Access violation with strcpy()

Hi guys and gals,

I'm running into an access violation with strcpy(). I don't use c strings much, so perhaps I'm doing something moronic.

Any clues?

Code:

---

void getData(vector<char*>& directories, Word& wordStruct)
{
    ifstream in;
    string temp, temp2;
    int i = 0, j = 0;
    for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
    {
        if (i == 0)
            in.open("f1.txt");
        if (i == 1)
            in.open("f2.txt");
        if (i == 2)
            in.open("f3.txt");
        while(in)
        {
            getline(in, temp);
            for (j = 0; j < temp.size(); j++)
            {
                if (isalpha(temp[j]))
                    temp2 = temp2 + temp[j];
                else
                {
                    Files files;
                    files.setWord(temp2.c_str());
                    wordStruct.addWord(files, i);
                    temp2 = "";
                }
            }
           
        }
        in.close();
    }
}


void setWord(const char* w)
    { strcpy(word,w); }          // Problem is here. word is a char*

---

The declaration of Word would really help. Is it "just" a char*, then it is poitning to a random spot in memory and probably the source of your access violation.

>// Problem is here. word is a char*
That could very likely be your problem. Unless word is a char pointer with memory allocated to it, or it points to an array, you probably don't have write access to what it points to.

-Prelude

Yeah, you guys are probably right....

I guess to me, it didn't matter that there wasn't any memory allocated to word*, as strcpy would take care of that...

Here is word:

Code:

---

class Files
{
private:
    vector<int> fileList;
    char* word;

public:
    void addFile(int);
    char* getWord()
    { return word; }
    void setWord(const char* w)
    { strcpy(word,w); }
    void printFile();


};

void Word::resize()
{
    int newSize, index;
    list<Files> tempList;
    Files tempFile;
    for (int i = 0; primes[i] < table.size(); i++)
    {
        newSize = primes[i+1];
    }

    vector<list<Files> > newTable = table, newTable2(newSize);
    table = newTable2;

    for (i = 0; i < newTable.size(); i++)
    {
        tempList = table.back();
        table.pop_back();
        for (int j = 0; j < tempList.size(); j++)
        {
            tempFile = tempList.front();
            tempList.pop_front();
            index = hash(tempFile.getWord(), table.size());
            table[index].push_front(tempFile); 
        }
    }
    return;
}

void Word::addWord(Files file, int fileNum)
{
    int index = hash(file.getWord(), table.size());
    list<Files>::iterator it;

    for (it = table[index].begin(); it != table[index].end(); it++ )
    {
        if (it == table[index].end())
        {
            table[index].push_front(file);
        }
        else if (!strcmp(it->getWord(),file.getWord()))
        {
            it->addFile(fileNum);
        }
       
    }
}

void Word::print()
{
    list<Files>::iterator it;
    for (int i = 0; i < table.size(); i++)
    {
        cout << i << " ";
        for(it = table[i].begin(); it != table[i].end(); i++)
        {
            it->printFile();
        }
        cout << endl;
    }
}

---

>as strcpy would take care of that...
No, it's your job to make sure that strcpy receives valid arguments, including enough memory in the buffer being copied to.

On a side note, your Files class should have a constructor that places an object in a well defined state immediately. Anything else is just asking for trouble. As it is, word has an indeterminate value.

-Prelude

If I created a default constructor that initialized the word pointer to NULL, would that get the job done?

Quote:

---

If I created a default constructor that initialized the word pointer to NULL, would that get the job done?

---

No bloody way. Were you to do that, any attempt to access the data pointed to by `word` would result in an access of the address zero.
Try `new` and `delete []`or `char word[100]`

>Were you to do that, any attempt to access the data pointed to by `word` would result in an access of the address zero.
word is a private member though. The class only allows access to it by way of getWord and setWord. If word were initialized to a null pointer then those functions could be made more safe because there's something to check for. Otherwise even attempting to access word would result in undefined behavior.

-Prelude

Heh, ok, forgive my retardation....however, I don't want to limit myself to, say, 100 chars. I don't know the length of the words I'll be reading in....perhaps this needs to be explained to me in a dummy fashion! What is the best/only way to stay with a char*, but to not run into problems with access violations with strcpy() and the like?

Thanks!

Please don't misinterpret my point. I'm not saying that initializing word to NULL is a bad thing. My only point is that it looked to me as if bigPuffDaddy was thinking all he had to do was set word to NULL and his problems would be gone.
Actually, I just scrolled down and now realize I missed an important thing he said illustrating that he was already aware he needed to `new` some memory:

Quote:

---

I guess to me, it didn't matter that there wasn't any memory allocated to word*

---

Pardon my zinger.

If you don't want a limit on the string, allocate memory at runtime:

Code:

---

Files::Files()
{
  Word = NULL;
}

Files::~Files()
{
  if(Word != NULL) delete[] Word;
  Word = NULL;
}

void Files::SetString(const char* NewString)
{
  //Deallocate the old string
  if(Word != NULL) delete[] Word;
  Word = NULL;

  //Only clear the word if you pass NULL
  if(NewString == NULL) return;

  //Allocate memory for the new string
  Word = new char[strlen(NewString) + 1];
  if(Word != NULL)
  {
      strcpy(Word, NewString);
  }
}

---

EDIT:
Am I the only one reacting to the class being named Files but the methods belonging to Word:: ???

Quote:

---

Am I the only one reacting to the class being named Files but the methods belonging to Word:: ???

---

Actually the Word:: functions use lists of Files.

That last code looks good..

And regarding the class/methods....I was being a moron again and copied the wrong functions into the post...I was in a hurry to get to work when I did it!