I have a structure with some pointers as members and I am trying to do memcpy and I have been suggested that I should not use memcpy in this case as memcpy do a shallow copy (meaning it copies pointers) rather deep copy (meaning copying what pointers point to).
But I am not sure why it is not making any difference in the following program: Please have a look at code and output and please explain why it is not a shallow copy in this case?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
#include <string.h>
struct student {
char *username;
char *id;
int roll;
};
void print_struct(struct student *);
void print_struct_addr(struct student *);
void changeme(struct student *);
int main (void) {
struct student *student1;
char *name = "ram";
char *id = "200ABCD";
int roll = 34;
student1 = (struct student *)malloc(sizeof(struct student));
student1->username = name;
student1->id = id;
student1->roll = roll;
print_struct_addr(student1);
print_struct(student1);
changeme(student1);
print_struct(student1);
print_struct_addr(student1);
return 0;
}
void print_struct(struct student *s) {
printf("Name: %s\n", s->username);
printf("Id: %s\n", s->id);
printf("R.No: %d\n", s->roll);
return;
}
void print_struct_addr(struct student *s) {
printf("Addr(Name): %x\n", &s->username);
printf("Addr(Id): %x\n", &s->id);
printf("Addr(R.No): %x\n", &s->roll);
return;
}
void changeme(struct student *s) {
struct student *student2;
student2->username = "someone";
student2->id = "200EFGH";
student2->roll = 35;
print_struct_addr(student2);
memcpy(s, student2, sizeof(struct student));
student2->username = "somebodyelse";
return;
}
output:
Addr(Name): 9b72008
Addr(Id): 9b7200c
Addr(R.No): 9b72010
Name: ram
Id: 200ABCD
R.No: 34
Addr(Name): fa163c
Addr(Id): fa1640
Addr(R.No): fa1644
Name: someone
Id: 200EFGH
R.No: 35
Addr(Name): 9b72008
Addr(Id): 9b7200c
Addr(R.No): 9b72010
If memcpy does a shallow copy, how come student1->username is NOT "somebodyelse".
Please explain in which scenario, this code can create problem, I want student2 information in student1 after changeme() call in main() and should be able to use this modified student1 data afterwards.
I have been suggested to NOT to use memcpy() here, but it seems to be working fine.
Thanks
This is the modified code: But still I dont see concept of shallow copy here:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>
#include <string.h>
struct student {
char *username;
char *id;
int roll;
};
void print_struct(struct student *);
void print_struct_addr(struct student *);
void changeme(struct student *);
int main (void) {
struct student *student1;
char *name = "ram";
char *id = "200ABCD";
int roll = 34;
student1 = malloc(sizeof(*student1));
student1->username = name;
student1->id = id;
student1->roll = roll;
print_struct_addr(student1);
print_struct(student1);
changeme(student1);
print_struct(student1);
print_struct_addr(student1);
return 0;
}
void print_struct(struct student *s) {
printf("Name: %s\n", s->username);
printf("Id: %s\n", s->id);
printf("R.No: %d\n", s->roll);
return;
}
void print_struct_addr(struct student *s) {
printf("Addr(Name): %x\n", &s->username);
printf("Addr(Id): %x\n", &s->id);
printf("Addr(R.No): %x\n", &s->roll);
return;
}
void changeme(struct student *s) {
struct student *student2;
student2 = malloc(sizeof(*s));
student2->username = strdup("someone");
student2->id = strdup("200EFGH");
student2->roll = 35;
print_struct_addr(student2);
memcpy(s, student2, sizeof(struct student));
student2->username = strdup("somebodyelse");
free(student2);
return;
}
This:
struct student *student2;
student2->username = "someone";
student2->id = "200EFGH";
student2->roll = 35;
Is writing into non-allocated memory, invoking undefined behavior. You need to make sure student2
is pointing at somewhere valid, before writing.
Either allocate it, or use an on-stack instance since you're just going to copy from it anyway.
Of course, this entire business of initializing student2
and then overwriting s
with it is needlessly complicated, you should just modify s
directly.
Also, this:
student1 = (struct student *)malloc(sizeof(struct student));
is better written, in C, as:
student1 = malloc(sizeof *student1);
This removes the pointless (and potentially dangerous) cast, and makes sure the size is the proper one for the type, replacing a dependency checked by the programmer with one handled by the compiler.
Thirdly, it's a bit of a classic "symptom" of the beginning C programmer to not realize that you can assign structures. So, instead of
memcpy(s, student2, sizeof *s);
You can just write:
*s = *student2;
And have the compiler to the right thing. This might be a performance win, since the structure can contain a lot of padding which the assignment can be aware of and not copy, but which memcpy()
cannot ignore.
That it works at all is a fluke. In your changeme()
function you are creating a new pointer for student2
, but you are not allocating the memory for it.
Secondly, in that same function you are changing student2
after you've copied it into s
.
A shallow copy does not mean that any pointers within the copies are shared - it means that the values of the pointers themselves are also copied. So when you change student2->username
after the memcpy
it doesn't change the value of s->username
.
As you progress, you also need to be more careful with the allocation of memory within those structures. AFAICR, if you use a constant literal string then the pointer will point at a chunk of statically initialised data within the program's memory space. However a more rigourous design would malloc()
and free()
dynamic memory for those elements. If you ever needed a statically initialised value you would use strdup()
or similar to copy the string from the static space into heap memory.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With