I have a problem. I have a function in my dll which is defined as below:
int function(char *inVal, char *outVal, int *retVal)
I successfully load my dll in a console application using LoadLibrary, and I call my function with function pointer:
typedef int (__cdecl *functionPtr)(char *, char *,int *);
then I pass my inVal to my function:
char * inVal = "input";
Now I want to get my outVal and retVal, I have got the retVal successfully but my outVal is NULL:
int retVal = 0;
char outVal[200] = {0};
then I call my function:
int return = functionLNK(inVal , outVal, &retVal)
any clue?!!
EDIT 1:
The code is as below:
int function(char *inVal, char *outVal, int *retVal)
{
PKI_Buf inBuf, signBuf, pemBuf;
......
outVal = (char*)pemBuf.data;
//I check outVal in this point and it is not NULL
}
The problem is with function. You pass outVal by value which means that the pointer you have inside the function is a copy of the one you passed in. Then you assign to that pointer with outVal = (char*)pemBuf.data;. All you've done is modified the copy. No change occurs on the outside.
This isn't the only problem with your approach though. You're also trying to pass a pointer to a member of an object that is about to go out of scope. pemBuf has automatic storage duration (because it is local to function) which means it will be destroyed when it returns. Then your pointer will be pointing at an invalid object.
Instead, what you want to do is copy the contents of pemBuf.data over to the array elements pointed at by outVal. You can do this with std::copy or strcpy. However, you have another issue which is you don't pass in the size of your buffer (and I don't know the size of the pemBuf.data array). Assuming you know how much to copy as N, however, you could do:
std::copy(pemBuf.data, pemBuf.data + N, outVal);
However, your code is very C-like - using C-style strings, output parameters, and so on. I recommend that you start using std::string.
Related
Here is my program :
#include <cstring>
const int SIZE =10;
int main()
{
char aName [SIZE]; // creates an array on the stack
std::strcpy(aName, "Mary");
return 0;
}
This program is obviously useless, I am just trying to understand the behavior of the strcpy function.
Here is it's signature :
char * strcpy ( char * destination, const char * source )
so when I do :
std::strcpy(aName, "Mary");
I am passing by value the variable aName. I know that the aName (in the main) contains the address of the array.
So is this assertion correct : strcpy creates a local variable called destination that has as value the address of the array aName that I have created on the stack in the main function?
I am asking this because it is very confusing to me. Whenever I have encountered addresses it usually was to point to a memory allocated on the heap...
Thanks!
Whenever you encounter addresses it doesn't mean it will always point to memory allocated to heap.
You can assign the address of a variable to a pointer like this
int a=5;
int *myPtr= &a;
Now, myPtr is a pointer of type integer which points to the memory of variable which is created on stack which is a have value 5.
So, whenever you create a pointer and assign the (address of) memory using new keyword, it will allocate the memory on heap. So, if I assign the value like this it will be on stack
int *myPtr= new int[5];
So is this assertion correct : strcpy creates a local variable called destination that has as value the address of the array aName that I have created on the stack in the main function?
Yes.
Whenever I have encountered addresses it usually was to point to a memory allocated on the heap...
Yep, usually. But not always.
Pointers to non-dynamically-allocated things are fairly rare in C++, though in C it's more common as that's the only way to have "out arguments" (C does not have references).
strcpy is a function from C's standard library.
Maybe it would help to look at an example implementation of strcpy():
char* strcpy(char* d, const char* s)
{
char* tmp = d;
while (*tmp++ = *s++)
;
return d;
}
That's really all there is to it. Copy characters from the source to the destination until the source character is null (including the null). Return the pointer to the beginning of the destination. Done.
Pointers point to memory. It doesn't matter if that memory is "stack", "heap" or "static".
Function parameters are its local variables.
In this call
std::strcpy(aName, "Mary");
the two arrays (one that is created in main with the automatic storage duration and other is the string literal that has the static storage duration) are implicitly converted to pointers to their first elements.
So you may imagine this call and the function definition the following way
std::strcpy(aName, "Mary");
// …
char * strcpy ( /* char * destination, const char * source */ )
{
char *destination = aName;
const char *source = "Mary";
// …
return destination;
}
Or even like
char *p_to_aName = &aName[0];
const char *p_to_literal = &"Mary"[0];
std::strcpy( p_to_aName, p_to_literal );
// …
char * strcpy ( /* char * destination, const char * source */ )
{
char *destination = p_to_aName;
const char *source = p_to_literal;
// …
return destination;
}
That is within the function its parameters are local variable of pointer types with the automatic storage duration that are initialized by pointers to first characters of the passed character arrays
So is this assertion correct : strcpy creates a local variable called destination that has as value the address of the array aName that I have created on the stack in the main function?
Yes. That is correct. Though I probably wouldn't call it a local variable. It is a parameter. Local variable usually means something like this:
int localVariable;
The word'parameter" is often associated with things like this:
int myFunction(int parameter) {
// use parameter some where...
}
The point is roughly the same though: it creates a variable that will go out of scope once the function exits.
I am asking this because it is very confusing to me. Whenever I have encountered addresses it usually was to point to a memory allocated on the heap...
Yes, this is the most common use case for them. But it isn't their only use. Pointers are addresses, and every variable has an address in memory regardless of whether it is allocated on the "heap" or "stack."
The use here probably because pointers to a char are commonly used to store strings, particularly on older compilers. That combined with the fact that arrays "decay" into pointers, it is probably easier to work with pointers. It is also certainly more backwards compatible to do it this way.
The function could have just as easily used an array, like this:
char * strcpy ( char destination[], const char source[ )
But I'm going to assume it is easier to work with pointers here instead (Note: I don't think you can return an array in C++, so I'm still using char *. However, even if you could, I would imagine it is still easier to work with pointers anyway, so I don't think it makes a lot of difference here.).
Another common use of pointers is using them as a way to sort of "pass by reference":
void foo(int * myX) {
*myX = 4;
}
int main() {
int x = 0;
foo(&x);
std::cout << x; // prints "4"
return 0;
}
However, in modern C++, actually passing by reference is preferred to this:
void foo(int & myX) {
myX = 4;
}
int main() {
int x = 0;
foo(x);
std::cout << x; // prints "4"
return 0;
}
But I bring it up as another example to help drive the point home: memory allocated on the heap isn't the only use of pointers, merely the most common one (though actually dynamically allocated memory has been mostly replaced in modern C++ by things like std::vector, but that is beside the point here).
I know that the aName (in the main) contains the address of the array.
You knew wrong. aName is an array. It contains the elements, not an address.
But when you use the name of the array as a value such as when passing it to strcpy, it is implicitly converted to a pointer to first element of the array (the value of a pointer is the memory address of the pointed object). Such implicit conversion is called decaying.
So is this assertion correct : strcpy creates a local variable called destination that has as value the address of the array aName that I have created on the stack in the main function?
This is correct enough. To clarify: It is a function argument rather than a local variable. But the distinction is not important here. Technically, it is the caller who is responsible for pushing the arguments onto the stack or storing them into registers, so it could be considered that main "creates" the variable.
Whenever I have encountered addresses it usually was to point to a memory allocated on the heap
Pointers are not uniquely associated with "heap". Pretty much any object can be pointed at, whether it has dynamic, static or automatic storage or even if it is a subobject.
int FunctionName(const char *pValueName, const char *pValueData, long iMaxValueSize)
{
char *pDataToStore = const_cast<char *>(pValueData);
int iActualSiz = ProcessData(pDataToStore, iMaxValueSize);
...
...
}
In the upper code snippet ProcessData() function modifies the char*, which it receives as parameter. Now even after assigning pValueData into pDataToStore, after ProcessData() get executed, value of pValueData is being same as pDataToStore.
My aim is to keep intact value of pValueData which is being passed as const char*
My aim is to keep intact value of pValueData which is being passed as
const char*
That's impossible. Passing via const means it cannot be modified, except when it was originally not constant.
Example:
char *ptr1 = new char[100]; // not const
char *ptr2 = new char[100]; // not const
int i = FunctionName(ptr1, ptr2, 123);
In this case, you could technically keep the const_cast. But what for? Just change your function parameters to take char *:
int FunctionName(char *pValueName, char *pValueData, long iMaxValueSize)
{
int iActualSiz = ProcessData(pValueData, iMaxValueSize);
// ...
}
However, you most likely want to be able to pass constant strings. For example string literals:
int i = FunctionName("name", "data", 123);
String literals are unmodifiable and thus require your function to take char const *. A later attempt to modify them causes undefined behaviour.
As you can see, the error is in the general architecture and code logic. You want to modify something and at the same time you do not want to allow to modify it.
The question is: What happens with your pDataToStore when ProcessData is done with it? Does the caller of FunctionName need to be aware of the modifications? Or is it just internal business of FunctionName?
If it's just internal business of FunctionName, then you can keep its signature intact and have ProcessData modify a copy of the passed data. Here is a simplified (not exception-safe, no error checks) example:
int FunctionName(const char *pValueName, const char *pValueData, long iMaxValueSize)
{
char *copy = new char[strlen(pValueData) + 1];
strcpy(copy, pValueData):
int iActualSiz = ProcessData(copy, iMaxValueSize);
// ...
delete[] copy;
}
The nice thing is that you can now massively improve the interface of FunctionName by hiding all the low-level pointer business. In fact, why use so many pointers at all when C++ standard classes can do all the work for you?
int FunctionName(std::string const &valueName, std::string const &valueData, long maxValueSize)
{
std::vector<char> copy(valueData.begin(), valueData.end());
int actualSize = ProcessData(©[0], maxValueSize);
// ...
// no more delete[] needed here
}
The std::vector<char> automatically allocates enough memory to hold a copy of valueData, and performs the copy. It fully automatically frees the memory when it is no longer needed, even if exceptions are thrown. And ©[0] (which in C++11 can be written as copy.data()) is guaranteed to yield a pointer to the internally used data, so that low-level C functions can modify the vector's elements.
(I've also taken the chance to remove the Microsoft-style Hungarian Notation. It's a failed experiment from the 90s, and you've even used it incorrectly, supposing that a leading i is supposed to indicate an int.)
The bottom line is really:
If you need a const_cast anywhere in your code to make it compile, then somewhere else there is at least either one const missing or one too much. A const_cast always makes up for a mistake in another piece of code. It is always a workaround and never a solution designed up front.
Well I have solved the issue by creating the heap memory.
char *pDataToStore = new char[iMaxValueSize];
memcpy(pDataToStore, pValueData, iMaxValueSize*sizeof(char));
int iActualSiz = ProcessData(pDataToStore, iMaxValueSize);
...
....
delete []pDataToStore;
You have to make a difference between a const qualified type and a const qualified object.
The standard states in section 7.1.6.1: cv-qualifiers: (cv = const or volatile)
A pointer or reference to a cv-qualified type need not actually point
or refer to a cv-qualified object, but it is treated as if it does; a
const-qualified access path cannot be used to modify an object even if
the object referenced is a non-const object and can be modified
through some other access path.
If your pointer points to a non const object, the casting away will enable you to modifiy the objet, but as someone told, you are lying to the user of your function.
It your pointer points to a real const object (i.e. in const protected memory), the compiler will compile your code, but you might have a segmentation fault, typical for undefined behaviour.
Here an example, using the fact that "Ordinary string literal (...) has type “array of n const char”, where n is the size of the string (...)" (see standard, section 2.14.5):
char *my_realconst = "This is a real constant string"; // pointer does not claim that it points to const object
(*my_realconst)++; // Try to increment the first letter, will compile but will not run properly !!
So if your function ProcessData() is legacy code that is only reading the data but has forgotten to mention a const in the parameter list, your cast-away will work. If your function is however altering the data, it might work or it might fail, depending how the data poitned to was created !
So try to avoid casting const away if you are not 100% sure of what the effects will be ! Better clone your object the hard way creating a temporary object and copying the content.
I propose you a small template to handle these kind of issues easily:
template <typename T>
class Buffer {
size_t sz; // size
T* addr; // pointed
public:
Buffer(const T*source, size_t l) : sz(l), addr(new T[l]) { std::copy(source, source + l, addr); } // allocate and copy
~Buffer() { delete[]addr; } // destroy memory
operator T* () { return addr; } // convert to pointer
};
You may use your existing code almost as is:
Buffer<char> pDataToStore(pValueData, iMaxValueSize); // create the automatic buffer
int iActualSiz = ProcessData(pDataToStore, iMaxValueSize); // automatic use of pointer to buffer
cout << "modified copy: " << pDataToStore << endl;
cout << "original: " << pValueData << endl;
The buffer will be automatically released once pDataToStore is no longer in scope.
If you have similar issues with wchar_t buffers or anything else, it will work as well.
For explanations on the evil of casting away const, see my other answer
I am trying to understand char pointer in C more but one thing gets me.
Supposed I would like to pass a char pointer into a function and change the value that pointer represents. A example as followed:
int Foo (char *(&Msg1), char* Msg2, char* Msg3){
char *MsgT = (char*)malloc(sizeof(char)*60);
strcpy(MsgT,"Foo - TEST");
Msg1 = MsgT; // Copy address to pointer
strcpy(Msg2,MsgT); // Copy string to char array
strcpy(Msg3,MsgT); // Copy string to char pointer
return 0;
}
int main() {
char* Msg1; // Initial char pointer
char Msg2[10]; // Initial char array
char* Msg3 = (char*)malloc(sizeof(char) * 10); // Preallocate pointer memory
Foo(Msg1, Msg2, Msg3);
printf("Msg1: %s\n",Msg1); // Method 1
printf("Msg2: %s\n",Msg2); // Method 2
printf("Msg3: %s\n",Msg3); // Method 3
free(Msg1);
free(Msg3);
return 0;
}
In the above example, I listed all working methods I know for passing char pointer to function. The one I don't understand is Method 1.
What is the meaning of char *(&Msg1) for the first argument that is passed to the function Foo?
Also, it seems like method 2 and method3 are widely introduced by books and tutorials, and some of them even referring those methods as the most correct ways to pass arrays/pointers. I wonder that Method 1 looks very nice to me, especially when I write my API, users can easily pass a null pointer into function without preallocate memory. The only downside may be potential memory leak if users forget to free the memory block (same as method 3). Is there any reason we should prefer using Method 2 or 3 instead Method 3?
int f(char* p) is the usual way in C to pass the pointer p to the function f when p already points to the memory location that you need (usually because there is a character array already allocated there as in your Method 2 or Method 3).
int f(char** p) is the usual way in C to pass the pointer p to the function f when you want f to be able to modify the pointer p for the caller of this function. Your Method 1 is an example of this; you want f to allocate new memory and use p to tell the caller where that memory is.
int f(char*& p) is C++, not C. Since this compiles for you, we know you are using a C++ compiler.
Consider what happens when you take an argument of type int& (reference to int) :
void f(int &x) {
x++;
}
void g(int x) {
x++;
}
int main() {
int i = 5;
f(i);
assert(i == 6);
g(i);
assert(i == 6);
}
The same behaviour can be achieved by taking a pointer-to-int (int *x), and modifying it through (*x)++. The only difference in doing this is that the caller has to call f(&i), and that the caller can pass an invalid pointer to f. Thus, references are generally safer and should be preferred whenever possible.
Taking an argument of type char* (pointer-to-char) means that both the caller and the function see the same block of memory "through" that pointer. If the function modifies the memory pointed to by the char*, it will persist to the caller:
void f(char* p) {
(*p) = 'p';
p = NULL; //no efect outside the function
}
int main() {
char *s = new char[4];
strcpy(s, "die");
char *address = s; //the address which s points to
f(s);
assert(strcmp(s, "pie") == 0);
assert(s == address); //the 'value' of the variable s, meaning the actual addres that is pointed to by it, has not changed
}
Taking an argument of type char*& ( reference-to-(pointer-to-char) ) is much the same as taking int&:
If the function modifies the memory pointed to by the pointer, the caller will see it as usual. However, if the function modifies the value of the pointer (its address), the caller will also see it.
void f(char* &p) {
(*p) = 'p';
p = NULL;
}
int main() {
char *s = new char[4];
strcpy(s, "die");
char *address = s; //the address which s points to
f(s);
assert(strcmp(address, "pie") == 0); //the block that s initially pointed to was modified
assert(s == NULL); //the 'value' of the variable s, meaning the actual addres that is pointed to by it, was changed to NULL by the function
}
Again, you could take a char** (pointer-to-pointer-to-char), and modify f to use **p = 'p'; *p = NULL, and the caller would have to call f(&s), with the same implications.
Note that you cannot pass arrays by reference, i.e. if s was defined as char s[4], the call f(s) in the second example would generate a compiler error.
Also note that this only works in C++, because C has no references, only pointers.
You would usually take char** or char*& when your function needs to return a pointer to a memory block it allocated. You see char** more often, because this practice is less common in C++ than in C, where references do not exist.
As for whether to use references or pointers, it is a highly-debated topic, as you will notice if you search google for "c++ pointer vs reference arguments".
Syntax for std::fread :
size_t fread ( void * ptr, size_t size, size_t count, FILE * stream );
we can call std::fread with a character pointer and get the read data with the same character pointer.
eg:
char* data;
fread(data,5,10,file);
What i tried is to create a similar function which accepts a character pointer as a void* pointer.
#include <iostream>
#include<string.h>
using namespace std;
void modify(void* ptr)
{
char* temp = new char[50];
strcpy(temp,"testing");
__ptr=(void*)temp;
std::cout<<"__ptr="<<(char*)__ptr<<endl;
}
int main()
{
char* str;
modify(str);
cout<<"str="<<str;
return 0;
}
I tried the above code with http://www.compileonline.com/compile_cpp11_online.php and I got the output as
__ptr=testing
str=
(a)Why str is not printing the string "testing"?
I am assigning the address of a dynamically allocated variable to ptr.
So the value "testing" must be available in the heap even after the control returns from the method.
(b)How can i modify the function so that i will get the output as
__ptr=testing
str=testing
But function prototype cannot be modified.
Please help.
Hope the question is clear.
The problem is that the function modify() takes a reference to a void* but you are actually passing a char*. This is not valid C++ and should not compile.
That said, there are some old C++ compilers out there (Visual C++ 6?) that have a kind of extension, that allows you to do that. That is when you are calling modify(str), the compiler is creating a temporary value of type void* and initializing it to the value of str. Then the temporary is passed to the function and taking the address of the allocated memory. But, obviously, the str original value is never modified, so it remains uninitialized.
That's the main reason why the original C++ rule forbidding this is there: to protect you from this kind of bugs.
You have two solutions:
Declare the function with the proper pointer type: void modify(char*& ptr).
Change the compiler!
If you really wanted the function as is you could call it with modify(reinterpret_cast<void*&>(str)) but I do not recommend that!
By the way, never name your identifier with two underscores (__ptr) these names are reserved for the compiler writers only·
Ah! I understand now the OP problem: his idea is to write a wrapper to fread that allocates memory, reads into it from a file and returns the pointer. It is easier if you just return the pointer the usual way. Using your modify() simplified example:
void* modify()
{
char* temp = new char[50];
strcpy(temp,"testing");
return temp;
}
And then, to call it:
char *ptr = static_cast<char*>(modify());
From the valuable answer and comments from #rodrigo, i was able to solve my problem.
I modified the function.
void modify(void* ptr)
{
char* temp;
temp = (char *)ptr;
strcpy(temp,"testing");
}
This solved all the issues!
Test code:
void modify_it(char * mystuff)
{
//last element is null i presume for c style strings here.
char test[7] = "123456";
//when i do this i thought i should be able to gain access to this
//bit of memory when the function is destroyed but that does not
//seem to be the case.
//static char test[] = "123123";
//this is also creating memory on stack and not the heap i reckon
//and gets destroyed once the function is done with.
//char * test = new char[7];
//this does the job as long as memory for mystuff has been
//allocated outside the function.
strcpy_s(mystuff,7,test);
//this does not work. I know with c style strings you can't just do
//string assignments they have to be actually copied. in this case
//I was using this in conjunction with static char test thinking
//by having it as static the memory would not get destroyed and i can
//then simply point mystuff to test and be done with it. i would later
//have address the memory cleanup in the main function.
//but anyway this never worked.
mystuff = test;
}
int main(void)
{
//allocate memory on heap where the pointer will point
char * mystuff = new char [7];
modify_it(mystuff);
std::string test_case(mystuff);
//this is the only way i know how to use cout by making it into a c++ string.
std::cout<<test_case.c_str();
delete [] mystuff;
return 0;
}
In the case of a static array in the function why would it not work?
In the case when I allocated memory using new in the function does it get created on the stack or heap?
In the case when I have a string which needs to be copied into a char * form. everything I see usually requires const char* instead of just char*.
I know I could use a reference to take care of this easily. Or char ** to send in the pointer and do it that way. But I just wanted to know if I could do it with just char *. Anyway your thoughts and comments plus any examples would be very helpful.
char * mystuff = new char [7];
delete mystuff;
delete mystuff is causing undefined behavior. You must delete[] what you new[].
The line mystuff = test; causes the variable mystuff to contain the address of the test array. However, this assignment is local to the function. The caller never sees the modified value of mystuff. This is generally true for C/C++: function parameters are passed by value, and local modifications to that value are invisible outside of the function. The only exception to this is if you use the & operator in the parameter list in C++, which causes the parameter to be passed by reference. Like so:
void modify_it(char* &str) { /* ... */ }
However, if you do this, your program still won't work correctly, and will probably crash. That's because the address of test is stack memory, and that memory will be overwritten when modify_it returns. You'll be giving the caller the address of invalid stack memory, which can only lead to bad things. The correct thing to do is one of the following:
/* function allocates, caller frees */
void modify_it(char* &str) {
str = new char[7]; // allocate enough memory for string
memcpy(str, 7, test);
}
Or this:
/* caller allocates and frees */
void modify_it(char* str, size_t str_len) {
if (str_len < 7) { /* report an error. caller didn't allocate enough space. */ }
memcpy(str, 7, test);
}