use memcpy() to copy one structure to another

[Sourcerer]

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Or is not not a good idea to assume the memory used
by my structure is contiguous ?
should I instead do it field by field.

Kev.

[Chris Dollin]

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
Illegal. Did you mean &a?
bptr = b;
Ditto &b.
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Or is not not a good idea to assume the memory used
by my structure is contiguous ?
It may have gaps, but sizeof will cover them all. But why not

memcpy( bptr, aptr, sizeof (*bptr) );

if you're set on using memcpy?
should I instead do it field by field.

What's wrong with

a = b;

?

--
Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
C FAQs at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgrou...mp.lang.c.html
C welcome: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambl...me_to_clc.html

[Thomas Pfaff]

Sourcerer <no****@donteventhinkaboutspammingme.xyz> writes:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

memcpy (&b, &a, sizeof b); or simply b = a;

[Sourcerer]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:13:22 +0100, Chris Dollin <ke**@hpl.hp.com>
wrote:

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;

Illegal. Did you mean &a?

bptr = b;

Ditto &b.

Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Or is not not a good idea to assume the memory used
by my structure is contiguous ?

It may have gaps, but sizeof will cover them all. But why not

memcpy( bptr, aptr, sizeof (*bptr) );

if you're set on using memcpy?

should I instead do it field by field.

What's wrong with

a = b;

?

Wow ! that was fast.

I hadn't realized a = b would do it.

so, I could have

struct mystruct
{
char str[50];
}

struct mystruct a, b;
sprintf(a.str, "Testing 123");
b = a;

and then b.str would also contain "Testing 123" ?

[Thomas Matthews]

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a; aptr = &a;
bptr = b; bptr = &b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct)); Try these:
b = a;
memcpy(&b, &a, sizeof(struct myStruct));


Or is not not a good idea to assume the memory used
by my structure is contiguous ?
should I instead do it field by field. I believe that the total space occupied by a structure
is contiguous; however, the compiller is allowed to
add padding between the fields.

When copying one structure to another, memcpy can be
used. But you should have a policy when it comes
to pointer fields:
1. Copy only the pointer and have multiple pointers
to one object.
2. Create a new copy of the target object, thus having
two copies of the target object.
3. Reference counting: multiple pointers to one
object, but the number of references must be zero
before the target object is deleted.

I would copy field by field when copying to or from
a buffer (unsigned char array). Padding bytes may
be copied from one structure to another, but a buffer
may not have padding between the fields.

Kev.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library

[Dario (drinking coffee in the office…)]

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Or is not not a good idea to assume the memory used
by my structure is contiguous ?
should I instead do it field by field.

Kev.

Juste use:
b = a;

- Dario

[CBFalconer]

Sourcerer wrote:

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Or is not not a good idea to assume the memory used
by my structure is contiguous ?
should I instead do it field by field.

That better be:

aptr = &a;
bptr = &b;

but you can duplicate the contents by:

b = a;

What you cannot do is check equality etc. by:

if (b == a) ...; /* not allowed */

structs are not arrays.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Martin Ambuhl]

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Why not
struct myStruct a = { /* initialize a */ }, b;
b = a;
and forget all your side issues.

[Alex Fraser]

"Martin Ambuhl" <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2j************@uni-berlin.de...

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));

Why not
struct myStruct a = { /* initialize a */ }, b;
b = a;
and forget all your side issues.

Does the assignment above invoke undefined behaviour if not all members of a
are initialised?

What about the "equivalent" memcpy()?

Alex

[Martin Ambuhl]

Alex Fraser wrote:

"Martin Ambuhl" <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2j************@uni-berlin.de...

Sourcerer wrote:

Hi all.

Can I do this to duplicate the contents of struct a in struct b

struct myStruct a, b, *aptr, *bptr;
aptr = a;
bptr = b;
Do something to initialize contents of structure a
memcpy(bptr, aptr, sizeof(myStruct));
Why not
struct myStruct a = { /* initialize a */ }, b;
b = a;
and forget all your side issues.

Does the assignment above invoke undefined behaviour if not all members of a
are initialised?

Just how, given the presence of an initializer, do you propose to
partially initialized the structure?
What about the "equivalent" memcpy()?

Who cares about function calls when a simple assignment will do?

[Default User]

Alex Fraser wrote:

Why not
struct myStruct a = { /* initialize a */ }, b;
b = a;
and forget all your side issues.

Does the assignment above invoke undefined behaviour if not all members of a
are initialised?

If an array is partially intialized, the rest of the elements are
default initialized. So no undefined behavior, as all elements will have
values.

Brian Rodenborn

[CBFalconer]

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Alex Fraser wrote:

"Martin Ambuhl" <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
.... snip ...

Why not
struct myStruct a = { /* initialize a */ }, b;
b = a;
and forget all your side issues.

Does the assignment above invoke undefined behaviour if not
all members of a are initialised?

Just how, given the presence of an initializer, do you propose
to partially initialized the structure?

structures do not have to be initialized at declaration time.
Since a structure with an uninitialized component is an
uninitialized structure, copying it via structure assignment
should be undefined behaviour. Yet I expect it will go unpunished
on most machines other than the DS9000.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Alex Fraser]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40***************@yahoo.com...

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Alex Fraser wrote:

"Martin Ambuhl" <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
... snip ...
Why not
struct myStruct a = { /* initialize a */ }, b;
b = a;
and forget all your side issues.

Does the assignment above invoke undefined behaviour if not
all members of a are initialised?

Just how, given the presence of an initializer, do you propose
to partially initialized the structure?

structures do not have to be initialized at declaration time.
Since a structure with an uninitialized component is an
uninitialized structure, copying it via structure assignment
should be undefined behaviour. Yet I expect it will go unpunished
on most machines other than the DS9000.

Thank you, that makes sense. I was thinking in practical terms when I
phrased the question: assigning a structure where the source is partially
initialised is much more likely to happen than where it is completely
uninitialised, but the effect is identical in either case.

I suppose, in fact, it is no different to:

int a, b; /* uninitialised */
b = a; /* undefined behaviour (since a may be a trap representation?) */

But I wonder if the same still applies with the notionally equivalent
memcpy(). I think that question boils down to:

unsigned char a, b; /* uninitialised */
b = a; /* undefined behaviour? */

Alex

[kal]

"Alex Fraser" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<2j************@uni-berlin.de>...

int a, b; /* uninitialised */
b = a; /* undefined behaviour (since a may be a trap representation?) */

I suppose anything is possible. It may be that the type "int"
is 33 bits in size and at declaration time bit 32 is set to 1.
It is reset to zero only when a value is explicitly assigned to
the variable. Any attempt to read the contents of the variable
when bit 32 is not zero terminates the program execution.

But for us bozos who make do with 16 or 32 bit integers, all bit
patterns represent valid integer values. Hence, unitialized does
not means "undefined" or "trap representation", it just means that
the value in it is not the one we want to start with.

Can someone expound on "trap representation" vis-a-vis integers?

[Richard Bos]

k_*****@yahoo.com (kal) wrote:

"Alex Fraser" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<2j************@uni-berlin.de>...

int a, b; /* uninitialised */
b = a; /* undefined behaviour (since a may be a trap representation?) */
I suppose anything is possible. It may be that the type "int"
is 33 bits in size and at declaration time bit 32 is set to 1.
It is reset to zero only when a value is explicitly assigned to
the variable. Any attempt to read the contents of the variable
when bit 32 is not zero terminates the program execution.

That's one possibility, yes.
But for us bozos who make do with 16 or 32 bit integers, all bit
patterns represent valid integer values.
Nope. Usually, but not necessarily. That is, yes, INT_MAX must be so
large that a 16-bit int needs to use all bits as value or sign bits, but
a 32-bit int is allowed to have (e.g.) 30 value bits, one sign bit, and
one trap bit.
Hence, unitialized does not means "undefined" or "trap representation",
it just means that the value in it is not the one we want to start with.

No. It means "the value is undefined and may be illegal". It does not
mean "the value _must_ be illegal"; it does not mean "the value _cannot_
be illegal"; it means "you do not know whether the value is legal or
not".

Richard

[Dan Pop]

In <a5**************************@posting.google.com > k_*****@yahoo.com (kal) writes:

"Alex Fraser" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<2j************@uni-berlin.de>...

int a, b; /* uninitialised */
b = a; /* undefined behaviour (since a may be a trap representation?) */
I suppose anything is possible. It may be that the type "int"
is 33 bits in size and at declaration time bit 32 is set to 1.
It is reset to zero only when a value is explicitly assigned to
the variable. Any attempt to read the contents of the variable
when bit 32 is not zero terminates the program execution.

This is an excellent example of trap representation vis-a-vis integers.
But for us bozos who make do with 16 or 32 bit integers, all bit
patterns represent valid integer values.
This is not necessarily true. Even if all the bits are actually used
by the representation, the standard allows -0 for one's complement and
sign-magnitude to be a trap representation, as well as the representation
with the sign bit set and all the value bits reset for two's complement
(normally, this is corresponding to type_MIN).
Hence, unitialized does
not means "undefined" or "trap representation", it just means that
the value in it is not the one we want to start with.
According to the standard, it is an unspecified value, and this includes
trap representations.
Can someone expound on "trap representation" vis-a-vis integers?

All the trap representations not involving padding bits (bits that do not
contribute to the value) have already been described above. Once you
have padding bits, they can have the effect you have already explained.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de