I'm getting a memory access violation which i am not able to figure out. I am guessing my syntax might be wrong somewhere. Here is my code
load(double **pDouble)
{
int size;
//pStruct is returned by a method of some object inside load
// arr is an array of double, also member of struct pointed by pStruct.
size = sizeof(pStruct->arr)/sizeof(double);
*pDouble = new double[size];
for(int i = 0 ; i < size; i++)
{
*pDouble[i] = pStruct->arr[i];
//the violation occurs for the second iteration of
// the loop
}
}
What could be causing the access violation?
Array indexing binds more tightly than pointer dereferencing. You probably meant:
(*pDouble)[i] = pStruct->arr[i];
There may be other errors though.
Related
In my program, I store objective-c objects in a c array, like this
va_start(list, o);
retval->objs = malloc(SIZE * count);
retval->objs[0] = (__bridge void *)o;
for (int i = 1; i < count; i++)
{
id o = va_arg(list, id);
retval->objs[i] = (__bridge void *)o;
}
va_end(list);
(count is a number containing how many objects will be added; that value is always correct)
objs is a void ** and is part of retval, which is a pointer to a struct. As of now, SIZE is defined as 100. Increasing and decreasing that had no effect.
As you can see, I bridge o to a void *, as I have to. objs, when all the objects are added, contains 3 objective-c objects. When I try to access a value like this
void *obj = CLArrayObjectAtIndex(_arr, ind);
return (__bridge id)obj;
this is the CLArrayObjectAtIndex() function
void *CLArrayObjectAtIndex(CLArrayType *arr, int ind)
{
void *o = arr->objs[ind];
if (o)
return o;
else
perror("Attempt to access NULL object or index out of bounds."), abort();
}
if the index (ind) is 0, it works. If the index is 1, the program crashes when it returns in main. If the index is 2, the program crashes as soon as I try to access it. If the index is 1, the value returned above is correct, but when the program crashes on return it is nil.
If the index is 1, the EXC_BAD_ACCESS code is 1; if the index is 2, the code is EXC_I386_GPFLT, a general protection fault. I already checked here for an explanation of this exception, although I couldn't find anything helpful. So, does anybody see why this error may be occurring?
when you store obj-c objects in C array don't just bridge cast them since that way arc doesn't know they are still used and releases them. __bridge_retain them so they stay around later, when you free the array __bridge_transfer them to give them back to ARC
also don't define size as 100.. sizeof(id) should work. You only need to store pointers
I am getting some memory access violation while execute the following code:
UINT cDims = 1;
SAFEARRAYBOUND rgsabound[1];
long lLbound = 0;
long lUbound = 0;
rgsabound[0].lLbound = 0;
rgsabound[0].cElements = pList1->rgsabound[0].cElements + pList2->rgsabound[0].cElements;
SAFEARRAY* mergeResult = SafeArrayCreate(VT_DISPATCH, cDims, reinterpret_cast<SAFEARRAYBOUND*>(rgsabound));
// Obtain bounds information of the SAFEARRAY.
SafeArrayGetLBound(pList2, 1, &lLbound);
SafeArrayGetUBound(pList2, 1, &lUbound);
long lDimSize = lUbound - lLbound + 1;
GoldMineConstantContactCOM::IBounceActivityPtr ptrActivity;
SafeArrayCopy(pList1, &mergeResult);
rgsabound[0].lLbound = 0;
rgsabound[0].cElements = pList1->rgsabound[0].cElements + pList2->rgsabound[0].cElements;
SafeArrayRedim(mergeResult, rgsabound);
for (int i = 0; i < lDimSize; i++)
{
long rgIndices[1];
rgIndices[0] = i;
HRESULT hRes2 = SafeArrayGetElement(pList2, rgIndices, &ptrActivity);
rgIndices[0] = rgIndices[0] + pList1->rgsabound[0].cElements;
HRESULT hRes = SafeArrayPutElement(mergeResult, rgIndices, (void*)&ptrActivity);
}
return mergeResult;
The message I got is: Unhandled exception at 0x774115de : 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x00000004.
Any help will be very helpful!
Thanks in advance
Regards,
Fabian
The & in SafeArrayCopy(pList1, &mergeResult); raised suspicions that the documentation confirmed: The function does not copy from the source array to your allocated one, it overwrites the pointer (leaking it) with a new array of the same dimension. However, your call to SafeArrayRedim appears to take care of (part of) the problem.
Also, you take care of retrieving the lower bound of pList2, but you don't use it during the actual copy.
Then, I'm not sure the smart pointer is used exactly right. I think maybe you should put its declaration inside the loop.
Finally, I think I've found the real culprit: The documentation of SafeArrayPutElement say:
The variant types VT_DISPATCH, VT_UNKNOWN, and VT_BSTR are pointers, and do not require another level of indirection.
Which means you should remove the & in (void*)&ptrActivity.
here is a part of my program code:
int test;
for(uint i = 0; i < 1700; i++) {
test++;
}
the whole program takes 0.5 seconds to finish, but when I change it to:
int test[1];
for(uint i = 0; i < 1700; i++) {
test[0]++;
}
it will takes 3.5 seconds! and when I change the int to double, it will gets very worse:
double test;
for(uint i = 0; i < 1700; i++) {
test++;
}
it will takes about 18 seconds to finish !!!
I have to increase an int array element and a double variable in my real for loop, and it will takes about 30 seconds!
What's happening here?! Why should it takes that much time for just an increment?!
I know a floating point data type like double has different structure from a fixed point data type like int, but is it the only cause for such a big different time? and what about the second example which is also an int array element?!
Thanks
You have answered your question yourself.
float (double) operations are different from integer ones. Even if you just add 1.0f.
Your second example takes longer than the first one just because you added some pointer refernces. An array in C is -bottom down- not much different from a pointer to the first element. Accessing any element, even the first one, would cause the machine code to load the starting address of the array multiply the index (0 in this case) with the length of each member (4 or whatever bytes int has) and add that (0) to the pointer. Then it has to dereference the pointer, meaning to acutally load the value at that very address. Add one and write back the result.
A smart modern compiler should optimize this a bit. When you want to avoid this optimization, then modify the code a bit and don`t use a constant for the index.
I never tried that with a modern objective-c compiler. But I guess that this code would take much loger than 3.5s to run:
int test[2];
int index = 0;
for(uint i = 0; i < 1700; i++) {
test[index]++;
}
If that does not make much of a change then try this:
-(void)foo:(int)index {
int test[2];
for(uint i = 0; i < 1700; i++) {
test[index]++;
}
}
and then call foo:0;
Give it a try and let us know :)
-(void)InitWithPwd:(char *)pPwd
{
char szResult[17];
//generate md5 checksum
CC_MD5(pPwd, strlen(pPwd),&szResult[0]);
szResult[16] = 0;
m_csPasswordHash[0]=0;
for(int i = 0;i < 16;i++)
{
char sz[3] = {'\0'};
//crash in blow row. The first pass is ok. The third pass crash.
//I can't understand.
sprintf(&sz[0],"%2.2x",szResult[i]);
strcat(m_csPasswordHash,sz);
}
m_csPasswordHash[32] = 0;
printf("pass:%s\n",m_csPasswordHash);
m_ucPacketType = 1;
}
I want to get the md5 of the password. But above code crash again and again. I can't understand why.
Your buffer (sz) is too small, causing sprintf() to generate a buffer overflow which leads to undefined behavior, in your case a crash.
Note that szResult[1] might be a negative value when viewed as an int (which happens when passing a char-type value to sprintf()), which can cause sprintf() to disregard your field width and precision directives in order to format the full value.
Here is an example showing this problem. The example code is written in C, but that shouldn't matter for this case.
This solves the problem by making sure the incoming data is considered unsigned:
sprintf(sz, "%02x", (unsigned char) szResult[i]);
I'm having trouble implementing realloc in a very basic way.
I'm trying to expand the region of memory at **ret, which is pointing to an array of structs
with ret = realloc(ret, newsize); and based on my debug strings I know newsize is correctly increasing over the course of the loop (going from the original size of 4 to 8 to 12 etc.), but when I do sizeof(ptr) it's still returning the original size of 4, and the things I'm trying to place into the newly allocated space can't be found (I think I've narrowed it down to realloc() which is why I'm formatting the question like this)
I can post the function in it's entirety if the problem isn't immediately evident to you, I'm just trying to not "cheat" with my homework too much (the code is kind of messy right now anyway, with heavy use of printf() for debug).
[EDIT] Alright, so based on your answers I'm failing at debugging my code, so I guess I'll post the whole function so you can tell me more about what I'm doing wrong.
(You can ignore the printf()'s since most of that is debug that isn't even working)
Booking **bookingSelectPaid(Booking **booking) {
Booking **ret = malloc(sizeof(Booking*));
printf("Initial address of ret = %p\n", ret);
size_t i = 0;
int numOfPaid = 0;
while (booking[i] != NULL)
{
if (booking[i]->paid == 1)
{
printf("Paying customer! sizeof(Booking*) = %d\n", (int)sizeof(Booking*));
++numOfPaid;
size_t newsize = sizeof(Booking*) * (numOfPaid + 1);
printf("Newsize = %d\n", (int)newsize);
Booking **temp = realloc(NULL, (size_t)newsize);
if (temp != NULL)
printf("Expansion success! => %p sizeof(new pointer) = %d ret = %p\n", temp, (int)sizeof(temp), ret);
ret = realloc(ret, newsize);
ret[i] = booking[i];
ret[i+1] = NULL;
}
++i;
printf("Sizeof(ret) = %d numOfPaid = %d\n", (int)sizeof(ret), numOfPaid);
}
return ret; }
[EDIT2] --> http://pastebin.com/xjzUBmPg
[EDIT3] Just to be clear, the printf's, the temp pointer and things of that nature are debug, and not part of the intended functionality. The line that is puzzling me is either the one with realloc(ret, newsize); or ret[i] = booking[i]
Basically I know for sure that booking contains a table of structs that ends in NULL, and I'm trying to bring the ones that have a specific value set to 1 (paid) onto the new table, which is what my main() is trying to get from this function... So where am I going wrong?
I think the problem here is that your sizeof(ptr) only returns the size of the pointer, which will depend on your architecture (you say 4, so that would mean you're running a 32-bit system).
If you allocate memory dynamically, you have to keep track of its size yourself.
Because sizeof(ptr) returns the size of the pointer, not the allocated size
Yep, sizeof(ptr) is a constant. As the other answer says, depends on the architecture. On a 32 bit architecture it will be 4 and on a 64 bit architecture it will be 8. If you need more help with questions like that this homework help web site can be great for you.
Good luck.