Related
I'm reading the 3rd edition of The C++ Programming Language by Bjarne Stroustrup and attempting to complete all the exercises. I'm not sure how to approach exercise 13 from section 6.6, so I thought I'd turn to Stack Overflow for some insight. Here's the description of the problem:
Write a function cat() that takes two C-style string arguments and
returns a single string that is the concatenation of the arguments.
Use new to find store for the result.
Here's my code thus far, with question marks where I'm not sure what to do:
? cat(char first[], char second[])
{
char current = '';
int i = 0;
while (current != '\0')
{
current = first[i];
// somehow append current to whatever will eventually be returned
i++;
}
current = '';
i = 0;
while (current != '\0')
{
current = second[i];
// somehow append current to whatever will eventually be returned
i++;
}
return ?
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
char first[] = "Hello, ";
char second[] = "World!";
? = cat(first, second);
return 0;
}
And here are my questions:
How do I use new to find store? Am I expected to do something like std::string* result = new std::string; or should I be using new to create another C-style string somehow?
Related to the previous question, what should I return from cat()? I assume it will need to be a pointer if I must use new. But a pointer to what?
Although the problem doesn't mention using delete to free memory, I know I should because I will have used new to allocate. Should I just delete at the end of main, right before returning?
How do I use new to find store? Am I expected to do something like std::string* result = new std::string; or should I be using new to create another C-style string somehow?
The latter; the method takes C-style strings and nothing in the text suggests that it should return anything else. The prototype of the function should thus be char* cat(char const*, char const*). Of course this is not how you’d normally write functions; manual memory management is completely taboo in modern C++ because it’s so error-prone.
Although the problem doesn't mention using delete to free memory, I know I should because I will have used new to allocate. Should I just delete at the end of main, right before returning?
In this exercise, yes. In the real world, no: like I said above, this is completely taboo. In reality you would return a std::string and not allocate memory using new. If you find yourself manually allocating memory (and assuming it’s for good reason), you’d put that memory not in a raw pointer but a smart pointer – std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr.
In a "real" program, yes, you would use std::string. It sounds like this example wants you to use a C string instead.
So maybe something like this:
char * cat(char first[], char second[])
{
char *result = new char[strlen(first) + strlen(second) + 1];
...
Q: How do you "append"?
A: Just write everything in "first" to "result".
As soon as you're done, then continue by writing everything in "second" to result (starting where you left off). When you're done, make sure to append '\0' at the end.
You are supposed to return a C style string, so you can't use std::string (or at least, that's not "in the spirit of the question"). Yes, you should use new to make a C-style string.
You should return the C-style string you generated... So, the pointer to the first character of your newly created string.
Correct, you should delete the result at the end. I expect it may be ignored, as in this particular case, it probably doesn't matter that much - but for completeness/correctness, you should.
Here's some old code I dug up from a project of mine a while back:
char* mergeChar(char* text1, char* text2){
//Find the length of the first text
int alen = 0;
while(text1[alen] != '\0')
alen++;
//Find the length of the second text
int blen = 0;
while(text2[blen] != '\0')
blen++;
//Copy the first text
char* newchar = new char[alen + blen + 1];
for(int a = 0; a < alen; a++){
newchar[a] = text1[a];
}
//Copy the second text
for(int b = 0; b < blen; b++)
newchar[alen + b] = text2[b];
//Null terminate!
newchar[alen + blen] = '\0';
return newchar;
}
Generally, in a 'real' program, you'll be expected to use std::string, though. Make sure you delete[] newchar later!
What the exercise means is to use new in order to allocate memory. "Find store" is phrased weirdly, but in fact that's what it does. You tell it how much store you need, it finds an available block of memory that you can use, and returns its address.
It doesn't look like the exercise wants you to use std::string. It sounds like you need to return a char*. So the function prototype should be:
char* cat(const char first[], const char second[]);
Note the const specifier. It's important so that you'll be able to pass string literals as arguments.
So without giving the code out straight away, what you need to do is determine how big the resulting char* string should be, allocate the required amount using new, copy the two source strings into the newly allocated space, and return it.
Note that you normally don't do this kind of memory management manually in C++ (you use std::string instead), but it's still important to know about it, which is why the reason for this exercise.
It seems like you need to use new to allocate memory for a string, and then return the pointer. Therefore the return type of cat would be `char*.
You could do do something like this:
int n = 0;
int k = 0;
//also can use strlen
while( first[n] != '\0' )
n ++ ;
while( second[k] != '\0' )
k ++ ;
//now, the allocation
char* joint = new char[n+k+1]; //+1 for a '\0'
//and for example memcpy for joining
memcpy(joint, first, n );
memcpy(joint+n, second, k+1); //also copying the null
return joint;
It is telling you to do this the C way pretty much:
#include <cstring>
char *cat (const char *s1, const char *s2)
{
// Learn to explore your library a bit, and
// you'll see that there is no need for a loop
// to determine the lengths. Anything C string
// related is in <cstring>.
//
size_t len_s1 = std::strlen(s1);
size_t len_s2 = std::strlen(s2);
char *dst;
// You have the lengths.
// Now use `new` to allocate storage for dst.
/*
* There's a faster way to copy C strings
* than looping, especially when you
* know the lengths...
*
* Use a reference to determine what functions
* in <cstring> COPY values.
* Add code before the return statement to
* do this, and you will have your answer.
*
* Note: remember that C strings are zero
* terminated!
*/
return dst;
}
Don't forget to use the correct operator when you go to free the memory allocated. Otherwise you'll have a memory leak.
Happy coding! :-)
I have a situation in which I'm performing binary serialization of a some items and I'm writing them to an opaque byte buffer:
int SerializeToBuffer(unsigned char* buffer)
{
stringstream ss;
vector<Serializable> items = GetSerializables();
string serializedItem("");
short len = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < items.size(); ++i)
{
serializedItem = items[i].Serialize();
len = serializedItem.length();
// Write the bytes to the stream
ss.write(*(char*)&(len), 2);
ss.write(serializedItem.c_str(), len);
}
buffer = reinterpret_cast<unsigned char*>(
const_cast<char*>(ss.str().c_str()));
return items.size();
}
Is it safe to remove the const-ness from the ss.str().c_str() and then reinterpret_cast the result as unsigned char* then assign it to the buffer?
Note: the code is just to give you an idea of what I'm doing, it doesn't necessarily compile.
No removing const-ness of an inherently contant string will result in Undefined Behavior.
const char* c_str ( ) const;
Get C string equivalent
Generates a null-terminated sequence of characters (c-string) with the same content as the string object and returns it as a pointer to an array of characters.
A terminating null character is automatically appended.
The returned array points to an internal location with the required storage space for this sequence of characters plus its terminating null-character, but the values in this array should not be modified in the program and are only guaranteed to remain unchanged until the next call to a non-constant member function of the string object.
Short answer: No
Long Answer: No. You really can't do that. The internal buffer of those object belong to the objects. Taking a reference to an internal structure is definitely a no-no and breaks encapsulation. Anyway those objects (with their internal buffer) will be destroyed at the end of the function and your buffer variable will point at uninitialized memory.
Use of const_cast<> is usually a sign that something in your design is wrong.
Use of reinterpret_cast<> usually means you are doing it wrong (or you are doing some very low level stuff).
You probably want to write something like this:
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& stream, Data const& serializable)
{
return stream << serializable.internalData;
// Or if you want to write binary data to the file:
stream.write(static_cast<char*>(&serializable.internalData), sizeof(serializable.internalData);
return stream;
}
This is unsafe, partially because you're stripping off const, but more importantly because you're returning a pointer to an array that will be reclaimed when the function returns.
When you write
ss.str().c_str()
The return value of c_str() is only valid as long as the string object you invoked it on still exists. The signature of stringstream::str() is
string stringstream::str() const;
Which means that it returns a temporary string object. Consequently, as soon as the line
ss.str().c_str()
finishes executing, the temporary string object is reclaimed. This means that the outstanding pointer you received via c_str() is no longer valid, and any use of it leads to undefined behavior.
To fix this, if you really must return an unsigned char*, you'll need to manually copy the C-style string into its own buffer:
/* Get a copy of the string that won't be automatically destroyed at the end of a statement. */
string value = ss.str();
/* Extract the C-style string. */
const char* cStr = value.c_str();
/* Allocate a buffer and copy the contents of cStr into it. */
unsigned char* result = new unsigned char[value.length() + 1];
copy(cStr, cStr + value.length() + 1, result);
/* Hand back the result. */
return result;
Additionally, as #Als has pointed out, the stripping-off of const is a Bad Idea if you're planning on modifying the contents. If you aren't modifying the contents, it should be fine, but then you ought to be returning a const unsigned char* instead of an unsigned char*.
Hope this helps!
Since it appears that your primary consumer of this function is a C# application, making the signature more C#-friendly is a good start. Here's what I'd do if I were really crunched for time and didn't have time to do things "The Right Way" ;-]
using System::Runtime::InteropServices::OutAttribute;
void SerializeToBuffer([Out] array<unsigned char>^% buffer)
{
using System::Runtime::InteropServices::Marshal;
vector<Serializable> const& items = GetSerializables();
// or, if Serializable::Serialize() is non-const (which it shouldn't be)
//vector<Serializable> items = GetSerializables();
ostringstream ss(ios_base::binary);
for (size_t i = 0u; i != items.size(); ++i)
{
string const& serializedItem = items[i].Serialize();
unsigned short const len =
static_cast<unsigned short>(serializedItem.size());
ss.write(reinterpret_cast<char const*>(&len), sizeof(unsigned short));
ss.write(serializedItem.data(), len);
}
string const& s = ss.str();
buffer = gcnew array<unsigned char>(static_cast<int>(s.size()));
Marshal::Copy(
IntPtr(const_cast<char*>(s.data())),
buffer,
0,
buffer->Length
);
}
To C# code, this will have the signature:
void SerializeToBuffer(out byte[] buffer);
Here is the underlying problem:
buffer = ... ;
return items.size();
In the second-to last line you're assigning a new value to the local variable that used (up until that point) to hold the pointer your function was given as an argument. Then, immediately after, you return from the function, forgetting everything about the variable you just assigned to. That does not make sense!
What you probably want to do is to copy data from the memory pointed to by ss_str().c_str() to the memory pointed to by the pointer stored in buffer. Something like
memcpy(buffer, ss_str().s_str(), <an appropriate length here>)
What is the proper way to initialize unsigned char*? I am currently doing this:
unsigned char* tempBuffer;
tempBuffer = "";
Or should I be using memset(tempBuffer, 0, sizeof(tempBuffer)); ?
To "properly" initialize a pointer (unsigned char * as in your example), you need to do just a simple
unsigned char *tempBuffer = NULL;
If you want to initialize an array of unsigned chars, you can do either of following things:
unsigned char *tempBuffer = new unsigned char[1024]();
// and do not forget to delete it later
delete[] tempBuffer;
or
unsigned char tempBuffer[1024] = {};
I would also recommend to take a look at std::vector<unsigned char>, which you can initialize like this:
std::vector<unsigned char> tempBuffer(1024, 0);
The second method will leave you with a null pointer. Note that you aren't declaring any space for a buffer here, you're declaring a pointer to a buffer that must be created elsewhere. If you initialize it to "", that will make the pointer point to a static buffer with exactly one byte—the null terminator. If you want a buffer you can write characters into later, use Fred's array suggestion or something like malloc.
As it's a pointer, you either want to initialize it to NULL first like this:
unsigned char* tempBuffer = NULL;
unsigned char* tempBuffer = 0;
or assign an address of a variable, like so:
unsigned char c = 'c';
unsigned char* tempBuffer = &c;
EDIT:
If you wish to assign a string, this can be done as follows:
unsigned char myString [] = "This is my string";
unsigned char* tmpBuffer = &myString[0];
If you know the size of the buffer at compile time:
unsigned char buffer[SIZE] = {0};
For dynamically allocated buffers (buffers allocated during run-time or on the heap):
1.Prefer the new operator:
unsigned char * buffer = 0; // Pointer to a buffer, buffer not allocated.
buffer = new unsigned char [runtime_size];
2.Many solutions to "initialize" or fill with a simple value:
std::fill(buffer, buffer + runtime_size, 0); // Prefer to use STL
memset(buffer, 0, runtime_size);
for (i = 0; i < runtime_size; ++i) *buffer++ = 0; // Using a loop
3.The C language side provides allocation and initialization with one call.
However, the function does not call the object's constructors:
buffer = calloc(runtime_size, sizeof(unsigned char))
Note that this also sets all bits in the buffer to zero; you don't get a choice in the initial value.
It depends on what you want to achieve (e.g. do you ever want to modify the string). See e.g. http://c-faq.com/charstring/index.html for more details.
Note that if you declare a pointer to a string literal, it should be const, i.e.:
const unsigned char *tempBuffer = "";
If the plan is for it to be a buffer and you want to move it later to point to something, then initialise it to NULL until it really points somewhere to which you want to write, not an empty string.
unsigned char * tempBuffer = NULL;
std::vector< unsigned char > realBuffer( 1024 );
tempBuffer = &realBuffer[0]; // now it really points to writable memory
memcpy( tempBuffer, someStuff, someSizeThatFits );
The answer depends on what you inted to use the unsigned char for. A char is nothing else but a small integer, which is of size 8 bits on 99% of all implementations.
C happens to have some string support that fits well with char, but that doesn't limit the usage of char to strings.
The proper way to initialize a pointer depends on 1) its scope and 2) its intended use.
If the pointer is declared static, and/or declared at file scope, then ISO C/C++ guarantees that it is initialized to NULL. Programming style purists would still set it to NULL to keep their style consistent with local scope variables, but theoretically it is pointless to do so.
As for what to initialize it to... set it to NULL. Don't set it to point at "", because that will allocate a static dummy byte containing a null termination, which will become a tiny little static memory leak as soon as the pointer is assigned to something else.
One may question why you need to initialize it to anything at all in the first place. Just set it to something valid before using it. If you worry about using a pointer before giving it a valid value, you should get a proper static analyzer to find such simple bugs. Even most compilers will catch that bug and give you a warning.
Const-correctness in C++ is still giving me headaches. In working with some old C code, I find myself needing to assign turn a C++ string object into a C string and assign it to a variable. However, the variable is a char * and c_str() returns a const char []. Is there a good way to get around this without having to roll my own function to do it?
edit: I am also trying to avoid calling new. I will gladly trade slightly more complicated code for less memory leaks.
C++17 and newer:
foo(s.data(), s.size());
C++11, C++14:
foo(&s[0], s.size());
However this needs a note of caution: The result of &s[0]/s.data()/s.c_str() is only guaranteed to be valid until any member function is invoked that might change the string. So you should not store the result of these operations anywhere. The safest is to be done with them at the end of the full expression, as my examples do.
Pre C++-11 answer:
Since for to me inexplicable reasons nobody answered this the way I do now, and since other questions are now being closed pointing to this one, I'll add this here, even though coming a year too late will mean that it hangs at the very bottom of the pile...
With C++03, std::string isn't guaranteed to store its characters in a contiguous piece of memory, and the result of c_str() doesn't need to point to the string's internal buffer, so the only way guaranteed to work is this:
std::vector<char> buffer(s.begin(), s.end());
foo(&buffer[0], buffer.size());
s.assign(buffer.begin(), buffer.end());
This is no longer true in C++11.
There is an important distinction you need to make here: is the char* to which you wish to assign this "morally constant"? That is, is casting away const-ness just a technicality, and you really will still treat the string as a const? In that case, you can use a cast - either C-style or a C++-style const_cast. As long as you (and anyone else who ever maintains this code) have the discipline to treat that char* as a const char*, you'll be fine, but the compiler will no longer be watching your back, so if you ever treat it as a non-const you may be modifying a buffer that something else in your code relies upon.
If your char* is going to be treated as non-const, and you intend to modify what it points to, you must copy the returned string, not cast away its const-ness.
I guess there is always strcpy.
Or use char* strings in the parts of your C++ code that must interface with the old stuff.
Or refactor the existing code to compile with the C++ compiler and then to use std:string.
There's always const_cast...
std::string s("hello world");
char *p = const_cast<char *>(s.c_str());
Of course, that's basically subverting the type system, but sometimes it's necessary when integrating with older code.
If you can afford extra allocation, instead of a recommended strcpy I would consider using std::vector<char> like this:
// suppose you have your string:
std::string some_string("hello world");
// you can make a vector from it like this:
std::vector<char> some_buffer(some_string.begin(), some_string.end());
// suppose your C function is declared like this:
// some_c_function(char *buffer);
// you can just pass this vector to it like this:
some_c_function(&some_buffer[0]);
// if that function wants a buffer size as well,
// just give it some_buffer.size()
To me this is a bit more of a C++ way than strcpy. Take a look at Meyers' Effective STL Item 16 for a much nicer explanation than I could ever provide.
You can use the copy method:
len = myStr.copy(cStr, myStr.length());
cStr[len] = '\0';
Where myStr is your C++ string and cStr a char * with at least myStr.length()+1 size. Also, len is of type size_t and is needed, because copy doesn't null-terminate cStr.
Just use const_cast<char*>(str.data())
Do not feel bad or weird about it, it's perfectly good style to do this.
It's guaranteed to work in C++11. The fact that it's const qualified at all is arguably a mistake by the original standard before it; in C++03 it was possible to implement string as a discontinuous list of memory, but no one ever did it. There is not a compiler on earth that implements string as anything other than a contiguous block of memory, so feel free to treat it as such with complete confidence.
If you know that the std::string is not going to change, a C-style cast will work.
std::string s("hello");
char *p = (char *)s.c_str();
Of course, p is pointing to some buffer managed by the std::string. If the std::string goes out of scope or the buffer is changed (i.e., written to), p will probably be invalid.
The safest thing to do would be to copy the string if refactoring the code is out of the question.
std::string vString;
vString.resize(256); // allocate some space, up to you
char* vStringPtr(&vString.front());
// assign the value to the string (by using a function that copies the value).
// don't exceed vString.size() here!
// now make sure you erase the extra capacity after the first encountered \0.
vString.erase(std::find(vString.begin(), vString.end(), 0), vString.end());
// and here you have the C++ string with the proper value and bounds.
This is how you turn a C++ string to a C string. But make sure you know what you're doing, as it's really easy to step out of bounds using raw string functions. There are moments when this is necessary.
If c_str() is returning to you a copy of the string object internal buffer, you can just use const_cast<>.
However, if c_str() is giving you direct access tot he string object internal buffer, make an explicit copy, instead of removing the const.
Since c_str() gives you direct const access to the data structure, you probably shouldn't cast it. The simplest way to do it without having to preallocate a buffer is to just use strdup.
char* tmpptr;
tmpptr = strdup(myStringVar.c_str();
oldfunction(tmpptr);
free tmpptr;
It's quick, easy, and correct.
In CPP, if you want a char * from a string.c_str()
(to give it for example to a function that only takes a char *),
you can cast it to char * directly to lose the const from .c_str()
Example:
launchGame((char *) string.c_str());
C++17 adds a char* string::data() noexcept overload. So if your string object isn't const, the pointer returned by data() isn't either and you can use that.
Is it really that difficult to do yourself?
#include <string>
#include <cstring>
char *convert(std::string str)
{
size_t len = str.length();
char *buf = new char[len + 1];
memcpy(buf, str.data(), len);
buf[len] = '\0';
return buf;
}
char *convert(std::string str, char *buf, size_t len)
{
memcpy(buf, str.data(), len - 1);
buf[len - 1] = '\0';
return buf;
}
// A crazy template solution to avoid passing in the array length
// but loses the ability to pass in a dynamically allocated buffer
template <size_t len>
char *convert(std::string str, char (&buf)[len])
{
memcpy(buf, str.data(), len - 1);
buf[len - 1] = '\0';
return buf;
}
Usage:
std::string str = "Hello";
// Use buffer we've allocated
char buf[10];
convert(str, buf);
// Use buffer allocated for us
char *buf = convert(str);
delete [] buf;
// Use dynamic buffer of known length
buf = new char[10];
convert(str, buf, 10);
delete [] buf;
I have this C-styled piece of initialization code:
const char * const vlc_args[] =
{
"-I", "dummy",
"--ignore-config",
"--extraintf=logger",
"--verbose=2"
"--plugin-path=/usr/lib/vlc"
};
//tricky calculation of the char space used
libvlc_new(sizeof(vlc_args)/sizeof(vlc_args[0]), vlc_args, &exc);
Since I need to make the --plugin-path parameter dynamic, I can't use a static array anymore. So I came up with a C++ alternative:
std::string pluginpath = "test";
libvlc_exception_t exc;
std::vector<std::string> args;
args.push_back("-I");
args.push_back("dummy");
args.push_back("--ignore-config");
args.push_back("--extraintf=logger");
args.push_back("--verbose=2");
args.push_back("--ipv4");
args.push_back("--plugin-path=" + pluginpath);
std::string combinedString;
for (size_t idx = 0; idx < args.size(); ++idx)
{
combinedString.append(args[idx]);
combinedString.resize(combinedString.size() + 1);
combinedString[combinedString.size() - 1] = 0;
}
combinedString.resize(combinedString.size() + 1);
combinedString[combinedString.size() - 1] = 0;
size_t size = combinedString.size();
const char * data = combinedString.c_str();
libvlc_new(size, &data, &exc); // => error occurs here (not at end of scope or anything)
But this results in a segmentation fault. So there must be an error in my code, which I can't seem to find.. Can anyone spot it?
Solved!
Thanks to Joseph Grahn and Jason Orendorff. My idea on the memory layout of the C-style array was wrong. I thought all data was organized as a big sequential block. In reality it's a list of pointers to the first character of each individual string.
This code works:
std::vector<const char*> charArgs;
for (size_t idx = 0; idx < args.size(); ++idx)
{
charArgs.push_back(&(args[idx][0]));
}
mVLCInstance = libvlc_new(charArgs.size(),
&charArgs[0],
&mVLCException);
I think Josef Grahn is right: the API wants an actual array of pointers.
If you don't need to add arguments programmatically, you can just go back to using an array:
std::string pluginpath = "test";
std::string pluginpath_arg = "--plugin-path=" + pluginpath;
const char *args[] = {
"-I", dummy, "--ignore-config", ..., pluginpath_arg.c_str()
};
libvlc_exception_t exc;
libvlc_new(sizeof(args) / sizeof(args[0]), args, &exc);
EDIT: There might also be a problem with using c_str() here. This is true if VLC keeps the pointer and uses it again later; I can't tell if that's the case from the docs.
You are appending all arguments into a single string, then you pass a pointer to the const char * string to libvlc_new as if it were an array of char *.
(I'm not sure this is the problem, but it seems a bit strange.)
Have you tried:
libvlc_new(size, data, &exc);
instead of
libvlc_new(size, &data, &exc);
It seems you use the null bytes to make the string act like an array of characters, but then you pass a pointer to the char* "array" instead of just the array.
The library call expects a pointer to an array of const char* (that is several pointers), but you pass it a single pointer. That more characters got appended to the end of that string doesn't matter.
To dynamically build an array of the required pointers you could use another vector:
// store c_str() pointers in vector
std::vector<const char*> combined;
for (size_t idx = 0; idx < args.size(); ++idx) {
combined.push_back(args[idx].c_str());
}
// pass pointer to begin of array (it is guaranteed that the contents of a vector
// are stored in a continuous memory area)
libvlc_new(combined.size(), &(combined[0]), &exc);
Jason Orendorff's remark is also valid here: This will not work if libvlc_new stores the passed pointer internally for later use.
Regarding the segmentation violation
No solution, as there will probably be more problems
You are sending only 1 string in. (not sure if it is allowed by libvlc_new) So the first parameter should be set to 1, ie size = 1. I believe this will solve the segmentation problem. But I doubt libvlc_new can be called with just one line of multiple parameters.
In the original code sizeof(vlc_args)/sizeof(vlc_args[0]) will have the number of parameters as entries in the vector. In your example equal 6.
Your code
size_t size = combinedString.size(); // a long string, size >> 1
const char * data = combinedString.c_str(); // data is a pointer to the string
libvlc_new(size, &data, &exc);
// size should be 1 because data is like an array with only one string.
// &data is the adress to the "array" so to speak. If size > 1 the function
// will try to read pass the only string available in this "array"
I think Jason Orendorff has a good solution to fix it all...
I had this same issue; I wanted to dynamicly generate the arguments, but in a safe c++ way.
The solution I hit on was to use the unique_ptr<[]> new to C++ 11. For example:
unique_ptr<char *[]> vlc_argv;
int vlc_argc;
...
auto vlc(libvlc_new(vlc_argc, vlc_argv.get()));
This gives me a nice RAII object to hold my arguments in that I can still pass into libvlc_new(). Since the arguments are raw pointers in argv, managed by the OS, we can just use those in our vlc_argv directly.
As a further example assume I process the first few args out of argv (somewhere in the "..." area above), and want to pass everything from next_arg on to libvlc_new():
vlc_argv = std::unique_ptr<char *[]>(new char *[2 + argc - next_arg]);
vlc_argv[0] = argv[0];
for (vlc_argc=1; vlc_argc <= argc - next_arg; vlc_argc++) {
vlc_argv[vlc_argc] = argv[next_arg + vlc_argc - 1];
}
vlc_argv[vlc_argc] = 0;
The problem is due to the use of c_str() and storing the pointer.
See stringstream, string, and char* conversion confusion
EDIT Forget what I said... it was late... see the comments :)