strcat() and segmentation faults. But malloc() already done.

[Stanley S]

Hi,

I'm puzzled. Why does the following cause a seg fault? Notwithstanding
that I've already malloc() a certain space for "Hello".

I do understand that using a fixed length array will work very well.
But I wish to find out how can this be achieve using pointers.

Thank you.

Stan

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

char *Hello = NULL;
char *World = NULL;
Hello = malloc(100);
Hello = "hello";
World = "world";
strcat(Hello, World);
printf("%s\n",Hello);

return 0;
}

[Artie Gold]

Stanley S wrote:

Hi,

I'm puzzled. Why does the following cause a seg fault? Notwithstanding
that I've already malloc() a certain space for "Hello".

I do understand that using a fixed length array will work very well.
But I wish to find out how can this be achieve using pointers.

Thank you.

Stan

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> /* for the `str*' functions you call below */
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

char *Hello = NULL;
char *World = NULL;
Hello = malloc(100); Here you (most likely -- you really *should* error check) allocate 100
chars of memory to the pointer `Hello'... Hello = "hello"; ....which you promptly throw away (causing a memory leak) when you assign
the location of the literal string "hello" to it.

What you wanted was:
strcpy(Hello, "hello"); World = "world";
strcat(Hello, World);
printf("%s\n",Hello);

return 0;
}

HTH,
--ag

--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://goldsays.blogspot.com
http://www.cafepress.com/goldsays
"If you have nothing to hide, you're not trying!"

[Eric Sosman]

Stanley S wrote On 12/20/05 12:22,:

Hi,

I'm puzzled. Why does the following cause a seg fault? Notwithstanding
that I've already malloc() a certain space for "Hello".

I do understand that using a fixed length array will work very well.
But I wish to find out how can this be achieve using pointers.

Thank you.

Stan

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

char *Hello = NULL;
char *World = NULL;
Hello = malloc(100);
Now `Hello' points to an anonymous chunk of memory
big enough to hold 100 characters. (Assuming malloc()
succeeded, which you should have checked.)
Hello = "hello";
Now `Hello' points to a completely different piece
of memory, namely, a six-character array initialized
with 'h','e','l','l','o','\0'. It no longer points to
the memory obtained from malloc(). (As an aside, since
you no longer have any record of where that memory is,
you cannot find it even to free() it -- this is what's
known as a "memory leak.")

You probably wanted `strcpy(Hello, "hello");'.
World = "world";
strcat(Hello, World);
This attempts to append five more characters to the
six-character array, and there isn't room for them. The
effects are in general unpredictable; someday you will
come to appreciate how helpful a nice reproducible SIGSEGV
can be. You won't always be so lucky.
printf("%s\n",Hello);

return 0;
}

[Stanley S]

Thanks a million guys.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Stanley S <St***************@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks a million guys.

It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

Stanley S a écrit :

Hi,

I'm puzzled. Why does the following cause a seg fault? Notwithstanding
that I've already malloc() a certain space for "Hello".

I do understand that using a fixed length array will work very well.
But I wish to find out how can this be achieve using pointers.

Thank you.

Stan

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

char *Hello = NULL;
char *World = NULL;
Hello = malloc(100);
The value you have given to Hello is the address of an allocated block.
Hello = "hello";
Now, you are replacing this value by the address of a non mutable
string. Sounds nuts, isn't it ?
World = "world";
strcat(Hello, World);
Of course, the destination zone not being writable, the behaviour is
undefined. Anything can happen.

I suggest you consider a function to copy the string (say strcpy(), for
instance...)
printf("%s\n",Hello);

return 0;
}

--
A+

Emmanuel Delahaye

[Martin Ambuhl]

Stanley S wrote:

Hi,

I'm puzzled. Why does the following cause a seg fault? Notwithstanding
that I've already malloc() a certain space for "Hello".
And promptly lost it ...

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

char *Hello = NULL;
char *World = NULL;
Hello = malloc(100);
Hello = "hello";
You just overwrote the pointer Hello to point to the string literal
"hello". Not only have you now lost the pointer to the space allocated
in the previous line, but the string literal "hello" is not guaranteed
to be writable.
World = "world";
strcat(Hello, World);
Even if the string literal "hello" were writable, it is only 6 chars
long, so you are now trying to write into the non-allocated space beyond
the probably unwritable string "hello".
printf("%s\n",Hello);

return 0;
}

[Mark B]

"Christopher Benson-Manica" <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:do**********@chessie.cirr.com...

Stanley S <St***************@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks a million guys.
It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

<snip> ... Flames welcome.

You asked for it... ;-)

<ot rant>
Now you're just being an idiot...
Problem was obviously solved and he was thanking those who answered.
The 'relevant portions of the text' he was replying to are no longer
relevant.
Stop being a dumbass.

Btw: Where in the usenet etiquette does it state that it is acceptable to
repeatedly post instructions to people who don't follow what you deam to
be acceptable usenet etiquette?

</ot rant>

[Keith Thompson]

"Mark B" <so***@localbar.com> writes:
[...]

Btw: Where in the usenet etiquette does it state that it is acceptable to
repeatedly post instructions to people who don't follow what you deam to
be acceptable usenet etiquette?

We don't (usually) repeatedly post instructions to the same people.
We post instructions in response to people who probably haven't seen
them before. If you did a search for the authors of the parent
articles of all the followups containing Google instructions, I think
you'd find most of them are unique, and many of them get the message
and start to use Google properly.

See also <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Flash Gordon]

Mark B wrote:

"Christopher Benson-Manica" <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:do**********@chessie.cirr.com...

Stanley S <St***************@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks a million guys. It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

<snip>

... Flames welcome.

You asked for it... ;-)

<ot rant>
Now you're just being an idiot...

No, he is posting useful advice to those unfortunate enough to be using
Google for whatever reason.
Problem was obviously solved and he was thanking those who answered.
The 'relevant portions of the text' he was replying to are no longer
relevant.
Even then it is customary to at least leave a line or two in.
Stop being a dumbass.
There is no need to be insulting even if you disagree.
Btw: Where in the usenet etiquette does it state that it is acceptable to
repeatedly post instructions to people who don't follow what you deam to
be acceptable usenet etiquette?

It is not just what Christopher considers acceptable, it is normal
usenet etiquette. It is generally considered acceptable here to point
out normal posting conventions to those who are not aware of it, just as
it is considered acceptable to point people at the FAQ when the question
they ask is answered in the FAQ. You can tell it is generally considered
acceptable because a significant portion of the regulars do it and the
only regular poster I see complaining about it is a self acknowledged troll.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Mark B]

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:7b************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Mark B wrote:

"Christopher Benson-Manica" <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in
message news:do**********@chessie.cirr.com...

Stanley S <St***************@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip> ... Flames welcome.
You asked for it... ;-)

Tell me the stick isn't lodged that far up your ass...
you do realize my post was made in good humor, no?

<snip> There is no need to be insulting even if you disagree.
Is it possible to 'flame' someone without being insulting?
You can tell it is generally considered acceptable because a significant
portion of the regulars do it
Yes, I know... over and over and over again ;-)
and the only regular poster I see complaining about it is a self
acknowledged troll.

I've been posting (on and off) since 1999, albeit my email
address has changed a few times (and may need to be
changed yet again as sober@localbar is no longer valid.)

Granted I don't post daily, or even weekly if I don't have
anything to contribute (normally by the time I check OP
questions have already been answered...) but I still
consider myself a clc regular/poster.

I'd wager the average clc regular is tired of seeing the
'learn to quote in google' messages and would rather
that the 'proper posting enforcers' did like we do
(particularly with a msg such as the 'thank you' that
started this rant)... move on to the next message.

The reason you don't see more complaints is because
we know that it will only result in more crap that we
don't want to read.

That being said, let me be first to wish everyone a
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (in case I
don't post again between now and then - plan on
taking a few days off and don't typically check clc
when I'm not working ;-)

Be safe and enjoy the holidays.
Mark

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Mark B <so***@localbar.com> wrote:

I'd wager the average clc regular is tired of seeing the
'learn to quote in google' messages and would rather
that the 'proper posting enforcers' did like we do
(particularly with a msg such as the 'thank you' that
started this rant)... move on to the next message.
You'll notice that the vast majority of these messages (at least those
now coming from me, and from Keith and others) are identifiable from
their subject line. If you are using a reasonable newsreader,
filtering posts by subject is a trivial matter.
The reason you don't see more complaints is because
we know that it will only result in more crap that we
don't want to read.

It may also be that those who don't want to read it are in fact not
doing so. I sincerely hope you will see this post after your holiday,
since you seem to be suffering needlessly from a malady easily cured
by judicious use of newsreading software. Do enjoy yourself :-)

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Flash Gordon]

Mark B wrote:

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:7b************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Mark B wrote:

"Christopher Benson-Manica" <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in
message news:do**********@chessie.cirr.com...
Stanley S <St***************@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip> ... Flames welcome.
You asked for it... ;-)
Tell me the stick isn't lodged that far up your ass...
There isn't one, there is also no need for that language. It may well be
intended as humorous, but that is not the way it reads to me. It is
certainly something more often said in my experience when intending to
be insulting than when trying to be humorous.

Before you ask, yes I do have a sense of humour, it is just aligned
differently to yours.
you do realize my post was made in good humor, no?
It was not obvious that anything beyond the first line was intended as
humours.
<snip>

There is no need to be insulting even if you disagree.
Is it possible to 'flame' someone without being insulting?

Yes.
You can tell it is generally considered acceptable because a significant
portion of the regulars do it

Yes, I know... over and over and over again ;-)

and the only regular poster I see complaining about it is a self
acknowledged troll.

I've been posting (on and off) since 1999, albeit my email
address has changed a few times (and may need to be
changed yet again as sober@localbar is no longer valid.)

I actually checked on your name, not email address, and it was not
obvious to me that you have been around for a long time.
Granted I don't post daily, or even weekly if I don't have
anything to contribute (normally by the time I check OP
questions have already been answered...) but I still
consider myself a clc regular/poster.
Doesn't bother me either way. That would still only bring the total up
to two, which is fewer than the number of regulars posting such comments
or supporting them when the posts are challenged.
I'd wager the average clc regular is tired of seeing the
'learn to quote in google' messages and would rather
that the 'proper posting enforcers' did like we do
(particularly with a msg such as the 'thank you' that
started this rant)... move on to the next message.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the opinion
of some of us is that if the problem is not pointed out to people the
group will quickly become unusable to a number of us. I certainly would
not stay if the majority of the posts were context less or top posting.
The reason you don't see more complaints is because
we know that it will only result in more crap that we
don't want to read.
Entirely possible, after all it is generating more posts ;-)
That being said, let me be first to wish everyone a
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (in case I
don't post again between now and then - plan on
taking a few days off and don't typically check clc
when I'm not working ;-)

Be safe and enjoy the holidays.

Thanks.

Enjoy your holiday and anything you celebrate around this time.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Keith Thompson]

Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

Mark B <so***@localbar.com> wrote:

I'd wager the average clc regular is tired of seeing the
'learn to quote in google' messages and would rather
that the 'proper posting enforcers' did like we do
(particularly with a msg such as the 'thank you' that
started this rant)... move on to the next message.

You'll notice that the vast majority of these messages (at least those
now coming from me, and from Keith and others) are identifiable from
their subject line. If you are using a reasonable newsreader,
filtering posts by subject is a trivial matter.

Actually, I don't change the subject header when I post a followup.
On the other hand, I've shortened by Google advice to a single URL,
and I often combine it with a substantive response.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Actually, I don't change the subject header when I post a followup.
On the other hand, I've shortened by Google advice to a single URL,
and I often combine it with a substantive response.

My apologies for misrecollecting.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Keith Thompson]

Mark L Pappin <ml*@acm.org> writes:

"Mark B" <so***@localbar.com> writes:

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote: [...] I'd wager the average clc regular is tired of seeing the 'learn to
quote in google' messages and would rather that the 'proper posting
enforcers' did like we do (particularly with a msg such as the
'thank you' that started this rant)... move on to the next message.

I may not be average, but I'd rather that the myriad people at whom
the 'learn to quote in google' messages are aimed actually paid
attention to them BEFORE the next time they posted.

It's a faint hope.

A more realistic hope is that Google will listen to us and fix their
broken interface.

If you haven't already, please visit
<http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=features>
and vote for "Default quoting of previous message in replies".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.