I'm trying to encrypt and decrypt files with C++, using this code:
#include <iostream>
void crypt(char* pData, unsigned int lenData, const char* pKey, unsigned int lenKey)
{
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < lenData; i++)
pData[i] = pData[i] ^ pKey[i % lenKey];
}
int main()
{
char* data = (char*)"any binary string here";
crypt(data, 22, "key", 3);
std::cout << data;
}
I'm compiling with g++ (tdm-1) 4.5.1 (MinGW) on Windows 6.1 (Seven), it compiles with no errors or warnings. When I try to run, it shows a window with "app.exe stoped working. The Windows can check online if there has some solution to the problem." (some thing like that, my Windows isn't in English). I don't have any idea about what is wrong.
You're trying to modify a string constant. For obvious reasons (it's constant), this won't work. Instead, do this:
int main()
{
char data[] = "any binary string here";
crypt(data, 22, "key", 3);
std::cout << data;
}
This line is wrong:
char* data = (char*)"any binary string here";
First, you should not use a cast. Next, a string literal is a constant. So it should be:
const char* data = "any binary string here";
But you're wanting to overwrite it. So you need a string that isn't a constant. Like this:
char data[] = "any binary string here";
Mike has answered this question well. You cannot modify constant string literals. Time of DOS has almost ended. Proper up-to-date production level C++ compiler should have issued a warning with appropriate flags. Just to add a little bit to the Mike's answer, here is a good explanation of constant string literals - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/69ze775t(v=vs.80).aspx
Also, here is the better way to do it:
#include <iostream>
void crypt(char* pData, unsigned int lenData, const char* pKey, unsigned int lenKey)
{
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < lenData; ++i)
pData[i] ^= pKey[i % lenKey];
}
int main()
{
char data[] = "any binary string here";
const char key[] = "key";
crypt (data, sizeof(data) - 1, key, sizeof (key) - 1);
std::cout << data << std::endl;
}
Note post-increment operator, ^= and sizeof operators. For simple types compiler will do this micro-optimization for you, but developing a good habit is good. If you have a complex iterator, using post-increment can harm you on performance critical paths. Also, hardcoding size of strings is error-prone. Later you or someone else can change the string and forget to change its length. Not to mention that every time you have to go and count number of characters.
Happy coding!
Related
So i am trying to use the Ceasar Cipher with char *'s, I've written a simple function out like this:
char * Encrypt(char * s, int k)
{
char * c = s;
for(int i = 0; i < strlen(s); i++)
c[i] += k;
return c;
}
that seems to look like it should work but it doesn't. It throws an error when running program.
Here is an example of how i call this function:
int main()
{
cout << Encrypt("hello", 2) << endl;
system("pause");
return 0;
}
And before you say "why not just use string?", well the answer is I'm writing C++ on a certain SDK that causes compiler errors when using string. Ok but yeah, any form of help will greatly be appreciated, thanks!
String literals like "Hello" are read only. If you try to modify such a string you will have undefined behavior.
In C++ string literals are actually arrays of constant characters.
Using char* to access a string literal should have your compiler to scream a warning at you. If not you need to turn up your warning level or enable more warnings.
If you're really programming in C++ I suggest you learn about std::string and find a good beginners book to read.
tl;dr
Why do I get different output every time I run this code (Ideone):
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
using namespace std;
int main() {
const char* _user = "FOO";
const char* _password = "BAR";
char login[21];
sprintf(login,
"\x15\x00\x01%-8s%-10s",
_user,
_password);
for (int i = 0; i < 21; i++) {
printf(" %02x", login[i] & 0xff);
}
return 0;
}
But not this code (Ideone):
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
using namespace std;
int main() {
const char* _user = "FOO";
const char* _password = "BAR";
const char* _session = "ABCDEFGHIJ";
int _expectedSeq = 123;
char login[38];
sprintf(login,
"L%-6s%-10s%10s%10d\xA",
_user,
_password,
_session,
_expectedSeq);
for (int i = 0; i < 38; i++) {
printf(" %02x", login[i] & 0xff);
}
return 0;
}
Question
Deep in our application code, I came across this:
char login[38];
sprintf(login,
"L%-6s%-10s%10s%10d\xA",
_user,
_password,
_session,
_expectedSeq);
Now, I need to write a (simpler) variant of this code:
char login[21];
sprintf(login,
"\x15\x00\x01%-8s%-10s",
_user,
_password);
Somehow, this doesn't work! What's weird is that the latter produces different results every time.
Thoughts
The former example only has a hex literal at the end. Is this masking the issue in the former's case?
Or, am I actually messing up my debug output, printf? (By the way, I got the & 0xff thing from Printing hexadecimal characters in C.)
Could it have something to do with using char instead of unsigned char? But then, why does the former case work?
The problem is that your string literal has an embedded NUL byte, and that marks the end of the string as far as sprintf is concerned. So your call is identical to:
sprintf(login,
"\x15",
_user,
_password);
And that writes into the login array only two bytes: 0x15 0x00.
There are several approaches to solve this mixing of bytes and characters. My choice would be something along the lines of:
memcpy(login, "\x15\x00\x01", 3);
sprintf(login + 3,
"%-8s%-10s",
_user,
_password);
The call to memcpy takes as parameter the number of bytes, so it is immune to the embedded NUL problem.
But note that sprintf automaticall adds a NUL byte at the end of the output string, so you actually need 22 bytes: 3 + 8 + 10 + 1 = 22:
char login[22];
Your issue is that second format string contains a null character (\x00) which terminates it prematurely. Change the string to use %c instead and have a null character printed there.
Below is my sample code. Its just a sample which is similar to the code which i'm using in my applicaiton.
#define STR_SIZE 32
void someThirdPartyFunc(const char* someStr);
void getString(int Num, const char* myStr)
{
char tempStr[] = "MyTempString=";
int size = strlen(tempStr) + 2;
snprintf((char*)myStr, size, "%s%d", tempStr, Num);
}
int main()
{
const char * myStr = new char(STR_SIZE);
getString(1, myStr); // get the formated string by sending the number
someThirdPartyFunc(myStr); // send the string to the thirdpartyFunction
delete myStr;
return 0;
}
I am getting an exception if i use this code. I think the problem is with deleting the "myStr". But delete is really necessary.
Is there any other way to format the string in getString and send it to the ThirdPartyFunc??
Thanks in advance.
you are allocating not an array of chars but one char with this line:
const char * myStr = new char(STR_SIZE);
and that one allocated char is initialized with the value of STR_SIZE, causing a "char overflow" in this case.
if you want an array of size STR_SIZE:
const char * myStr = new char[STR_SIZE];
(note the rectangular [ ]). you have to deallocate such allocated chunk of memory by using the delete[] operator.
personal note: the code you have written above (manually allocated strings etc) is good educational wise; you will do a lot of such mistakes and thus learn about the inner workings of C / C++. for production code you do not want that, for production code you want std::string or other string-containers to avoid repeating string-related mistakes. in general you are not the one who sucessfully reinvent how string-libraries will work. the same is true for other container-types like dynamically-growable-arrays (std::vector) or dictionary-types or whatever. but for educational fiddling around your code above serves a good purpose.
there are other problems in your code snippet (handing over const char* to a function and then modifying the ram, not calculating correctly the size parameter when calling snprintf etc), but these are not related to your segfault-problem.
Re the technical, instead of
const char * myStr = new char(STR_SIZE);
do
char const myStr[STR_SIZE] = "";
Note that both have the problem that the string can’t be modified.
But you only asked about the allocation/deallocation problem.
But then, there's so much wrong at levels above the language-technical.
Here's the original code, complete:
void someThirdPartyFunc(const char* someStr);
void getString(int Num, const char* myStr)
{
char tempStr[] = "MyTempString=";
int size = strlen(tempStr) + 2;
snprintf((char*)myStr, size, "%s%d", tempStr, Num);
}
int main()
{
const char * myStr = new char(STR_SIZE);
getString(1, myStr); // get the formated string by sending the number
someThirdPartyFunc(myStr); // send the string to the thirdpartyFunction
delete myStr;
return 0;
}
Here's how to do that at the C++ level:
#include <string> // std::string
#include <sstream> // std::ostringstream
using namespace std;
void someThirdPartyFunc( char const* ) {}
string getString( int const num )
{
ostringstream stream;
stream << "MyTempString=" << num;
return stream.str();
}
int main()
{
someThirdPartyFunc( getString( 1 ).c_str() );
}
The #define disappeared out of the more natural code, but note that it can very easily lead to undesired text substitutions, even with all uppercase macro names. And shouting all uppercase is an eyesore anyway (which is why it's the macro name convention, as opposed to some other convention). In C++ simply use const instead.
I am working on ROT13 for c++ practice. however this bit of code here returns an error and fails to compile, i do not understand why! I am posting a snippet of code in the following lines
string encode(string &x)
{
char alphabet[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
for (size_t l=0;l<x.size();++l){
cout<<x[l];
cout<< strchr(alphabet,x[l]);
}
return x;
}
Q2. Also help me return the index of the matching letter from alphabet[] (e.g.,5 for 'f') to which i can add 13 and append that to x and so on ..
Q3. Besides practice, which course in CS would help me develop more efficient algorithms? Is it theory of computation, discrete mathematics, or algorithms ?
In order, starting with question 1:
The following compiles fine for me:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstring>
std::string encode(std::string &x)
{
char alphabet[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
char *ptr;
for (size_t l=0;l<x.size();++l){
std::cout<<x[l];
std::cout<< std::strchr(alphabet,x[l]);
}
return x;
}
int main (int argc, char* argv []) {
return 0;
}
Make sure:
you include the headers given, for cout and strchr.
use std:: prefixes unless you're using the std namespace.
fix that ptr problem.
Question 2:
If you're looking for a handy ROT-13 method, consider using two C strings, one for the source and one for the translation:
char from[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
char to [] = "nopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklm";
Then you can use strchr to look it up in the first one and use that pointer to find the equivalent in the second.
char src = 'j';
char *p = strchr (from, src);
if (p == NULL)
std::cout << src;
else
std::cout << to[p - from];
That would output the character as-is if it wasn't found or look up the translation if it was found. You may also want to put the capital letters in there as well.
Question 3:
If you want to learn about efficient algorithms, I'd go for, surprisingly enough, an algorithms course :-)
Theory of computation sounds a little dry, though it may well cover the theoretical basis behind algorithms. Discrete mathematics has applicability to algorithms but, again, it's probably very theoretical. That's all based on what the words mean, of course, the actual subject areas covered may be totally different, so you should probably take it up with the people offering the courses.
Extra bit:
If you're looking for something to compare your own work to, here's one I put together based on my suggestions above:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstring>
std::string rot13 (std::string x)
{
char from[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
char to [] = "nopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmNOPQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGHIJKLM";
std::string retstr = "";
for (size_t i = 0; i < x.size(); ++i) {
char *p = std::strchr (from, x[i]);
if (p == 0)
retstr += x[i];
else
retstr += to[p - from];
}
return retstr;
}
int main (int argc, char* argv []) {
std::string one = "This string contains 47 and 53.";
std::string two = rot13 (one);
std::string three = rot13 (two);
std::cout << one << '\n';
std::cout << two << '\n';
std::cout << three << '\n';
return 0;
}
The building of the return string could have probably been done more efficiently (such as a new'ed character array which becomes a string only at the end) but it illustrates the "lookup" part of the method well.
The output is:
This string contains 47 and 53.
Guvf fgevat pbagnvaf 47 naq 53.
This string contains 47 and 53.
which you can verify here, if necessary.
Cast alphabet to a const char*, it should work afterwards. Keep in mind that type[] is different from type *.
I am working on some code that reads in a data file. The file frequently contains numeric values of various lengths encoded in ASCII that I need to convert to integers. The problem is that they are not null-terminated, which of course causes problems with atoi. The solution I have been using is to manually append a null to the character sequence, and then convert it.
This is the code that I have been using; it works fine, but it seems very kludgy.
char *append_null(const char *chars, const int size)
{
char *tmp = new char[size + 2];
memcpy(tmp, chars, size);
tmp[size + 1] = '\0';
return tmp;
}
int atoi2(const char *chars, const int size)
{
char *tmp = append_null(chars, size);
int result = atoi(tmp);
delete[] tmp;
return result;
}
int main()
{
char *test = new char[20];
test[0] = '1';
test[1] = '2';
test[2] = '3';
test[3] = '4';
cout << atoi2(test, 4) << endl;
}
I am wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem.
Fixed-format integer conversion is still well within handroll range where the library won't do:
size_t mem_tozd_rjzf(const char *buf, size_t len) // digits only
{
int n=0;
while (len--)
n = n*10 + *buf++ - '0';
return n;
}
long mem_told(const char *buf, size_t len) // spaces, sign, digits
{
long n=0, sign=1;
while ( len && isspace(*buf) )
--len, ++buf;
if ( len ) switch(*buf) {
case '-': sign=-1; \
case '+': --len, ++buf;
}
while ( len-- && isdigit(*buf) )
n = n*10 + *buf++ -'0';
return n*sign;
}
In C++11, you can say std::stoi(std::string(chars, size)), all from <string>.
int i = atoi(std::string(chars, size).c_str());
Your method will work, although you should only need size+1 for appending the null and the null will go at position size. Currently, your test code doesn't actually make the function call, but I'll assume that you have a way to determine when the null-terminated characters end. If possibly, I'd recommend making the null termination there so that you don't have to worry about catching cases where you hit an exception before you can deallocate the memory (memory which, honestly, may or may not have been allocated if you start catching exceptions).
std::string str = "1234";
boost::lexical_cast<int>(str); // 1234
The problem as formulated requires to construct a string given an array of known size, then converting its text into a numeric value.
To convert text into values, C++ has a unified mechanism: streams.
In your case, you can do the following:
int i = 0;
std::stringstream(std::string(yourbuffer, yoursize)) >> i;
This will completely avoid any plain old C reference.
But, since -as you say- all values come from a file... why just don't read the file itself as a stream via std::fstream ?
The question says (emph mine):
The file frequently contains numeric values of various lengths encoded
in ASCII that I need to convert to integers. The problem is that they
are not null-terminated, which of course causes problems with atoi.
This does not really pose a problem, as, if we look at the docs for atoi or strtol, they clearly state:
Function discards any whitespace characters until first non-whitespace
character is found. Then it takes as many characters as possible to
form a valid integer number representation and converts them to
integer value.
That means, it doesn't matter at all that the numbers aren't null terminated, as long as they are delimited by something that stops conversion.
And if they are not delimited, then you have to know the size, and when you know the size, I would also recommend a hand-coded solution like in the other answer.
I know this answer is not answering OP's question, but it helps if your source of char* is a char array with known size.
Live demo
#include <fmt/core.h>
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>
// SFINAE fallback
template<typename T, typename =
std::enable_if< std::is_pointer<T>::value >
>
int charArrayToInt(const T arr){ // Fall back for user friendly compiler errors
static_assert(false == std::is_pointer<T>::value, "`charArrayToInt()` dosen't allow conversion from pointer!");
return -1;
}
// Valid for both null or non-null-terminated char array
template<size_t sz>
int charArrayToInt(const char(&arr)[sz]){
// It doesn't matter whether it's null terminated or not
std::string str(arr, sz);
return std::stof(str);
}
int main() {
char number[2] = {'4','2'};
int ret = charArrayToInt(number);
fmt::print("The answer is {}. ", ret);
return 0;
}