I am implementing my own streambuffer for output stream. Basically it is a vector-like streambuffer in which everytime the overflow function simply reallocates the buffer to two times larger. The sync function will write all data out to the device specified by a file descriptor fd.
class MyStreamBuf : public ::std::streambuf {
constexpr static size_t INIT_BUFFER_SIZE {1024};
public:
MyStreamBuf();
~MyStreamBuf();
void fd(const int);
int sync() override;
int_type overflow(int_type ch = traits_type::eof()) override;
private:
int _fd {-1};
size_t _size;
char_type* _base;
void _resize(const size_t);
};
MyStreamBuf::MyStreamBuf() {
_size = INIT_BUFFER_SIZE;
_base = static_cast<char_type*>(malloc(_size * sizeof(char_type)));
setp(_base, _base + _size - 1); // -1 to make overflow easier.
}
// Destructor.
MyStreamBuf::~MyStreamBuf() {
::free(_base);
}
// Procedure: fd
// Change the underlying device.
void MyStreamBuf::fd(const int fd) {
_fd = fd;
}
// Procedure: _resize
// Resize the underlying buffer to fit at least "tgt_size" items of type char_type.
void MyStreamBuf::_resize(const size_t tgt_size) {
// Nothing has to be done if the capacity can accommodate the file descriptor.
if(_size >= tgt_size) return;
// Adjust the cap to the next highest power of 2 larger than num_fds
for(_size = (_size ? _size : 1); _size < tgt_size; _size *= 2);
// Adjust and reset the memory chunk.
_base = static_cast<char_type*>(::realloc(_base, _size*sizeof(char_type)));
setp(_base, _base + _size - 1); // -1 to make overflow easier.
}
int MyStreamBuf::sync() {
int res = 0;
::std::ptrdiff_t remain = pptr() - pbase();
while(remain) {
issue_write:
auto ret = ::write(_fd, pptr() - remain, remain);
if(ret == -1) {
if(errno == EINTR) {
goto issue_write;
}
else if(errno == EAGAIN) {
break;
}
else {
res = -1;
break;
}
}
remain -= ret;
}
if(remain) {
::memcpy(pbase(), pptr() - remain, remain*sizeof(char_type));
}
pbump(pbase() + remain - pptr());
return res;
}
typename MyStreamBuf::int_type MyStreamBuf::overflow(int_type ch) {
assert(traits_type::eq_int_type(ch, traits_type::eof()) == false);
_resize(_size * 2);
return ch;
}
However I am getting segfault while replacing the cout with my own buffer. I couldn't find where the error is after struggling with GDB.
// Function: main
int main() {
auto fd = open("./test.txt", O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
MyStreamBuf d;
d.fd(fd);
::std::cout.rdbuf(&d);
::std::cout << 1 << " " << 2 << ::std::endl;
close(fd);
return 0;
}
Is there anything wrong with this implementation? I saw many articles typically overriding sync and overflow are required.
The problem, it seems, is that your object d is destroyed before std::cout, and thus the final calls for destructing the global object, which include flushing buffers, and that take palce after the end of main() (remember it's a global object), attempt to perform operations on a no longer-extant streambuf object. Your buffer object definitely should outlive the stream you associate it with.
One way of having this in you program is to make d into a pointer, which you will never delete. Alternatively, you can keep your local object as you used it, but call std::cout.flush(), and then assign cout's buffer to something else (even nullptr) before going out of scope.
While testing with your program (and before I found the problem), I made small changes that made sense to me. For example, after you successfully write to the descriptor, you can simply bump(ret) (you already know that ret!=-1, so its safe to use).
Other changes that I didn't make, but which you could consider, are to have the descriptor set by the constructor itself, having the destructor close a dangling descriptor, and perhaps change dynamic allocation from C-oriented malloc()/realloc()/free() to C++-oriented std::vector.
Speaking of allocation, you made a very common mistake when using realloc(). If the reallocation fails, realloc() will keep the original pointer intact, and signal the failure by returning a null pointer. Since you use the same pointer to get the return value, you risk losing the reference to a still allocated memory. So, if you at all cannot use C++ containers instead of C pointers, you should change you code to something more like this:
char *newptr;
newptr=static_cast<char *>(realloc(ptr, newsize));
if(newptr)
ptr=newptr;
else {
// Any treatment you want. I wrote some fatal failure code, but
// you might even prefer to go on with current buffer.
perror("ralloc()");
exit(1);
}
Related
I have encountered this runtime exception at the very end of the program by simply creating an instance of the specified class, so I presume the issue lies with either the constructor, copy constructor, copy assignment operator or destructor. I have read up on and followed the rule of three to the extent of my limited cpp knowledge.
Source.cpp
#include "Header.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string command = "CREATE TABLE table_name IF NOT EXISTS ((column_1_name,type,default_value), (column_2_name,type,default_value))";
string columns[20] = { "column_1_name,type,default_value", "column_1_name,type,default_value" };
string commandData[9] = { "table_name", "IF NOT EXISTS" };
CommCREATETABLE comm(command, columns, commandData, 2, 2);
}
Relevant code from Header.h
class CommCREATETABLE {
string fullCommand = "";
string* columns = nullptr;
string* commandData = nullptr;
string tableName = "";
int nrOfColumns = 0;
int nrOfElements = 0;
bool valid = false;
Constructor:
CommCREATETABLE(string command, string* columns, string* commandData, int nrOfRows, int nrOfElements) {
this->setNrOfColumns(nrOfRows);
this->setNrOfElements(nrOfElements);
this->setCommand(command);
this->setColumns(columns);
this->setCommandData(commandData);
this->valid = checkInput(this->commandData, this->columns);
this->setTableName(commandData[0]);
}
Copy constructor, copy assignment operator, destructor:
CommCREATETABLE(const CommCREATETABLE& comm) {
this->setNrOfColumns(comm.nrOfColumns);
this->setNrOfElements(comm.nrOfElements);
this->setCommand(comm.fullCommand);
this->setColumns(comm.columns);
this->setCommandData(comm.commandData);
this->setTableName(comm.tableName);
this->valid = comm.valid;
}
~CommCREATETABLE() {
if (this->columns != nullptr) {
delete[] this->columns;
}
if (this->commandData != nullptr) {
delete[] this->commandData;
}
}
CommCREATETABLE& operator=(const CommCREATETABLE& comm) {
this->setCommand(comm.fullCommand);
this->setColumns(comm.columns);
this->setCommandData(comm.commandData);
this->setTableName(comm.tableName);
this->setNrOfColumns(comm.nrOfColumns);
this->setNrOfElements(comm.nrOfElements);
this->valid = checkInput(this->commandData, this->columns);
return *this;
}
The only setters that deal with dynamic memory allocation are the following:
void setColumns(const string* columns) {
if (this->nrOfColumns >= 0) {
this->columns = new string[this->nrOfColumns];
memcpy(this->columns, columns, this->nrOfColumns * sizeof(string));
}
else throw EmptyCommandException();
}
void setCommandData(const string* commandData) {
if (this->nrOfElements >= 0) {
this->commandData = new string[this->nrOfElements];
memcpy(this->commandData, commandData, this->nrOfElements * sizeof(string));
}
else throw EmptyCommandException();
}
At a quick glance I would say the issue is in your setColumns and setCommandData functions. (I might of course be wrong, I did not try to run the code you presented nor the changes I made -- so there might also be a typo somewhere.)
There you use memcpy to copy the strings into your class. However, internally a C++ string holds a pointer to the actual string, so using memcpy actually only copies that pointer. As a result, once the original string gets deleted, the pointer you copied into your class is no longer valid (as the memory has already been freed). As a result, once your class also gets deleted it attempts to delete memory that has already been freed. That is probably where your error comes from.
In fact, if you added lines to your program where you tried to manipulate your class (after the original input strings have already been deleted), the problem would present itself even sooner, as you would be accessing memory that has already been freed. This would lead to undefined behaviour, which typically ends with a crash at some point.
A quick fix would be to change the way you copy the data, by using = for each string (in that way copying the actual strings into a new location in memory, rather than copying the pointer).
void setColumns(const string* columns) {
if (this->nrOfColumns > 0) { // Creating an array of size 0 is also not a good idea.
this->columns = new string[this->nrOfColumns];
for (int i = 0; i < nrOfColumns; i++) { // You don't need this everywhere.
this->columns[i] = columns[i];
// I don't think naming things the exact same way is good practice.
}
}
else throw EmptyCommandException();
}
void setCommandData(const string* commandData) {
if (this->nrOfElements > 0) { // Creating an array of size 0 is also not a good idea.
this->commandData = new string[this->nrOfElements];
for (int i = 0; i < nrOfElements; i++) { // You don't need this everywhere.
this->commandData[i] = commandData[i];
// I don't think naming things the exact same way is good practice.
}
}
else throw EmptyCommandException();
}
Alternatively, if you want to avoid making copies you should look into move, but I would suggest against this for the time being, if you are still learning. You'll get there soon enough.
I'm working on an Arduino Due, trying to use DMA functions as I'm working on a project where speed is critical. I found the following function to receive through serial:
uint8_t DmaSerial::get(uint8_t* bytes, uint8_t length) {
// Disable receive PDC
uart->UART_PTCR = UART_PTCR_RXTDIS;
// Wait for PDC disable to take effect
while (uart->UART_PTSR & UART_PTSR_RXTEN);
// Modulus needed if RNCR is zero and RPR counts to end of buffer
rx_tail = (uart->UART_RPR - (uint32_t)rx_buffer) % DMA_SERIAL_RX_BUFFER_LENGTH;
// Make sure RPR follows (actually only needed if RRP is counted to the end of buffer and RNCR is zero)
uart->UART_RPR = (uint32_t)rx_buffer + rx_tail;
// Update fill counter
rx_count = DMA_SERIAL_RX_BUFFER_LENGTH - uart->UART_RCR - uart->UART_RNCR;
// No bytes in buffer to retrieve
if (rx_count == 0) { uart->UART_PTCR = UART_PTCR_RXTEN; return 0; }
uint8_t i = 0;
while (length--) {
bytes[i++] = rx_buffer[rx_head];
// If buffer is wrapped, increment RNCR, else just increment the RCR
if (rx_tail > rx_head) { uart->UART_RNCR++; } else { uart->UART_RCR++; }
// Increment head and account for wrap around
rx_head = (rx_head + 1) % DMA_SERIAL_RX_BUFFER_LENGTH;
// Decrement counter keeping track of amount data in buffer
rx_count--;
// Buffer is empty
if (rx_count == 0) { break; }
}
// Turn on receiver
uart->UART_PTCR = UART_PTCR_RXTEN;
return i;
}
So, as far as I understand, this function writes to the variable bytes, as a pointer, what is received as long as is no longer than length. So I'm calling it this way:
dma_serial1.get(data, 8);
without assigning its returning value to a variable. I'm thinking the received value is stored to the uint8_t* data but I might be wrong.
Finally, what I want to do is to check if the received data is a certain char to take decisions, like this:
if (data == "t"){
//do something//}
How could I make this work?
For comparing strings like intended by if (data == "t"), you'll need a string comparison function like, for example, strcmp. For this to work, you must ensure that the arguments are actually (0-terminated) C-strings:
uint8_t data[9];
uint8_t size = dma_serial1.get(data, 8);
data[size]='\0';
if (strcmp(data,"t")==0) {
...
}
In case that the default character type in your environment is signed char, to pass data directly to string functions, a cast is needed from unsigned to signed:
if (strcmp(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(data),"t")==0) {
...
}
So a complete MVCE could look as follows:
int get(uint8_t *data, int size) {
data[0] = 't';
return 1;
}
int main()
{
uint8_t data[9];
uint8_t size = get(data, 8);
data[size]='\0';
if (strcmp(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(data),"t")==0) {
cout << "found 't'" << endl;
}
}
Output:
found 't'
Yes again, I come again with that very straight forward implementation which is something like this:
// write data always! if buffer is already full, overwrite old data!
void Put( const CONTENT_TYPE &data )
{
buffer[ inOffset++] = data;
inOffset%=size;
// was data overwritten, skip it by increment read offset
if ( inOffset == outOffset )
{
outOffset++;
outOffset%=size;
std::cout << "Overwrite" << std::endl;
}
}
CONTENT_TYPE Pull()
{
CONTENT_TYPE data = buffer[ outOffset++ ];
outOffset %= size;
return data;
}
But this simple algorithm utilizes only size-1 one elements of the buffer!
If I want to avoid that, I only found a solution with adding another counter variable, which wastes me sizeof(counter_var) - sizeof(element) bytes.
Q: Is there a solution which did not waste memory? It looks so terrible simple but I can't catch it :-)
Remark: There are some more lines of code to protect for empty reads and other stuff, but this is not important to the question. And it is not tagged c++ because the algorithm did not depend on the language, also if I give a c++ code example.
You can use two integers and fill all slots if one is an index and the other an element count, then convert to find the second index on the fly:
void put(const ELEMENT& element) {
if (nElements == size) throw "put: buffer full";
buffer[(start + nElements++) % size] = element;
}
ELEMENT get() {
if (nElements == 0) throw "get: buffer empty";
ELEMENT& value = buffer[start];
start = (start + 1) % size;
--nElements;
return value;
}
Of course you can replace the mod operations with if (foo > size) foo -= size; if you like.
You'd just deal with that by using different points in time at which you do the modulo operation; assume we increase the read and write pointers after every access. If we now do the read pointer's modulo instantly after increasing, and the write pointer's modulo just right before reading, the |write-read| of a full buffer would be the length of the buffer, without any special case handling. For that to work, your write pointer should always be used % buffer_length, but stored % (2 * buffer_length).
I don't especially like Mark's answer, because handling things as special cases is usually not a good idea, as little as introducing negative sentinel values is in a place where you'd typically used size_t (i.e. an unsigned integer).
You could use a special sentinel value for one of the offsets, such as -1, to indicate that the buffer is full or empty. This will complicate your code for checking and modifying the offset.
// write data always! if buffer is already full, overwrite old data!
void Put( const CONTENT_TYPE &data )
{
buffer[ inOffset++] = data;
inOffset%=size;
// was data overwritten, skip it by setting read offset to sentinel
if ( inOffset == outOffset || outOffset == -1 )
{
outOffset = -1;
std::cout << "Overwrite" << std::endl;
}
}
CONTENT_TYPE Pull()
{
if (outOffset == -1)
outOffset = inOffset;
CONTENT_TYPE data = buffer[ outOffset++ ];
outOffset %= size;
return data;
}
bool IsEmpty()
{
return outOffset == inOffset;
}
I want to realize something on this lines:
inline void DecrementPendingWorkItems()
{
if(this->pendingWorkItems != 0) //make sure we don't underflow and get a very high number
{
::InterlockedDecrement(&this->pendingWorkItems);
}
}
How can I do this so that both operations are atomic as a block, without using locks ?
You can just check the result of InterlockedDecrement() and if it happens to be negative (or <= 0 if that's more desirable) undo the decrement by calling InterlockedIncrement(). In otherwise proper code that should be just fine.
The simplest solution is just to use a mutex around the entire section
(and for all other accesses to this->pendingWorkItems). If for some
reason this isn't acceptable, then you'll probably need compare and
exchange:
void decrementPendingWorkItems()
{
int count = std::atomic_load( &pendingWorkItems );
while ( count != 0
&& ! std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(
&pendingWorkItems, &count, count - 1 ) ) {
}
}
(This supposes that pendingWorkItems has type std::atomic_int.)
There is such a thing called "SpinLock". This is a very lightweight synchronisation.
This is the idea:
//
// This lock should be used only when operation with protected resource
// is very short like several comparisons or assignments.
//
class SpinLock
{
public:
__forceinline SpinLock() { body = 0; }
__forceinline void Lock()
{
int spin = 15;
for(;;) {
if(!InterlockedExchange(&body, 1)) break;
if(--spin == 0) { Sleep(10); spin = 29; }
}
}
__forceinline void Unlock() { InterlockedExchange(&body, 0); }
protected:
long body;
};
Actual numbers in the sample are not important. This lock is extremely efficient.
You can use InterlockedCompareExchange in a loop:
inline void DecrementPendingWorkItems() {
LONG old_items = this->pendingWorkingItems;
LONG items;
while ((items = old_items) > 0) {
old_items = ::InterlockedCompareExchange(&this->pendingWorkItems,
items-1, items);
if (old_items == items) break;
}
}
What the InterlockedCompareExchange function is doing is:
if pendingWorkItems matches items, then
set the value to items-1 and return items
else return pendingWorkItems
This is done atomically, and is also called a compare and swap.
Use an atomic CAS.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683560(v=vs.85).aspx
You can make it lock free, but not wait free.
As Kirill suggests this is similar to a spin lock in your case.
I think this does what you need, but I'd recommend thinking through all the possibilities before going ahead and using it as I have not tested it at all:
inline bool
InterlockedSetIfEqual(volatile LONG* dest, LONG exchange, LONG comperand)
{
return comperand == ::InterlockedCompareExchange(dest, exchange, comperand);
}
inline bool InterlockedDecrementNotZero(volatile LONG* ptr)
{
LONG comperand;
LONG exchange;
do {
comperand = *ptr;
exchange = comperand-1;
if (comperand <= 0) {
return false;
}
} while (!InterlockedSetIfEqual(ptr,exchange,comperand));
return true;
}
There remains the question as to why your pending work items should ever go below zero. You should really ensure that the number of increments matches the number of decrements and all will be fine. I'd perhaps add an assert or exception if this constraint is violated.
Hi I have written a code based upon a requirement.
(field1_6)(field2_30)(field3_16)(field4_16)(field5_1)(field6_6)(field7_2)(field8_1).....
this is one bucket(8 fields) of data. we will receive 20 buckets at a time means totally 160 fields.
i need to take the values of field3,field7 & fields8 based upon predefined condition.
if teh input argument is N then take the three fields from 1st bucket and if it is Y i need
to take the three fields from any other bucket other than 1st one.
if argumnet is Y then i need to scan all the 20 buckets one after other and check
the first field of the bucket is not equal to 0 and if it is true then fetch the three fields of that bucket and exit.
i have written the code and its also working fine ..but not so confident that it is effctive.
i am afraid of a crash some time.please suggest below is the code.
int CMI9_auxc_parse_balance_info(char *i_balance_info,char *i_use_balance_ind,char *o_balance,char *o_balance_change,char *o_balance_sign
)
{
char *pch = NULL;
char *balance_id[MAX_BUCKETS] = {NULL};
char balance_info[BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH] = {0};
char *str[160] = {NULL};
int i=0,j=0,b_id=0,b_ind=0,bc_ind=0,bs_ind=0,rc;
int total_bukets ;
memset(balance_info,' ',BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH);
memcpy(balance_info,i_balance_info,BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH);
//balance_info[BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH]='\0';
pch = strtok (balance_info,"*");
while (pch != NULL && i < 160)
{
str[i]=(char*)malloc(strlen(pch) + 1);
strcpy(str[i],pch);
pch = strtok (NULL, "*");
i++;
}
total_bukets = i/8 ;
for (j=0;str[b_id]!=NULL,j<total_bukets;j++)
{
balance_id[j]=str[b_id];
b_id=b_id+8;
}
if (!memcmp(i_use_balance_ind,"Y",1))
{
if (atoi(balance_id[0])==1)
{
memcpy(o_balance,str[2],16);
memcpy(o_balance_change,str[3],16);
memcpy(o_balance_sign,str[7],1);
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 1;
}
else
{
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 0;
}
}
else if (!memcmp(i_use_balance_ind,"N",1))
{
for (j=1;balance_id[j]!=NULL,j<MAX_BUCKETS;j++)
{
b_ind=(j*8)+2;
bc_ind=(j*8)+3;
bs_ind=(j*8)+7;
if (atoi(balance_id[j])!=1 && atoi( str[bc_ind] )!=0)
{
memcpy(o_balance,str[b_ind],16);
memcpy(o_balance_change,str[bc_ind],16);
memcpy(o_balance_sign,str[bs_ind],1);
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 1;
}
}
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 0;
}
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 0;
}
My feeling is that this code is very brittle. It may well work when given good input (I don't propose to desk check the thing for you) but if given some incorrect inputs it will either crash and burn or give misleading results.
Have you tested for unexpected inputs? For example:
Suppose i_balance_info is null?
Suppose i_balance_info is ""?
Suppose there are fewer than 8 items in the input string, what will this line of code do?
memcpy(o_balance_sign,str[7],1);
Suppose that that the item in str[3] is less than 16 chars long, what will this line of code do?
memcpy(o_balance_change,str[3],16);
My approach to writing such code would be to protect against all such eventualities. At the very least I would add ASSERT() statements, I would usually write explicit input validation and return errors when it's bad. The problem here is that the interface does not seem to allow for any possibility that there might be bad input.
I had a hard time reading your code but FWIW I've added some comments, HTH:
// do shorter functions, long functions are harder to follow and make errors harder to spot
// document all your variables, at the very least your function parameters
// also what the function is suppose to do and what it expects as input
int CMI9_auxc_parse_balance_info
(
char *i_balance_info,
char *i_use_balance_ind,
char *o_balance,
char *o_balance_change,
char *o_balance_sign
)
{
char *balance_id[MAX_BUCKETS] = {NULL};
char balance_info[BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH] = {0};
char *str[160] = {NULL};
int i=0,j=0,b_id=0,b_ind=0,bc_ind=0,bs_ind=0,rc;
int total_bukets=0; // good practice to initialize all variables
//
// check for null pointers in your arguments, and do sanity checks for any
// calculations
// also move variable declarations to just before they are needed
//
memset(balance_info,' ',BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH);
memcpy(balance_info,i_balance_info,BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH);
//balance_info[BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH]='\0'; // should be BALANCE_INFO_FIELD_MAX_LENTH-1
char *pch = strtok (balance_info,"*"); // this will potentially crash since no ending \0
while (pch != NULL && i < 160)
{
str[i]=(char*)malloc(strlen(pch) + 1);
strcpy(str[i],pch);
pch = strtok (NULL, "*");
i++;
}
total_bukets = i/8 ;
// you have declared char*str[160] check if enough b_id < 160
// asserts are helpful if nothing else assert( b_id < 160 );
for (j=0;str[b_id]!=NULL,j<total_bukets;j++)
{
balance_id[j]=str[b_id];
b_id=b_id+8;
}
// don't use memcmp, if ('y'==i_use_balance_ind[0]) is better
if (!memcmp(i_use_balance_ind,"Y",1))
{
// atoi needs balance_id str to end with \0 has it?
if (atoi(balance_id[0])==1)
{
// length assumptions and memcpy when its only one byte
memcpy(o_balance,str[2],16);
memcpy(o_balance_change,str[3],16);
memcpy(o_balance_sign,str[7],1);
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 1;
}
else
{
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 0;
}
}
// if ('N'==i_use_balance_ind[0])
else if (!memcmp(i_use_balance_ind,"N",1))
{
// here I get a headache, this looks just at first glance risky.
for (j=1;balance_id[j]!=NULL,j<MAX_BUCKETS;j++)
{
b_ind=(j*8)+2;
bc_ind=(j*8)+3;
bs_ind=(j*8)+7;
if (atoi(balance_id[j])!=1 && atoi( str[bc_ind] )!=0)
{
// length assumptions and memcpy when its only one byte
// here u assume strlen(str[b_ind])>15 including \0
memcpy(o_balance,str[b_ind],16);
// here u assume strlen(str[bc_ind])>15 including \0
memcpy(o_balance_change,str[bc_ind],16);
// here, besides length assumption you could use a simple assignment
// since its one byte
memcpy(o_balance_sign,str[bs_ind],1);
// a common practice is to set pointers that are freed to NULL.
// maybe not necessary here since u return
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 1;
}
}
// suggestion do one function that frees your pointers to avoid dupl
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 0;
}
for(i=0;i<160;i++)
free(str[i]);
return 0;
}
A helpful technique when you want to access offsets in an array is to create a struct that maps the memory layout. Then you cast your pointer to a pointer of the struct and use the struct members to extract information instead of your various memcpy's
I would also suggest you reconsider your parameters to the function in general, if you place every of them in a struct you have better control and makes the function more readable e.g.
int foo( input* inbalance, output* outbalance )
(or whatever it is you are trying to do)