if( mystruct == NULL )
mystruct is not a pointer, so you cannot compare it with NULL.
You have three options:
- Add a status field to
MyStructto indicate whether the struct has been initialized correctly. - Allocate the struct on the heap and return it by pointer.
- Pass the structure as a pointer argument and return a status code (thanks @Potatoswatter).
if( mystruct == NULL )
mystruct is not a pointer, so you cannot compare it with NULL.
You have three options:
- Add a status field to
MyStructto indicate whether the struct has been initialized correctly. - Allocate the struct on the heap and return it by pointer.
- Pass the structure as a pointer argument and return a status code (thanks @Potatoswatter).
A structure is not a pointer. If you want to be able to return NULL, you're going to have to allocate the structure on the heap so you can return a pointer to it, and let the caller clean up afterwards.
That way, you can indicate failure, something like:
MyStruct *init_mystruct (void) {
MyStruct *mystruct = malloc (sizeof (*mystruct));
if (mystruct != NULL)
return NULL;
int is_ok = 1;
/* do something ... */
/* everything is OK */
if( is_ok )
return mystruct;
/* something went wrong */
free (mystruct);
return NULL;
}
int main (void) {
MyStruct *mystruct = init_mystruct();
if (mystruct == NULL) {
/* error handler */
return -1;
}
free (mystruct);
return 0;
}
Source: https://cs50.harvard.edu/x/2023/labs/5/
Here is the portion that I need help with:
// Create a new individual with `generations`
person *create_family(int generations)
{
// TODO: Allocate memory for new person
person *new_person = malloc(sizeof(person));
if (new_person == NULL)
{
return 1;
}Here is what ChatGPT says on my return 1 usage:
The TODO comment indicates that you need to allocate memory for a new person structure. In the provided code, you're using malloc(sizeof(person))to allocate memory dynamically. However, when memory allocation fails (i.e., malloc returns NULL), you're returning the integer 1 from the create_family function. Typically, a function returning a pointer should return NULL to indicate a failure.
Next, I rephrased the code:
// Create a new individual with `generations`
person *create_family(int generations)
{
// TODO: Allocate memory for new person
person *new_person = malloc(sizeof(person));
if (!new_person)
{
return 1;
}ChatGPT reply:
Your updated code checks if new_person is NULL using the condition if (!new_person).
However, it's better to return NULL*(a pointer) in case of memory allocation failure, rather than the integer* 1.
Here's the modified code:
// Create a new individual with `generations`
person *create_family(int generations)
{
// TODO: Allocate memory for new person
person *new_person = malloc(sizeof(person));
// Check if memory allocation was successful
if (!new_person)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Memory allocation failed.\n");
return NULL;
}
// Rest of the code for creating the family tree
// ...
return new_person;
}In this modification:
-
If memory allocation fails, the function prints an error message to the standard error stream using fprintf(stderr, "Memory allocation failed.\n");
-
return NULL;
is used to indicate that the function failed to create a new person due to a memory allocation failure. -
If memory allocation is successful, the function proceeds with the rest of the code for creating the family tree.
Returning NULL in case of memory allocation failure is a common practice in C, as it allows the calling code to check for errors by examining the returned pointer.
Full project code provided by CS50:
// Simulate genetic inheritance of blood type
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
// Each person has two parents and two alleles
typedef struct person
{
struct person *parents[2];
char alleles[2];
} person;
const int GENERATIONS = 3;
const int INDENT_LENGTH = 4;
person *create_family(int generations);
void print_family(person *p, int generation);
void free_family(person *p);
char random_allele();
int main(void)
{
// Seed random number generator
srand(time(0));
// Create a new family with three generations
person *p = create_family(GENERATIONS);
// Print family tree of blood types
print_family(p, 0);
// Free memory
free_family(p);
}
// Create a new individual with `generations`
person *create_family(int generations)
{
// TODO: Allocate memory for new person
person *new_person = malloc(sizeof(person));
if (new_person == NULL)
{
return 1;
}
// If there are still generations left to create
if (generations > 1)
{
// Create two new parents for current person by recursively calling create_family
person *parent0 = create_family(generations - 1);
person *parent1 = create_family(generations - 1);
// TODO: Set parent pointers for current person
// TODO: Randomly assign current person's alleles based on the alleles of their parents
}
// If there are no generations left to create
else
{
// TODO: Set parent pointers to NULL
// TODO: Randomly assign alleles
}
// TODO: Return newly created person
return NULL;
}
// Free `p` and all ancestors of `p`.
void free_family(person *p)
{
// TODO: Handle base case
// TODO: Free parents recursively
// TODO: Free child
}
// Print each family member and their alleles.
void print_family(person *p, int generation)
{
// Handle base case
if (p == NULL)
{
return;
}
// Print indentation
for (int i = 0; i < generation * INDENT_LENGTH; i++)
{
printf(" ");
}
// Print person
if (generation == 0)
{
printf("Child (Generation %i): blood type %c%c\n", generation, p->alleles[0], p->alleles[1]);
}
else if (generation == 1)
{
printf("Parent (Generation %i): blood type %c%c\n", generation, p->alleles[0], p->alleles[1]);
}
else
{
for (int i = 0; i < generation - 2; i++)
{
printf("Great-");
}
printf("Grandparent (Generation %i): blood type %c%c\n", generation, p->alleles[0], p->alleles[1]);
}
// Print parents of current generation
print_family(p->parents[0], generation + 1);
print_family(p->parents[1], generation + 1);
}
// Randomly chooses a blood type allele.
char random_allele()
{
int r = rand() % 3;
if (r == 0)
{
return 'A';
}
else if (r == 1)
{
return 'B';
}
else
{
return 'O';
}
}
NULL is a pointer value - or rather a null-pointer value.
NULL means that the function can't find where your pointer should point to - for example if you want to open a file, but it doesn't work your file pointer is returned as NULL. So you can test the value of a pointer and check to see if it worked or not.
If you are writing a routine
int length()
then you could return a negative value if length is unable to read the length of whatever you send it - this would be a way of indicating an error, because normally lengths can never be negative....
It is a matter of convention and you should clearly have one in your head and document it (at least in comments).
Sometimes a pointer really should always point to a valid address (see this intSwap example, both arguments should be valid pointers). At other times, it should either be such a valid address, or be NULL. Conceptually the pointer type is then by convention a sum type (between genuine pointer addresses and the special NULL value).
Notice that the C language does not have a type (or a notation) which enforces that some given pointer is always valid and non-null. BTW, with GCC specifically, you can annotate a function with __attribute__ using nonnull to express that a given argument is never null.
A typical example is FILE* pointers in <stdio.h>. The fopen function is documented to be able to return NULL (on failure), or some valid pointer. But the fprintf function is expecting a valid pointer (and passing NULL to it as the first argument is some undefined behavior, often a segmentation fault; and UB is really bad).
Some non-portable programs even use several "special" pointer values (which should not be dereferenced), e.g. (on Linux/x86-64) #define SPECIAL_SLOT (void*)((intptr_t)-1) (which we know that on Linux it is never a valid address). Then we could have the convention that a pointer is a valid pointer to a valid memory zone, or NULL or SPECIAL_SLOT (hence, if seen as an abstract data type, it is a sum type of two distinct invalid pointers NULL and SPECIAL_SLOT and the set of valid addresses). Another example is MAP_FAILURE as result of mmap(2) on Linux.
BTW, when using pointers in C to heap allocated data (indirectly obtained with malloc), you also need conventions about who is in charge of releasing the data (by using free, often thru a supplied function to free a data and all its internal stuff).
Good C programming requires many explicit conventions regarding pointers, and it is essential to understand them precisely and document them well. Look for example[s] into GTK. Read also about restrict.
I am very sure that someone told me once that NULL is defined as a pointer to void. I leafed through the K&R, and NULL was just said to be interchangeable with zero.
But either way, if I have a function that returns a 3d char array (array of arrays of strings), can I then return NULL if something goes wrong? will it be a valid return type?
Many functions that return pointers return NULL if something goes wrong - fopen for instance where you check for NULL and then perror.
But I am confused about multi-dimensional pointers.
I mean, I know that they are technically just pointers. I am unsure what the multiple asterisks do except tell the programmer how many dimensions there are. Hmmm Is this the solution?
Comments?
If the return type is int, you can't return a NULL. To show an error, you could instead return a special value like zero or -1, if you check for that value in any calling function. Lots of functions return nonnegative numbers on success, or -1 on error.
NULL cannot be stored in an int variable, unlike in SQL, for example. If you ignore the warning and return NULL anyway, then NULL will be casted to zero. The calling function won't be able to tell whether you returned NULL or zero.
If your function only needs to indicate success or failure, then it's common to return 1 for success, and zero for failure. Zero means "false" when treated as a boolean value (like in if statements), and non-zero means "true."
It looks like you've misunderstood what NULL means in C. Types are not nullable. NULL is effectively just a shorthand for the pointer with value 0! And int is not a pointer.
[H]ow do I return NULL from a integer result type function?
You don't. NULL is a macro representing a value of type void *. It is not an int, so a function returning int cannot return NULL.
Now, it is possible to convert NULL or any other pointer to type int, but the result of such a conversion is a valid, ordinary int. You seem to be looking instead for some kind of distinguished value, but there is none available unless you reserve such a value yourself. For example, you might reserve INT_MIN for that purpose. Of the built-in types, only pointer types afford general-purpose distinguished values (null pointers).
To provide for your function to signal failure to the caller, you have a couple of alternatives to reserving a value. The most common one is to use the function's return value only to report on the success or failure of the call, and to deliver any output -- in your case a node's value -- via a pointer argument:
int valueOf(t_node *node, int n, int *result) {
int current = 0;
while (current < n && node != NULL) {
node = node->next;
current += 1;
}
if (node == NULL) {
// no such node -- return a failure code
return 0;
} else {
// current == n
*result = node->value;
return 1;
}
}
In C, NULL is just a synonym for 0. So you really only need to do this...
if (current > n) {
return 0;
}
However, NULL usually refers to a pointer value that is undefined and not an integer. In C, integer values are not references as they are in many interpreted languages. They are scalar and can't be referred to implicitly with a pointer.
If you want to indicate an error condition or undefined behavior when current > n, you will have to provide a separate mechanism for indicating that the value isn't usable. Usually, C functions will return a -1 on an error. Since you are using the integer return for a value, that would mean that a valid value could never be -1.
It looks like you're handling a linked list and you want to limit the number of items to be checked. A possible way around this might be...
int valueOf(t_node *node, int n, int *val){
int current = 0;
int value;
while (node -> next != NULL) {
value = node -> val;
if (current == n) {
// This notation is for dereferencing a pointer.
*val = value;
return 0;
}
if (current > n) {
return -1;
}
node = node -> next;
current += 1;
}
// This method also gives you a way to indicate that
// you came to the end of the list. Your code snippet
// would have returned an undefined value if node->next == null
return -1;
}
Maybe there are some basic things you should rethink:
First, only pointers can be NULL, but not objects. Hence, if you return an object of type struct Stack (which is not a pointer), you cannot return NULL but just an instance of struct Stack.
Second, passing in and returning an object of struct Stack by value will result in copying the respective object; I think that passing references or pointers would be a better choice; and - if you pass in and return a pointer, you could also return NULL to indicate a full stack or some other issue.
The problem is that your function must return a value that has the type Stack.
The code you provided doesn't define the type of NULL, but, since you're not seeing another error and you're assigning it to node, I would guess that the type of NULL is StackNode *... or, at least, something compatible with that.
So, there's your problem. You're trying to return something with the type StackNode * when your function claims to return a Stack.
Your best bet is to redesign this function that returns the result of the push operation and not the Stack itself.
NULL is a pointer literal which is defined to contain a special value.
One possible definition is:
#define NULL ((void *)0)
For more detail you can read this faq
About const string& foo(), I believe you mean C++'s std::string.
std::string has no implicit constructor that initialize it with NULL pointer.
So you should use some exception or empty string to indicate an error to the caller. (If you are not throwing, you must return an std::string. Even if the object returned is local, its life is prolonged when kept in a local constant reference. But returning some other type and expecting an implicit conversion is not a good idea.)
Answer to your question: Because NULL is a literal, no temporary object may be created most of the time and actual value can be directly returned to the caller.
This function
const string& foo();
does not return a pointer. It returns a constant reference to an object of type std::string. So its return value may not be assigned to a pointer.
According to the C++ Standard
4.10 Pointer conversions [conv.ptr]
1 A null pointer constant is an integer literal (2.14.2) with value zero or a prvalue of type std::nullptr_t. A null pointer constant can be converted to a pointer type; the result is the null pointer value of that type and is distinguishable from every other value of object pointer or function pointer type. Such a conversion is called a null pointer conversion. Two null pointer values of the same type shall compare equal. The conversion of a null pointer constant to a pointer to cv-qualified type is a single conversion, and not the sequence of a pointer conversion followed by a qualification conversion (4.4). A null pointer constant of integral type can be converted to a prvalue of type std::nullptr_t. [ Note: The resulting prvalue is not a null pointer value. —end note ]
So when you use null pointer constant defined with macro NULL it is assigned to the return pointer of the function that will contain null pointer value of type node *
While freeing memory, this is how I proceeded:
// Free `p` and all ancestors of `p`.
void free_family(person *p)
{
// TODO: Handle base case
if (p == NULL)
{
return NULL;
}It appears (ChatGPT) that the following will be the correct way:
// Free `p` and all ancestors of `p`.
void free_family(person *p)
{
// Handle base case
if (p == NULL)
{
return;
}In the context of freeing memory, you typically don't return anything (NULLor otherwise) because you are modifying memory, not producing a result (ChatGPT).
The distinction seems subtle and somewhat vague though makes sense.
Source: https://learning.edx.org/course/course-v1:HarvardX+CS50+X/home
I think you need something like
Normal* Sphere::hit(Ray ray) {
//stuff is done here
if(something happens) {
return NULL;
}
//other stuff
return new Normal(something, somethingElse);
}
to be able to return NULL;
There are several fairly standard ways of doing this. There are different tradeoffs for the methods, which I'm not going to go into here.
Method 1: Throw an exception on failure.
Normal Sphere::hit(Ray ray)
{
//stuff is done here
if(something happens) {
throw InvalidIntersection;
}
//other stuff
return Normal(something, somethingElse);
}
void example(Ray r)
{
try {
Normal n = s.hit(r);
... SUCCESS CASE ...
}
catch( InvalidIntersection& )
{
... FAILURE CASE ...
}
}
Method 2 return a pointer to a newly allocated object. (You could also use smart pointers, or auto_ptrs to make this a little neater).
Normal* Sphere::hit(Ray ray)
{
//stuff is done here
if(something happens) {
return NULL
}
//other stuff
return new Normal(something, somethingElse);
}
void example(Ray ray)
{
Normal * n = s.hit(ray);
if(!n) {
... FAILURE CASE ...
} else {
... SUCCESS CASE ...
delete n;
}
}
Method 3 is to update an existing object. (You could pass a reference, but a convention I use is that any output parameter is passed by pointer).
bool Sphere::hit(Ray ray, Normal* n)
{
//stuff is done here
if(something happens) {
return false
}
//other stuff
if(n) *n = Normal(something, somethingElse);
return true;
}
void example(Ray ray)
{
Normal n;
if( s.hit(ray, &n) ) {
... SUCCESS CASE ...
} else {
... FAILURE CASE ...
}
}
Method 4: Return an optional<Normal> (using boost or similar)
optional<Normal> Sphere::hit(Ray ray)
{
//stuff is done here
if(something happens) {
return optional<Normal>();
}
//other stuff
return optional<Normal>(Normal(something, somethingElse));
}
void example(Ray ray)
{
optional<Normal> n = s.hit(ray);
if( n ) {
... SUCCESS CASE (use *n)...
} else {
... FAILURE CASE ...
}
}
In C, NULL is a macro that expands either to 0 or (void*)0 (or something that has a similar effect).
In the first case, you can not differentiate between NULL and 0, because they are literally the same.
In the second case, your code will cause a compile error, because you can't compare an integer variable with a pointer.
First some background ...
The macros are
NULLwhich expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant; C11 §7.19 3
NULL typically is an integer constant 0 or (void*)0 or the like. It may have a different implementation or type - It could be ((int*) 0xDEADBEEF) as strange as that may be.
NULL might be type int. It might be type void * or something else. The type of NULL is not defined.
When the null pointer constant NULL is cast to any pointer, is is a null pointer. An integer 0 cast to a pointer is also a null pointer. A system could have many different (bit-wise) null pointers. They all compare equally to each other. They all compare unequally to any valid object/function. Recall this compare is done as pointers, not integers.
An integer constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type
void *, is called a null pointer constant. If a null pointer constant is converted to a pointer type, the resulting pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function. C11 §6.3.2.3 3
int x;
if (&x == NULL) ... // this is false
So after all that chapter and verse how to distinguish NULL from 0?
If the macro NULL is defined as an int 0 - it is game over - there is no difference between 0 and NULL.
If NULL is not an int, then code can use _Generic() to differentiate NULL and 0. This does not help OP's "Any change made can only be made within the function itself." requirement as that function accepts an int augment.
If NULL is an int that has a different bit-pattern than 0, then a simple memcmp() can differentiate.
I suspect the whole reason for this exercise is to realize there is no portable method to distinguish NULL from 0.