'};
std::cout << arr;
It's going to print "uhoh" along with anything else it runs across until it gets to a \0. You might want to do something like:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
std::cout << arr[i];
(Having a static tied to instances of a class doesn't really make sense, by the way. Also, you can just do = {}, though it's not needed since static variables are zero-initialized anyway. Lastly, no it doesn't make sense to memset something then rewrite the contents anyway.)
cout.write(arr, count_of(arr))
If count_of isn't defined in a system header:
template<typename T, size_t N>
inline size_t count_of(T (&array)[N]) { return N; }
Are you printing it using something like
printf("%s", newArray); //or:
cout << newArray;
? If so, you need to leave space for the nul-terminator at the end of the string. C strings are just arrays of characters, so there's no indication of the length of the string; standard library functions that deal with strings expect them to end in a nul (0) character to mark the ending, so they'll keep reading from memory until they find one. If your string needs to hold 4 characters, it needs to be 5 bytes wide so you can store the \0 in the fifth byte
You'll need a 5th character with a 0 byte to mark the end of the 4 character string, unless you use custom char-array output methods. If you set value[3] to something other than 0, you'll start printing bytes next to newArray in the static data area.
There's also no need to explicitly 0 initialize static data.
You can best catch those kinds of errors with valgrind's memcheck tool.
It is printing out a string that starts at the address &newArray[0] and ends at the first 0 in memory thereafter (called the null terminator).
char strArr[] = {"Hello"};
char strArr[] = {'H', 'e', "llo");
char strArr[] = "Hello";
char* strArr = "Hello"; // careful, this is a string literal, you can't mess with it (read-only usually)
...are all null terminated because anything in double quotes gets the null terminator tacked on at the end
char strArr[] = {'H', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o'};
...is not null terminated, single quotes contain a single character and do not add a null terminator
Here are examples of adding a null terminator...
strArr[3] = '\0';
strArr[3] = NULL;
strArr[3] = 0;
With a bit loss of performance, you can fit into 4 byte.. in 'c-style'.
Print either 4 characters or until \0 is reached:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstring>
...
//calculate length
size_t totalLength = sizeof(ABC::newArray) / sizeof(ABC::newArray[0]);
char* arrayEnd = (char*)memchr(ABC::newArray, '\0', totalLength);
size_t textLength = arrayEnd != 0 ?
arrayEnd-ABC::newArray : totalLength;
//print
fwrite(
ABC::newArray, //source array
sizeof(ABC::newArray[0]), //one item's size
textLength, //item count
stdout); //destination stream
By the way, try to use std::string and std::cout.
This code is compiling clean. But when I run this, it gives exception "Access violation writing location" at line 9.
void reverse(char *word)
{
int len = strlen(word);
len = len-1;
char * temp= word;
int i =0;
while (len >=0)
{
word[i] = temp[len]; //line9
++i;--len;
}
word[i] = '\0';
}
Have you stepped through this code in a debugger?
If not, what happens when i (increasing from 0) passes len (decreasing towards 0)?
Note that your two pointers word and temp have the same value - they are pointing to the same string.
Be careful: not all strings in a C++ program are writable. Even if your code is good it can still crash when someone calls it with a string literal.
When len gets to 0, you access the location before the start of the string (temp[0-1]).
Try this:
void reverse(char *word)
{
size_t len = strlen(word);
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < len / 2; i++)
{
char temp = word[i];
word[i] = word[len - i - 1];
word[len - i - 1] = temp;
}
}
The function looks like it would not crash, but it won't work correctly and it will read from word[-1], which is not likely to cause a crash, but it is a problem. Your crashing problem is probably that you passed in a string literal that the compiler had put into a read-only data segment.
Something like this would crash on many operating systems.
char * word = "test";
reverse(word); // this will crash if "test" isn't in writable memory
There are also several problems with your algorithm. You have len = len-1 and later temp[len-1] which means that the last character will never be read, and when len==0, you will be reading from the first character before the word. Also, temp and word are both pointers, so they both point to the same memory, I think you meant to make a copy of word rather than just a copy of the pointer to word. You can make a copy of word with strdup. If you do that, and fix your off-by-one problem with len, then your function should work,
But that still won't fix the write crash, which is caused by code that you have not shown us.
Oh, and if you do use strdup be sure to call free to free temp before you leave the function.
Well, for one, when len == 0 len-1 will be a negative number. And that's pretty illegal. Second, it's quite possible that your pointer is pointing at an unreserved area of memory.
If you called that function as followed:
reverse("this is a test");
then with at least one compiler will pass in a read only string due to backwards compatibility with C where you can
pass string literals as non-const char*.