Returning char arrays...ugh

Ok, whenever i do any C i always seem to get stuck at this point:
I want to return a char array from a function to be used in main, like so:

Code:

---

char *editString(char *someString, char *someOtherString){
int i = 6;
someString = (char*) malloc(i+1);
someString = "hello";
someOtherString = (char*) malloc(i+1);
someOtherString = "byeee";
}

int main (){
char *someString, *someOtherString;
editString(someString, someOtherString);
printf("%s - %s\n", someString, someOtherString);
}

---

By my knowledge, this should work fine, but for some reason or other fails miserably, printing out the edited strings either results in strings of rubbish or nothing at all!
heeeelp!

You are assigning the result of malloc() to a local pointer, and then assigning a string literal too. This means that the pointer in the main function remains the same, i.e., it continues to point to nothing in particular. What you do get is a memory leak.

So then how do i get the pointer in the main function to keep what is assigned in the other one? Perhaps what i wrote there was a bad example, what i do in my program is loop through the array, assigning letter by letter from another string, eg:

Code:

---

if((acceptStates = (char*) malloc(x+1)) != NULL){
        for(l = l+1, y = 0; l < i; l++, y++){
                acceptStates[y] = input[l];
        }
        acceptStates[y] = '\0';
}

---

acceptstates is one of the char arrays being passed into the function, as is input (though input already has some characters in it).

One way is to allocate space in the main function, then pass a pointer to the first character of that array. strcpy, strncpy, etc, can then be used to populate the array given that pointer.

Another way is to pass a pointer to a pointer, so that the pointer in the main function can be modified from the editString function. Again, strcpy, strncpy, etc, can be used to populate the dynamic array.

Another alternative would be to use static. Here is an example...

Code:

---

#include <stdio.h>

char *editString(char someString[])
{
  static char stuff[] = "bye";

  return stuff;
}

int main(void)
{
  char someString[] = "hello";
  char *someOtherString;
  someOtherString = editString(someString);
  printf("%s - %s\n", someString, someOtherString);

  return 0;
}

---

[cd@localhost oakland]$ ./copyarr
hello - bye
[cd@localhost oakland]$

Instead of returning a local array, what I do is create the array in the calling function (main, whatever), and then BRING that array, into the local function that will be working with it, and then there is no need to return it - all the changes you make are saved in the array.

Maybe just my opinion, but that's how C was made to do this, imo. It's ez and very transparent - try it. :)

You can return the address of allocated space OR you can pass an address as an argument and have it "serviced".
Either way , the allocated space MUST be free()'d when the program is done with it.
If it is not it then becomes a "memory leak".

Code:

---

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

char * return_str( size_t len)
{
  char * s = calloc(1, len);
  strncpy(s, "hello", len);

  return s;
}

void assign_str(char * t, int len)
{
  char * s = calloc(1, len);
  strncpy(s, "hello2", len);
  t = s;
}

int main(void)
{
  char * sp1;

  sp1 = return_str(32);
  printf("sp1: %s \n", sp1);
  free(sp1);

  assign_str(sp1, 32);
  printf("sp1: %s \n", sp1);
  free(sp1);

  return 0;
}

---

At least I think that's right...

I would write assign_string in the following way instead. There is no real difference between the two if both functions allocate some space.

Code:

---

void assign_string (char *s , char *source , size_t len)
{
  if (s == NULL || source == NULL) return ;
  s[0] = '\0';
  strncat (s , source , len - 1);
}

int main ()
{
  int size = 32;
  char *space = malloc (size);
  assign_string (space , "hello world" , size);
  printf ("the string says '%s'\n" , space);
  free (space);
  return 0;
}

---

Quote:

---

There is no real difference between the two if both functions allocate some space.

---

But yours allocates space in main() and NOT in the function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HowardL

You can return the address of allocated space OR you can pass an address as an argument and have it "serviced".

---

Ah yes, I neglected to mention the option of returning an address. However, my point about passing a pointer to a pointer if one wants to allocate space in the function holds: your assign_str function implementation is incorrect. More correctly:

Code:

---

void assign_str(char **s)
{
    *s = malloc(sizeof("hello2"));
    strcpy(*s, "hello2");
}

---

Then in main:

Code:

---

assign_str(&sp1);

---

EDIT:
There is a problem with using strncpy as in your example: it assumes that len will be greater than strlen("hello") and strlen("hello2") respectively. If not, the null character will not be copied, and the caller will end up with a pointer to the first character of a dynamic array that does not contain a null terminated string.

oops, I see what you're saying. Real sorry to post a bad example.
Thanks for straightening me out on those things.
Sometime I might start retaining some of this for more than a day... or maybe it's too late

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HowardL

But yours allocates space in main() and NOT in the function.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HowardL

You can return the address of allocated space OR you can pass an address as an argument and have it "serviced".
Either way , the allocated space MUST be free()'d when the program is done with it.
If it is not it then becomes a "memory leak".

---

You're right with what you said here. I just wanted to demonstrate what you actually said. By requiring users to pass in an array you should eschew calling malloc anyway. Passing in the address of an array is different. It implies that the location of the array will change, which happens with malloc/realloc. I still stick by my earlier comment that your two examples are not very different. In fact the only difference is that the corrected example uses no return value, while another example does use a return value.