char el[3] = myvector[1].c_str();
myvector[i] is a string with three letters in. Why does this error?
It returns type char* which is a pointer to a string. You can't assign this directly to an array like that, as that array already has memory assigned to it. Try:
const char* el = myvector[1].c_str();
But very careful if the string itself is destroyed or changed as the pointer will no longer be valid.
Because a const char * is not a valid initializer for an array. What's more, I believe c_str returns a pointer to internal memory so it's not safe to store.
You probably want to copy the value in some way (memcpy or std::copy or something else).
In addition to what others have said, keep in mind that a string with a length of three characters requires four bytes when converted to a c_str. This is because an extra byte has to be reserved for the null at the end of the string.
Arrays in C++ must know their size, and be provided with initialisers, at compile-time. The value returned by c_str() is only known at run-time. If e1 were a std::string, as it probably should be, there would be no problem. If it must be a char[], then use strcpy to populate it.
char el[3];
strcpy( e1, myvector[1].c_str() );
This assumes that the string myvector[1] contains at most two characters.
Just create a copy of the string. Then, if you ever need to access it as a char*, just do so.
string el = myvector[1];
cout << &el[0] << endl;
Make the string const if you don't need to modify it. Use c_str() on 'el' instead if you want.
Or, just access it right from the vector with:
cout << &myvector[1][0] << endl;
if possible for your situation.
Related
I'm working on an exercise to calculate the length of a string using pointers.
Here's the code I've written below:
int main() {
std::string text = "Hello World";
std::string *string_ptr = &text;
int size = 0;
//Error below: ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer and integer [-fpermissive]
while (string_ptr != '\0') {
size++;
string_ptr++;
}
std::cout << size;
}
In a lot of examples that I've seen, the string is often a char array which I also understand is a string. However, I want to try calculate it as a string object but I'm getting the error below.
Is it possible to calculate it where the string is an object, or does it need to be a char array?
If you just want the size of the string, well, use std::string::size():
auto size = text.size();
Alternatively, you can use length(), which does the same thing.
But I'm guessing you're trying to reimplement strlen for learning purposes. In that case, there are three problems with your code.
First, you're trying to count the number of characters in the string, and that means you need a pointer to char, not a pointer to std::string. That pointer should also point to constant characters, because you're not trying to modify those characters.
Second, to get a pointer to the string's characters, use its method c_str(). Getting the address of the string just gets you a pointer to the string itself, not its contents. Most importantly, the characters pointed to by c_str() are null terminated, so it is safe to use for your purposes here. Alternatively, use data(), which has been behaving identically to c_str() since C++11.
Finally, counting those characters involves checking if the value pointed to by the pointer is '\0', so you'll need to dereference it in your loop.
Putting all of this together:
const char* string_ptr = text.c_str(); // get the characters
int size = 0;
while (*string_ptr != '\0') { // make sure you dereference the pointer
size++;
string_ptr++;
}
Of course, this assumes the string does not contain what are known as "embedded nulls", which is when there are '\0' characters before the end. std::string can contain such characters and will work correctly. In that case, your function will return a different value from what the string's size() method would, but there's no way around it.
For that reason, you should really just call size().
First things first, the problem is irrelevant. std::string::size() is a O(1) (constant time) operation, as std::string's typically store their size. Even if you need to know the length of a C-style string (aka char*), you can use strlen. (I get that this is an exercise, but I still wanted to warn you.)
Anyway, here you go:
size_t cstrSize(const char* cstr)
{
size_t size(0);
while (*cstr != '\0')
{
++size;
++cstr;
}
return size;
}
You can get the underlying C-style string (which is a pointer to the first character) of a std::string by calling std::string::c_str(). What you did was getting a pointer to the std::string object itself, and dereferencing it would just give you that object back. And yes, you need to dereference it (using the * unary operator). That is why you got an error (which was on the (string_ptr != '\0') btw).
You are totally confused here.
“text” is a std::string, that is an object with a size() method retuning the length of the string.
“string_ptr” is a pointer to a std::string, that is a pointer to an object. Since it is a pointer to an object, you don’t use text.size() to get the length, but string_ptr->size().
So first, no, you can’t compare a pointer with an integer constant, only with NULL or another pointer.
The first time you increase string_ptr it points to the memory after the variable text. At that point using *string_ptr for anything will crash.
Remember: std::string is an object.
I have a const char
const char example[] = "\x4D\x5A\xE8\x00\x00\x00\x00\x5B\x52\x45\x55\x89\xE5\x81\xC3";
and
DWORD* example2 = "\xAA\xBB\xCC\xDD";
and i want to change the last 4 bytes of example1 with those on example2
what can I do in C++?
i have tried memcpy , strcpy and strcpy_s with no luck
You should not modify a constant array!
Modifying a inherently constant object/variable leads to Undefined Behavior.
Just don't do it. Make a copy of it and modify that copy or if you want to modify the same array simply don't declare it as const.
Donot modify a constant string.
const char example[] = "\x4D\x5A\xE8\x00\x00\x00\x00\x5B\x52\x45\x55\x89\xE5\x81\xC3"; here, your string has a few NULL string terminator. This will NOT work with functions in <string.h> (such as strlen() and others)
Instead use memcpy, memset functions to append ONLY after knowing the length of the binary string.
Store your result in a character array, but don't assume it will work as a regular string because of your data.
your example[] char array is defined as const so you can not modify it.
1) You should get an eror in the compilation if you change your const char array in this way
example[2] ='R';
2) You should get a warning if you modify your const char array via memcpy or via strcpy
Change it to
char example[] = "\x4D\x5A\xE8\x00\x00\x00\x00\x5B\x52\x45\x55\x89\xE5\x81\xC3";
And you can not use strcpy because your character array contains x00 in the middle so this will affect the strcpy function. Because strcpy stop when it find x00 in the char array
example[] char array contains x00 in the middle, so to find the length of example[] with strlen will not work properly. For this case I suggest to use sizeof(example) instead.
Here after how you can make your copy:
char example[] = "\x4D\x5A\xE8\x00\x00\x00\x00\x5B\x52\x45\x55\x89\xE5\x81\xC3";
DWORD* example2 = "\xAA\xBB\xCC\xDD";
if (sizeof(example)>=sizeof(example2))
memcpy(example+sizeof(example)-sizeof(example2), example2, sizeof(example2));
Const variables can't be changed. This is by design. In the case of a c string, you can have the contents of the string const or the pointer to the string const.
Since you are defining it as a const character array, the pointer is implicitely const and the contents are explicitly const.
const char * const mystring = "hello"
In this case the first "const" tries to apply left (there is nothing), so it applies right (to the char type). So the string content may not change. The second const tries to apply left, so it makes the pointer itself const. That means that the mystring pointer must always point to where the "h" from "hello" in memory is.
So afterwards if I try:
mystring[0] = "y"
or
mystring = "gooodbye!"
They would not work. If you removed the first or second const respectively, they could be made to work.
The purpose of const allows you to say ahead of time "this variable cannot be modified". That means that if it is modified then there is a problem. Generally you should always use const with any variable that you do not want to be modified after instantiation.
You should never modify a constant including a constant array. If you want to change what you have above, create a copy of it and change the copy. As pointed out by RasmusKaj strcpy will not help you here as the source strings contains zero chars so maybe use memcpy for the creation of the copy.
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.
I'm using C++ map to implemented a dictionary in my program. My function gets a structure as an argument and should return the associated value based on structure.name member which is char named[32]. The following code demonstrates my problem:
map <const char *, const char *> myMap;
myMap.insert(pair<const char *, const char *>("test", "myTest"));
char *p = "test";
char buf[5] = {'\0'};
strcpy(buf, "test");
cout << myMap.find(p)->second << endl; // WORKS
cout << myMap.find("test")->second << endl; // WORKS
cout << myMap.find(buf)->second << endl; // DOES NOT WORK
I am not sure why the third case doesn't work and what should I do to make it work.
I debugged the above code to watch the values passed and I still cannot figure the problem.
Thanks!
Pointer comparison, not string comparison, will be performed by map to locate elements. The first two work because "test" is a string literal and will have the same address. The last does not work because buf will not have the same address as "test".
To fix, either use a std::string or define a comparator for char*.
The map key is a pointer, not a value. All your literal "test" strings share storage, because the compiler is clever that way, so their pointers are the same, but buf is a different memory address.
You need to use a map key that has value equality semantics, such as std::string, instead of char*.
Like was mentioned you are comparing on the address not the value. I wanted to link this article:
Is a string literal in c++ created in static memory?
Since all the literals had the same address this explains why your comparison of string literals worked even though the underlying type is still a const char * (but depending on the compiler it may not ALWAYS be so)
Its because by buf[5] you are allocating the memory pointed by buf but when u use 'p' pointer it points to the same memory location as used by map. So always use std::string in key instead of pointer variable.
I like "reinventing the wheel" for learning purposes, so I'm working on a container class for strings. Will using the NULL character as an array terminator (i.e., the last value in the array will be NULL) cause interference with the null-terminated strings?
I think it would only be an issue if an empty string is added, but I might be missing something.
EDIT: This is in C++.
"" is the empty string in C and C++, not NULL. Note that "" has exactly one element (instead of zero), meaning it is equivalent to {'\0'} as an array of char.
char const *notastring = NULL;
char const *emptystring = "";
emptystring[0] == '\0'; // true
notastring[0] == '\0'; // crashes
No, it won't, because you won't be storing in an array of char, you'll be storing in an array of char*.
char const* strings[] = {
"WTF"
, "Am"
, "I"
, "Using"
, "Char"
, "Arrays?!"
, 0
};
It depends on what kind of string you're storing.
If you're storing C-style strings, which are basically just pointers to character arrays (char*), there's a difference between a NULL pointer value, and an empty string. The former means the pointer is ‘empty’, the latter means the pointer points to an array that contains a single item with character value 0 ('\0'). So the pointer still has a value, and testing it (if (foo[3])) will work as expected.
If what you're storing are C++ standard library strings of type string, then there is no NULL value. That's because there is no pointer, and the string type is treated as a single value. (Whereas a pointer is technically not, but can be seen as a reference.)
I think you are confused. While C-strings are "null terminated", there is no "NULL" character. NULL is a name for a null pointer. The terminator for a C-string is a null character, i.e. a byte with a value of zero. In ASCII, this byte is (somewhat confusingly) named NUL.
Suppose your class contains an array of char that is used to store the string data. You do not need to "mark the end of the array"; the array has a specific size that is set at compile-time. You do need to know how much of that space is actually being used; the null-terminator on the string data accomplishes that for you - but you can get better performance by actually remembering the length. Also, a "string" class with a statically-sized char buffer is not very useful at all, because that buffer size is an upper limit on the length of strings you can have.
So a better string class would contain a pointer of type char*, which points to a dynamically allocated (via new[]) array of char s. Again, it makes no sense to "mark the end of the array", but you will want to remember both the length of the string (i.e. the amount of space being used) and the size of the allocation (i.e. the amount of space that may be used before you have to re-allocate).
When you are copying from std::string, use the iterators begin(), end() and you don't have to worry about the NULL - in reality, the NULL is only present if you call c_str() (in which case the block of memory this points to will have a NULL to terminate the string.) If you want to memcpy use the data() method.
Why don't you follow the pattern used by vector - store the number of elements within your container class, then you know always how many values there are in it:
vector<string> myVector;
size_t elements(myVector.size());
Instantiating a string with x where const char* x = 0; can be problematic. See this code in Visual C++ STL that gets called when you do this:
_Myt& assign(const _Elem *_Ptr)
{ // assign [_Ptr, <null>)
_DEBUG_POINTER(_Ptr);
return (assign(_Ptr, _Traits::length(_Ptr)));
}
static size_t __CLRCALL_OR_CDECL length(const _Elem *_First)
{ // find length of null-terminated string
return (_CSTD strlen(_First));
}
#include "Maxmp_crafts_fine_wheels.h"
MaxpmContaner maxpm;
maxpm.add("Hello");
maxpm.add(""); // uh oh, adding an empty string; should I worry?
maxpm.add(0);
At this point, as a user of MaxpmContainer who had not read your documentation, I would expect the following:
strcmp(maxpm[0],"Hello") == 0;
*maxpm[1] == 0;
maxpm[2] == 0;
Interference between the zero terminator at position two and the empty string at position one is avoided by means of the "interpret this as a memory address" operator *. Position one will not be zero; it will be an integer, which if you interpret it as a memory address, will turn out to be zero. Position two will be zero, which, if you interpret it as a memory address, will turn out to be an abrupt disorderly exit from your program.