Sponsored Content
Top Forums Programming pass a pointer-to-pointer, or return a pointer? Post 302273896 by spirtle on Tuesday 6th of January 2009 05:43:33 AM
Old 01-06-2009
I prefer the second form because:
  1. The interface is simpler: one parameter in, the answer returned. You just check whether the pointer is null to verify success. The first form has some kind of other return value to check, which could be boolean, but I cannot tell, so I would have to look up the definitions of OK and NOK. And it is unclear from the interface whether I also need to check the pointer value, or indeed whether the pointer is NULL on failure. Looking into you implementation I can see that OK is returned if and only if the pointer is valid and the pointer is NULL on failure, but then I can write
    Code:
    char *my_pmem;
    my_malloc(64, &my_pmem);
    if(my_pmem){
      ...
    }

    so the return value is redundant -- it gives me no extra information.
    However, if you want the function to indicate more than just a simple fail/succeed (e.g. different failure modes) then the first way is the only way to do it.
  2. It mimics the standard malloc(3) function -- or it would do if the parameter was of type size_t rather than int -- and therefore has the benefit of familiarity, and makes it easier to port code written with malloc to use my_malloc.
 

10 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting

1. Programming

pointer

void main() { int a={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}; int *p=a; int *q=&a; cout<<q-p+1<<endl; } The output is 10, how? if we give cout<<q it will print the address, value won't print.... if we give cout<<p it will print the address, value won't print.... p has the base addr; q... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: sarwan
1 Replies

2. Programming

Regarding char Pointer

Hi, char *s="yamaha"; cout<<s<<endl; int *p; int i=10; p=&i; cout<<p<<endl; 1) For the 1st "cout" we will get "yamaha" as output. That is we are getting "content of the address" for cout<<s. 2) But for integer "cout<<p" we are getting the "address only". Please clarify how we are... (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: sweta
2 Replies

3. Programming

pointer problem

could any one tell why the following is showing segmentation fault while using **ptr but working fine using **a #include<stdio.h> ... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: useless79
1 Replies

4. Programming

far pointer

what is far pointer in C (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: useless79
1 Replies

5. Programming

How to return void function pointer

Hello all im trying to build function that will return void function pointer what is mean is ( not working ) the main function void * myClass::getFunction(int type){ if(type==1) return &myClass::Test1; if(type==2) return &myClass::Test2; } void myClass::Test1(){... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: umen
1 Replies

6. Programming

matrix pointer

Can anyone tell me what the following statements do? float (*tab); tab=(float (*)) calloc(MAXCLASS, (MAXCLASS+1)*sizeof(float)); (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: littleboyblu
3 Replies

7. Programming

Pointer Arithmetic In C

I have a fundamental question on C pointer arithmetry.. Suppose i have a c string pointer already pointing to a valid location, Can I just do a charptr = charptr +1; to get to the next location, irregardless if my program is 32 or 64 bits? or should i do it this way: charptr =... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: Leion
1 Replies

8. Programming

Pointer to pointers

Hi guys, I'm trying to understand pointers in C and made a simple example and I've problems with It. Can someone help? #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <assert.h> int f1(char **str_); int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *str = NULL; f1(&str); ... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: pharaoh
3 Replies

9. Programming

Pointer for 2D array seems to be 3D in C

I am struggling with the pointer to 2D-array (cf: 2D array of pointers). Can anybody help me elaborate how the pointer x moves in the memory to access the individual of y, especially the high lighted lines? I have talked to one of the curators of the forum, but I am still not quite clear. Here... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: yifangt
1 Replies

10. Programming

Segmentation fault when I pass a char pointer to a function in C.

I am passing a char* to the function "reverse" and when I execute it with gdb I get: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x000000000040083b in reverse (s=0x400b2b "hello") at pointersExample.c:72 72 *q = *p; Attached is the source code. I do not understand why... (9 Replies)
Discussion started by: jose_spain
9 Replies
MALLOC(3)						     Linux Programmer's Manual							 MALLOC(3)

NAME
calloc, malloc, free, realloc - Allocate and free dynamic memory SYNOPSIS
#include <stdlib.h> void *calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t size); void *malloc(size_t size); void free(void *ptr); void *realloc(void *ptr, size_t size); DESCRIPTION
calloc() allocates memory for an array of nmemb elements of size bytes each and returns a pointer to the allocated memory. The memory is set to zero. malloc() allocates size bytes and returns a pointer to the allocated memory. The memory is not cleared. free() frees the memory space pointed to by ptr, which must have been returned by a previous call to malloc(), calloc() or realloc(). Oth- erwise, or if free(ptr) has already been called before, undefined behaviour occurs. If ptr is NULL, no operation is performed. realloc() changes the size of the memory block pointed to by ptr to size bytes. The contents will be unchanged to the minimum of the old and new sizes; newly allocated memory will be uninitialized. If ptr is NULL, the call is equivalent to malloc(size); if size is equal to zero, the call is equivalent to free(ptr). Unless ptr is NULL, it must have been returned by an earlier call to malloc(), calloc() or realloc(). RETURN VALUE
For calloc() and malloc(), the value returned is a pointer to the allocated memory, which is suitably aligned for any kind of variable, or NULL if the request fails. free() returns no value. realloc() returns a pointer to the newly allocated memory, which is suitably aligned for any kind of variable and may be different from ptr, or NULL if the request fails. If size was equal to 0, either NULL or a pointer suitable to be passed to free() is returned. If real- loc() fails the original block is left untouched - it is not freed or moved. CONFORMING TO
ANSI-C SEE ALSO
brk(2), posix_memalign(3) NOTES
The Unix98 standard requires malloc(), calloc(), and realloc() to set errno to ENOMEM upon failure. Glibc assumes that this is done (and the glibc versions of these routines do this); if you use a private malloc implementation that does not set errno, then certain library routines may fail without having a reason in errno. Crashes in malloc(), free() or realloc() are almost always related to heap corruption, such as overflowing an allocated chunk or freeing the same pointer twice. Recent versions of Linux libc (later than 5.4.23) and GNU libc (2.x) include a malloc implementation which is tunable via environment vari- ables. When MALLOC_CHECK_ is set, a special (less efficient) implementation is used which is designed to be tolerant against simple errors, such as double calls of free() with the same argument, or overruns of a single byte (off-by-one bugs). Not all such errors can be protected against, however, and memory leaks can result. If MALLOC_CHECK_ is set to 0, any detected heap corruption is silently ignored; if set to 1, a diagnostic is printed on stderr; if set to 2, abort() is called immediately. This can be useful because otherwise a crash may happen much later, and the true cause for the problem is then very hard to track down. Linux follows an optimistic memory allocation strategy. This means that when malloc() returns non-NULL there is no guarantee that the mem- ory really is available. In case it turns out that the system is out of memory, one or more processes will be killed by the infamous OOM killer. GNU
1993-04-04 MALLOC(3)
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 AM.
Unix & Linux Forums Content Copyright 1993-2022. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy