Thread: Function Parameters Corrupt

Hi,

I'm new to this forum and was hoping someone could help me debug a sanity-questioning problem I'm having. Consider the following function declaration and call...

Code:

int encode_buffer(large_struct_t * gfp, const int buffer[16][2][1152],
                       int nsamples[16], unsigned char mp3buf[16][16384], 
		       int mp3buf_size[16],
                       int num_frames_to_encode, 
                       int mp3sizes[16]);

void my_func() {
    int mp3sizes[16];
    int mp3buf_size[16];
    int Buffer[16][2][1152];
    int num_frames_to_encode;
    large_struct_t *gf;
    unsigned char mp3buffer[16][16384];
    int iread_arr[16];

    ...

     encode_buffer(gf, Buffer, iread_arr, mp3buffer, mp3buf_size, 
                            num_frames_to_encode, mp3sizes);

    ...
}

For some reason, I'm experiencing some corruption of the function parameters, once the function is executed. When I step through the execution, I can see that just before the function call, all the values being passed are sane values, but once I step inside the function, the values become muddled. With this specific configuration, I lose the first dimension of each array. The address of these values remains the same, but somehow their contents is altered in the function call. The scalar value (num_frames_to_encode) remains consistently correct.

I have also tried alternative function prototypes along the following lines:

Code:

int encode_buffer(large_struct_t * gfp, const int buffer[16][2][1152],
                       int nsamples[16], unsigned char *mp3buf[16], 
		       int mp3buf_size[16],
                       int num_frames_to_encode, 
                       int mp3sizes[16]);

Where the type of mp3 buf is "unsigned char *mp3buf[16]." In my mind, either of these prototypes should be fine (multidimensional arrays are represented as an array of pointers to an array, right?). I should note that this is part of a very large program, and doing simpler sanity checks reveal to me that at least the first prototype should be correct, given only this function and a call to it.

If anyone has any ideas or solutions, I would greatly appreciate hearing them! Thanks!