Hi all I am having a strange issue, when i use scanf to input data it repeats strings and saves them as one i am not sure why.
Please Help
/* Assment Label loop - Loops through the assment labels and inputs the percentage and the name for it. */
i = 0;
j = 0;
while (i < totalGradedItems)
{
scanf("%s%d", assLabel[i], &assPercent[i]);
i++;
}
/* Print Statement */
i = 0;
while (i < totalGradedItems)
{
printf("%s", assLabel[i]);
i++;
}
Input Data
Prog1 20
Quiz 20
Prog2 20
Mdtm 15
Final 25
Output Via Console
Prog1QuizQuizProg2MdtmMdtmFinal
Final diagnosis
You don't show your declarations...but you must be allocating just 5 characters for the strings:
When I adjust the enum MAX_ASSESSMENTLEN from 10 to 5 (see the code below) I get the output:
Prog1Quiz 20
Quiz 20
Prog2Mdtm 20
Mdtm 15
Final 25
You did not allow for the terminal null. And you didn't show us what was causing the bug! And the fact that you omitted newlines from the printout obscured the problem.
What's happening is that 'Prog1' is occupying all 5 bytes of the string you read in, and is writing a null at the 6th byte; then Quiz is being read in, starting at the sixth byte.
When printf() goes to read the string for 'Prog1', it stops at the first null, which is the one after the 'z' of 'Quiz', producing the output shown. Repeat for 'Prog2' and 'Mtdm'. If there was an entry after 'Final', it too would suffer. You are lucky that there are enough zero bytes around to prevent any monstrous overruns.
This is a basic buffer overflow (indeed, since the array is on the stack, it is a basic Stack Overflow); you are trying to squeeze 6 characters (Prog1 plus '\0') into a 5 byte space, and it simply does not work well.
Preliminary diagnosis
First, print newlines after your data.
Second, check that scanf() is not returning errors - it probably isn't, but neither you nor we can tell for sure.
Third, are you sure that the data file contains what you say? Plausibly, it contains a pair of 'Quiz' and a pair of 'Mtdm' lines.
Your variable j is unused, incidentally.
You would probably be better off having the input loop run until you are either out of space in the receiving arrays or you get a read failure. However, the code worked for me when dressed up slightly:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
{
char assLabel[10][10];
int assPercent[10];
int i = 0;
int totalGradedItems = 5;
while (i < totalGradedItems)
{
if (scanf("%9s%d", assLabel[i], &assPercent[i]) != 2)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error reading\n");
exit(1);
}
i++;
}
/* Print Statement */
i = 0;
while (i < totalGradedItems)
{
printf("%-9s %3d\n", assLabel[i], assPercent[i]);
i++;
}
return 0;
}
For the quoted input data, the output results are:
Prog1 20
Quiz 20
Prog2 20
Mdtm 15
Final 25
I prefer this version, though:
#include <stdio.h>
enum { MAX_GRADES = 10 };
enum { MAX_ASSESSMENTLEN = 10 };
int main(void)
{
char assLabel[MAX_GRADES][MAX_ASSESSMENTLEN];
int assPercent[MAX_GRADES];
int i = 0;
int totalGradedItems;
for (i = 0; i < MAX_GRADES; i++)
{
if (scanf("%9s%d", assLabel[i], &assPercent[i]) != 2)
break;
}
totalGradedItems = i;
for (i = 0; i < totalGradedItems; i++)
printf("%-9s %3d\n", assLabel[i], assPercent[i]);
return 0;
}
Of course, if I'd set up the scanf() format string 'properly' (meaning safely) so as to limit the length of the assessment names to fit into the space allocated, then the loop would stop reading on the second attempt:
...
char format[10];
...
snprintf(format, sizeof(format), "%%%ds%%d", MAX_ASSESSMENTLEN-1);
...
if (scanf(format, assLabel[i], &assPercent[i]) != 2)
With MAX_ASSESSMENTLEN at 5, the snprintf() generates the format string "%4s%d". The code compiled reads:
Prog 1
and stops. The '1' comes from the 5th character of 'Prog1'; the next assessment name is '20', and then the conversion of 'Quiz' into a number fails, causing the input loop to stop (because only one of two expected items was converted).
Despite the nuisance value, if you want to make your scanf() strings adjust to the size of the data variables it is reading into, you have to do something akin to what I did here - format the string using the correct size values.
i guess, you need to put a
scanf("%s%d", assLabel[i], &assPercent[i]);
space between %s and %d here.
And it is not saving as one. You need to put newline or atlease a space after %s on print to see difference.
add:
when i tried
#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
char a[1][2];
for(int i =0;i<3;i++)
scanf("%s",a[i]);
for(int i =0;i<3;i++)
printf("%s",a[i]);
return 0;
}
with inputs
123456
qwerty
sdfgh
output is:
12qwsdfghqwsdfghsdfgh
that proves that, the size of string array need to be bigger then decleared there.
Related
I have this piece of c/c++ code:
void * myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
int start = atoi((char*)vargp) % nFracK;
printf("Thread start = %d, dQ = %d\n", start, dQ);
pthread_mutex_lock(&nItermutex);
nIter++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&nItermutex);
}
void Opt() {
pthread_t thread[200];
char start[100];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sprintf(start, "%d", i);
int ret = pthread_create (&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun, (void*) start);
printf("ret = %d on thread %d\n", ret, i);
}
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
pthread_join(thread[i], NULL);
}
But it should create 10 threads. I don't understand why, instead, it creates n < 10 threads.
The ret value is always 0 (for 10 times).
But it should create 10 threads. I don't understand why, instead, it creates n < 10 threads. The ret value is always 0 (for 10 times).
Your program contains at least one data race, therefore its behavior is undefined.
The provided source is also is incomplete, so it's impossible to be sure that I can test the same thing you are testing. Nevertheless, I performed the minimum augmentation needed for g++ to compile it without warnings, and tested that:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#include <pthread.h>
pthread_mutex_t nItermutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
const int nFracK = 100;
const int dQ = 4;
int nIter = 0;
void * myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
int start = atoi((char*)vargp) % nFracK;
printf("Thread start = %d, dQ = %d\n", start, dQ);
pthread_mutex_lock(&nItermutex);
nIter++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&nItermutex);
return NULL;
}
void Opt() {
pthread_t thread[200];
char start[100];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sprintf(start, "%d", i);
int ret = pthread_create (&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun, (void*) start);
printf("ret = %d on thread %d\n", ret, i);
}
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
pthread_join(thread[i], NULL);
}
int main(void) {
Opt();
return 0;
}
The fact that its behavior is undefined notwithstanding, when I run this program on my Linux machine, it invariably prints exactly ten "Thread start" lines, albeit not all with distinct numbers. The most plausible conclusion is that the program indeed does start ten (additional) threads, which is consistent with the fact that the output also seems to indicate that each call to pthread_create() indicates success by returning 0. I therefore reject your assertion that fewer than ten threads are actually started.
Presumably, the followup question would be why the program does not print the expected output, and here we return to the data race and accompanying undefined behavior. The main thread writes a text representation of iteration variable i into local array data of function Opt, and passes a pointer to that same array to each call to pthread_create(). When it then cycles back to do it again, there is a race between the newly created thread trying to read back the data and the main thread overwriting the array's contents with new data. I suppose that your idea was to avoid passing &i, but this is neither better nor fundamentally different.
You have several options for avoiding a data race in such a situation, prominent among them being:
initialize each thread indirectly from a different object, for example:
int start[10];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
start[i] = i;
int ret = pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun, &start[i]);
}
Note there that each thread is passed a pointer to a different array element, which the main thread does not subsequently modify.
initialize each thread directly from the value passed to it. This is not always a viable alternative, but it is possible in this case:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
start[i] = i;
int ret = pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun,
reinterpret_cast<void *>(static_cast<std::intptr_t>(i)));
}
accompanied by corresponding code in the thread function:
int start = reinterpret_cast<std::intptr_t>(vargp) % nFracK;
This is a fairly common idiom, though more often used when writing in pthreads's native language, C, where it's less verbose.
Use a mutex, semaphore, or other synchronization object to prevent the main thread from modifying the array before the child has read it. (Left as an exercise.)
Any of those options can be used to write a program that produces the expected output, with each thread responsible for printing one line. Supposing, of course, that the expectations of the output do not include that the relative order of the threads' outputs will be the same as the relative order in which they were started. If you want that, then only the option of synchronizing the parent and child threads will achieve it.
I am using QInputDialog::getText to allow the user to input a string. The user should enter an arbitrary number of comma separated integers.
Then I would like to check if there is a duplicate.
In order to convert the input to integers, I have tried the following:
Split the input into a list using the QString::split with comma as an argument
Iterate over the elements of the QStringList
for (int i = 1; i <= list.count(); i++)
{
list.at(i).toInt();
}
The loop leads to a crash.
How to fix this?
Cause
Because the element index in the list is zero-based, i.e. starts from 0 and runs up to count - 1, your loop tries to access a non-existing element with index count and your program crashes.
Solution
Either change
for (int i = 1; i <= list.count(); i++)
to
for (int i = 0; i < list.count(); i++)
or even better, use a ranged for
for (const QString &substr : list)
Then use QList::takeFirst() and QList::contains in a while loop to check for duplicates.
Example
Here is an example I have prepared for you:
#include <QApplication>
#include <QInputDialog>
#include <QMessageBox>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
QApplication a(argc, argv);
const QString &str(QInputDialog::getText(nullptr, "Input integers",
"Enter comma separated integers."
" Do not use spaces."));
QList<int> numbers;
bool hasDuplicate = false;
for (const QString &substr : str.split(','))
numbers.append(substr.toInt());
while (numbers.count() && !hasDuplicate)
hasDuplicate = numbers.contains(numbers.takeFirst);
QMessageBox::information(nullptr, "Result",
hasDuplicate ? "There is at least one duplicate"
: "All numbers are unique");
return 0;
}
Result
For the example input of
11,22,33
this message is shown
For the example input of
11,22,33,22
this message is shown
I'm just an amateur programmer...
And when reading, for the second time, and more than two years apart, kochan's "Programming in Objective-C", now the 6th ed., reaching the pointer chapter i tried to revive the old days when i started programming with C...
So, i tried to program a reverse C string function, using char pointers...
At the end i got the desired result, but... got also a very strange behavior, i cannot explain with my little programming experience...
First the code:
This is a .m file,
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import "*pathToFolder*/NSPrint.m"
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
#autoreleasepool
{
char * reverseString(char * str);
char *ch;
if (argc < 2)
{
NSPrint(#"No word typed in the command line!");
return 1;
}
NSPrint(#"Reversing arguments:");
for (int i = 1; argv[i]; i++)
{
ch = reverseString(argv[i]);
printf("%s\n", ch);
//NSPrint(#"%s - %s", argv[i], ch);
}
}
return 0;
}
char * reverseString(char * str)
{
int size = 0;
for ( ; *(str + size) != '\0'; size++) ;
//printf("Size: %i\n", size);
char result[size + 1];
int i = 0;
for (size-- ; size >= 0; size--, i++)
{
result[i] = *(str + size);
//printf("%c, %c\n", result[i], *(str + size));
}
result[i] = '\0';
//printf("result location: %lu\n", result);
//printf("%s\n", result);
return result;
}
Second some notes:
This code is compiled in a MacBook Pro, with MAC OS X Maverick, with CLANG (clang -fobjc-arc $file_name -o $file_name_base)
That NSPrint is just a wrapper for printf to print a NSString constructed with stringWithFormat:arguments:
And third the strange behavior:
If I uncomment all those commented printf declarations, everything work just fine, i.e., all printf functions print what they have to print, including the last printf inside main function.
If I uncomment one, and just one, randomly chosen, of those comment printf functions, again everything work just fine, and I got the correct printf results, including the last printf inside main function.
If I leave all those commented printf functions as they are, I GOT ONLY BLANK LINES with the last printf inside main block, and one black line for each argument passed...
Worst, if I use that NSPrint function inside main, instead of the printf one, I get the desired result :!
Can anyone bring some light here please :)
You're returning a local array, that goes out of scope as the function exits. Dereferencing that memory causes undefined behavior.
You are returning a pointer to a local variable of the function that was called. When that function returns, the memory for the local variable becomes invalid, and the pointer returned is rubbish.
I'm doing a small app for evaluating and analyzing transfer functions. As boring as the subject might seem to some, I want it to at least look extra cool and pro and awesome etc... So:
Step 1: Gimme teh coefficients! [A bunch of numbers]
Step 2: I'll write the polynomial with its superscripts. [The bunch of numbers in a string]
So, I write a little C parser to just print the polynomial with a decent format, for that I require a wchar_t string that I concatenate on the fly. After the string is complete I quickly try printing it on the console to check everything is ok and keep going. Easy right? Welp, I ain't that lucky...
wchar_t *polynomial_description( double *polyArray, char size, char var ){
wchar_t *descriptionString, temp[100];
int len, counter = 0;
SUPERSCRIPT superscript;
descriptionString = (wchar_t *) malloc(sizeof(wchar_t) * 2);
descriptionString[0] = '\0';
while( counter < size ){
superscript = polynomial_utilities_superscript( size - counter );
len = swprintf(temp, 100, L"%2.2f%c%c +", polyArray[counter], var, superscript);
printf("temp size: %d\n", len);
descriptionString = (wchar_t *) realloc(descriptionString, sizeof(wchar_t) * (wcslen(descriptionString) + len + 1) );
wcscat(descriptionString, temp);
counter++;
}
//fflush(stdout); //Already tried this
len = wprintf(L"%ls\n", descriptionString);
len = printf("%ls**\n", descriptionString);
len = fprintf(stdout, "%ls*\n", descriptionString);
len = printf("FFS!! Print something!");
return descriptionString;
}
During the run we can see temp size: 8 printed the expected number of times ONLY WHILE DEBUGGING, if I run the program I get an arbitrary number of prints each run. But after that, as the title states, wprintf, printf and fprintf don't print anything, yet len does change its size after each call.
In the caller function, (application:(UIApplication *)application didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:, while testing) I put an NSLog to print the return string, and I dont get ANYTHING not even the Log part.
What's happening? I'm at a complete loss.
Im on XCode 4.2 by the way.
What's the return value from printf/wprintf in the case where you think it's not printing anything? It should be returning either -1 in the case of a failure or 1 or more, since if successful, it should always print at least the newline character after the description string.
If it's returning 1 or more, is the newline getting printed? Have you tried piping the output of your program to a hex dumper such as hexdump -C or xxd(1)?
If it's returning -1, what is the value of errno?
If it turns out that printf is failing with the error EILSEQ, then what's quite likely happening is that your string contains some non-ASCII characters in it, since those cause wcstombs(3) to fail in the default C locale. In that case, the solution is to use setlocale(3) to switch into a UTF-8 locale when your program starts up:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
// Run "locale -a" in the Terminal to get a list of all valid locales
setlocale(LC_ALL, "en_US.UTF-8");
...
}
I was recently asked to complete a task for a c++ role, however as the application was decided not to be progressed any further I thought that I would post here for some feedback / advice / improvements / reminder of concepts I've forgotten.
The task was:
The following data is a time series of integer values
int timeseries[32] = {67497, 67376, 67173, 67235, 67057, 67031, 66951,
66974, 67042, 67025, 66897, 67077, 67082, 67033, 67019, 67149, 67044,
67012, 67220, 67239, 66893, 66984, 66866, 66693, 66770, 66722, 66620,
66579, 66596, 66713, 66852, 66715};
The series might be, for example, the closing price of a stock each day
over a 32 day period.
As stored above, the data will occupy 32 x sizeof(int) bytes = 128 bytes
assuming 4 byte ints.
Using delta encoding , write a function to compress, and a function to
uncompress data like the above.
Ok, so before this point I had never looked at compression so my solution is far from perfect. The manner in which I approached the problem is by compressing the array of integers into a array of bytes. When representing the integer as a byte I keep the calculate most
significant byte (msb) and keep everything up to this point, whilst throwing the rest away. This is then added to the byte array. For negative values I increment the msb by 1 so that we can
differentiate between positive and negative bytes when decoding by keeping the leading
1 bit values.
When decoding I parse this jagged byte array and simply reverse my
previous actions performed when compressing. As mentioned I have never looked at compression prior to this task so I did come up with my own method to compress the data. I was looking at C++/Cli recently, had not really used it previously so just decided to write it in this language, no particular reason. Below is the class, and a unit test at the very bottom. Any advice / improvements / enhancements will be much appreciated.
Thanks.
array<array<Byte>^>^ CDeltaEncoding::CompressArray(array<int>^ data)
{
int temp = 0;
int original;
int size = 0;
array<int>^ tempData = gcnew array<int>(data->Length);
data->CopyTo(tempData, 0);
array<array<Byte>^>^ byteArray = gcnew array<array<Byte>^>(tempData->Length);
for (int i = 0; i < tempData->Length; ++i)
{
original = tempData[i];
tempData[i] -= temp;
temp = original;
int msb = GetMostSignificantByte(tempData[i]);
byteArray[i] = gcnew array<Byte>(msb);
System::Buffer::BlockCopy(BitConverter::GetBytes(tempData[i]), 0, byteArray[i], 0, msb );
size += byteArray[i]->Length;
}
return byteArray;
}
array<int>^ CDeltaEncoding::DecompressArray(array<array<Byte>^>^ buffer)
{
System::Collections::Generic::List<int>^ decodedArray = gcnew System::Collections::Generic::List<int>();
int temp = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < buffer->Length; ++i)
{
int retrievedVal = GetValueAsInteger(buffer[i]);
decodedArray->Add(retrievedVal);
decodedArray[i] += temp;
temp = decodedArray[i];
}
return decodedArray->ToArray();
}
int CDeltaEncoding::GetMostSignificantByte(int value)
{
array<Byte>^ tempBuf = BitConverter::GetBytes(Math::Abs(value));
int msb = tempBuf->Length;
for (int i = tempBuf->Length -1; i >= 0; --i)
{
if (tempBuf[i] != 0)
{
msb = i + 1;
break;
}
}
if (!IsPositiveInteger(value))
{
//We need an extra byte to differentiate the negative integers
msb++;
}
return msb;
}
bool CDeltaEncoding::IsPositiveInteger(int value)
{
return value / Math::Abs(value) == 1;
}
int CDeltaEncoding::GetValueAsInteger(array<Byte>^ buffer)
{
array<Byte>^ tempBuf;
if(buffer->Length % 2 == 0)
{
//With even integers there is no need to allocate a new byte array
tempBuf = buffer;
}
else
{
tempBuf = gcnew array<Byte>(4);
System::Buffer::BlockCopy(buffer, 0, tempBuf, 0, buffer->Length );
unsigned int val = buffer[buffer->Length-1] &= 0xFF;
if ( val == 0xFF )
{
//We have negative integer compressed into 3 bytes
//Copy over the this last byte as well so we keep the negative pattern
System::Buffer::BlockCopy(buffer, buffer->Length-1, tempBuf, buffer->Length, 1 );
}
}
switch(tempBuf->Length)
{
case sizeof(short):
return BitConverter::ToInt16(tempBuf,0);
case sizeof(int):
default:
return BitConverter::ToInt32(tempBuf,0);
}
}
And then in a test class I had:
void CTestDeltaEncoding::TestCompression()
{
array<array<Byte>^>^ byteArray = CDeltaEncoding::CompressArray(m_testdata);
array<int>^ decompressedArray = CDeltaEncoding::DecompressArray(byteArray);
int totalBytes = 0;
for (int i = 0; i<byteArray->Length; i++)
{
totalBytes += byteArray[i]->Length;
}
Assert::IsTrue(m_testdata->Length * sizeof(m_testdata) > totalBytes, "Expected the total bytes to be less than the original array!!");
//Expected totalBytes = 53
}
This smells a lot like homework to me. The crucial phrase is: "Using delta encoding."
Delta encoding means you encode the delta (difference) between each number and the next:
67497, 67376, 67173, 67235, 67057, 67031, 66951, 66974, 67042, 67025, 66897, 67077, 67082, 67033, 67019, 67149, 67044, 67012, 67220, 67239, 66893, 66984, 66866, 66693, 66770, 66722, 66620, 66579, 66596, 66713, 66852, 66715
would turn into:
[Base: 67497]: -121, -203, +62
and so on. Assuming 8-bit bytes, the original numbers require 3 bytes apiece (and given the number of compilers with 3-byte integer types, you're normally going to end up with 4 bytes apiece). From the looks of things, the differences will fit quite easily in 2 bytes apiece, and if you can ignore one (or possibly two) of the least significant bits, you can fit them in one byte apiece.
Delta encoding is most often used for things like sound encoding where you can "fudge" the accuracy at times without major problems. For example, if you have a change from one sample to the next that's larger than you've left space to encode, you can encode a maximum change in the current difference, and add the difference to the next delta (and if you don't mind some back-tracking, you can distribute some to the previous delta as well). This will act as a low-pass filter, limiting the gradient between samples.
For example, in the series you gave, a simple delta encoding requires ten bits to represent all the differences. By dropping the LSB, however, nearly all the samples (all but one, in fact) can be encoded in 8 bits. That one has a difference (right shifted one bit) of -173, so if we represent it as -128, we have 45 left. We can distribute that error evenly between the preceding and following sample. In that case, the output won't be an exact match for the input, but if we're talking about something like sound, the difference probably won't be particularly obvious.
I did mention that it was an exercise that I had to complete and the solution that I received was deemed not good enough, so I wanted some constructive feedback seeing as actual companies never decide to tell you what you did wrong.
When the array is compressed I store the differences and not the original values except the first as this was my understanding. If you had looked at my code I have provided a full solution but my question was how bad was it?