it seems i'm stuck with some basics. Can someone explain me why next code:
#include <stdlib.h>
void Test1(char *t)
{
t = (char *)malloc(11);
strcpy(t, "1234567890");
}
void Test2(char **t)
{
*t = (char *)malloc(11);
strcpy(*t, "1234567890");
}
void Test3(char *t)
{
strcpy(t, "1234567890");
}
char * Test4(char *t)
{
t = (char *)malloc(11);
strcpy(t, "1234567890");
return t;
}
int main()
{
char *t1 = NULL;
Test1(t1);
printf("\nTest1: %s\n", t1);
char *t2 = NULL;
Test2(&t2);
printf("\nTest2: %s\n", t2);
char *t3 = (char *)malloc(11);
Test3(t3);
printf("\nTest3: %s\n", t3);
char *t4 = NULL;
t4 = Test4(t4);
printf("\nTest4: %s\n", t4);
return 0;
}
gives this output:
Test1: (null) Test2: 1234567890 Test3: 1234567890 Test4: 1234567890
What's wrong with Test1 function? And why Test4, which almost similar to Test1, works? More general question: what's the correct way to create string in function and return pointer to it?
std::string(unless there is some pressing need not to!), in C, all except the first approach is possible. - Nimmalloc(). Read here for reasoning: stackoverflow.com/a/605858/1701799 (basically it's because avoid *will be automatically and safely promoted to the appropriate type). I know this is tagged as C/C++, but there is no such language "C/C++". IF this was C++, you would be using#include <cstdlib>and not#include <stdlib.h>. I think this should probably just be tagged C. In C++, you would pretty much never usemalloc()/free()but instead would usenew/delete, or even better, smart pointers/etc.. - RastaJedi