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
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
LEARN ABOUT REDHAT
calloc
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)