pointer to structure array

[estantep]

Hello,

I am having some trouble trying to pass a pointer to an structure
array (as function argument), when executing I get seg faults.

The best I could get out from googling was:

#define MAX_GRAPH 256

typedef struct edge{
long delay;
long bandw;
} edge;

edge link[MAX_GRAPH][MAX_GRAPH];

int print_structure (edge *graph[MAX_GRAPH][MAX_GRAPH]){
int i, j;
for(i=0;i<nodes ;i++){
for(j=0;j<nodes ;j++){
printf("[%d][%d].bandw = %d\t\t", i, j, graph[i][j]->bandw); //
SEG FAULT!
printf("[%d][%d].delay = %d\n", i, j, graph[i][j]->delay);
}
}
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){

....
print_structure (link);
....
}

Could anybody help me spot the problem?

Thanks,

Paulo

[santosh]

Mark Bluemel wrote:

¬a\/b wrote:

>On 24 Aug 2007 06:43:22 GMT, Chris Torek wrote:

<snip>

>>
possibly
i'm not enough smart
possibly
all you game with nothing (i think all is easy but there are people
that complicates languages)
with an easy language is possible to write something that in a
difficult language can not to be written

i hope i offend nobody

I'd have to be able to understand what you've written before I could be
offended by it...

I think he is saying that C's rules complicate what would otherwise be easy.
This is the typical reaction to C from someone who knows only one hardware
architecture and fails to understand that the reason behind much of the
intricacy behind some of the rules of C is the desire to maintain maximum
portability of the language. It is also an old language that people only
exposed to modern machines and languages find cruelly primitive or stupid.
It's the default reaction from much of the current alt.lang.asm crowd.

[CBFalconer]

Barry Schwarz wrote:

es******@gmail. com wrote:

>I am having some trouble trying to pass a pointer to an structure
array (as function argument), when executing I get seg faults.

Why do you execute code (the only way to get a seg fault) when the
compiler has already told you that the code is incorrect? If you did
not receive a diagnostic for the constraint violation in your call to
print_structure , you need to up the warning level of your compiler.

Why do you assume that the compiler objected? I can think of
various easy ways to get to such a fault without a compiler squeak.

To the OP: Report your complete code, and someone will diagnose.
Reduce it to at most 200 lines that is compilable, standard, and
exhibits the flaw. For c.l.c. publication, keep linelengths under
72 and use neither tabs nor // comments.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Barry Schwarz]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:58:47 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com>
wrote:

>Barry Schwarz wrote:

>es******@gmail. com wrote:

>>I am having some trouble trying to pass a pointer to an structure
array (as function argument), when executing I get seg faults.

Why do you execute code (the only way to get a seg fault) when the
compiler has already told you that the code is incorrect? If you did
not receive a diagnostic for the constraint violation in your call to
print_structur e, you need to up the warning level of your compiler.

Why do you assume that the compiler objected? I can think of
various easy ways to get to such a fault without a compiler squeak.

Because, as you carefully chose to omit from your quote, the original
post passed an argument of type
edge (*)[MAX_GRAPH]
to a function that was expecting one of type
edge (*)(*[MAX_GRAPH])

Since there is no implicit conversion between the two types, it is a
constraint violation requiring a diagnostic.

The fact that there are other reasons for receiving a seg fault has no
bearing on whether the code requires a compile time diagnostic.
Remove del for email