«

Is the following code valid?

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

typedef struct
{
int a;
char s[];
} test_struct;

int main(void)
{
test_struct *t;
t = malloc( sizeof *t + 4);
strcpy(t->s,"oye");
printf("%s\n",t->s);
return 0;
}

For C90: no.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:34:08 -0400, AC wrote:

> Is the following code valid?
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> typedef struct
> {
> int a;
> char s[];
> } test_struct;
>
> int main(void)
> {
> test_struct *t;
> t = malloc( sizeof *t + 4);
> strcpy(t->s,"oye");
> printf("%s\n",t->s);
> return 0;
> }

I don't see any problems with it. The flexible array feature is not
standardized until C99 although many implementations supported it in some
form prior to that (but that would, of course, not be portable).

Robert Gamble

In article <d8cfe0$h0p$>, AC <> wrote:
>Is the following code valid?
>
>typedef struct
>{
> int a;
> char s[];
>} test_struct;

If you change the declaration of s to char s[1] the
trick will work more often, i.e. nearly always.

It is technically outside the bounds of c89 though.

Search for "struct hack" using your favorite search engine
if you would like more information.
--
7842++

AC wrote:
> Is the following code valid?

It is not valid C89 (C90); it is valid C99.



>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> typedef struct
> {
> int a;
> char s[];
> } test_struct;
>
> int main(void)
> {
> test_struct *t;
> t = malloc( sizeof *t + 4);
> strcpy(t->s,"oye");
> printf("%s\n",t->s);
> return 0;
> }
>
>

AC <> wrote:

> Is the following code valid?

> (snip "struct hack" code)

FAQ 2.6 may be of interest:

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q2.6.html

--
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.

"Martin Ambuhl" <> wrote in message
newsUkqe.2289$ ink.net...
> AC wrote:
>> Is the following code valid?
>
> It is not valid C89 (C90); it is valid C99.
*May* be valid C99... depends on return from malloc() which is not checked.

Quick question:
cfaq question 7.24 (relating to whether allocated memory must be freed prior
to exit)
references a section 7.10.3.2 no longer existant (AFAICT) in the current
standard...
So what's the official take? Answer remains the same but unsubstantiated?

Mark

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:20:00 GMT, Mark
<> wrote:

> Quick question:
> cfaq question 7.24 (relating to whether allocated memory must be freed
> prior to exit) references a section 7.10.3.2 no longer existant
> (AFAICT) in the current standard... So what's the official take?
> Answer remains the same but unsubstantiated?

Using a reference to a nonexistent object results in undefined behaviour
<g>.

Chris C

"Mark" <> writes:
[...]
> Quick question:
> cfaq question 7.24 (relating to whether allocated memory must be
> freed prior to exit) references a section 7.10.3.2 no longer
> existant (AFAICT) in the current standard... So what's the official
> take? Answer remains the same but unsubstantiated?

In C90, 7.10.3.2 describes the "free" function. The corresponding
section in C99 is 7.20.3.2.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <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.

"Keith Thompson" <kst-> wrote in message
news:...
> "Mark" <> writes:
> [...]
>> Quick question:
>> cfaq question 7.24 (relating to whether allocated memory must be
>> freed prior to exit) references a section 7.10.3.2 no longer
>> existant (AFAICT) in the current standard... So what's the official
>> take? Answer remains the same but unsubstantiated?
>
> In C90, 7.10.3.2 describes the "free" function. The corresponding
> section in C99 is 7.20.3.2.

Ah... they must have modified the description substantially then.
I see nothing in the standard which would suggest free() is optional
and it seems the previously quoted text 'quality of implementation issue'
was removed from C99.

Mark