Let's suppose I have this function:
void arrayExtendDouble(int **ptArr, int *size)
{
*ptArr = realloc(*ptArr, (*size * 2) * sizeof(int));
for(int i = (*size * 2) - 1; i >= *size; i--)
ptArr[i] = fib(i); //this will throw SEG FAULT
*size *= 2;
}
Note: I am a student and this is the valid resolution a teacher gave.
Now, the only way i can make this work is like this:
void fibArrayExpand(int **ptArr, int *size)
{
int *ptArrNew = realloc(*ptArr, (*size * 2) * sizeof(int));
for(int i = (*size * 2) - 1; i >= *size; i--)
ptArrNew[i] = fib(i);
*size *= 2;
*ptArr = ptArrN;
}
Supposedly the first one (teacher's) is correct and the second one (mine) it's not because i do extra steps not needed.
I would like to know why does it throw segmentation fault, is it supposed to do so or is the function well written?
The first snippet isn't correct. ptAtr
isn't the pointer to the ints; it's a pointer to another pointer, *ptAtr
, which is the pointer to the ints. As such,
ptArr[i] = fib(i);
should be
(*ptArr)[i] = fib(i);
Alternate explanation
It's pretty easy to see the following code achieves the correct result:
void arrayExtendDouble(int** arr_ptr, int* size_ptr)
{
// Copy values from caller.
int* arr = *arr_ptr;
int size = *size_ptr;
arr = realloc(arr, (size * 2) * sizeof(int));
for(int i = (size * 2) - 1; i >= size; i--)
arr[i] = fib(i);
size *= 2;
// Pass back modified values to caller.
*arr_ptr = arr;
*size_ptr = size;
}
You might notice that arr
and *arr_ptr
have the same value, and so do size
and size_ptr
. That means we could simply replace all instances of arr
and size
with *arr_ptr
and *size_ptr
respectively.
void arrayExtendDouble(int** arr_ptr, int* size_ptr)
{
*arr_ptr = realloc(*arr_ptr, (*size_ptr * 2) * sizeof(int));
for(int i = (*size_ptr * 2) - 1; i >= *size_ptr; i--)
(*arr_ptr)[i] = fib(i);
*size_ptr *= 2;
}
Note that (*arr_ptr)[i] = fib(i);
is used instead of arr[i] = fib(i);
. The first snippet you posted is therefore incorrect.