By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,395 Members | 2,541 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,395 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

passing pointer to function - modify in different function not working

P: n/a
Hi all,
What I am trying to do is to pass a pointer to the first element of
an array to a function, modify it in that function, and then print out
the values of the array (which has been modified by the function) in
main. However, I am getting a segmentation fault. Here is the code:
(Please note, the size is fixed in this code, but in my code where I am
actually going to use this, the size of the array is not known until
you get to the modify function which is why I am using pointer
notation).

#include <stdio.h>

void modifiy( int* nums );

int main() {
int* nums;
int i;

for (i=0; i < 5; i++) {
printf("%d", nums[i]);
}

}

void modify( int* nums ) {
int i;
nums = (int*)malloc( 5*sizeof(int));
for (i=0; i < 5; i++) {
nums[i] = i;
}
}

Once I can get this to work, I want to do the same thing w/ double
arrays, so if there are any pitfalls associated with that, any help
would be greatly appreciated.

thanks!

Jan 18 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a
"Kiran" <Ki*********@gmail.comwrites:
int main() {
int* nums;
int i;

for (i=0; i < 5; i++) {
printf("%d", nums[i]);
}
You should return a value from main(), probably 0.
}

void modify( int* nums ) {
int i;
nums = (int*)malloc( 5*sizeof(int));
I don't recommend casting the return value of malloc():

* The cast is not required in ANSI C.

* Casting its return value can mask a failure to #include
<stdlib.h>, which leads to undefined behavior.

* If you cast to the wrong type by accident, odd failures can
result.

In unusual circumstances it may make sense to cast the return value of
malloc(). P. J. Plauger, for example, has good reasons to want his
code to compile as both C and C++, and C++ requires the cast, as he
explained in article <9s*****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>.
However, Plauger's case is rare indeed. Most programmers should write
their code as either C or C++, not in the intersection of the two.

When calling malloc(), I recommend using the sizeof operator on
the object you are allocating, not on the type. For instance,
*don't* write this:

int *x = malloc (128 * sizeof (int)); /* Don't do this! */

Instead, write it this way:

int *x = malloc (128 * sizeof *x);

There's a few reasons to do it this way:

* If you ever change the type that `x' points to, it's not
necessary to change the malloc() call as well.

This is more of a problem in a large program, but it's still
convenient in a small one.

* Taking the size of an object makes writing the statement
less error-prone. You can verify that the sizeof syntax is
correct without having to look at the declaration.

for (i=0; i < 5; i++) {
nums[i] = i;
}
}
Your real problem is in the FAQ:

4.8: I have a function which accepts, and is supposed to initialize,
a pointer:

void f(int *ip)
{
static int dummy = 5;
ip = &dummy;
}

But when I call it like this:

int *ip;
f(ip);

the pointer in the caller remains unchanged.

A: Are you sure the function initialized what you thought it did?
Remember that arguments in C are passed by value. The called
function altered only the passed copy of the pointer. You'll
either want to pass the address of the pointer (the function
will end up accepting a pointer-to-a-pointer), or have the
function return the pointer.

See also questions 4.9 and 4.11.

--
"Large amounts of money tend to quench any scruples I might be having."
-- Stephan Wilms
Jan 18 '07 #2

P: n/a
Ben Pfaff writes:
Your real problem is in the FAQ:
He'd also be a step closer if main() actually called modify() :-)

--
Hallvard
Jan 18 '07 #3

P: n/a
Hi all,
first of all thanks for your responses.
yes, i forgot to put that in (and also the function prototype is
misspelled), but the result is the same, and after reading the faq, i
think i understand why its going wrong, but not how to fix it.

This is my understanding.
The pointer itself is a variable, in this case containing the address
of the first element in the array called nums, so when i pass modify
nums, the function modify gets its own copy of where nums in main
points to? (but if thats the case, shouldnt they both still point to
the same thing?) I think I am confusing myself here.

anyway, thanks again for all of yoru help.

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Ben Pfaff writes:
Your real problem is in the FAQ:

He'd also be a step closer if main() actually called modify() :-)

--
Hallvard
Jan 18 '07 #4

P: n/a
Kiran writes:
This is my understanding.
The pointer itself is a variable, in this case containing the address
of the first element in the array called nums, so when i pass modify
nums, the function modify gets its own copy of where nums in main
points to? (but if thats the case, shouldnt they both still point to
the same thing?) I think I am confusing myself here.
If you allocate the memory in main(), yes. Or if you just declare
int nums[5];
or whatever in main().

If you allocate 'nums' in modify(), then when you modify the pointer
in that function, the change doesn't affect 'nums' in main(). Unless
you return 'nums' from modify() and do 'nums = modify()' in main,
or if you do
void modify(int **nums_ptr);
and call it as
main(&nums);

--
Hallvard
Jan 18 '07 #5

P: n/a
Kiran wrote:
Hi all,
first of all thanks for your responses.
Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Jan 18 '07 #6

P: n/a
Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.eduwrote:
I don't recommend casting the return value of malloc():
Neither does the FAQ: http://c-faq.com/malloc/cast.html (Not to say
that your explanation wasn't excellent, just possibly unnecessary.)

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jan 18 '07 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.