Sudden doubt

[K. Jennings]

We have the following:

typedef struct {
char *p ;
} data_structure ;

void f(data_structur e *data)
{
char *r = malloc(16) ;

data->p = r ;

return ;
}

Assuming that malloc returns a non-NULL pointer, data->p will
point to a valid memory region for as long as data is not released. Is
this correct? I know that when f() returns the value of r becomes
undefined, but I assume that whatever it was pointing to will be left
untouched.

[Richard Bos]

"K. Jennings" <kj*******@resu rgence.netwrote :

typedef struct {
char *p ;
} data_structure ;

void f(data_structur e *data)
{
char *r = malloc(16) ;

data->p = r ;

return ;
}

Assuming that malloc returns a non-NULL pointer, data->p will
point to a valid memory region for as long as data is not released. Is
this correct? I know that when f() returns the value of r becomes
undefined, but I assume that whatever it was pointing to will be left
untouched.

Entirely correct. Do remember to free() data->p (which is now your only
pointer to that allocated block) later on.

Richard

[santosh]

On Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 5:57 pm, in comp.lang.c, K. Jennings
<kj*******@resu rgence.netwrote :
Message ID: <pa************ *********@resur gence.net>

We have the following:

typedef struct {
char *p ;
} data_structure ;

void f(data_structur e *data)

Hopefully data is initialised to point to a valid data_structure
object.

{
char *r = malloc(16) ;

data->p = r ;

return ;
}

Assuming that malloc returns a non-NULL pointer, data->p will
point to a valid memory region for as long as data is not released.
Is this correct?

Yes.

I know that when f() returns the value of r
becomes undefined, but I assume that whatever it was pointing to
will be left untouched.

Yes, provided you've taken care to save the value previously in r.

[Barry Schwarz]

On 18 Jul 2007 12:27:05 GMT, "K. Jennings" <kj*******@resu rgence.net>
wrote:

> We have the following:

typedef struct {
char *p ;
} data_structure ;

void f(data_structur e *data)
{
char *r = malloc(16) ;

data->p = r ;

return ;
}

Assuming that malloc returns a non-NULL pointer, data->p will
point to a valid memory region for as long as data is not released. Is
this correct? I know that when f() returns the value of r becomes
undefined, but I assume that whatever it was pointing to will be left

Others have answered your intended question. This is just a
terminology nit. When f returns, r ceases to exist. Consequently,
the value that was in r no longer exists **in r**. However, since you
had the foresight to copy the value to data->p, that value is still
available to the function that called f or to any other function that
can find the struct.

That value is the address of allocated memory which will remain
allocated until you explicitly free it. If the address in r had
pointed to another automatic object in f, that object would also cease
to exist when f returned and, by definition, the value in data->p
would then become indeterminate.

>untouched.

Remove del for email

[Kenneth Brody]

"K. Jennings" wrote:

>
We have the following:

typedef struct {
char *p ;
} data_structure ;

void f(data_structur e *data)
{
char *r = malloc(16) ;

data->p = r ;

return ;
}

Assuming that malloc returns a non-NULL pointer, data->p will
point to a valid memory region for as long as data is not released. Is
this correct? I know that when f() returns the value of r becomes
undefined, but I assume that whatever it was pointing to will be left
untouched.

I believe you are getting confused because of previous posts which
included code along the lines of:

void f(data_structur e *data)
{
char r[16];

data->p = r;

return;
}

In this case, you are left with data->p pointing to something that
no longer exists. (That is, r goes away upon return, yet data->p
still points to r.)

However, in your case, r is simply a pointer to the address returned
by malloc(). You are storing the _value_ of r into data->p, not its
address. The address returned by malloc() (assuming it succeeded)
is still valid until you free() it. The fact that r goes away is
irrelevent, as r was simply used to hold a value.

Consider that the body of your function could be written:

data->p = malloc(16);

The results are identical, and there is no "r" do disappear. (In
fact, a modern optimizing compiler may treat your code as if r did
not exist in the first place.)

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer .h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th***** ********@gmail. com>