Search Results

Search found 756 results on 31 pages for 'malloc'.

Page 25/31 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• MMGR Questions, code use and thread-saftey

  - by chadb

  1) Is MMGR thread safe? 2) I was hoping someone could help me understand some code. I am looking at something where a macro is used, but I don't understand the macro. I know it contains a function call and an if check, however, the function is a void function. How does wrapping "(m_setOwner (FILE,_LINE_,FUNCTION),false)" ever change return types? #define someMacro (m_setOwner(__FILE__,__LINE__,__FUNCTION__),false) ? NULL : new ... void m_setOwner(const char *file, const unsigned int line, const char *func); 3) What is the point of the reservoir? 4) On line 770 ("void *operator new(size_t reportedSize)" there is the line "// ANSI says: allocation requests of 0 bytes will still return a valid value" Who/what is ANSI in this context? Do they mean the standards? 5) This is more of C++ standards, but where does "reportedSize" come from for "void *operator new(size_t reportedSize)"? 6) Is this the code that is actually doing the allocation needed? "au-actualAddress = malloc(au-actualSize);"

  Read the article

• Query about running a program through valgrind and getting false results comparing to other systems.

  - by FILIaS

  Yesterday i posted this: What's the problem with this code? [hashtable in C] and paxdiablo offered to help me. He posted a sample of code and asked me to run it through valgrind on my machine. This code normally generates: 12,4 But on my machine, i get 24,8. The doubled! I'm just curious why is that happening. Hope sb has a good explaination. I post also paxdiablo's code (for anyone who cant find it.) #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> typedef struct HashTable { int size ; struct List *head; struct List *tail; } HashTable; typedef struct List { char *number; char *name; int time; struct List *next; } List; #define size_of_table 211 HashTable *createHashTable(void) { HashTable *new_table = malloc(sizeof(*new_table)*size_of_table); //line 606 printf ("%d\n", sizeof(*new_table)); printf ("%d\n", sizeof(new_table)); if (new_table == NULL) { return NULL; } int i=0; for(i; i<size_of_table; i++) { new_table[i].size=0; new_table[i].head=NULL; new_table[i].tail=NULL; } return new_table; } int main(void) { HashTable *x = createHashTable(); free (x); return 0; }

  Read the article

• On C++ global operator new: why it can be replaced

  - by Jimmy

  I wrote a small program in VS2005 to test whether C++ global operator new can be overloaded. It can. #include "stdafx.h" #include "iostream" #include "iomanip" #include "string" #include "new" using namespace std; class C { public: C() { cout<<"CTOR"<<endl; } }; void * operator new(size_t size) { cout<<"my overload of global plain old new"<<endl; // try to allocate size bytes void *p = malloc(size); return (p); } int main() { C* pc1 = new C; cin.get(); return 0; } In the above, my definition of operator new is called. If I remove that function from the code, then operator new in C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\crt\src\new.cpp gets called. All is good. However, in my opinion, my implementations of operator new does NOT overload the new in new.cpp, it CONFLICTS with it and violates the one-definition rule. Why doesn't the compiler complain about it? Or does the standard say since operator new is so special, one-definition rule does not apply here? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Help C++ifying this C style code.

  - by Flamewires

  Hey I'm used to developing in C and I would like to use C++ in a project. Can anyone give me an example of how I would translate this C-style code into C++ code. I know it should compile in a c++ complier but I'm talking using c++ techniques(I.e. classes, RAII) typedef struct Solution Solution; struct Solution { double x[30]; int itt_found; double value; }; Solution *NewSolution() { Solution *S = (Solution *)malloc(sizeof(Solution)); for (int i=0;<=30;i++) { S-x[i] = 0; } S-itt_found = -1; return S; } void FreeSolution(Solution *S) { if (S != NULL) free(S); } int main() { Solution *S = NewSolution(); S-value = eval(S-x);// evals is another function that returns a double S-itt_found = 0; FreeSolution(S); return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Ideally I would like to be able to so something like this in main, but I'm not sure exactly how to create the class, i've read a lot of stuff but incorporating it all together correctly seems a little hard atm. Solution S(30);//constructor that takes as an argument the size of the double array S.eval();//a method that would run eval on S.x[] and store result in S.value cout << S.value << endl; Ask if you need more info, thanks.

  Read the article

• Pointer inside a struct / thread

  - by bruno

  Hi! I have this warning "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type " in this line: data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; - void print_message_function ( void *ptr ) { dt *data; data = (dt *) ptr; printf("Dentro da thread Numero0: %ld\n", data->L_norm_NewBlock); pthread_exit(0); } typedef struct data_thread { long L_norm_NewBlock; int Bsize_X; int Bsize_Y; int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; long L_norm_OrigBlock; } dt; void function() { int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; pthread_t thread1; dt *data1; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Fills structure data1 = (dt *) malloc(sizeof(dt)); data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; data1->L_norm_NewBlock=0; data1->Bsize_Y = Bsize_Y; data1->Bsize_X = Bsize_X; pthread_create(&thread1, &attr, (void *) &print_message_function, (void *) &data1); } I want to get rid of that warning, and the values i get inside the thread are wrong. For example data1-L_norm_NewBlock=0; in the thread guives me a differente value (not 0 like it should be).

  Read the article

• c++ overloading delete, retrieve size

  - by user300713

  Hi, I am currently writing a small custom memory Allocator in c++, and want to use it together with operator overloading of new/delete. Anyways, my memory Allocator basicall checks if the requested memory is over a certain threshold, and if so uses malloc to allocate the requested memory chunk. Otherwise the memory will be provided by some fixedPool allocators. that generally works, but for my deallocation function looks like this: void MemoryManager::deallocate(void * _ptr, size_t _size){ if(_size heapThreshold) deallocHeap(_ptr); else deallocFixedPool(_ptr, _size); } so I need to provide the size of the chunk pointed to, to deallocate from the right place. No the problem is that the delete keyword does not provide any hint on the size of the deleted chunk, so I would need something like this: void operator delete(void * _ptr, size_t _size){ MemoryManager::deallocate(_ptr, _size); } But as far as I can see, there is no way to determine the size inside the delete operator.- If I want to keep things the way it is right now, would I have to save the size of the memory chunks myself? Any ideas on how to solve this are welcome! Thanks!

  Read the article

• trouble calculating offset index into 3D array

  - by Derek

  Hello, I am writing a CUDA kernel to create a 3x3 covariance matrix for each location in the rows*cols main matrix. So that 3D matrix is rows*cols*9 in size, which i allocated in a single malloc accordingly. I need to access this in a single index value the 9 values of the 3x3 covariance matrix get their values set according to the appropriate row r and column c from some other 2D arrays. In other words - I need to calculate the appropriate index to access the 9 elements of the 3x3 covariance matrix, as well as the row and column offset of the 2D matrices that are inputs to the value, as well as the appropriate index for the storage array. i have tried to simplify it down to the following: //I am calling this kernel with 1D blocks who are 512 cols x 1row. TILE_WIDTH=512 int bx = blockIdx.x; int by = blockIdx.y; int tx = threadIdx.x; int ty = threadIdx.y; int r = by + ty; int c = bx*TILE_WIDTH + tx; int offset = r*cols+c; int ndx = r*cols*rows + c*cols; if((r < rows) && (c < cols)){ //this IF statement is trying to avoid the case where a threadblock went bigger than my original array..not sure if correct d_cov[ndx + 0] = otherArray[offset]; d_cov[ndx + 1] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 2] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 3] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 4] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 5] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 6] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 7] = otherArray[offset] d_cov[ndx + 8] = otherArray[offset] } When I check this array with the values calculated on the CPU, which loops over i=rows, j=cols, k = 1..9 The results do not match up. in other words d_cov[i*rows*cols + j*cols + k] != correctAnswer[i][j][k] Can anyone give me any tips on how to sovle this problem? Is it an indexing problem, or some other logic error?

  Read the article

• C++ Dynamic Allocation Mismatch: Is this problematic?

  - by acanaday

  I have been assigned to work on some legacy C++ code in MFC. One of the things I am finding all over the place are allocations like the following: struct Point { float x,y,z; }; ... void someFunc( void ) { int numPoints = ...; Point* pArray = (Point*)new BYTE[ numPoints * sizeof(Point) ]; ... //do some stuff with points ... delete [] pArray; } I realize that this code is atrociously wrong on so many levels (C-style cast, using new like malloc, confusing, etc). I also realize that if Point had defined a constructor it would not be called and weird things would happen at delete [] if a destructor had been defined. Question: I am in the process of fixing these occurrences wherever they appear as a matter of course. However, I have never seen anything like this before and it has got me wondering. Does this code have the potential to cause memory leaks/corruption as it stands currently (no constructor/destructor, but with pointer type mismatch) or is it safe as long as the array just contains structs/primitive types?

  Read the article

• C++, using one byte to store two variables

  - by 2di

  Hi All I am working on representation of the chess board, and I am planning to store it in 32 bytes array, where each byte will be used to store two pieces. (That way only 4 bits are needed per piece) Doing it in that way, results in a overhead for accessing particular index of the board. Do you think that, this code can be optimised or completely different method of accessing indexes can be used? c++ char getPosition(unsigned char* c, int index){ //moving pointer c+=(index>>1); //odd number if (index & 1){ //taking right part return *c & 0xF; }else { //taking left part return *c>>4; } } void setValue(unsigned char* board, char value, int index){ //moving pointer board+=(index>>1); //odd number if (index & 1){ //replace right part //save left value only 4 bits *board = (*board & 0xF0) + value; }else { //replacing left part *board = (*board & 0xF) + (value<<4); } } int main() { char* c = (char*)malloc(32); for (int i = 0; i < 64 ; i++){ setValue((unsigned char*)c, i % 8,i); } for (int i = 0; i < 64 ; i++){ cout<<(int)getPosition((unsigned char*)c, i)<<" "; if (((i+1) % 8 == 0) && (i > 0)){ cout<<endl; } } return 0; } I am equally interested in your opinions regarding chess representations, and optimisation of the method above, as a stand alone problem. Thanks a lot

  Read the article

• How can I modify the value of a string defined in a struct?

  - by Eric

  Hi, I have the following code in c++: #define TAM 4000 #define NUMPAGS 512 struct pagina { bitset<12> direccion; char operacion; char permiso; string *dato; int numero; }; void crearPagina(pagina* pag[], int pos, int dir) { pagina * paginas = (pagina*)malloc(sizeof(char) * TAM); paginas -> direccion = bitset<12> (dir); paginas -> operacion = 'n'; paginas -> permiso = 'n'; string **tempDato = &paginas -> dato; char *temp = " "; **tempDato = temp; paginas -> numero = 0; pag[pos] = paginas; } I want to modify the value of the variable called "string *dato" in the struct pagina but, everytime I want to assing a new value, the compiler throws a segmentation fault. In this case I'm using a pointer to string, but I have also tried with a string. In a few words I want to do the following: pagina - dato = "test"; Any idea? Thanks in advance!!!

  Read the article

• Freeing of allocated memory in Solaris/Linux

  - by user355159

  Hi, I have written a small program and compiled it under Solaris/Linux platform to measure the performance of applying this code to my application. The program is written in such a way, initially using sbrk(0) system call, i have taken base address of the heap region. After that i have allocated an 1.5GB of memory using malloc system call, Then i used memcpy system call to copy 1.5GB of content to the allocated memory area. Then, I freed the allocated memory. After freeing, i used again sbrk(0) system call to view the heap size. This is where i little confused. In solaris, eventhough, i freed the memory allocated (of nearly 1.5GB) the heap size of the process is huge. But i run the same application in linux, after freeing, i found that the heap size of the process is equal to the size of the heap memory before allocation of 1.5GB. I know Solaris does not frees memory immediately, but i don't know how to tune the solaris kernel to immediately free the memory after free() system call. Also, please explain why the same problem does not comes under Linux? Can anyone help me out of this? Thanks, Santhosh.

  Read the article

• pointer to a pointer in a linked list

  - by user1596497

  I'm trying to set a linked list head through pointer to a pointer. I can see inside the function that the address of the head pointer is changing but as i return to the main progran it becomes NULL again. can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong ?? #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> typedef void(*fun_t)(int); typedef struct timer_t { int time; fun_t func; struct timer_t *next; }TIMER_T; void add_timer(int sec, fun_t func, TIMER_T *head); void run_timers(TIMER_T **head); void timer_func(int); int main(void) { TIMER_T *head = NULL; int time = 1; fun_t func = timer_func; while (time < 1000) { printf("\nCalling add_timer(time=%d, func=0x%x, head=0x%x)\n", time, func, &head); add_timer(time, func, head); time *= 2; } run_timers(&head); return 0; } void add_timer(int sec, fun_t func, TIMER_T *head) { TIMER_T ** ppScan=&head; TIMER_T *new_timer = NULL; new_timer = (TIMER_T*)malloc(sizeof(TIMER_T)); new_timer->time = sec; new_timer->func = func; new_timer->next = NULL; while((*ppScan != NULL) && (((**ppScan).time)<sec)) ppScan = &(*ppScan)->next; new_timer->next = *ppScan; *ppScan = new_timer; }

  Read the article

• refactoring my code. My headers (Header Guard Issues)

  - by numerical25

  I had a post similar to this awhile ago based on a error I was getting. I was able to fix it but since then I been having trouble doing things because headers keep blocking other headers from using code. Honestly, these headers are confusing me and if anyone has any resources that will address these types of issues, that will be helpful. What I essentially want to do is be able to have rModel.h be included inside RenderEngine.h. every time I add rModel.h to RenderEngine.h, rModel.h is no longer able to use RenderEngine.h. (rModel.h has a #include of RenderEngine.h as well). So in a nutshell, RenderEngine and rModel need to use each others functionalities. On top of all this confusion, the Main.cpp needs to use RenderEngine. stdafx.h #include "targetver.h" #define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN // Exclude rarely-used stuff from Windows headers // Windows Header Files: #include <windows.h> // C RunTime Header Files #include <stdlib.h> #include <malloc.h> #include <memory.h> #include <tchar.h> #include "resource.h" main.cpp #include "stdafx.h" #include "RenderEngine.h" #include "rModel.h" // Global Variables: RenderEngine go; rModel *g_pModel; ...code........... rModel.h #ifndef _MODEL_H #define _MODEL_H #include "stdafx.h" #include <vector> #include <string> #include "rTri.h" #include "RenderEngine.h" ........Code RenderEngine.h #pragma once #include "stdafx.h" #include "d3d10.h" #include "d3dx10.h" #include "dinput.h" #include "rModel.h" .......Code......

  Read the article

• Assigning a value to an integer in a C linked list

  - by Drunk On Java

  Hello all. I have a question regarding linked lists. I have the following structs and function for example. struct node { int value; struct node *next; }; struct entrynode { struct node *first; struct node *last; int length; }; void addnode(struct entrynode *entry) { struct node *nextnode = (struct node *)malloc(sizeof(struct node)); int temp; if(entry->first == NULL) { printf("Please enter an integer.\n"); scanf("%d", &temp); nextnode->value = temp; nextnode->next = NULL; entry->first = nextnode; entry->last = nextnode; entry->length++; } else { entry->last->next = nextnode; printf("Please enter an integer.\n"); scanf("%d", nextnode->value); nextnode->next = NULL; entry->last = nextnode; entry->length++; } } In the first part of the if statement, I store input into a temp variable and then assign that to a field in the struct. The else branch, I tried to assign it directly which did not work. How would I go about assigning it directly? Thanks for your time.

  Read the article

• Sha256 is giving junk output

  - by user1746617

  hey can u be more specific on how to convert to bin to hex. bool HashStatus::calculate_digest_value(char * path,unsigned char * output) { FILE* file = fopen(path, "rb"); if(!file) { g_message("SignatureValidator::VerifyReferences,file not opened"); return -1; } unsigned char hash[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; SHA256_CTX sha256; SHA256_Init(&sha256); const int bufSize = 32768; unsigned char* buffer = malloc(bufSize); int bytesRead = 0; if(!buffer) return NULL; while((bytesRead = fread(buffer, 1, bufSize, file))) { g_message("calculate digest value,verify.cpp::%s",buffer); SHA256_Update(&sha256, buffer, bytesRead); } SHA256_Final(hash, &sha256); g_message("verify.cpp,after final"); sha256_hash_string(hash, output); g_message("verify.cpp,after sha256_hash_string %s",hash); fclose(file); free(buffer); return true; } this is my code to convert file data into hash using sha256 openssl function o/p is :1d54e12333988471354907a760b9cde861423615bb5255ee837e3b27b32366 but actual o/p is:HVThAjM5iEcTVJB6dgC5zehhQjYVu1JV7oN+OyezI2Y= can you guys please help me with whatz wrong with this code,ASAP and i'm new to this please guide me step by step and in detail..

  Read the article

• C macro issue: redefinition of functions / structure

  - by Andrei Ciobanu

  Given the following code (it's a macro that generates code for a list data structure, based on the contained type). list.h #ifndef _LIST_H #define _LIST_H #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif #define LIST_TEMPLATE_INIT(type) \ typedef struct __list_s_##type { \ struct __list_s_##type *next; \ type value; \ } __list_##type; \ \ __list_##type * __list_##type##_malloc(type value){ \ __list_##type * list = NULL; \ list = malloc(sizeof(*list)); \ list->value = value; \ return list; \ }\ \ void __list_##type##_free(__list_##type *list){\ __list_##type * back = list;\ while(list=list->next){\ free(back);\ back = list;\ }\ } #define LIST_TYPE(type) __list_##type #define LIST_MALLOC(type,value) __list_##type##_malloc(value) #define LIST_FREE(type,list) __list_##type##_free(list) #define LIST_DATA(list) (list->value) #ifdef __cplusplus } #endif #endif /* _LIST_H */ And here is how the above code works: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include "list.h" /* * */ LIST_TEMPLATE_INIT(int) int main(int argc, char** argv) { LIST_TYPE(int)* list = NULL; list = LIST_MALLOC(int, 5); printf("%d",LIST_DATA(list)); LIST_FREE(int,list); return (0); } My question, is it possible to somehow be able to call : LIST_TEMPLATE_INIT(int), as many times as I want, in a decentralized fashion ? The current issue with this right now is that calling LIST_TEMPLATE_INIT(int) in another file raise compilation errors (because of function redefinition): Example of error: error: redefinition of ‘struct __list_s_int’

  Read the article

• Using the read function to read in a file.

  - by robUK

  Hello, gcc 4.4.1 I am using the read function to read in a wave file. However, when it gets to the read function. Execution seems to stop and freezes. I am wondering if I am doing anything wrong with this. The file size test-short.wave is: 514K. What I am aiming for is to read the file into the memory buffer chunks at a time. Currently I just testing this. Many thanks for any suggestions, #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <errno.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <string.h> #include <unistd.h> int main(void) { char buff = malloc(10240); int32_t fd = 0; int32_t bytes_read = 0; char *filename = "test-short.wav"; /* open wave file */ if((fd = (open(filename, O_RDWR)) == -1)) { fprintf(stderr, "open [ %s ]\n", strerror(errno)); return 1; } printf("Opened file [ %s ]\n", filename); printf("sizeof(buff) [ %d ]\n", sizeof(buff)); printf("strlen(buff) [ %d ]\n", strlen(buff)); bytes_read = read(fd, buff, sizeof(buff)); printf("Bytes read [ %d ]\n", bytes_read); return 0; }

  Read the article

• stdio data from write not making it into a file

  - by user1551209

  I'm having a problem with using stdio commands for manipulating data in a file. I short, when I write data into a file, write returns an int indicating that it was successful, but when I read it back out I only get the old data. Here's a stripped down version of the code: fd = open(filename,O_RDWR|O_APPEND); struct dE *cDE = malloc(sizeof(struct dE)); //Read present data printf("\nreading values at %d\n",off); printf("SeekStatus <%d>\n",lseek(fd,off,SEEK_SET)); printf("ReadStatus <%d>\n",read(fd,cDE,deSize)); printf("current Key/Data <%d/%s>\n",cDE->key,cDE->data); printf("\nwriting new values\n"); //Change the values locally cDE->key = //something new cDE->data = //something new //Write them back printf("SeekStatus <%d>\n",lseek(fd,off,SEEK_SET)); printf("WriteStatus <%d>\n",write(fd,cDE,deSize)); //Re-read to make sure that it got written back printf("\nre-reading values at %d\n",off); printf("SeekStatus <%d>\n",lseek(fd,off,SEEK_SET)); printf("ReadStatus <%d>\n",read(fd,cDE,deSize)); printf("current Key/Data <%d/%s>\n",cDE->key,cDE->data); Furthermore, here's the dE struct in case you're wondering: struct dE { int key; char data[DataSize]; }; This prints: reading values at 1072 SeekStatus <1072> ReadStatus <32> current Key/Data <27/old> writing new values SeekStatus <1072> WriteStatus <32> re-reading values at 1072 SeekStatus <1072> ReadStatus <32> current Key/Data <27/old>

  Read the article

• iPhone AES encryption issue

  - by Dilshan

  Hi, I use following code to encrypt using AES. - (NSData*)AES256EncryptWithKey:(NSString*)key theMsg:(NSData *)myMessage { // 'key' should be 32 bytes for AES256, will be null-padded otherwise char keyPtr[kCCKeySizeAES256 + 1]; // room for terminator (unused) bzero(keyPtr, sizeof(keyPtr)); // fill with zeroes (for padding) // fetch key data [key getCString:keyPtr maxLength:sizeof(keyPtr) encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; NSUInteger dataLength = [myMessage length]; //See the doc: For block ciphers, the output size will always be less than or //equal to the input size plus the size of one block. //That's why we need to add the size of one block here size_t bufferSize = dataLength + kCCBlockSizeAES128; void* buffer = malloc(bufferSize); size_t numBytesEncrypted = 0; CCCryptorStatus cryptStatus = CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt, kCCAlgorithmAES128, kCCOptionPKCS7Padding, keyPtr, kCCKeySizeAES256, NULL /* initialization vector (optional) */, [myMessage bytes], dataLength, /* input */ buffer, bufferSize, /* output */ &numBytesEncrypted); if (cryptStatus == kCCSuccess) { //the returned NSData takes ownership of the buffer and will free it on deallocation return [NSData dataWithBytesNoCopy:buffer length:numBytesEncrypted]; } free(buffer); //free the buffer; return nil; } However the following code chunk returns null if I tried to print the encryptmessage variable. Same thing applies to decryption as well. What am I doing wrong here? NSData *encrData = [self AES256EncryptWithKey:theKey theMsg:myMessage]; NSString *encryptmessage = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:encrData encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; Thank you

  Read the article

• Adding and sorting a linked list in C

  - by user1202963

  In my assignment, I have to write a function that takes as arguments a pointer to a "LNode" structure and an integer argument. Then, I have to not only add that integer into the linked list, but also put place it so that the list is in proper ascending order. I've tried several various attempts at this, and this is my code as of posting. LNode* AddItem(LNode *headPtr, int newItem) { auto LNode *ptr = headPtr; ptr = malloc(sizeof(LNode)); if (headPtr == NULL) { ptr->value = newItem; ptr->next = headPtr; return ptr; } else { while (headPtr->value > newItem || ptr->next != NULL) { printf("While\n"); // This is simply to let me know how many times the loop runs headPtr = headPtr->next; } ptr->value = newItem; ptr->next = headPtr; return ptr; } } // end of "AddItem" When I run it, and try to insert say a 5 and then a 3, the 5 gets inserted, but then the while loop runs once and I get a segmentation fault. Also I cannot change the arguments as it's part of a skeletal code for this project. Thanks to anyone who can help. If it helps this is what the structure looks like typedef struct LNode { int value; struct LNode *next; } LNode;

  Read the article

• multiple calls to realloc() seems to cause a heap corruption..

  - by Windindeed

  What's the problem with this code? It crashes every time. One time it's a failed assertion "_ASSERTE(_CrtIsValidHeapPointer(pUserData));", other times it is just a "heap corrpuption" error. Changing the buffer size affects this issue in some strange ways - sometimes it crashes on the "realloc", and other times on the "free". I have debugged this code many times, and there is nothing abnormal regarding the pointers. char buf[2000]; char *data = (char*)malloc(sizeof(buf)); unsigned int size = sizeof(buf); for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) { char *ptr = data + size; size += sizeof(buf); char *tmp = (char*)realloc(data, size); if (!tmp) { std::cout << "Oh no.."; break; } data = tmp; memcpy(ptr, buf, sizeof(buf)); } free(data); Thanks!

  Read the article

• The different of SHA512 between openssl and php

  - by solomon_wzs

  Here is C code: #include <openssl/sha.h> #include <stdio.h> char *hash_sha512(char *data){ SHA512_CTX ctx; char *md=malloc(sizeof(char)*(SHA512_DIGEST_LENGTH+1)); SHA512_Init(&ctx); SHA512_Update(&ctx, data, strlen(data)); SHA512_Final(md, &ctx); md[SHA512_DIGEST_LENGTH]='\0'; return md; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]){ str=hash_sha512("GFLOuJnR19881218"); printf("%s\n", str); free(str); return 1; } The output: ?<?4????IIA[r?? ?#? 6p?8jD????J?b9?????^X? Here is PHP code: $hash=hash('sha512', 'GFLOuJnR19881218', TRUE); The output: ?<??4??j??II?-A[r???? ??#??D6p?8jD???????J?b9?????^X? The results of C code and PHP code are different, what is wrong with my code?

  Read the article

• Strange code behaviour?

  - by goldenmean

  Hi, I have a C code in which i have a structure declaration which has an array of int[576] declared in it. For some reason, i had to remove this array from the structure, So i replaced this array with a pointer as int *ptr; declared some global array of same type, somewhere else in the code, and initialized this pointer by assigning the global array to this pointer. So i did not have to change the way i was accessing this array, from other parts of my code. But it works fine/gives desired output when i have the array declared in the structure, but it gives junk output when i declare it as a pointer in the structure and assign a global array to this pointer, as a part of the pointer initialization. All this code is being run on MS-VC 6.0/Windows setup/Intel-x86. I tried below things: 1)Suspected structure padding/alignment but could not get any leads? If at all structure alignment could be a culprit how can i proceed to narrow it down and confirm it? 2) I have made sure that in both cases the array is initialized to some default values, say 0 before its first use, and its not being used before initialization. 3)I tried using global array as well as malloc based memory for this newly declared array. Same result, junk output. Am i missing something? How can i zero down the problem. Any pointers would be helpful. Thanks, -AD.

  Read the article

• c Pointer to pointer, or passing list to functions

  - by user361808

  Hi, I am new to c programming. Could anyone please tell me what's wrong with the following program? typedef struct Person_s { int age; char name[40]; } Person_t; int process_list(int *countReturned, Person_t **p_list) { Person_t *rowPtr=0; //the actual program will fethc data from DB int count =1; if(!((*p_list) = (Person_t *) malloc(sizeof(Person_t)))) { return -1; } rowPtr = *p_list; rowPtr[count-1].age =19; strcpy(rowPtr[count-1].name,"Prince Dastan"); *countReturned = count; return 0; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { Person_t *tmpPerson=0; Person_t **p_list=0; int *count=0; int i; process_list(count,p_list); tmpPerson = *p_list; for(i=0; i< *count; i++) { printf("Name: %s , age: %d\n",tmpPerson->name,tmpPerson->age); tmpPerson++; } //free(tmpPerson); return 0; }

  Read the article

• Receiving "expected expression before" Error When Using A Struct

  - by Zach Dziura

  I'm in the process of creating a simple 2D game engine in C with a group of friends at school. I'd like to write this engine in an Object-Oriented way, using structs as classes, function pointers as methods, etc. To emulate standard OOP syntax, I created a create() function which allocates space in memory for the object. I'm in the process of testing it out, and I'm receiving an error. Here is my code for two files that I'm using to test: test.c: #include <stdio.h> int main() { typedef struct { int i; } Class; Class *test = (Class*) create(Class); test->i = 1; printf("The value of \"test\" is: %i\n", test->i); return 0; } utils.c: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include "utils.h" void* create(const void* class) { void *obj = (void*) malloc(sizeof(class)); if (obj == 0) { printf("Error allocating memory.\n"); return (int*) -1; } else { return obj; } } void destroy(void* object) { free(object); } The utils.h file simply holds prototypes for the create() and destroy() functions. When I execute gcc test.c utils.c -o test, I'm receiving this error message: test.c: In function 'main': test.c:10:32: error: expected expression before 'Class' I know it has something to do with my typedef at the beginning, and how I'm probably not using proper syntax. But I have no idea what that proper syntax is. Can anyone help?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >