|
It looks like this function returns some local variable that goes out of scope after returning. However, better would be looking in its sorce code.
|
|
|
|
|
I have just tried to reproduce what you have done and the code works fine. I can only conclude that the code you are showing does not match what you are actually running. But since you have only shown small pieces and not the complete method where this occurs, it is difficult to say more.
|
|
|
|
|
I really, really would show the entire code because I am struggling of it, but unfortunately I cannot due to confidentiality issue. I'll try to write more code here.
|
|
|
|
|
What you need to display is the assignment to dir_struct.directory - nothing more. It may be as simple as a single statement (/line). I guess that confidentiality issues won't preclude that.
How did you get hold of that value? Which system call or library function provided it?
If you say "None, we built it from pieces ourselves, and that code is confidential", then you have got the answer: In that string building code you forgot to add the terminating nul. Otherwise: Tell us who provided the directory string, in which way.
|
|
|
|
|
No, this code is not written by us. I'll try to write here as much as I can.
P.S. The buggy code is written in C for Linux, and I don't know C (I guess this is visible  )
P.S. I don't pretend to know C++ either ... only that I fight in this domain ....
modified 30-Apr-20 12:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure that you can modify any confidential pieces so they do not reveal anything that they should not.
|
|
|
|
|
info* current = list_entry(walker, const info, list);
TRACE(_T("current->name %s\n"), current->name); -> _CrtDbgReport: String too long or IO Error
Why I got _CrtDbgReport: String too long or IO Error I wrote in my previous posts ...
modified 30-Apr-20 12:23pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I have managed to create a sample of all that code, although I find the #define list_entry_const somewhat difficult to deconstruct. However, with a valid name in the file_info entry it works fine. I can only assume that somewhere in the actual code that you are running there is some corruption of your data, or a pointer is not set up correctly.
[edit]
I also could not find the TRACE macro in Windows.
[/edit]
modified 30-Apr-20 9:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I also could not find the TRACE macro in Windows.
Isn't that an MFC thing?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Could be, but I haven't used MFC since about 2003, and I don't intend doing so ever again.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I also could not find the TRACE macro in Windows.
After a lot of calls... it finishes calling _CrtDbgReportW
|
|
|
|
|
It's an MFC* macro (as pointed out by David Crow above).
*Yes, I know, that combination of letters should no more pass my lips.
|
|
|
|
|
Like they say in the movies, the names have been changed to protect the innocent.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am really puzzled by how difficult it seem to be to explain how the value of that .directory was initialized. Where its value came from. How it was created.
Obviously, whatever created the value did not follow the C convention of terminating it with a nul - most likely because it doesn't have a C origin. Fair enough. But why is it so difficult to show how the .directory value was obtained?
As it now stands, it is like complaining "This variable should have av value between 0 and 100, but it is above 100. Why???" If you can't figure that out yourself, you must reveal how you calculate it, you cannot simply tell us how you use it, after it has gotten that out-of-range value-
Your directory string is another out-of-range value. How you use it, after it got this illegal value is of no interest. The important thing is how it got that value, not how you later use it. Like if you ask "Why does my value exceed 100?" Noone can tell unless you tell how you got or calculated that value. String values are no different: If they have an illegal value, such as not being nul-terminated in contexts where that is expected, the problem is in the source, not in the use of the value.
If it is as difficult as it seems to trace the source, identify where that directory sting came from, then you should not expect others to be able to help you. "I have an illegal value, but I can't tell where it came from - why is it not legal?" - noone can give you a reasonable answer to that.
So come on, tell us how the .directory value was obtained/created! Until you do that, you cannot expect any useful help from other forum members
|
|
|
|
|
I think you may be banging your head against a brick wall. I have tried this approach repeatedly and got nowhere. But well done for trying.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try myself the piece of code that I am putting here, by now I have taken the code from real project. I come back soon. I only need to move those structures in a test app and make it run.
modified 1-May-20 11:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what I've discovered by now:
dir_data_t directory_data;
strncpy(directory_data.current_directory, "/", sizeof(directory_data.current_directory));
directory_data is ok by now.
struct list_head* filewalker = NULL;
file_info_t dirlist;
logdir(&directory_data, &dirlist);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dirlist.list);
const file_info_t* current_file = NULL;
list_for_each(filewalker, &dirlist.list)
{
current_file = list_entry_const(filewalker, const file_info_t, list);
TRACE(_T("current_file->name %s\n"), current_file->name); }
after that,
strcat(directory_data.current_directory, current_file->name);
is not ok, of course. INIT_LIST_HEAD, list_for_each and list_entry_const are Linux functions. logdir functions I could not reproduced in a test app or write here because has many dependencies ... and to be everything more complicated, all this code is written in a recursive function .... is quite difficult to reproduced this situation in a test app ... I am trying to explore logdir function to see what I find there ...
|
|
|
|
|
That looks quite likely that some entries in your list are either corrupt, or have not been set to a valid entry.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify over on pointer/array as argument
One way is to pass the array as pointer
int Function( int * arrayargument)
{
for(int i =0; i < 10; i++)
{
arrayargument[i] = 1;
}
}
int AnArray[10];
Function(AnArray);
Function(&AnArray[0]);
could same result be achieved by calling it case2 mode?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in case 1 the compiler assumes the name of the array actually means a pointer to the first element. In case 2 you have specifically requested "pass the address of the first element of the array".
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
When you can do the same thing in several ways something is not right 
|
|
|
|
|
fearless_ wrote: When you can do the same thing in several ways something is not right
I can only imagine the following program will blow your mind:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
int i1 = a[2];
int i2 = 2[a];
printf("i1 = %d i2 = %d\n", i1, i2);
return 0;
}
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
I would also pass the size of the array to the function instead of hard-coding it at 10:
int Function(int* arrayargument, size_t size)
|
|
|
|
|
I was trying to keep the example as simple as possible. But since we`re here, what`s size_t? It`s the second time I see someone using it, is it an actual variable or just a custom?
modified 28-Apr-20 11:04am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
