malloc + segmentation fault

Could you help me ?

Code:

---

      //Test part 1
      testInt = (strlen(OpenFiles[fileDesc].filename)+1)*sizeof(char);
      puts(BBuffer[newBufPos].filename);
      //Until here everything works fine


      BBuffer[newBufPos].filename = malloc((strlen(OpenFiles[fileDesc].filename)+1)*sizeof(char));
      //After malloc i get seg fault but arguments have already check by part 1
      puts("********");

      if(BBuffer[newBufPos].filename == NULL)
      {
        BF_errno = BFE_NOMEM;

        return BF_errno;
      }

---

The segFault appears at malloc.
At first i thought that might be an accessibility problem (violation access) with (strlen(OpenFiles[fileDesc].filename)+1)*sizeof(char) or BBuffer[newBufPos].filename thats why malloc creates segfault, so i made Test part1 .

Test Part1 works fine !!!!!

I print stars after malloc and they don't appear, this lead me to the conclusion that malloc is the suspect.


Can malloc produce a segmentation fault regardless of my given arguments ?
Should i free filename first ?

Info : Windows XP \ DevC++

Code:

---

puts(BBuffer[newBufPos].filename);
      //Until here everything works fine


      BBuffer[newBufPos].filename

---

Is your puts line being displayed? If it is, why are you trying to overwrite what's there with newly allocated memory? If it isn't, then stop trying to display a segment of memory with nothing allocated for it.


Quzah.

Yes it's displayed.
malloc returns new allocated memory regardless if ex-memory freed or not, right ?
So why this seg ?

I use free before malloc and problem solved.

But wasn't it strange ?

You have a lot of memory accesses going on in that single line -- are you sure it's the malloc call that's breaking? Try putting some of those array accesses into temporary variables before the malloc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ch4

Yes it's displayed.
malloc returns new allocated memory regardless if ex-memory freed or not, right ?
So why this seg ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ch4

I use free before malloc and problem solved.

But wasn't it strange ?

---

Well considering you didn't show us what your variable or structure actually was, and considering you were just randomly allocating memory over top of what appears to be stuff that's already there ... no, it's not really surprising. You don't seem to have the best of programming habits, from what we're given to draw our conclusions.


Quzah.