Proper modularization technique

[drhowarddrfine]

I'm unsure the best way to do this. I want to call a function that
will generate a string to be used by the calling routine. Where is
the best place to store that string? iow:
1) Should I set aside an array in the calling routine and have the
function strcpy to that?
routine(){
char string[16];

called_function(string);
}

called_function(char* string){
strcpy(string,"string");
}

2) Make the string area static for the calling routine?
routine(){
char *string_pointer;
string_pointer=called_function();
}

char* called_function(char* string){
static char string[16];
strcpy(string,"string");
return string;
}

3) Make the string area global to that file?
char string[16];

calling_routine(){called_function();}
called_function(){strcpy(string,"string");}

Part 2 of this would be, I have a whole bunch of these small routines
that need less than 256 bytes of memory for storing such strings.
Would it be better to just malloc to acquire the memory for that and
then release it? Does that cause relative program slow down doing all
that acquire/releasing?

[maverik]

On Nov 10, 7:51*pm, drhowarddrfine <[e-mail]:

I'm unsure the best way to do this. *I want to call a function that
will generate a string to be used by the calling routine. *Where is
the best place to store that string?

There are many variants accroding to your application design at all.
IMHO, as I understand your ideas, you can just store string within
calling function and just return pointer:

void
routine() {
char *processed = called_function(*processed);
// you can ignore return value
// char *processed;
// called_function(*processed);
...
// code goes here
...
// Of course you must free the memory
free(processed);
}

char*
called_function(char * str) {
// allocates memory
strncpy(str, "YourString", ...) ;
return str;
}

[maverik]

First, I mistyped

* * // called_function(*processed);

I mean // called_function(processed);

Second, I think that seperating allocation and deallocation is not a
good idea. May be you should store string within the caller:

void
routine() {
char *processed = malloc(...);
if(processed == NULL) { ... }

// Of course you may write
// char processed[123];

called_function(processed);
...
// code goes here
...

// In case of malloc
free(processed);
}

void
called_function(char * str) {
strcpy(str, "YourString") ;
}

What others say?

[Eric Sosman]

drhowarddrfine wrote:

I'm unsure the best way to do this. I want to call a function that
will generate a string to be used by the calling routine. Where is
the best place to store that string? iow:

Much depends on your definition of "best" ...

1) Should I set aside an array in the calling routine and have the
function strcpy to that?
routine(){
char string[16];

called_function(string);
}

called_function(char* string){
strcpy(string,"string");
}

This works if `16' (which probably ought to be a #define) is
easily predictable and not over-large. The utility of returning
a pointer to the string -- something the caller already knows --
is questionable.

An important variant is to let the caller manage the storage
*and* tell the called routine how much there is:

routine() {
char string[HOWMANY];
called_function(string, sizeof string);
}

char *called_function(char *string, size_t size) {
if (strlen("string") < size) {
strcpy(string, "string");
return string;
}
return NULL; /* means "not enough room" */
}

2) Make the string area static for the calling routine?
routine(){
char *string_pointer;
string_pointer=called_function();
}

char* called_function(char* string){

Where did the argument come from? Copy-and-paste error?

static char string[16];
strcpy(string,"string");
return string;
}

This works if you never need more than one returned value
at a time (or if the value is the same every time). It would
not work well if done this way:

char *called_function(int answer){
static char string[16];
strcpy(string, answer == 42 ? "Right!" : "Rong!");
return string;
}
...
printf ("%s %s\n", called_function(42), called_function(24));

3) Make the string area global to that file?
char string[16];

calling_routine(){called_function();}
called_function(){strcpy(string,"string");}

Same drawback as (2), plus the additional drawbacks of global
variables. Globals *are* useful, sometimes, but they are very
easy to overuse and can engender maintenance nightmares. Avoid
them unless they're unavoidable.

Part 2 of this would be, I have a whole bunch of these small routines
that need less than 256 bytes of memory for storing such strings.
Would it be better to just malloc to acquire the memory for that and
then release it? Does that cause relative program slow down doing all
that acquire/releasing?

"We follow two rules in the matter of optimization:
Rule 1. Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only). Don't do it yet - that is, not
until you have a perfecly clear and unoptimized solution."
-- M.A. Jackson

It is likely that all of the approaches you mention will be faster
than managing the memory with malloc() and free(). But here's the
crucial question: Will their speed be enough greater to make up for
their other drawbacks, or even enough to notice? Keep in mind all the
other things your program is (presumably) doing, and ask yourself
whether there might be something more important to fret about ...

Giving your car a fresh coat of wax might reduce air resistance
and improve the fuel economy, but taking the boat trailer off the
back will probably improve it more.

--
Er*********@sun.com

[s0suk3]

On Nov 10, 11:51*am, drhowarddrfine <ro*******@gmail.comwrote:

I'm unsure the best way to do this. *I want to call a function that
will generate a string to be used by the calling routine. *Where is
the best place to store that string? *iow:
1) Should I set aside an array in the calling routine and have the
function strcpy to that?

No, because

- the way you wrote it, called_function() will have no way to know
how large the passed array is, and thus is likely to write pass the
end of it. Of course, this is easily fixed by having the function
accept an extra argument that represents the array size, but then
there's the possibility that
- the function might need to store more characters than the array
can hold, thus causing truncation. If truncation isn't a problem
(e.g., you can still get the remaining data in a future call, as with
fgets()), then this is a good way to go.

2) Make the string area static for the calling routine?

No, because

- if your application is multi-threaded, this will break things;
- you can't have the function generate two or more strings and hold
them at the same time (in other words, calling the function will
modify what was previously on the array, even if you still need it);
- there's still the issue of truncation.

3) Make the string area global to that file?

No, because

- "global variables are evil." :-)

Would it be better to just malloc to acquire the memory for that and
then release it? *Does that cause relative program slow down doing all
that acquire/releasing?

That has the advantage that you can call realloc() to make the buffer
as large as necessary. And yes, allocating on the heap is generally
slower than allocating on the stack, but you probably don't need to
worry about that unless you're doing micro-optimization.

Sebastian

[drhowarddrfine]

Thanks guys. You verified what I was thinking. My sample code above
was just to give a view of what I was trying to say though I may have
confused a little with some omissions.