•
•
•
•
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the C++ section within the Software Development category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 427,753 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 3,715 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our C++ advertiser: Programming Forums
Views: 2357 | Replies: 11
 |
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 462
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 18
Posting Pro in Training
Here's what I'm trying to do:
create an empty/NULL char * in one place, pass it to a function who will populate it (and tell me the size), and then use the char * elsewhere. However, when I get out of the function..
Here's the function that expects the char * and attempts to populate it:
Here's the code (assume in main()) trying to use it.
I am finding that the char * is populated inside the function (loadFullFileBinary) but when I attempt to look at it after the function has returned, it is null... What am I doing wrong? (You can ignore the DHException and multiLog bit, they are not related to the problem...)
create an empty/NULL char * in one place, pass it to a function who will populate it (and tell me the size), and then use the char * elsewhere. However, when I get out of the function..
Here's the function that expects the char * and attempts to populate it:
bool FileUtilities::loadFullFileBinary( const string &filename, char * fileContents, long & sizeOfContents )
{
FILE *file = fopen(filename.c_str(), "rb");
if ( !file )
returnfalse;
fseek(file, 0, SEEK_END);
sizeOfContents = ftell(file);
cout<<"SIZE:"<<sizeOfContents<<endl;
rewind(file);
fileContents = newchar[sizeOfContents];
if ( fileContents )
{
if ( !fread(fileContents, sizeOfContents, 1, file) == 1 )
{
//puts(buffer);
delete [] fileContents;
sizeOfContents=0;
returnfalse;
}
}
fclose(file);
returntrue;
}
Here's the code (assume in main()) trying to use it.
char * me=NULL; long size; bool status = FileUtilities::loadFullFileBinary("test.txt", me, size ); if ( !status ) throw DHException(*this, "Couldn't read file" ); else { multiLog.writeLog( "SIZE WAS '%ld'", size ); if ( me != NULL ) { cout<<"TEST:"<<me[0]<<endl; cout<<"TEST:"<<me[1]<<endl; } else cout<<"WAS NULL"<<endl; }
I am finding that the char * is populated inside the function (loadFullFileBinary) but when I attempt to look at it after the function has returned, it is null... What am I doing wrong? (You can ignore the DHException and multiLog bit, they are not related to the problem...)
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 462
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 18
Posting Pro in Training
OK, I've tried to simplify the example. Same problem happens here:
Result:
./Test
tester is null
#include <iostream.h>
void test( char * fillMe )
{
fillMe = new char[10];
memset( fillMe, '\0', 10 );
strcpy( fillMe, "TESTING" );
}
int main()
{
char * tester=NULL;
test( tester );
if ( tester == NULL )
{
cout<< "tester is null"<<endl;
}
else
cout<<tester[0]<<endl;
}Result:
./Test
tester is null
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 462
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 18
Posting Pro in Training
I was able to get it to work, however is this the right way?
Result:
./Test
TESTING
#include <iostream.h>
void test( char ** fillMe)
{
*fillMe = new char[10];
memset( *fillMe, '\0', 10 );
strcpy( *fillMe, "TESTING" );
}
int main()
{
char * tester=NULL;
test( &tester );
if ( tester == NULL )
{
cout<< "tester is null"<<endl;
}
else
cout<<tester<<endl;
if ( tester !=NULL )
delete [] tester;
}./Test
TESTING
•
•
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,340
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 29
Solved Threads: 460
fillMe is a copy of the pointer, so you're allocating memory to a copy, then the copy is destroyed, thus destroying your only reference to the memory. This is affectionately called a memory leak. The solution in C is to pass a pointer to the pointer so that you can get to the original object:
Notice that I included <cstring>, which is required for memset and strcpy, and I also removed memset because there's no point in using it since you'll just use strcpy right after.
The C++ version using references is even easier:
If I might direct you here, you'll probably have an easier time with pointers.
#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void test( char ** fillMe )
{
*fillMe = new char[10];
strcpy( *fillMe, "TESTING" );
}
int main()
{
char * tester = NULL;
test( &tester );
if ( tester == NULL )
{
cout<< "tester is null"<<endl;
}
else
cout<< tester <<endl;
}The C++ version using references is even easier:
#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void test( char *& fillMe )
{
fillMe = new char[10];
strcpy( fillMe, "TESTING" );
}
int main()
{
char * tester = NULL;
test( tester );
if ( tester == NULL )
{
cout<< "tester is null"<<endl;
}
else
cout<< tester <<endl;
} I'm a programmer. My attitude starts with arrogance, holds steady at condescension, and ends with hostility. Get used to it.
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 462
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 18
Posting Pro in Training
I didn't seem to need to include cstring, must be somehow automatically included based on my compiler setup.
In the second version that I posted, I do a delete [] on tester, doesn't that take care of any memory leaks?
In the second version that I posted, I do a delete [] on tester, doesn't that take care of any memory leaks?
•
•
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,340
Reputation:
Rep Power: 29
Solved Threads: 460
>must be somehow automatically included based on my compiler setup.
That's nice. Now forget about it. Your code is not portable if you rely on such things.
>doesn't that take care of any memory leaks?
Yes, but only because you correctly assigned the memory to tester by using a pointer to a pointer. If you had not made that change, no amount of deleting would stop the memory leak. Once again, I urge you to read the tutorial so that you know what the problem was and why the fix fixed it.
That's nice. Now forget about it. Your code is not portable if you rely on such things.
>doesn't that take care of any memory leaks?
Yes, but only because you correctly assigned the memory to tester by using a pointer to a pointer. If you had not made that change, no amount of deleting would stop the memory leak. Once again, I urge you to read the tutorial so that you know what the problem was and why the fix fixed it.
I'm a programmer. My attitude starts with arrogance, holds steady at condescension, and ends with hostility. Get used to it.
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 462
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 18
Posting Pro in Training
I'm feeling quite confuzzled...
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
When you pass a pointer to a function make sure to allocate the memory before passing to the function.
In your program u were not allocating memory before passing on to the function. The memory was allocated within the function. Which was in the local scope of the function itself. The memory was not there in the scope from where the function was called. Hence you were not able to see it in the main.
Else you need to send a pointer to pointer in order to get access to the original object.
Hope this helps to come out from the state of confuzzled...
In your program u were not allocating memory before passing on to the function. The memory was allocated within the function. Which was in the local scope of the function itself. The memory was not there in the scope from where the function was called. Hence you were not able to see it in the main.
Else you need to send a pointer to pointer in order to get access to the original object.
Hope this helps to come out from the state of confuzzled...
•
•
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,340
Reputation:
Rep Power: 29
Solved Threads: 460
>Hope this helps to come out from the state of confuzzled...
If you had bothered to read the entire thread before posting, you would have found that I gave a more correct explanation and solution, except with useful code and a link to a useful tutorial. So the only unique part of your post that I can see is bad advice:
If you had bothered to read the entire thread before posting, you would have found that I gave a more correct explanation and solution, except with useful code and a link to a useful tutorial. So the only unique part of your post that I can see is bad advice:
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Sutanu
When you pass a pointer to a function make sure to allocate the memory before passing to the function.
I'm a programmer. My attitude starts with arrogance, holds steady at condescension, and ends with hostility. Get used to it.
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
Please note that my advice was not for you but for winbatch who wrote this word 'confuzzled' after you message in the same thread.
My intention was not to make any advice as you may be more knowledgeable than me.
I've made my comment after seeing all the messages in the thread. The way it appeared - seems winbatch was the last one to post. I just explained my views about the same.
My intention was not to make any advice as you may be more knowledgeable than me.
I've made my comment after seeing all the messages in the thread. The way it appeared - seems winbatch was the last one to post. I just explained my views about the same.
|
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb C++ Marketplace
•
•
•
•
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Linear Mode
Other Threads in the C++ Forum
- Previous Thread: algorithm simulation
- Next Thread: getting words from .txt file
