When declaring char array[10], memory is allocated for 10 1-bit memory locations. Is extra memory allocated for storing the address of array[0]? In expressions, is array equivalent to a pointer constant or is it an identifier for a memory cell containing the address of array[0]? In other words, is array a variable or an alias for &array[0]?
View 6 RepliesI'm trying to read in a file and store it in an array that is dynamically allocated of a struct (which I'm not sure how to do), then parse each line using strtok() from string.h. The idea is to separate the lines by date, subject, time, etc.
Since the array is a dynamically allocated of typdef struct, it's sorted by the date of each struct, with an intial size of 25. But whenever the array needs to be resized, it should be doubled.
I am trying to store each value of a column from a text file into an dynamically allocated array, which needs to be globally declared for further usage in the program.The input textfile contains the following:
34932 13854 13854 2012-01-07
172098 49418 53269 2012-01-07
I have written the following code:
Code:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
int main()
}
[code]....
The commented printf line gives the entire values of the column, which proves that the file is correctly being read.But on compiling this program I get both compiler warnings and finally segmentation fault.
Having some frustrating issues trying to free memory from a dynamically allocated array of pointers to linked lists. I think the problem is in how I initialize the pointers to NULL. Is there a more elegant way to have the program recognize that the list is empty so it knows to create a head node for the linked list in the function 'add_end_stub_to_array'?
I ran the code through Valgrind and it says that memory is definitely lost from this array.
This is the structure definition.
Code: struct stub_edge {
int loc_id;
int anim_type;
int mkt;
struct stub_edge *next_node;
};
Here is the code snippet from main allocating and deallocating memory to the array.
Code:
struct stub_edge **stub_list = (struct stub_edge **)malloc( sizeof(struct stub_edge *) * 12);
for (i = 0; i < 12; i++)
{
stub_list[i] = (struct stub_edge *)malloc(sizeof(struct stub_edge));
stub_list[i] = NULL;
}
stub_list = add_end_stub_to_array(end_stubs, stub_list);
destroy_end_stub_array(stub_list);
Here the function for adding nodes to the lists by reading through a dynamically allocated 2D array. (The end_stubs array is ordered by month and each linked list represents events occuring within the month).
Code:
struct stub_edge **add_end_stub_to_array(int **end_stubs, struct stub_edge **list)
{
long int i = 0;
int mon = 0;
struct stub_edge *current_node1;
struct stub_edge *new_node1;
int break1 = 0;
while(i < num_edges && break1 == 0 && mon < 12)
[Code]...
Here is the function for freeing memory from the list.
Code:
void destroy_end_stub_array(struct stub_edge **list)
{
if(list != NULL)
{
int mon = 0;
struct stub_edge *current_node1;
struct stub_edge *new_node1;
for(mon = 0; mon < 12; mon++)
[Code]...
I am trying to add some functionality to this project: [URL] ...
Under this [URL] ...
This latest comment based on;
host.data = (u_char *) "112.168.231.19:80";
for (i = 0; i < peer->name.len; i++) {
peer->name.data[i] = host.data[i];
}
or more simpler:
peer->name.data = host.data;
States: "Because strings always require an extra memory buffer (and the burden of memory management) while primitive values like booleans and numbers don't."
Which makes sense since a boolean change (down/up) does actually changes a runtime value, however the string replacement shows via '/upstreams' that the value has changed but at runtime it is still using the old value.
So in short it looks like I do need a buffer to change the string value.
My question is why? if 'peer->down' works on a memory fragment where its value resides then why doesn't a 'peer->name.data = host.data' do the same thing? can this be done without a buffer? once you allocate memory and store host.data in to this where do I copy it to?
We have a proprietary third-party library that we make calls into via an API. Through a series of API calls, this library manipulates specific sets of data. Prior to making these calls, there are some API calls that are necessary in order to initialize the library in preparation for a specific set of data. One of the calls tells the library to allocate some memory and then perform whatever initialization is required. This particular API call returns a pointer to char (char*) that is later used as an argument for a few other API calls. My question is... Is there a way, or maybe some kind of trick, to tell exactly how much memory was allocated? It doesn't matter whether or not the solution (if there is one) is C++ related, or some series of OS commands. FYI: We're running on Redhat Linux 6.2 and using GNU C++ 4.4.6.
View 5 Replies View RelatedSuppose if i code like this,
while( true ) {
int x;
// do some thing;
// break on some condition match;
}
whether memory is allocated for ints x one time or each time it hits int x.
For static variables when the memory will be allocated? During compilation or linking or loading time? In below program i am getting error :
(Error C2099: initializer is not a constant in microsoft visual studio) .
If i initialize x = 10 or any constant it works , why?
Code:
main() {
int i=10;
static int x = i;//error ?
if(x==i)
printf("Equal");
[Code] .....
I'm trying to free allocated memory for structure. It seems like free() gets only pointer and not regular types . my question is basic and simple – is passing pointer to free() frees the pointer or the variable it points at? or both?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a question about memory allocation.I have a function that calls a lot of object constructors, which in return these constructors will allocate a lot of memory.Now, in my program I am sure that if I first call this function , say it will call the constructor of 100 object.If I call this function again and again, I am sure that it will only call the constructor 100 times again, and thus I am sure that the memory allocated in the first call can be reused again.
How can I reuse the memory allocated in the first call?Can I use something like boost:object_pool so that I can tell the pool to restart from the begining and do not allocate extra memory, just use what you already have?
How can I view the number of bytes that have been allocated by using the malloc function?I tried:
mem = (float*)malloc(num*sizeof(float));
printf("The amount of memory allocated using malloc is %d.", mem);
Note: The variable "num" in my program is equal to 7.But every time I run the program, this value changes.
I have a pretty big std::vector<matrix>, where matrix is a custom class defined by me. I would like to know how much memory has been allocated to that vector at a certain point in time. Is there any way of doing this in c++?
Or is my only shot, taking a look at the task monitor of windows/unix/whatever at execution time to estimate this?
I am having issues freeing memory that I allocated when adding a node to a doubly linked list. I have tried adding free() at the end of the remove function from the list with no luck. I have tried using all sorts of temporary nodes and dummy nodes to free without losing node information. Have tried storing current node, moving to next one, then freeing the old current one, without luck. Everytime I try to free a node it destroys the list. It loses important node information and can no longer operate properly and I am met with all sorts of memory crashes. I will post my add and delete nodes functions here:
/**
* Adds a node to a given list
*
* @param q pointer a a list
* @param node pointer to the node to be added
*/
void list_add(list *q, path *node){
path *pn;
if(!(pn = (path*)malloc(sizeof(*pn)))){
perror("malloc");
exit(1);
[Code] ....
Those free's at the end are to get rid of nodes I malloced in find_path. This find_path works really well when run once lol. It finds shortest path and prints it no problem, but doing it over and over again will be problematic as it is leaking almost every bit of memory it uses />.
So in short, how to free an allocated node when I remove it from a list while still being able to use it? I have tried moving the remove function to different locations like the end of the file and still no luck. I even tried allocating a new current_node each iteration of while loop, using it, then freeing it at the end of the while loop and took out the allocation in the list_add() function. This didn't work either />. How to stop the leakage.
I need to take info in the following format (no blank/skipped lines):
last name, first name street address city, state zip code
And dynamically allocate space for it. I need to use structs, and I need to use an array of pointers to structs to point to them. I know I probably have quite a few problems with my code, but so far, I am able to store and print back the data without issue. In the following code, I only make the loop run 3 times just so I can test it with manual input into the console, but eventually the max will be 50, or until end of input (will be doing IO redirection with a txt file).
Like I said, I can store and print the data fine, but am getting a segmentation fault when trying to sort the info.
Code:
#include <stdio.h>#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
struct addressBook{
char name [50];
char streetAddress [50];
[Code] ....
I have written a C program without variable. And I want to print the value at that memory location.How to print that value?
code is like:-
int main()
{
printf("Enter value:");
scanf("%d",1245024);
/* how to print the value here */
return 0;
}
Is it possible to store data to CPU memory, if so how much memory can I store and how? Say I wanted to store an array, about 6MB in size?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am working on something that requires the memory address of my computers workload.. collect the trace files? and what trace file as well..
View 2 Replies View RelatedPointers point to an address in memory. What if I used 3 pointers: 2 to mark the first/last nodes, and the third to mark the current node being referenced? I would wrap it in a class (to make the memory management automatic, of course), but is this practical?? maybe some pseudo code will get the juices flowing:
template<class type>
class supercondensed_list{
public:
supercondensed_list();
~supercondensed_list();
[code].....
Any things I should take into consideration? I'm not exactly the most experienced with pointers, and manually managing memory, but I think it's worth trying. If this works, then my programs should, in theory, be 100% memory efficient.
I've recently been reading tutorials on arrays and their aquaintance with memory addresses. So, I completely understand how an array's name, when defined, is a constant pointer to its first element's address.
My problem, however, lies with characters, and how they are basically arrays except with a null terminator for the last index. What I've come to undestand, is that, when defining a character variable, each 'character' has a memory address it is associated with.
For example:
char name[] = {"Hello"}; // | 'H' | 'e' | 'l' | 'l' | 'o' | '/0' |
An address holds the value of 'H'.
An address holds the value of 'e'.
An address holds the value of 'l' and so on.
I have come to believe this is false, however. Mainly from a simple std::cout command.
std::cout << &name << std::endl; // attempt 1
std::cout << &name[0] << std::endl; // attempt 2
The first attempt, as I assumed, should print the address of the first element.
The second attempt, as I assumed, did not. I figured, &names[0] would print the address of the first element, which should have been the same as &names.
So, this brings me to my question, are characters formed of constant addresses, or are the address of individual characters not reachable?
What I'm trying to do is:
int *p;
someType memoryLocation;
cout<<"Enter your memory location: ";
cin >> memoryLocation;
p = memoryLocation;
cout << *p;
I was just messing around with some code, and was curious to if this was possible.
The results of my code is supposed to be very simple: return the 2 integers and then their sum. However, it's doing returning the first value, then an address in memory(rather than the 2nd value), and then the 2nd value(rather than the sum). Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct calculator{
double num1;
double num2;
double result;
[Code] .....
I made a text file. I can do all File I/O functions in c. no problem! except that "I want to get the memory address of the beginning of that File", so that I can access each character of the file by incrementing memory address.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have an integer pointer and i want its address without allocating memory,
main() {
int *a;
cout<<a;
}
This is giving 00000000 and its but obvious. Now if i use address of a (&a) along with *a,
main() {
int *a;
cout<<a;
cout<<&a;
}
'cout<<a' gives me a constant address but 'cout<<&a' gives me different address.
what is the reason behind & and why behaviour of 'cout<<a' changes when using with &.
A special hardware unit with some storage in it is connected to your computer and is memory-mapped so that its storage is accessible in the address range 0x55500000 – 0x555fffff. You want to interface this hardware unit to your C++ program so that dynamic memory is allocated in this hardware unit, not in your computer’s memory. Implement a class MyHardwareMemAllocator which has the following function.
void * allocMemoryInMyHardware(int numberOfBytesToAllocate);
which returns a pointer to the allocated memory chunk, or null if unable to allocate.
C library calls like malloc are not allowed.
1) How to allocate memory from given address range.
2) How to check whether this required memory space is available or not for allocating
Suppose I have two classes, MyClassX and MyClassY, each with two member variables, as defined below. I create an object instance of each class, and then create a pointer to each member variable for each object:
Code:
class MyClassX
{
public:
int a;
double b;
MyClassX(int _a, double _b)
[code]....
After converting the hexadecimal to decimal, it appears that with MyClassX, pxb is 8 bytes from pxa, whereas for MyClassY, pya is only 4 bytes from pyb. This makes sense for MyClassY, because the first member variable to be stored is an int, and so will occupy 4 bytes. However, why should this be any different for MyClassX, which also has an int as the first member variable, so shouldn't this also occupy 4bytes?
The reason I have come across this problem is that I am looking into streaming objects to memory and then loading them again. (I know boost can do this, but I am trying it out myself from scratch.) Therefore, this is causing an issue, because I cannot just assume that the size of memory occupied by an object is just the sum of the sizes of its member variables. MyClassX is 8 bytes larger than MyClassY, even though the intuition is that it should only occupy 4 bytes more due to a double being replaced by an int.
Try to implement overloading << operator. If I done it void then everything work fine (see comment out) if I make it class of ostream& then the operator return to me some memory address.
Code:
#ifndef Point_HPP // anti multiply including gates
#define Point_HPP
#include <sstream>
class Point {
private:// declaration of private data members
double x;// X coordinate
double y;// Y coordinate
[Code] .....