We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
Hi, I am using calloc in a function to allocate memory to my array. This function writes to the array different number of elements each time the function is called. Here is my problem. Say for the first time function writes to all the 3 locations and next time it writes to only first 2 locations. After the second call, the 3rd memory locations still contains the value written by the first function call. I understand that is the way it works.But I want to know if there is a way to erase all the locations before calling the function again? Is there any built-in function available? Also when I print the values of array initially it doesn't print zeroes. I have read that calloc initializes the memory fields to 0's. Following is the function code.
function write_to_array(int value) { int xdata *ascii_value,i; ascii_value = calloc(3, sizeof (int)); for(i=0;value!=0;i++) { mod = value%10; c = mod+'0'; ascii_value[i] = toascii(c); value/=10; } }
Do use 'plain' char when you are dealing with character set functionality Please give me an example of "character set functionality" ONLY for a char in small embedded. Since small embedded rarely (never?) have a character e.g. ASCII on which no arithmetic is performed, using 'just' char there makes the ambiguity shine through.
Please give me an example of where you need to use 'just' char in a small embedded system. Please do not suggest to use the libraries which, since specified for 'full size', are way too 'comprehensive' and thus too large for small embedded.
DO NOTE, my suggestion 'outlaw char' was in relation to 'portability' (which I do not think apply to small embedded) but in reuse of code (which I do think apply to small embedded) the ambiguity may bite you.
Erik
"Please give me an example of "character set functionality" ONLY for a char in small embedded."
Is this really necessary? It's pretty basic stuff and I already did -- "... an LCD message ..." (i.e., a character string literal).
i asked: "Please give me an example of where you need to use 'just' char"
is "... an LCD message such an example - hardly.
"i asked: "Please give me an example of where you need to use 'just' char""
Yes, but there were two "Please give me...". I replied to the first one.
Anyway, why reject the LCD string literal example? Small systems can't have LCDs? How about a string literal going out a UART? Can small systems use a UART?
Anyway, why reject the LCD string literal example? Small systems can't have LCDs? How about a string literal going out a UART? Can small systems use a UART? I reject neither, what I post is that neither NEED 'plain' char. either will work with unsigned, signed and plain. This is an outcrop of the "you do not NEED 'plain' char in small embedded.
"... what I post is that neither NEED 'plain' char. either will work with unsigned, signed and plain."
No, string literals are comprised of 'plain' chars. You don't have any choice.
An excerpt from The Standard's section 6.4.5 paragraph 5:
"For character string literals, the array elements have type char ..."
If you use string literals, you need chars and you are using chars. They simply can't be avoided.