Difference between memcpy and copy by assignment

Question

Struct A
{
   uint16_t len;
   uint8_t  cnt;
   uint8_t  unit;
   uint32_t seq; 
};

This struct A is serialized into a char * buf. If I want to deserialize the individual values eg:

uint16_t len = 0;
memcpy(&len, buf, sizeof(len));

or I can just do

uint16_t len = (uint16_t) buf;

Which one is better or are both the same?

Also to deserialize the whole struct, if I just do

A tmp;

memcpy(&tmp, buf, sizeof(A));

Would this work fine or should I be worried about padding etc from the compiler?

You probably meant len = *(uint16_t*)buf. Well, that's a strict aliasing rule violation. — Eugene Sh.
– Eugene Sh., Commented Feb 1, 2018 at 20:37
This is another question, which is actually already answered multiple times. stackoverflow.com/questions/98650/… — Eugene Sh.
– Eugene Sh., Commented Feb 1, 2018 at 20:45

Sergey Kalinichenko · Accepted Answer · 2018-02-01 20:50:51Z

8

When the data is copied into char[] buffer, it may not be properly aligned in memory for access as multi-byte types. Copying the data back into struct restores proper alignment.

If I want to deserialize the individual values eg:
uint16_t len = 0;
memcpy(&len, buf, sizeof(len));

Assuming that you have copied the struct into buf, this is perfectly valid, because the language guarantees that the initial member would be aligned with the beginning of the structure. However, casting buf to uint16_t* is invalid, because the buffer many not be properly aligned in memory to be addressed as uint16_t.

Note that getting elements of the struct other than the initial one require computing proper offset:

uint32_t seq;
memcpy(&seq, buf+offsetof(struct A, seq), sizeof(seq));

Also to deserialize the whole struct, if I just do
A tmp;
memcpy(&tmp, buf, sizeof(A));
Would this work fine or should I be worried about padding etc from the compiler?

This would work fine. Any padding embedded in the struct when you copied it into the buf would come back into tmp, along with the actual data.

edited Feb 1, 2018 at 20:50

answered Feb 1, 2018 at 20:40

Sergey Kalinichenko

729k85 gold badges1.2k silver badges1.6k bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

7 Comments

Eternal Learner Over a year ago

Sorry I meant len = *(uint16_t*)buf .

Sergey Kalinichenko Over a year ago

@EternalLearner Yes, I assumed that you meant to cast to pointer and dereference, that's why I wrote about casting buf to uint16_t* pointer.

Eternal Learner Over a year ago

so would there be a difference between memcopy and doing this assignment copy? If yes, what would that be? Which method is preferred?

Sergey Kalinichenko Over a year ago

@EternalLearner If you get the struct over the network, the method would be unsafe, unless the sender uses compatible hardware. If it does not, you would need to work out some protocol with ntoh/hton.

WhozCraig Over a year ago

@EternalLearner ideally, you develop a formal protocol for transmitting the data serially (over network, or otherwise), then comply with that protocol with both the sender and the receive. Doing so has the added advantage, if you set up the protocol wisely, of being platform-independent; something which struct-dumping into a buffer, sending, then buffer-dumping into a struct, is sorely lacking.

|

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Difference between memcpy and copy by assignment

1 Answer 1

7 Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

7 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related