I am trying to create a non-recursive method to swap a c-style string. It throws an exception in the Swap method. Could not figure out the problem.
void Swap(char *a, char* b)
{
char temp;
temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp;
}
void Reverse_String(char * str, int length)
{
for(int i=0 ; i <= length/2; i++) //do till the middle
{
Swap(str+i, str+length - i);
}
}
EDIT: I know there are fancier ways to do this. But since I'm learning, would like to know the problem with the code.
It throws an exception in the Swap method. Could not figure out the problem.
No it doesn't. Creating a temporary character and assigning characters can not possibly throw an exception. You might have an access violation, though, if your pointers don't point to blocks of memory you own.
The Reverse_String() function looks OK, assuming str points to at least length bytes of writable memory. There's not enough context in your question to extrapolate past that. I suspect you are passing invalid parameters. You'll need to show how you call Reverse_String() for us to determine if the call is valid or not.
If you are writing something like this:
char * str = "Foo";
Reverse_String(str, 3);
printf("Reversed: '%s'.\n", str);
Then you will definitely get an access violation, because str points to read-only memory. Try the following syntax instead:
char str[] = "Foo";
Reverse_String(str, 3);
printf("Reversed: '%s'.\n", str);
This will actually make a copy of the "Foo" string into a local buffer you can overwrite.
This answer refers to the comment by #user963018 made under #André Caron's answer (it's too long to be a comment).
char *str = "Foo";
The above declares a pointer to the first element of an array of char. The array is 4 characters long, 3 for F, o & o and 1 for a terminating NULL character. The array itself is stored in memory marked as read-only; which is why you were getting the access violation. In fact, in C++, your declaration is deprecated (it is allowed for backward compatibility to C) and your compiler should be warning you as such. If it isn't, try turning up the warning level. You should be using the following declaration:
const char *str = "Foo";
Now, the declaration indicates that str should not be used to modify whatever it is pointing to, and the compiler will complain if you attempt to do so.
char str[] = "Foo";
This declaration states that str is a array of 4 characters (including the NULL character). The difference here is that str is of type char[N] (where N == 4), not char *. However, str can decay to a pointer type if the context demands it, so you can pass it to the Swap function which expects a char *. Also, the memory containing Foo is no longer marked read-only, so you can modify it.
std::string str( "Foo" );
This declares an object of type std::string that contains the string "Foo". The memory that contains the string is dynamically allocated by the string object as required (some implementations may contain a small private buffer for small string optimization, but forget that for now). If you have string whose size may vary, or whose size you do not know at compile time, it is best to use std::string.
Related
So I am trying to avoid using strings for this. I am basically trying to make a string array.
char **hourtimes = (char**)malloc(100 * sizeof(char*));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
(*hourtimes) = (char*)malloc((100 * sizeof(char)));
}
So I made a string array basically here
Now, I want to make hourtimes[0] = "twelve";
I tried doing *hourtimes = "twelve";
but I get the same error, I think this works in c, but I'm using c++
hourtimes[0][0] = 't';
hourtimes[0][1] = 'w';
etc works just fine but that would be too cumbersome
*hourtimes = "twelve" is setting *hourtimes to point to an immutable string literal. You are then trying to modify that immutable string. What you want to do is copy "twelve" into *hourtimes.
strcpy(hourtimes[0],"twelve");
Note: This answer was written at a time when the question was tagged for C. C++ will have different preferred ways of doing this kind of thing.
The error message tells you exactly what's wrong: You can't assign a const char * to a char *. What does that mean, though?
Both const char * and char * are types. They are, in fact, very nearly the same type; one is a pointer to a character, and the other is a pointer to a constant character. That means that the latter can't be changed1; that's, after all, what "constant" means. So when you try to tell the compiler to treat a pointer to a constant type as a pointer to a non-const type, it'll give you an error -- because otherwise it'd have no way to guarantee that the string isn't modified.
"whatever" is always a const char *, not a char *, because that's stored in memory that's generally not meant to be modified, and the compiler can make some really neat optimizations if it can safely assume that it's unchanged (which, because it's const, it can).
I won't tell you how to "properly" write the code you're going for, because if you're using C++, you should be using std::vector and std::string instead of anything with pointers whenever possible, and that probably includes here. If, for whatever reason, you need to use pointers, the comments have covered that well enough.
1: Okay, yes, it can -- but that's outside the scope of this answer, and I don't want to confuse any beginners.
In your allocation loop, (*hourtimes) is the same as hourtimes[0], so you are assigning your allocated sub-arrays to the same slot in the main array on each loop iteration, causing memory leaks and uninitialized slots. You need to use hourtimes[i] instead:
char **hourtimes = (char**)malloc(100 * sizeof(char*));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
hourtimes[i] = (char*)malloc(100 * sizeof(char));
}
And don't forget to deallocate the arrays when you are done with them:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
free(hourtimes[i]);
}
free(hourtimes);
Now, a string literal has type const char[N], where N is the number of characters in the literal, + 1 for the null terminator. So "twelve" would be a const char[7].
Your arrays only allow char* pointers to be stored, but a const char[N] decays into a const char* pointer to the first char. You can't assign a const char* to a char*, thus the compiler error.
Even if it were possible to do (which it is, but only with a type-cast), you shouldn't do it, because doing so would cause a memory leak as you would lose your original pointer to the allocated array, and worse free() can't deallocate a string literal anyway.
What you really want to do is copy the content of the string literal into the allocated array storage. You can use strncpy() for that:
strncpy(hourtimes[0], "twelve", 100);
Now, with all of that said, this is the C way of handling arrays of strings. The C++ way is to use std::vector and std::string instead:
#include <string>
#include <vector>
std::vector<std::string> hourtimes(100);
...
hourtimes[0] = "twelve";
This is a string literal, which can be used as a pointer to a constant char, but not as a pointer to a non-const char.
"twelve"
You do however attempt to assign it to a pointer to non-const char.
hourtimes[0] = "twelve";
That is what the compiler does not like.
I am trying to make a function like strcpy in C++. I cannot use built-in string.h functions because of restriction by our instructor. I have made the following function:
int strlen (char* string)
{
int len = 0;
while (string [len] != (char)0) len ++;
return len;
}
char* strcpy (char* *string1, char* string2)
{
for (int i = 0; i<strlen (string2); i++) *string1[i] = string2[i];
return *string1;
}
main()
{
char* i = "Farid";
strcpy (&i, "ABC ");
cout<<i;
}
But I am unable to set *string1 [i] value. When I try to do so an error appears on screen 'Program has encountered a problem and need to close'.
What should I do to resolve this problem?
Your strcpy function is wrong. When you write *string1[i] you are actually modifying the first character of the i-th element of an imaginary array of strings. That memory location does not exist and your program segfaults.
Do this instead:
char* strcpy (char* string1, char* string2)
{
for (int i = 0; i<strlen (string2); i++) string1[i] = string2[i];
return string1;
}
If you pass a char* the characters are already modifiable. Note It is responsibility of the caller to allocate the memory to hold the copy. And the declaration:
char* i = "Farid";
is not a valid allocation, because the i pointer will likely point to read-only memory. Do instead:
char i[100] = "Farid";
Now i holds 100 chars of local memory, plenty of room for your copy:
strcpy(i, "ABC ");
If you wanted this function to allocate memory, then you should create another one, say strdup():
char* strdup (char* string)
{
size_t len = strlen(string);
char *n = malloc(len);
if (!n)
return 0;
strcpy(n, string);
return n;
}
Now, with this function the caller has the responsibility to free the memory:
char *i = strdup("ABC ");
//use i
free(i);
Because this error in the declaration of strcpy: "char* *string1"
I don't think you meant string1 to be a pointer to a pointer to char.
Removing one of the * should word
The code has several issues:
You can't assign a string literal to char* because the string literal has type char const[N] (for a suitable value of N) which converts to char const* but not to char*. In C++03 it was possible to convert to char* for backward compatibility but this rule is now gone. That is, your i needs to be declared char const*. As implemented above, your code tries to write read-only memory which will have undesirable effects.
The declaration of std::strcpy() takes a char* and a char const*: for the first pointer you need to provide sufficient space to hold a string of the second argument. Since this is error-prone it is a bad idea to use strcpy() in the first place! Instead, you want to replicate std::strncpy() which takes as third argument the length of the first buffer (actually, I'm never sure if std::strncpy() guarantees zero termination or not; you definitely also want to guarantee zero termination).
It is a bad idea to use strlen() in the loop condition as the function needs to be evaluated for each iteration of the loop, effectively changing the complexity of strlen() from linear (O(N)) to quadratic (O(N2)). Quadratic complexity is very bad. Copying a string of 1000 characters takes 1000000 operations. If you want to try out the effect, copy a string with 1000000 characters using a linear and a quadratic algorithm.
Your strcpy() doesn't add a null-terminator.
In C++ (and in C since ~1990) the implicit int rule doesn't apply. That is, you really need to write int in front of main().
OK, a couple of things:
you are missing the return type for the main function
declaration. Not really allowed under the standard. Some compilers will still allow it, but others will fail on the compile.
the way you have your for loop structured in
strcpy you are calling your strlen function each time through
the loop, and it is having to re-count the characters in the source
string. Not a big deal with a string like "ABC " but as strings get
longer.... Better to save the value of the result into a variable and use that in the for loop
Because of the way that you are declaring i in
`main' you are pointing to read-only storage, and will be causing an
access violation
Look at the other answers here for how to rebuild your code.
Pointer use in C and C++ is a perennial issue. I'd like to suggest the following tutorial from Paul DiLorenzo, "Learning C++ Pointers for REAL dummies.".
(This is not to imply that you are a "dummy," it's just a reference to the ",insert subject here> for Dummies" lines of books. I would not be surprised that the insertion of "REAL" is to forestall lawsuits over trademarked titles)
It is an excellent tutorial.
Hope it helps.
I am new to C++, and haven't quite grasped all the concepts yet, so i am perplexed at why this function does not work. I am currently not at home, so i cannot post the compiler error just yet, i will do it as soon as i get home.
Here is the function.
const char * ConvertToChar(std::string input1, std::string input2) {
// Create a string that you want converted
std::stringstream ss;
// Streams the two strings together
ss << input1 << input2;
// outputs it into a string
std::string msg = ss.str();
//Creating the character the string will go in; be sure it is large enough so you don't overflow the array
cont char * cstr[80];
//Copies the string into the char array. Thus allowing it to be used elsewhere.
strcpy(cstr, msg.c_str());
return * cstr;
}
It is made to concatenate and convert two strings together to return a const char *. That is because the function i want to use it with requires a const char pointer to be passed through.
The code returns a pointer to a local (stack) variable. When the caller gets this pointer that local variable doesn't exist any more. This is often called dangling reference.
If you want to convert std::string to a c-style string use std::string::c_str().
So, to concatenate two strings and get a c-style string do:
std::string input1 = ...;
std::string input2 = ...;
// concatenate
std::string s = input1 + input2;
// get a c-style string
char const* cstr = s.c_str();
// cstr becomes invalid when s is changed or destroyed
Without knowing what the error is, it's hard to say, but this
line:
const char* cstr[80];
seems wrong: it creates an array of 80 pointers; when it
implicitly converts to a pointer, the type will be char
const**, which should give an error when it is passed as an
argument to strcpy, and the dereference in the return
statement is the same as if you wrote cstr[0], and returns the
first pointer in the array—since the contents of the array
have never been initialized, this is undefined behavior.
Before you go any further, you have to define what the function
should return—not only its type, but where the pointed to
memory will reside. There are three possible solutions to this:
Use a local static for the buffer:
This solution was
frequently used in early C, and is still present in a number of
functions in the C library. It has two major defects: 1)
successive calls will overwrite the results, so the client code
must make its own copy before calling the function again, and 2)
it isn't thread safe. (The second issue can be avoided by using
thread local storage.) In cases like yours, it also has the
problem that the buffer must be big enough for the data, which
probably requires dynamic allocation, which adds to the
complexity.
Return a pointer to dynamically allocated memory:
This works well in theory, but requires the client code to free
the memory. This must be rigorously documented, and is
extremely error prone.
Require the client code to provide the buffer:
This is probably the best solution in modern code, but it does
mean that you need extra parameters for the address and the
length of the buffer.
In addition to this: there's no need to use std::ostringstream
if all you're doing is concatenating; just add the two strings.
Whatever solution you use, verify that the results will fit.
Basic question.
char new_str[]="";
char * newstr;
If I have to concatenate some data into it or use string functions like strcat/substr/strcpy, what's the difference between the two?
I understand I have to allocate memory to the char * approach (Line #2). I'm not really sure how though.
And const char * and string literals are the same?
I need to know more on this. Can someone point to some nice exhaustive content/material?
The excellent source to clear up the confusion is Peter Van der Linden, Expert C Programming, Deep C secrets - that arrays and pointers are not the same is how they are addressed in memory.
With an array, char new_str[]; the compiler has given the new_str a memory address that is known at both compilation and runtime, e.g. 0x1234, hence the indexing of the new_str is simple by using []. For example new_str[4], at runtime, the code picks the address of where new_str resides in, e.g. 0x1234 (that is the address in physical memory). by adding the index specifier [4] to it, 0x1234 + 0x4, the value can then be retrieved.
Whereas, with a pointer, the compiler gives the symbol char *newstr an address e.g. 0x9876, but at runtime, that address used, is an indirect addressing scheme. Supposing that newstr was malloc'd newstr = malloc(10);, what is happening is that, everytime a reference in the code is made to use newstr, since the address of newstr is known by the compiler i.e. 0x9876, but what is newstr pointing to is variable. At runtime, the code fetches data from physical memory 0x9876 (i.e. newstr), but at that address is, another memory address (since we malloc'd it), e.g 0x8765 it is here, the code fetches the data from that memory address that malloc assigned to newstr, i.e. 0x8765.
The char new_str[] and char *newstr are used interchangeably, since an zeroth element index of the array decays into a pointer and that explains why you could newstr[5] or *(newstr + 5) Notice how the pointer expression is used even though we have declared char *newstr, hence *(new_str + 1) = *newstr; OR *(new_str + 1) = newstr[1];
In summary, the real difference between the two is how they are accessed in memory.
Get the book and read it and live it and breathe it. Its a brilliant book! :)
Please go through this article below:
Also see in case of array of char like in your case, char new_str[] then the new_str will always point to the base of the array. The pointer in itself can't be incremented. Yes you can use subscripts to access the next char in array eg: new_str[3];
But in case of pointer to char, the pointer can be incremented new_str++ to fetch you the next character in the array.
Also I would suggest this article for more clarity.
This is a character array:
char buf [1000];
So, for example, this makes no sense:
buf = &some_other_buf;
This is because buf, though it has characteristics of type pointer, it is already pointing to the only place that makes sense for it.
char *ptr;
On the other hand, ptr is only a pointer, and may point somewhere. Most often, it's something like this:
ptr = buf; // #1: point to the beginning of buf, same as &buf[0]
or maybe this:
ptr = malloc (1000); // #2: allocate heap and point to it
or:
ptr = "abcdefghijklmn"; // #3: string constant
For all of these, *ptr can be written to—except the third case where some compiling environment define string constants to be unwritable.
*ptr++ = 'h'; // writes into #1: buf[0], #2: first byte of heap, or
// #3 overwrites "a"
strcpy (ptr, "ello"); // finishes writing hello and adds a NUL
The difference is that one is a pointer, the other is an array. You can, for instance, sizeof() array. You may be interested in peeking here
If you're using C++ as your tags indicate, you really should be using the C++ strings, not the C char arrays.
The string type makes manipulating strings a lot easier.
If you're stuck with char arrays for some reason, the line:
char new_str[] = "";
allocates 1 byte of space and puts a null terminator character into it. It's subtly different from:
char *new_str = "";
since that may give you a reference to non-writable memory. The statement:
char *new_str;
on its own gives you a pointer but nothing that it points to. It can also have a random value if it's local to a function.
What people tend to do (in C rather than C++) is to do something like:
char *new_str = malloc (100); // (remember that this has to be freed) or
char new_str[100];
to get enough space.
If you use the str... functions, you're basically responsible for ensuring that you have enough space in the char array, lest you get all sorts of weird and wonderful practice at debugging code. If you use real C++ strings, a lot of the grunt work is done for you.
The type of the first is char[1], the second is char *. Different types.
Allocate memory for the latter with malloc in C, or new in C++.
char foo[] = "Bar"; // Allocates 4 bytes and fills them with
// 'B', 'a', 'r', '\0'.
The size here is implied from the initializer string.
The contents of foo are mutable. You can change foo[i] for example where i = 0..3.
OTOH if you do:
char *foo = "Bar";
The compiler now allocates a static string "Bar" in readonly memory and cannot be modified.
foo[i] = 'X'; // is now undefined.
char new_str[]="abcd";
This specifies an array of characters (a string) of size 5 bytes (one byte for each character plus one for the null terminator). So it stores the string 'abcd' in memory and we can access this string using the variable new_str.
char *new_str="abcd";
This specifies a string 'abcd' is stored somewhere in the memory and the pointer new_str points to the first character of that string.
To differentiate them in the memory allocation side:
// With char array, "hello" is allocated on stack
char s[] = "hello";
// With char pointer, "hello" is stored in the read-only data segment in C++'s memory layout.
char *s = "hello";
// To allocate a string on heap, malloc 6 bytes, due to a NUL byte in the end
char *s = malloc(6);
s = "hello";
If you're in c++ why not use std::string for all your string needs? Especially anything dealing with concatenation. This will save you from a lot of problems.
Been thinking, what's the difference between declaring a variable with [] or * ? The way I see it:
char *str = new char[100];
char str2[] = "Hi world!";
.. should be the main difference, though Im unsure if you can do something like
char *str = "Hi all";
.. since the pointer should the reference to a static member, which I don't know if it can?
Anyways, what's really bugging me is knowing the difference between:
void upperCaseString(char *_str) {};
void upperCaseString(char _str[]) {};
So, would be much appreciated if anyone could tell me the difference? I have a hunch that both might be compiled down the same, except in some special cases?
Ty
Let's look into it (for the following, note char const and const char are the same in C++):
String literals and char *
"hello" is an array of 6 const characters: char const[6]. As every array, it can convert implicitly to a pointer to its first element: char const * s = "hello"; For compatibility with C code, C++ allows one other conversion, which would be otherwise ill-formed: char * s = "hello"; it removes the const!. This is an exception, to allow that C-ish code to compile, but it is deprecated to make a char * point to a string literal. So what do we have for char * s = "foo"; ?
"foo" -> array-to-pointer -> char const* -> qualification-conversion -> char *. A string literal is read-only, and won't be allocated on the stack. You can freely make a pointer point to them, and return that one from a function, without crashing :).
Initialization of an array using a String literal
Now, what is char s[] = "hello"; ? It's a whole other thing. That will create an array of characters, and fill it with the String "hello". The literal isn't pointed to. Instead it is copied to the character-array. And the array is created on the stack. You cannot validly return a pointer to it from a function.
Array Parameter types.
How can you make your function accept an array as parameter? You just declare your parameter to be an array:
void accept_array(char foo[]);
but you omit the size. Actually, any size would do it, as it is just ignored: The Standard says that parameters declared in that way will be transformed to be the same as
void accept_array(char * foo);
Excursion: Multi Dimensional Arrays
Substitute char by any type, including arrays itself:
void accept_array(char foo[][10]);
accepts a two-dimensional array, whose last dimension has size 10. The first element of a multi-dimensional array is its first sub-array of the next dimension! Now, let's transform it. It will be a pointer to its first element again. So, actually it will accept a pointer to an array of 10 chars: (remove the [] in head, and then just make a pointer to the type you see in your head then):
void accept_array(char (*foo)[10]);
As arrays implicitly convert to a pointer to their first element, you can just pass an two-dimensional array in it (whose last dimension size is 10), and it will work. Indeed, that's the case for any n-dimensional array, including the special-case of n = 1;
Conclusion
void upperCaseString(char *_str) {};
and
void upperCaseString(char _str[]) {};
are the same, as the first is just a pointer to char. But note if you want to pass a String-literal to that (say it doesn't change its argument), then you should change the parameter to char const* _str so you don't do deprecated things.
The three different declarations let the pointer point to different memory segments:
char* str = new char[100];
lets str point to the heap.
char str2[] = "Hi world!";
puts the string on the stack.
char* str3 = "Hi world!";
points to the data segment.
The two declarations
void upperCaseString(char *_str) {};
void upperCaseString(char _str[]) {};
are equal, the compiler complains about the function already having a body when you try to declare them in the same scope.
Okay, I had left two negative comments. That's not really useful; I've removed them.
The following code initializes a char pointer, pointing to the start of a dynamically allocated memory portion (in the heap.)
char *str = new char[100];
This block can be freed using delete [].
The following code creates a char array in the stack, initialized to the value specified by a string literal.
char [] str2 = "Hi world!";
This array can be modified without problems, which is nice. So
str2[0] = 'N';
cout << str2;
should print Ni world! to the standard output, making certain knights feel very uncomfortable.
The following code creates a char pointer in the stack, pointing to a string literal... The pointer can be reassigned without problems, but the pointed block cannot be modified (this is undefined behavior; it segfaults under Linux, for example.)
char *str = "Hi all";
str[0] = 'N'; // ERROR!
The following two declarations
void upperCaseString(char *_str) {};
void upperCaseString(char [] _str) {};
look the same to me, and in your case (you want to uppercase a string in place) it really doesn't matters.
However, all this begs the question: why are you using char * to express strings in C++?
As a supplement to the answers already given, you should read through the C FAQ regarding arrays vs. pointers. Yes it's a C FAQ and not a C++ FAQ, but there's little substantial difference between the two languages in this area.
Also, as a side note, avoid naming your variables with a leading underscore. That's reserved for symbols defined by the compiler and standard library.
Please also take a look at the http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html The C-FAQ might prove to be an interesting read in itself.
The first option dynamically allocates 100 bytes.
The second option statically allocates 10 bytes (9 for the string + nul character).
Your third example shouldn't work - you're trying to statically-fill a dynamic item.
As to the upperCaseString() question, once the C-string has been allocated and defined, you can iterate through it either by array indexing or by pointer notation, because an array is really just a convenient way to wrap pointer arithmetic in C.
(That's the simple answer - I expect someone else will have the authoritative, complicated answer out of the spec :))