Local char* - keeps its value [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
2












Sorry for novice question in Arduino, but I'm trying to figure out why res is keeping its value when up_cmd0 is being called again.



for example - if num=8 in first run and the result is :up_cmd0_res: 8, and second run num=12, the result is: up_cmd0_res: 812



void up_cmd0(){
char num[8];
char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";
itoa(counter2, num, 10);
strcat(res ,num);
client.publish(inTopic,res);









share|improve this question













closed as off-topic by Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234 Aug 30 at 22:01


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question does not appear to be about Arduino, within the scope defined in the help center." – Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
















    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    Sorry for novice question in Arduino, but I'm trying to figure out why res is keeping its value when up_cmd0 is being called again.



    for example - if num=8 in first run and the result is :up_cmd0_res: 8, and second run num=12, the result is: up_cmd0_res: 812



    void up_cmd0(){
    char num[8];
    char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";
    itoa(counter2, num, 10);
    strcat(res ,num);
    client.publish(inTopic,res);









    share|improve this question













    closed as off-topic by Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234 Aug 30 at 22:01


    This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


    • "This question does not appear to be about Arduino, within the scope defined in the help center." – Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234
    If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      Sorry for novice question in Arduino, but I'm trying to figure out why res is keeping its value when up_cmd0 is being called again.



      for example - if num=8 in first run and the result is :up_cmd0_res: 8, and second run num=12, the result is: up_cmd0_res: 812



      void up_cmd0(){
      char num[8];
      char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";
      itoa(counter2, num, 10);
      strcat(res ,num);
      client.publish(inTopic,res);









      share|improve this question













      Sorry for novice question in Arduino, but I'm trying to figure out why res is keeping its value when up_cmd0 is being called again.



      for example - if num=8 in first run and the result is :up_cmd0_res: 8, and second run num=12, the result is: up_cmd0_res: 812



      void up_cmd0(){
      char num[8];
      char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";
      itoa(counter2, num, 10);
      strcat(res ,num);
      client.publish(inTopic,res);






      string






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Aug 18 at 21:00









      Guy . D

      1316




      1316




      closed as off-topic by Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234 Aug 30 at 22:01


      This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


      • "This question does not appear to be about Arduino, within the scope defined in the help center." – Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234
      If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




      closed as off-topic by Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234 Aug 30 at 22:01


      This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


      • "This question does not appear to be about Arduino, within the scope defined in the help center." – Juraj, sempaiscuba, VE7JRO, Greenonline, per1234
      If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted











          char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";




          In principle, res should be a const char *. Const because it is
          pointing to a literal string, and you cannot (ar at least, you are not
          supposed to) change a literal string. The compiler should warn you on
          that... if you enable compiler warnings.




          strcat(res ,num);




          This is very wrong. strcat() expects as its first argument an pointer
          to a modifyable array large enough for the resulting concatenation
          (and the terminating ). In other words, you have to allocate enough
          room for the whole string, then fill the beginning of the allocated
          array with the first substring, then only call strcat():



          char res[24];
          strcpy(res, "up_cmd0_res:");
          strcat(res, num);


          What happened is that you initially had, in memory, something like this:



          <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
          'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' NUL
          ^-- res


          On the first call to stracat(), you overwrite the terminating NUL and
          end up with



          <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
          'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' '8' NUL
          ^-- res


          Note that the new terminating NUL is now occupying a byte in memory that
          hasn't been allocated for this purpose. You have likely overwritten some
          global variable. Next time you call strcat(), you again replace the
          terminating NUL and continue to overwrite whatever happens to be stored
          in this part of the RAM. Expect a crash or program misbehavior.






          share|improve this answer






















          • thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
            – Guy . D
            Aug 19 at 5:42







          • 1




            @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
            – Edgar Bonet
            Aug 19 at 8:11

















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          Only the pointer, *res, is a local variable. The string "up_cmd0_res:" itself is elsewhere in RAM, stored as a literal and not meant to be modified.



          Your strcat() call overwrites (extends) the literal each time you call it - which, by the way means that the growing string will be overwriting something else - whatever was following the string literal in global memory!!



          You need to provide a character buffer within your function, large enough to hold "up_cmd0_res:" plus the longest thing you might ever append to it, plus one more byte for the zero-terminator. That buffer should be re-initialized on every function entry, before you append anything to it. Then make the strcat call to append to it. (These two calls will each manage the terminator for you).



          The fact that this program didn't crash (or did it?) is only just by happenstance. If you call this function as it is initially written, enough times, your string literal will grow until it overwrites something important and either produces incorrect results (by over-writing some other data, or crashes (by overwriting the stack, especially the current function's return-address).






          share|improve this answer






















          • no. it did not crash
            – Guy . D
            Aug 18 at 21:20






          • 3




            It will, in time.
            – Nick Gammon♦
            Aug 18 at 22:35

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          It is incorrect to strcat into a field pointing to a literal. The code below is shorter, easier to understand, and does not corrupt memory:



           char res [20];
          sprintf (res, "up_cmd0_res:%i", counter2);
          client.publish(inTopic,res);


          The field res needs to be long enough to hold the literal string (which is not modified doing it this way) plus the number you are adding to the end, and a terminating 0x00 byte.





          can you please explain what "literal" is?




          OK. A literal is when you literally put a string into a variable. For example:



          char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";


          So res isn't pointing to some variable, it is pointing to a literal string in the code. Now check this out:



          void setup() 
          Serial.begin (115200);
          char * a = "foo";
          Serial.println (a);
          strcpy (a, "bar");
          Serial.println (a);
          char * b = "foo";
          Serial.println (b);


          void loop()




          Are you expecting this code to print:



          foo
          bar
          foo


          It should, right?, because the variable b contains "foo".



          However it actually prints:



          foo
          bar
          bar


          This is because the strcpy has modified a literal string ("foo") to now contain "bar". The compiler is smart enough to think that every time it sees "foo" in the code it can place a single piece of memory with "foo" in it, because it is a literal (and literals don't change). But now you have modified that.



          The compiler does give a warning:



          /tmp/arduino_modified_sketch_905830/sketch_aug19a.ino:7:12: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' [-Wwrite-strings]
          char * b = "foo";
          ^


          Imagine if you were able to change the literal 5 so that every time you added 5 to something it actually added 42? That wouldn't be so great, right?




          Your code was worse than that, because you didn't just replace a string with something the same length, you used strcat which replaces it with something longer.






          share|improve this answer






















          • thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
            – Guy . D
            Aug 19 at 5:41

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Because you're changing a string literal. These literals are in static memory, so they persist between function calls.

          On top of that, changing them results in undefined behaviour.



          You're also writing out of the bounds of the string.



          My recommendation:



          void up_cmd0()
          const size_t int_max_digits = floor(log10(pow(2, 8 * sizeof(int) - 1))) + 1;
          char num[int_max_digits + 2]; // max digits + minus sign + null terminator
          const char *str = "up_cmd0_res:";
          char buffer[strlen(str) + sizeof(num)] = ;
          strcat(buffer, str);
          itoa(counter2, num, 10);
          strcat(buffer, num);
          // ...



          You shouldn't be using globals to get values from one function to the other (counter2), try to pass it as a parameter to the function.






          share|improve this answer





























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            8
            down vote



            accepted











            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";




            In principle, res should be a const char *. Const because it is
            pointing to a literal string, and you cannot (ar at least, you are not
            supposed to) change a literal string. The compiler should warn you on
            that... if you enable compiler warnings.




            strcat(res ,num);




            This is very wrong. strcat() expects as its first argument an pointer
            to a modifyable array large enough for the resulting concatenation
            (and the terminating ). In other words, you have to allocate enough
            room for the whole string, then fill the beginning of the allocated
            array with the first substring, then only call strcat():



            char res[24];
            strcpy(res, "up_cmd0_res:");
            strcat(res, num);


            What happened is that you initially had, in memory, something like this:



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' NUL
            ^-- res


            On the first call to stracat(), you overwrite the terminating NUL and
            end up with



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' '8' NUL
            ^-- res


            Note that the new terminating NUL is now occupying a byte in memory that
            hasn't been allocated for this purpose. You have likely overwritten some
            global variable. Next time you call strcat(), you again replace the
            terminating NUL and continue to overwrite whatever happens to be stored
            in this part of the RAM. Expect a crash or program misbehavior.






            share|improve this answer






















            • thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:42







            • 1




              @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
              – Edgar Bonet
              Aug 19 at 8:11














            up vote
            8
            down vote



            accepted











            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";




            In principle, res should be a const char *. Const because it is
            pointing to a literal string, and you cannot (ar at least, you are not
            supposed to) change a literal string. The compiler should warn you on
            that... if you enable compiler warnings.




            strcat(res ,num);




            This is very wrong. strcat() expects as its first argument an pointer
            to a modifyable array large enough for the resulting concatenation
            (and the terminating ). In other words, you have to allocate enough
            room for the whole string, then fill the beginning of the allocated
            array with the first substring, then only call strcat():



            char res[24];
            strcpy(res, "up_cmd0_res:");
            strcat(res, num);


            What happened is that you initially had, in memory, something like this:



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' NUL
            ^-- res


            On the first call to stracat(), you overwrite the terminating NUL and
            end up with



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' '8' NUL
            ^-- res


            Note that the new terminating NUL is now occupying a byte in memory that
            hasn't been allocated for this purpose. You have likely overwritten some
            global variable. Next time you call strcat(), you again replace the
            terminating NUL and continue to overwrite whatever happens to be stored
            in this part of the RAM. Expect a crash or program misbehavior.






            share|improve this answer






















            • thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:42







            • 1




              @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
              – Edgar Bonet
              Aug 19 at 8:11












            up vote
            8
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            8
            down vote



            accepted







            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";




            In principle, res should be a const char *. Const because it is
            pointing to a literal string, and you cannot (ar at least, you are not
            supposed to) change a literal string. The compiler should warn you on
            that... if you enable compiler warnings.




            strcat(res ,num);




            This is very wrong. strcat() expects as its first argument an pointer
            to a modifyable array large enough for the resulting concatenation
            (and the terminating ). In other words, you have to allocate enough
            room for the whole string, then fill the beginning of the allocated
            array with the first substring, then only call strcat():



            char res[24];
            strcpy(res, "up_cmd0_res:");
            strcat(res, num);


            What happened is that you initially had, in memory, something like this:



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' NUL
            ^-- res


            On the first call to stracat(), you overwrite the terminating NUL and
            end up with



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' '8' NUL
            ^-- res


            Note that the new terminating NUL is now occupying a byte in memory that
            hasn't been allocated for this purpose. You have likely overwritten some
            global variable. Next time you call strcat(), you again replace the
            terminating NUL and continue to overwrite whatever happens to be stored
            in this part of the RAM. Expect a crash or program misbehavior.






            share|improve this answer















            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";




            In principle, res should be a const char *. Const because it is
            pointing to a literal string, and you cannot (ar at least, you are not
            supposed to) change a literal string. The compiler should warn you on
            that... if you enable compiler warnings.




            strcat(res ,num);




            This is very wrong. strcat() expects as its first argument an pointer
            to a modifyable array large enough for the resulting concatenation
            (and the terminating ). In other words, you have to allocate enough
            room for the whole string, then fill the beginning of the allocated
            array with the first substring, then only call strcat():



            char res[24];
            strcpy(res, "up_cmd0_res:");
            strcat(res, num);


            What happened is that you initially had, in memory, something like this:



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' NUL
            ^-- res


            On the first call to stracat(), you overwrite the terminating NUL and
            end up with



            <----- memory reserved for the string literal ---->
            'u' 'p' '_' 'c' 'm' 'd' '0' '_' 'r' 'e' 's' ':' '8' NUL
            ^-- res


            Note that the new terminating NUL is now occupying a byte in memory that
            hasn't been allocated for this purpose. You have likely overwritten some
            global variable. Next time you call strcat(), you again replace the
            terminating NUL and continue to overwrite whatever happens to be stored
            in this part of the RAM. Expect a crash or program misbehavior.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Aug 18 at 21:20

























            answered Aug 18 at 21:13









            Edgar Bonet

            21.9k22343




            21.9k22343











            • thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:42







            • 1




              @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
              – Edgar Bonet
              Aug 19 at 8:11
















            • thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:42







            • 1




              @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
              – Edgar Bonet
              Aug 19 at 8:11















            thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
            – Guy . D
            Aug 19 at 5:42





            thank you for your answer- can you please explain in what cases should I use char* instead of char ? and why def of res at the begining of the code as a predefined value- at the begining of function does not override is value ?
            – Guy . D
            Aug 19 at 5:42





            1




            1




            @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
            – Edgar Bonet
            Aug 19 at 8:11




            @Guy.D: 1. Re char* vs char: that's not a simple topic, but it's thoroughly covered in the section Arrays and Pointers of the C FAQ. Read it: it has in one place the answers to all the questions you are asking here. 2. Re def of res does not override is value: res is not a string, it's defined as an address and initialized at the beginning of the function to the place in RAM where the compiler stored the anonymous string literal. See also the other answers.
            – Edgar Bonet
            Aug 19 at 8:11










            up vote
            6
            down vote













            Only the pointer, *res, is a local variable. The string "up_cmd0_res:" itself is elsewhere in RAM, stored as a literal and not meant to be modified.



            Your strcat() call overwrites (extends) the literal each time you call it - which, by the way means that the growing string will be overwriting something else - whatever was following the string literal in global memory!!



            You need to provide a character buffer within your function, large enough to hold "up_cmd0_res:" plus the longest thing you might ever append to it, plus one more byte for the zero-terminator. That buffer should be re-initialized on every function entry, before you append anything to it. Then make the strcat call to append to it. (These two calls will each manage the terminator for you).



            The fact that this program didn't crash (or did it?) is only just by happenstance. If you call this function as it is initially written, enough times, your string literal will grow until it overwrites something important and either produces incorrect results (by over-writing some other data, or crashes (by overwriting the stack, especially the current function's return-address).






            share|improve this answer






















            • no. it did not crash
              – Guy . D
              Aug 18 at 21:20






            • 3




              It will, in time.
              – Nick Gammon♦
              Aug 18 at 22:35














            up vote
            6
            down vote













            Only the pointer, *res, is a local variable. The string "up_cmd0_res:" itself is elsewhere in RAM, stored as a literal and not meant to be modified.



            Your strcat() call overwrites (extends) the literal each time you call it - which, by the way means that the growing string will be overwriting something else - whatever was following the string literal in global memory!!



            You need to provide a character buffer within your function, large enough to hold "up_cmd0_res:" plus the longest thing you might ever append to it, plus one more byte for the zero-terminator. That buffer should be re-initialized on every function entry, before you append anything to it. Then make the strcat call to append to it. (These two calls will each manage the terminator for you).



            The fact that this program didn't crash (or did it?) is only just by happenstance. If you call this function as it is initially written, enough times, your string literal will grow until it overwrites something important and either produces incorrect results (by over-writing some other data, or crashes (by overwriting the stack, especially the current function's return-address).






            share|improve this answer






















            • no. it did not crash
              – Guy . D
              Aug 18 at 21:20






            • 3




              It will, in time.
              – Nick Gammon♦
              Aug 18 at 22:35












            up vote
            6
            down vote










            up vote
            6
            down vote









            Only the pointer, *res, is a local variable. The string "up_cmd0_res:" itself is elsewhere in RAM, stored as a literal and not meant to be modified.



            Your strcat() call overwrites (extends) the literal each time you call it - which, by the way means that the growing string will be overwriting something else - whatever was following the string literal in global memory!!



            You need to provide a character buffer within your function, large enough to hold "up_cmd0_res:" plus the longest thing you might ever append to it, plus one more byte for the zero-terminator. That buffer should be re-initialized on every function entry, before you append anything to it. Then make the strcat call to append to it. (These two calls will each manage the terminator for you).



            The fact that this program didn't crash (or did it?) is only just by happenstance. If you call this function as it is initially written, enough times, your string literal will grow until it overwrites something important and either produces incorrect results (by over-writing some other data, or crashes (by overwriting the stack, especially the current function's return-address).






            share|improve this answer














            Only the pointer, *res, is a local variable. The string "up_cmd0_res:" itself is elsewhere in RAM, stored as a literal and not meant to be modified.



            Your strcat() call overwrites (extends) the literal each time you call it - which, by the way means that the growing string will be overwriting something else - whatever was following the string literal in global memory!!



            You need to provide a character buffer within your function, large enough to hold "up_cmd0_res:" plus the longest thing you might ever append to it, plus one more byte for the zero-terminator. That buffer should be re-initialized on every function entry, before you append anything to it. Then make the strcat call to append to it. (These two calls will each manage the terminator for you).



            The fact that this program didn't crash (or did it?) is only just by happenstance. If you call this function as it is initially written, enough times, your string literal will grow until it overwrites something important and either produces incorrect results (by over-writing some other data, or crashes (by overwriting the stack, especially the current function's return-address).







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Aug 19 at 11:50

























            answered Aug 18 at 21:15









            JRobert

            9,01411034




            9,01411034











            • no. it did not crash
              – Guy . D
              Aug 18 at 21:20






            • 3




              It will, in time.
              – Nick Gammon♦
              Aug 18 at 22:35
















            • no. it did not crash
              – Guy . D
              Aug 18 at 21:20






            • 3




              It will, in time.
              – Nick Gammon♦
              Aug 18 at 22:35















            no. it did not crash
            – Guy . D
            Aug 18 at 21:20




            no. it did not crash
            – Guy . D
            Aug 18 at 21:20




            3




            3




            It will, in time.
            – Nick Gammon♦
            Aug 18 at 22:35




            It will, in time.
            – Nick Gammon♦
            Aug 18 at 22:35










            up vote
            4
            down vote













            It is incorrect to strcat into a field pointing to a literal. The code below is shorter, easier to understand, and does not corrupt memory:



             char res [20];
            sprintf (res, "up_cmd0_res:%i", counter2);
            client.publish(inTopic,res);


            The field res needs to be long enough to hold the literal string (which is not modified doing it this way) plus the number you are adding to the end, and a terminating 0x00 byte.





            can you please explain what "literal" is?




            OK. A literal is when you literally put a string into a variable. For example:



            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";


            So res isn't pointing to some variable, it is pointing to a literal string in the code. Now check this out:



            void setup() 
            Serial.begin (115200);
            char * a = "foo";
            Serial.println (a);
            strcpy (a, "bar");
            Serial.println (a);
            char * b = "foo";
            Serial.println (b);


            void loop()




            Are you expecting this code to print:



            foo
            bar
            foo


            It should, right?, because the variable b contains "foo".



            However it actually prints:



            foo
            bar
            bar


            This is because the strcpy has modified a literal string ("foo") to now contain "bar". The compiler is smart enough to think that every time it sees "foo" in the code it can place a single piece of memory with "foo" in it, because it is a literal (and literals don't change). But now you have modified that.



            The compiler does give a warning:



            /tmp/arduino_modified_sketch_905830/sketch_aug19a.ino:7:12: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' [-Wwrite-strings]
            char * b = "foo";
            ^


            Imagine if you were able to change the literal 5 so that every time you added 5 to something it actually added 42? That wouldn't be so great, right?




            Your code was worse than that, because you didn't just replace a string with something the same length, you used strcat which replaces it with something longer.






            share|improve this answer






















            • thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:41














            up vote
            4
            down vote













            It is incorrect to strcat into a field pointing to a literal. The code below is shorter, easier to understand, and does not corrupt memory:



             char res [20];
            sprintf (res, "up_cmd0_res:%i", counter2);
            client.publish(inTopic,res);


            The field res needs to be long enough to hold the literal string (which is not modified doing it this way) plus the number you are adding to the end, and a terminating 0x00 byte.





            can you please explain what "literal" is?




            OK. A literal is when you literally put a string into a variable. For example:



            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";


            So res isn't pointing to some variable, it is pointing to a literal string in the code. Now check this out:



            void setup() 
            Serial.begin (115200);
            char * a = "foo";
            Serial.println (a);
            strcpy (a, "bar");
            Serial.println (a);
            char * b = "foo";
            Serial.println (b);


            void loop()




            Are you expecting this code to print:



            foo
            bar
            foo


            It should, right?, because the variable b contains "foo".



            However it actually prints:



            foo
            bar
            bar


            This is because the strcpy has modified a literal string ("foo") to now contain "bar". The compiler is smart enough to think that every time it sees "foo" in the code it can place a single piece of memory with "foo" in it, because it is a literal (and literals don't change). But now you have modified that.



            The compiler does give a warning:



            /tmp/arduino_modified_sketch_905830/sketch_aug19a.ino:7:12: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' [-Wwrite-strings]
            char * b = "foo";
            ^


            Imagine if you were able to change the literal 5 so that every time you added 5 to something it actually added 42? That wouldn't be so great, right?




            Your code was worse than that, because you didn't just replace a string with something the same length, you used strcat which replaces it with something longer.






            share|improve this answer






















            • thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:41












            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote









            It is incorrect to strcat into a field pointing to a literal. The code below is shorter, easier to understand, and does not corrupt memory:



             char res [20];
            sprintf (res, "up_cmd0_res:%i", counter2);
            client.publish(inTopic,res);


            The field res needs to be long enough to hold the literal string (which is not modified doing it this way) plus the number you are adding to the end, and a terminating 0x00 byte.





            can you please explain what "literal" is?




            OK. A literal is when you literally put a string into a variable. For example:



            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";


            So res isn't pointing to some variable, it is pointing to a literal string in the code. Now check this out:



            void setup() 
            Serial.begin (115200);
            char * a = "foo";
            Serial.println (a);
            strcpy (a, "bar");
            Serial.println (a);
            char * b = "foo";
            Serial.println (b);


            void loop()




            Are you expecting this code to print:



            foo
            bar
            foo


            It should, right?, because the variable b contains "foo".



            However it actually prints:



            foo
            bar
            bar


            This is because the strcpy has modified a literal string ("foo") to now contain "bar". The compiler is smart enough to think that every time it sees "foo" in the code it can place a single piece of memory with "foo" in it, because it is a literal (and literals don't change). But now you have modified that.



            The compiler does give a warning:



            /tmp/arduino_modified_sketch_905830/sketch_aug19a.ino:7:12: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' [-Wwrite-strings]
            char * b = "foo";
            ^


            Imagine if you were able to change the literal 5 so that every time you added 5 to something it actually added 42? That wouldn't be so great, right?




            Your code was worse than that, because you didn't just replace a string with something the same length, you used strcat which replaces it with something longer.






            share|improve this answer














            It is incorrect to strcat into a field pointing to a literal. The code below is shorter, easier to understand, and does not corrupt memory:



             char res [20];
            sprintf (res, "up_cmd0_res:%i", counter2);
            client.publish(inTopic,res);


            The field res needs to be long enough to hold the literal string (which is not modified doing it this way) plus the number you are adding to the end, and a terminating 0x00 byte.





            can you please explain what "literal" is?




            OK. A literal is when you literally put a string into a variable. For example:



            char *res = "up_cmd0_res:";


            So res isn't pointing to some variable, it is pointing to a literal string in the code. Now check this out:



            void setup() 
            Serial.begin (115200);
            char * a = "foo";
            Serial.println (a);
            strcpy (a, "bar");
            Serial.println (a);
            char * b = "foo";
            Serial.println (b);


            void loop()




            Are you expecting this code to print:



            foo
            bar
            foo


            It should, right?, because the variable b contains "foo".



            However it actually prints:



            foo
            bar
            bar


            This is because the strcpy has modified a literal string ("foo") to now contain "bar". The compiler is smart enough to think that every time it sees "foo" in the code it can place a single piece of memory with "foo" in it, because it is a literal (and literals don't change). But now you have modified that.



            The compiler does give a warning:



            /tmp/arduino_modified_sketch_905830/sketch_aug19a.ino:7:12: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' [-Wwrite-strings]
            char * b = "foo";
            ^


            Imagine if you were able to change the literal 5 so that every time you added 5 to something it actually added 42? That wouldn't be so great, right?




            Your code was worse than that, because you didn't just replace a string with something the same length, you used strcat which replaces it with something longer.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Aug 19 at 6:34

























            answered Aug 18 at 22:42









            Nick Gammon♦

            27.3k74093




            27.3k74093











            • thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:41
















            • thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
              – Guy . D
              Aug 19 at 5:41















            thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
            – Guy . D
            Aug 19 at 5:41




            thank you for your answer. can you please explain what "literal" is ?
            – Guy . D
            Aug 19 at 5:41










            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Because you're changing a string literal. These literals are in static memory, so they persist between function calls.

            On top of that, changing them results in undefined behaviour.



            You're also writing out of the bounds of the string.



            My recommendation:



            void up_cmd0()
            const size_t int_max_digits = floor(log10(pow(2, 8 * sizeof(int) - 1))) + 1;
            char num[int_max_digits + 2]; // max digits + minus sign + null terminator
            const char *str = "up_cmd0_res:";
            char buffer[strlen(str) + sizeof(num)] = ;
            strcat(buffer, str);
            itoa(counter2, num, 10);
            strcat(buffer, num);
            // ...



            You shouldn't be using globals to get values from one function to the other (counter2), try to pass it as a parameter to the function.






            share|improve this answer


























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Because you're changing a string literal. These literals are in static memory, so they persist between function calls.

              On top of that, changing them results in undefined behaviour.



              You're also writing out of the bounds of the string.



              My recommendation:



              void up_cmd0()
              const size_t int_max_digits = floor(log10(pow(2, 8 * sizeof(int) - 1))) + 1;
              char num[int_max_digits + 2]; // max digits + minus sign + null terminator
              const char *str = "up_cmd0_res:";
              char buffer[strlen(str) + sizeof(num)] = ;
              strcat(buffer, str);
              itoa(counter2, num, 10);
              strcat(buffer, num);
              // ...



              You shouldn't be using globals to get values from one function to the other (counter2), try to pass it as a parameter to the function.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                Because you're changing a string literal. These literals are in static memory, so they persist between function calls.

                On top of that, changing them results in undefined behaviour.



                You're also writing out of the bounds of the string.



                My recommendation:



                void up_cmd0()
                const size_t int_max_digits = floor(log10(pow(2, 8 * sizeof(int) - 1))) + 1;
                char num[int_max_digits + 2]; // max digits + minus sign + null terminator
                const char *str = "up_cmd0_res:";
                char buffer[strlen(str) + sizeof(num)] = ;
                strcat(buffer, str);
                itoa(counter2, num, 10);
                strcat(buffer, num);
                // ...



                You shouldn't be using globals to get values from one function to the other (counter2), try to pass it as a parameter to the function.






                share|improve this answer














                Because you're changing a string literal. These literals are in static memory, so they persist between function calls.

                On top of that, changing them results in undefined behaviour.



                You're also writing out of the bounds of the string.



                My recommendation:



                void up_cmd0()
                const size_t int_max_digits = floor(log10(pow(2, 8 * sizeof(int) - 1))) + 1;
                char num[int_max_digits + 2]; // max digits + minus sign + null terminator
                const char *str = "up_cmd0_res:";
                char buffer[strlen(str) + sizeof(num)] = ;
                strcat(buffer, str);
                itoa(counter2, num, 10);
                strcat(buffer, num);
                // ...



                You shouldn't be using globals to get values from one function to the other (counter2), try to pass it as a parameter to the function.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Aug 18 at 21:30

























                answered Aug 18 at 21:09









                tttapa

                890128




                890128












                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Bahrain

                    Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay