What is the correct C++ way of comparing a memory buffer with a constant string - strcmp(buf, "sometext") ? I want to avoid unnecessary memory copying as the result of creating temporary std::string objects.
Thanks.
If you're just checking for equality, you may be able to use std::equal
#include <algorithms>
const char* text = "sometext";
const int len = 8; // length of text
if (std::equal(text, text+len, buf)) ...
of course this will need additional logic if your buffer can be smaller than the text
strcmp is good if you know the contents of your buffer. std::strncmp might give you a little more security against buffer overflows.
strcmp works fine, no copy is made. Alternatively, you could also use memcmp. However, when in C++, why not use std::strings?
I would use memcmp, and as the last parameter, use the minimum of the 2 sizes of data.
Also check to make sure those 2 sizes are the same, or else you are simply comparing the prefix of the shortest one.
You may do it like,
const char* const CONST_STRING = "sometext";
strcmp(buf,CONST_STRING);
Related
I have found myself writing code which looks like this
// Treat the following as pseudocode - just an example
iofile.seekg(0, std::ios::end); // iofile is a file opened for read/write
uint64_t f_len = iofile.tellg();
if(f_len >= some_min_length)
{
// Focus on the following code here
char *buf = new char[7];
char buf2[]{"MYFILET"}; // just some random string
// if we see this it's a good indication
// the rest of the file will be in the
// expected format (unlikely to see this
// sequence in a "random file", but don't
// worry too much about this)
iofile.read(buf, 7);
if(memcmp(buf, buf2, 7) == 0) // I am confident this works
{
// carry on processing file ...
// ...
// ...
}
}
else
cout << "invalid file format" << endl;
This code is probably an okay sketch of what we might want to do when opening a file, which has some specified format (which I've dictated). We do some initial check to make sure the string "MYFILET" is at the start of the file - because I've decided all my files for the job I'm doing are going to start with this sequence of characters.
I think this code would be better if we didn't have to play around with "c-style" character arrays, but used strings everywhere instead. This would be advantageous because we could do things like if(buf == buf2) if buf and buf2 where std::strings.
A possible alternative could be,
// Focus on the following code here
std::string buf;
std::string buf2("MYFILET"); // very nice
buf.resize(7); // okay, but not great
iofile.read(buf.data(), 7); // pretty awful - error prone if wrong length argument given
// also we have to resize buf to 7 in the previous step
// lots of potential for mistakes here,
// and the length was used twice which is never good
if(buf == buf2) then do something
What are the problems with this?
We had to use the length variable 7 (or constant in this case) twice. Which is somewhere between "not ideal" and "potentially error prone".
We had to access the contents of buf using .data() which I shall assume here is implemented to return a raw pointer of some sort. I don't personally mind this too much, but others may prefer a more memory-safe solution, perhaps hinting we should use an iterator of some sort? I think in Visual Studio (for Windows users which I am not) then this may return an iterator anyway, which will give [?] warnings/errors [?] - not sure on this.
We had to have an additional resize statement for buf. It would be better if the size of buf could be automatically set somehow.
It is undefined behavior to write into the const char* returned by std::string::data(). However, you are free to use std::vector::data() in this way.
If you want to use std::string, and dislike setting the size yourself, you may consider whether you can use std::getline(). This is the free function, not std::istream::getline(). The std::string version will read up to a specified delimiter, so if you have a text format you can tell it to read until '\0' or some other character which will never occur, and it will automatically resize the given string to hold the contents.
If your file is binary in nature, rather than text, I think most people would find std::vector<char> to be a more natural fit than std::string anyway.
We had to use the length variable 7 (or constant in this case) twice.
Which is somewhere between "not ideal" and "potentially error prone".
The second time you can use buf.size()
iofile.read(buf.data(), buf.size());
We had to access the contents of buf using .data() which I shall
assume here is implemented to return a raw pointer of some sort.
And pointed by John Zwinck, .data() return a pointer to const.
I suppose you could define buf as std::vector<char>; for vector (if I'm not wrong) .data() return a pointer to char (in this case), not to const char.
size() and resize() are working in the same way.
We had to have an additional resize statement for buf. It would be
better if the size of buf could be automatically set somehow.
I don't think read() permit this.
p.s.: sorry for my bad English.
We can validate a signature without double buffering (rdbuf and a string) and allocating from the heap...
// terminating null not included
constexpr char sig[] = { 'M', 'Y', 'F', 'I', 'L', 'E', 'T' };
auto ok = all_of(begin(sig), end(sig), [&fs](char c) { return fs.get() == (int)c; });
if (ok) {}
template<class Src>
std::string read_string( Src& src, std::size_t count){
std::string buf;
buf.resize(count);
src.read(&buf.front(), 7); // in C++17 make it buf.data()
return buf;
}
Now auto read = read_string( iofile, 7 ); is clean at point of use.
buf2 is a bad plan. I'd do:
if(read=="MYFILET")
directly, or use a const char myfile_magic[] = "MYFILET";.
I liked many of the ideas from the examples above, however I wasn't completely satisfied that there was an answer which would produce undefined-behaviour-free code for C++11 and C++17. I currently write most of my code in C++11 - because I don't anticipate using it on a machine in the future which doesn't have a C++11 compiler.
If one doesn't, then I add a new compiler or change machines.
However it does seem to me to be a bad idea to write code which I know may not work under C++17... That's just my personal opinion. I don't anticipate using this code again, but I don't want to create a potential problem for myself in the future.
Therefore I have come up with the following code. I hope other users will give feedback to help improve this. (For example there is no error checking yet.)
std::string
fstream_read_string(std::fstream& src, std::size_t n)
{
char *const buffer = new char[n + 1];
src.read(buffer, n);
buffer[n] = '\0';
std::string ret(buffer);
delete [] buffer;
return ret;
}
This seems like a basic, probably fool-proof method... It's a shame there seems to be no way to get std::string to use the same memory as allocated by the call to new.
Note we had to add an extra trailing null character in the C-style string, which is sliced off in the C++-style std::string.
Is it possible to somehow adapt a c-style string/buffer (char* or wchar_t*) to work with the Boost String Algorithms Library?
That is, for example, it's trimalgorithm has the following declaration:
template<typename SequenceT>
void trim(SequenceT &, const std::locale & = std::locale());
and the implementation (look for trim_left_if) requires that the sequence type has a member function erase.
How could I use that with a raw character pointer / c string buffer?
char* pStr = getSomeCString(); // example, could also be something like wchar_t buf[256];
...
boost::trim(pStr); // HOW?
Ideally, the algorithms would work directly on the supplied buffer. (As far as possible. it obviously can't work if an algorithm needs to allocate additional space in the "string".)
#Vitaly asks: why can't you create a std::string from char buffer and then use it in algorithms?
The reason I have char* at all is that I'd like to use a few algorthims on our existing codebase. Refactoring all the char buffers to string would be more work than it's worth, and when changing or adapting something it would be nice to just be able to apply a given algorithm to any c-style string that happens to live in the current code.
Using a string would mean to (a) copy char* to string, (b) apply algorithm to string and (c) copy string back into char buffer.
For the SequenceT-type operations, you probably have to use std::string. If you wanted to implement that by yourself, you'd have to fulfill many more requirements for creation, destruction, value semantics etc. You'd basically end up with your implementation of std::string.
The RangeT-type operations might be, however, usable on char*s using the iterator_range from Boost.Range library. I didn't try it, though.
There exist some code which implements a std::string like string with a fixed buffer. With some tinkering you can modify this code to create a string type which uses an external buffer:
char buffer[100];
strcpy(buffer, " HELLO ");
xstr::xstring<xstr::fixed_char_buf<char> >
str(buffer, strlen(buffer), sizeof(buffer));
boost::algorithm::trim(str);
buffer[str.size()] = 0;
std::cout << buffer << std::endl; // prints "HELLO"
For this I added an constructor to xstr::xstring and xstr::fixed_char_buf to take the buffer, the size of the buffer which is in use and the maximum size of the buffer. Further I replaced the SIZE template argument with a member variable and changed the internal char array into a char pointer.
The xstr code is a bit old and will not compile without trouble on newer compilers but it needs some minor changes. Further I only added the things needed in this case. If you want to use this for real, you need to make some more changes to make sure it can not use uninitialized memory.
Anyway, it might be a good start for writing you own string adapter.
I don't know what platform you're targeting, but on most modern computers (including mobile ones like ARM) memory copy is so fast you shouldn't even waste your time optimizing memory copies. I say - wrap char* in std::string and check whether the performance suits your needs. Don't waste time on premature optimization.
Is there a way to get the "raw" buffer o a std::string?
I'm thinking of something similar to CString::GetBuffer(). For example, with CString I would do:
CString myPath;
::GetCurrentDirectory(MAX_PATH+1, myPath.GetBuffer(MAX_PATH));
myPath.ReleaseBuffer();
So, does std::string have something similar?
While a bit unorthodox, it's perfectly valid to use std::string as a linear memory buffer, the only caveat is that it isn't supported by the standard until C++11 that is.
std::string s;
char* s_ptr = &s[0]; // get at the buffer
To quote Herb Sutter,
Every std::string implementation I know of is in fact contiguous and null-terminates its buffer. So, although it isn’t formally
guaranteed, in practice you can probably get away with calling &str[0]
to get a pointer to a contiguous and null-terminated string. (But to
be safe, you should still use str.c_str().)
"Probably" is key here. So, while it's not a guarantee, you should be able to rely on the principle that std::string is a linear memory buffer and you should assert facts about this in your test suite, just to be sure.
You can always build your own buffer class but when you're looking to buy, this is what the STL has to offer.
Use std::vector<char> if you want a real buffer.
#include <vector>
#include <string>
int main(){
std::vector<char> buff(MAX_PATH+1);
::GetCurrentDirectory(MAX_PATH+1, &buff[0]);
std::string path(buff.begin(), buff.end());
}
Example on Ideone.
Not portably, no. The standard does not guarantee that std::strings have an exclusive linear representation in memory (and with the old C++03 standard, even data-structures like ropes are permitted), so the API does not give you access to it. They must be able to change their internal representation to that (in C++03) or give access to their linear representation (if they have one, which is enforced in C++11), but only for reading. You can access this using data() and/or c_str(). Because of that, the interface still supports copy-on-write.
The usual recommendation for working with C-APIs that modify arrays by accessing through pointers is to use an std::vector, which is guaranteed to have a linear memory-representation exactly for this purpose.
To sum this up: if you want to do this portably and if you want your string to end up in an std::string, you have no choice but to copy the result into the string.
It has c_str, which on all C++ implementations that I know returns the underlying buffer (but as a const char *, so you can't modify it).
std::string str("Hello world");
LPCSTR sz = str.c_str();
Keep in mind that sz will be invalidated when str is reallocated or goes out of scope. You could do something like this to decouple from the string:
std::vector<char> buf(str.begin(), str.end()); // not null terminated
buf.push_back(0); // null terminated
Or, in oldfashioned C style (note that this will not allow strings with embedded null-characters):
#include <cstring>
char* sz = strdup(str.c_str());
// ... use sz
free(sz);
According to this MSDN article, I think this is the best approach for what you want to do using std::wstring directly. Second best is std::unique_ptr<wchar_t[]> and third best is using std::vector<wchar_t>. Feel free to read the article and draw you own conclusions.
// Get the length of the text string
// (Note: +1 to consider the terminating NUL)
const int bufferLength = ::GetWindowTextLength(hWnd) + 1;
// Allocate string of proper size
std::wstring text;
text.resize(bufferLength);
// Get the text of the specified control
// Note that the address of the internal string buffer
// can be obtained with the &text[0] syntax
::GetWindowText(hWnd, &text[0], bufferLength);
// Resize down the string to avoid bogus double-NUL-terminated strings
text.resize(bufferLength - 1);
I think you will be frowned upon by the purists of STD cult for doing this. In any case, its much better to not relay on bloated and generic standard library if you want dynamic string type that can be easily passed to low level API functions that will modify its buffer and size at the same time, without any conversions, than you will have to implement it! Its actually very challenging and interesting task to do. For example in my custom txt type I overload this operators:
ui64 operator~() const; // Size operator
uli32 * operator*(); // Size modification operator
ui64 operator!() const; // True Size Operator
txt& operator--(); // Trimm operator
And also this casts:
operator const char *() const;
operator char *();
And as such, i can pass txt type to low level API functions directly, without even calling any .c_str(). I can then also pass the API function it's true size (i.e. size of buffer) and also pointer to internal size variable (operator*()), so that API function can update amount of characters written, thus giving valid string without the need to call stringlength at all!
I tried to mimic basic types with this txt, so it has no public functions at all, all public interface is only via operators. This way my txt fits perfectly with ints and other fundamental types.
I have a function for writing ppm files (a picture format) to disk. It takes the filename as a char* array. In my main function, I put together a filename using a stringstream and the << operator. Then, I want to pass the results of this to my ppm function. I've seen this discussed elsewhere, often with very convoluted looking methods (many in-between conversion steps).
What I've done is shown in the code below, and the tricky part that others usually do in many steps with temp variables is (char*) (PPM_file_name.str().data()). What this accomplishes is to extract the string from stringstream PPM_file_name with .str(), then get the pointer to its actual contents with .data() (this is a const char*), then cast that to a regular (char*). More complete example below.
I've found the following to work fine so far, but it makes me uneasy because usually when other people have done something in a seemingly more convoluted way, it's because that's a safer way to do it. So, can anyone tell me if what I'm doing here is safe and also how portable is it?
Thanks.
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
// String stream to hold the file name so I can create it from a series of other variable
stringstream PPM_file_name;
// ... a bunch of other code where int ccd_num and string cur_id_str are created and initialized
// Assemble the file name
PPM_file_name << "ccd" << ccd_num << "_" << cur_id_str << ".ppm";
// From PPM_file_name, extract its string, then the const char* pointer to that string's data, then cast that to char*
write_ppm((char*)(PPM_file_name.str().data()),"ladybug_vidcapture.cpp",rgb_images[ccd_num],width,height);
return 0;
}
Thanks everyone. So, following a few peoples' suggestions here, I've done the following, since I do have control over write_ppm:
Modified write_ppm to take const char*:
void write_ppm(const char *file_name, char *comment, unsigned char *image,int width,int height)
And now I'm passing ppm_file_name as follows:
write_ppm((PPM_file_name.str().c_str()),"A comment",rgb_images[ccd_num],width,height);
Is there anything I should do here, or does that mostly clear up the issues with how this was being passed before? Should all the other char arguments to write_ppm be const as well? It's a very short function, and it doesn't appear to modify any of the arguments. Thanks.
This looks like a typical case of someone not writing const-correct code and it having the knock-on effect. You have several choices:
If write_ppm is under your control, or the control of anyone you know, get them to make it const corrct
If it is not, and you can guarantee it never changes the filename then const_cast
If you cannot guarantee that, copy your string into a std::vector plus the null terminator and pass &vec[0] (where vec represents the name of your vector variable)
You should use PPM_file_name.str().c_str(), since data() isn't guaranteed to return a null-terminated string.
Either write_ppm() should take its first argument by const char* (promising not to change the string's content) or you must not pass a string stream (because you must not change its content that way).
You shouldn't use C-style casts in C++, because they don't differentiate between different reasons to cast. Yours is casting away const, which, if at all, should be done using const_cast<>. But as a rule of thumb, const_cast<> is usually only required to make code compile that isn't const-correct, which I'd consider an error.
It's absolutely safe and portable as long as write_ppm doesn't actually change the argument, in which case it is undefined behavior. I would recommend using const_cast<char*> instead of C-style cast. Also consider using c_str() member instead of the data() member. The former guarantees to return a null-terminated string
Use c_str() instead of data() (c_str() return a NULL-terminated sequence of characters).
Why not simply use const_cast<char *>(PPM_file_name.str().c_str()) ?
messageBuffer[0] = 1;
messageBuffer[1] = 0;
for (int i = 2; i < (userName.size() + 2); i++)
{
messageBuffer[i] = userName[(i - 2)];
}
userName is a string. I was just wondering if there is already a function that exists that I haven't found yet. I have tried looking on cpluscplus but nothing that I see.
Thanks for all the help guys =) I really appreiciate it. This site is awesome!
C++ strings are not guaranteed by the standard to be contiguous, which means that all the suggestions so far using strncpy are either unsafe (if they copy from something like &userName[0] or potentially inefficient (if they copy from userName.c_str(), which may imply an unnecessary copy)
The correct C++ solution is to use std::copy. Fast and safe.
std::copy(userName.begin(), userName.end(), messageBuffer+2);
As a general rule, if you find yourself messing around with C string functions in a C++ program, you are doing it wrong.
strncpy
EDIT: See #jaif answer for "C++" way.
strcpy(messageBuffer + 2, userName.c_str());
standard disclaimers about making sure you have enough memory apply
messageBuffer should be 3 characters bigger than the string (one for \0)
a bit of reference about the function here
Use strcpy and check the buffer size by hand.
strncpy is a little safer, but dangerous in other way. If the buffer is too small, strncpy does not terminate the string with \0 which will cause an error somewhere else in the program.
If you want to use strncpy, then be sure to verify that the output is \0-terminated. Usually when people use strncpy, they forget to do this which is why I recommend strcpy. C and C++ programmers can usually spot the missing buffer size check when using strcpy.
Yes, you can use strcpy, memcpy, memmove or std::copy to do this. Just pass the address of messageBuffer[2] as the destination. strcpy( &messageBuffer[2], userName.begin() );
If possible, use a std::vector with std::copy
std::vector<char> messageBuffer;
messageBuffer.reserve(userName.size() + 2); // optional
messageBuffer.push_back(1);
messageBuffer.push_back(0);
std::copy(userName.begin(), userName.end(), std::back_inserter(messageBuffer));
theC_API(&messageBuffer[0]);
Maybe not the fastest, but no chance of miscalculations.
Use strncpy
Use strncpy() for ANSI strings (char*), wcsncpy() for Unicode (wchar_t*) strings.
You have two options, the unsafe and the safe way.
Unsafe:
// bad idea, string lengths are not checked and if src is longer than
// memory available for dest, you will stomp over random memory
strcpy(dest, src);
Safer:
// Much safer, you can specify how many characters to copy (lesser of src length and
// dest length - 1 and add a null terminator '\0' to dest if the string was truncated).
strncpy(dest, src, num_characters);
What about using strcpy (or strncpy to prevent buffer overflows)?
Make sure the length of messageBuffer allows copying userName and just strcpy(messageBuffer + 2, userName);
Better way by using vector is
std::vector<char> messageBuffer;
messageBuffer.resize(userName.size()+2);
strcpy(&messageBuffer[0],usernamr.c_str());
std::copy(userName.begin(), userName.end(), std::back_inserter(messageBuffer));
theC_API(&messageBuffer[0]);