While going through an example of pointers I came across a line which was *p[5] declares p as an array of 5 pointers while (*p)[5] declares p as a pointer to an array of five elements. I didn't understand the difference between them.
Could anyone explain it with an example?
1. int (*p)[5]
is called a Pointer to an Array(Array Pointer). We can declare a pointer that can point to whole array instead of only one element of the array.This pointer is useful when talking about multidimensional arrays.
In this example p is pointer that can point to an array of 5 integers.
/*Pointer to an array*/
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int *ptr; /*can point to an integer*/
int (*p)[5];/*can point to an array of 5 integers*/
int arr[5];
ptr=arr;/*points to 0th element of arr*/
p=&arr;/*points to the whole array arr*/
printf("ptr=%p,p=%p\n",ptr,p);
ptr++;
p++;
printf("ptr=%p,p=%p\n",ptr,p);
return 0;
}
Output:
ptr=0012FEAC,p=0012FEAC
ptr=0012FEB0,P=0012FEC0
Here ptr is pointer that points to 0th element of array arr,while p is pointer that points to the whole array arr.The base type of ptr is int while base type of p is ‘an array of 5 integers’.
We know that pointer arithmetic is performed relative to the base size,so if we write p++ then the pointer will be shifted forward by 20 bytes.
2. Now coming to *p[5]:
This is called Array of Pointers(Pointer Array)
Correct syntax is datatype *arrayname[size];
We can declare an array that contains pointers as its elements.Every element of this array is a pointer variable that can hold address of any variable of appropriate type.
/*Array of pointers*/
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int *p[5];
int i,a=5,b=10,c=15;
p[0]=&a;
p[1]=&b;
p[2]=&c;
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
{
printf("p[%d]=%p\t",i,p[i]);
printf("*p[%d]=%d\n",i,*p[i]);
}
return 0;
}
Output:
p[0]=0012FEB4 *p[0]=5
p[1]=0012FEA8 *p[1]=10
p[2]=0012FE9C *p[2]=15
I hope this explanation along with examples will clear your concepts.
Hope this is helpful :)
The order of evaluation differs. *p[3] resolves to *(p[3]) but not (*p)[3]. Also note that *p is equivalent to p[0]. Therefore, ...
*p[3] ⇔ *(p[3]) ⇔ (p[3])[0] ⇔ p[3][0]
(*p)[3] ⇔ (p[0])[3] ⇔ p[0][3]
Assuming you have an array of arrays, the difference is shown below:
A pointer is like a sticky note; you write on it where you put the actual object.
An array is a box with equal compartments. It can store objects of the same type.
You have three balls.
An array of three pointers is a box that contains three stickers. Each sticker tells where each ball is located (they might not be all in the same place).
A pointer to an array of three elements is a sticky note that tells where to find the box. The box contains all tree balls.
Let us see if this helps ,in short, assuming int
1) int *p[3]
int *p1 = &i;
int *p2 = &j;
int *p3 = &k;
Instead of the above 3 separate pointers, I can have an array of pointers as int *p[3]. Each element in the array can point to i,j, and k, all are ints
2) int (*p)[3]
int array[3];
If I want a pointer which points to this array which have 3 elements, the pointer declaration will be int (*p)[3]. This is a pointer pointing to array
Related
*edited to clarify that the array is unknown
If the address of unknown integer array is 0x00006ffd29c78e70 (and an integer is 4 bytes), what is the address of element array[1]?
Many thanks in advance.
The address of the array is also the address of its first element. This is because the array itself in memory consists solely of each of its elements (starting at index 0) in turn. Therefore if A is an array, &A[0] points to the same memory as A. (Note that there is a technical difference between an array of integers type and a pointer to an integer type, though they are in many cases interchangeable as the former decays into the latter under certain circumstances which are beyond the scope of this question; this is why I described them as pointing both to the same memory).
You asked about the first element, and then referred to A[1]. Note that A[1] is the second element. A[0] is the first element.
So in your particular example, you could do:
int *A = (int *)0x00006ffd29c78e70;
int *A1 = &A[1]; // points to second element
int foo = *A1; // second element contents
or using pointer arithmetic
int *A = (int *)0x00006ffd29c78e70;
int *A1 = A+1; // points to second element
int foo = *A1; // second element contents
Note the +1 does not add one to the (byte) address, but increments the pointer by one int.
Note I have written int above - use the correct integer data type to represent your 4 byte integer.
If 0x00006ffd29c78e70 is the address of a valid array of ints then you can assign it to a pointer:
int *p = (int*)0x00006ffd29c78e70;
then p[1] will give you the next element (second) in that array.
Elements are at
unsigned char *addressofarray = whatever;
unsigned char *secondelement = addressofarray + sizeof arrayelement;
unsigned char *nthelement = addressofarray + n * sizeof arrayelement;
you just got a pointer to acess any thing in array as:
int *ptr = (int*) 0x00006ffd29c78e70;
you can acess any element as:
*(ptr+i) //i is the index
I'm new in programming and learning about pointers in array. I'm a bit confused right now. Have a look at the program below:
#include <stdio.h>
int fun();
int main()
{
int num[3][3]={23,32,478,55,0,56,25,13, 80};
printf("%d\n",*(*(num+0)+1));
fun(num);
printf("%d\n", *(*(num+0)+1));
*(*(num+0)+0)=23;
printf("%d\n",*(*(num+0)));
return 0;
}
int fun(*p) // Compilation error
{
*(p+0)=0;
return 0;
}
This was the program written in my teacher's notes. Here in the main() function, in the printf() function dereference operator is being used two times because num is pointer to array so first time dereference operator will give pointer to int and then second one will give the value at which the pointer is pointing to.
My question is that when I'm passing the array name as argument to the function fun() then why *p is used; why not **p as num is a pointer to array?
Second thing why *(p+0) is used to change the value of zeroth element of the array; why not *(*(p+0)+0)=0 as in the main() function *(*(num+0)+0) is used to change the value of zeroth element?
The whole thing is very confusing for me but I have to understand it anyway. I have searched about this and found that there is a difference between pointer to array and pointer to pointer but I couldn't understand much.
The trick is the array-pointer-decay: When you mention the name of an array, it will decay into a pointer to its first element in almost all contexts. That is num is simply an array of three arrays of three integers (type = int [3][3]).
Lets analyse the expression *(*(num + 1) + 2).
When you mention num in the expression *(num + 1), it decays into a pointer to its first element which is an array of three integers (type = int (*)[3]). On this pointer pointer arithmetic is performed, and the size of whatever the pointer points to is added to the value of the pointer. In this case it is the size of an array of three integers (that's 12 bytes on many machines). After dereferencing the pointer, you are left with a type of int [3].
However, this dereferencing only concerns the type, because right after the dereferencing operation, we see expression *(/*expression of type int[3]*/ + 2), so the inner expression decays back into a pointer to the first array element. This pointer contains the same address as the pointer that results from num + 1, but it has a different type: int*. Consequently, the pointer arithmetic on this pointer advances the pointer by two integers (8 bytes). So the expression *(*(num + 1) + 2) yields the integer element at an offset of 12 + 8 = 20 bytes, which is the sixth integer in the array.
Regarding your question about the call of fun(), that call is actually broken, and only works because your teacher did not include the arguments in the forward declaration of fun(). The code
int fun(int* arg);
int main() {
int num[3][3] = ...;
...
fun(num);
}
would have generated a compile time error due to the wrong pointer type. The code of your teacher "works", because the pointer to the first array in num is the same as the pointer to the first element of the first array in num, i. e. his code is equivalent to
int fun(int* arg);
int main() {
int num[3][3] = ...;
...
//both calls are equivalent
fun(num[0]);
fun(&num[0][0]);
}
which would compile without error.
This example shows a matrix, pointers to the first integers of arrays, and pointer to pointer
#include<stdio.h>
int fun(int (*p)[3]); /* p is pointer to array of 3 ints */
int main()
{
/* matrix */
int num[3][3]={{23,32,478},{55,0,56},{25,13, 80}};
/* three pointers to first integer of array */
int *pnum[3] = {num[0], num[1], num[2]};
/* pointer to pointer */
int **ppnum = pnum;
printf("%d\n", *(*(num+1)+2));
fun(num);
printf("%d\n", *(*(num+1)+2));
pnum[1][2] = 2;
printf("%d\n", *(*(num+1)+2));
ppnum[1][2] = 3;
printf("%d\n", *(*(num+1)+2));
return 0;
}
int fun(int (*p)[3])
{
p[1][2]=1;
return 0;
}
You do not actually need any pointers to print anything here.
Your int num[3][3] is actually an array of three elements, each of which is an array of three integers. Thus num[0][0] = 23, num[1][1] = 0, and so on. Thus you can say printf("%d", num[0][0]) to print the first element of the array.
Pointer to variable:
Pointer is variable which stores the address( of a variable). Every one know that.
Pointer to Array:
An array is a variable which has the starting point(address) of group of same objects.
And the pointer is a variable which stores the starting point(address) of an Array.
For example:
int iArray[3];
iArray is a variable which has an address value of three integers and the memory is allocated statically. And the below syntax is provided in a typical programming languages.
// iArray[0] = *(iArray+0);
// iArray[1] = *(iArray+1);
// iArray[2] = *(iArray+2);
In the above the iArray is a variable through which we can access the three integer variables, using any of the syntax mentioned above.
*(iArray+0); // Here iArray+0 is the address of the first object. and * is to dereference
*(iArray+1); // Here iArray+1 is the address of the second object. and * is to dereference
So simple, what is there to confuse.
The below lines are for your understanding
int iArray1[3];
int iArray2[3][3];
int *ipArray = 0;
ipArray = iArray1; // correct
ipArray = iArray2[0]; // correct
ipArray = iArray2[2]; // correct
int **ippArray = iArray2; // wrong
As per the above last line, compiler will not take it as a valid assignment. So **p is not used.
Pointer arthmatic cannot be applied on double arrays because of the way memory is allocated.
Why does a 3D array print address after being dereferenced twice? Please help me understand the code posted below, (assume that the array begins at location 1002).
int main()
{
int a[2][3][4]={
{
1,2,3,4,
4,5,6,7,
9,1,1,2
},
{
2,1,4,7,
6,7,8,9,
0,0,0,0
}
};
printf("%u %u %u %u\n",a,*a,**a,***a); //a == *a == **a, all print address 1002. Why?
}
**a has type int * and points to the first int in the 3D array
*a has type int (*)[4] and points to the first row of the 3D array
a has type int (*)[3][4] and points to the first 2D array in the 3D array
&a has type int (*)[2][3][4] and points to the whole 3D array
So they are all pointers that point to the same address. It's just that the type of the pointer is different. The following code may help illustrate this point.
int main( void )
{
int a[2][3][4]={ 1,2,3,4, 4,5,6,7, 9,1,1,2, 2,1,4,7, 6,7,8,9, 0,0,0,0 };
int *ptrInt; // pointer to an int
int (*ptrArray1)[4]; // pointer to an array of ints
int (*ptrArray2)[3][4]; // pointer to a 2D array of ints
int (*ptrArray3)[2][3][4]; // pointer to a 3D array of ints
ptrInt = **a;
ptrArray1 = *a;
ptrArray2 = a;
ptrArray3 = &a;
printf( "%p %p\n", ptrInt , ptrInt + 1 );
printf( "%p %p\n", ptrArray1, ptrArray1 + 1 );
printf( "%p %p\n", ptrArray2, ptrArray2 + 1 );
printf( "%p %p\n", ptrArray3, ptrArray3 + 1 );
}
Note: I left out the inner braces in the array initialization specifically to demonstrate that the inner braces are optional. Best practice would have all of the inner braces.
Typical output from this code is shown below. I've added comments to show the difference between the two pointers as a decimal number.
0x17b00 0x17b04 // 4 bytes, hence pointer to an int
0x17b00 0x17b10 // 16 bytes, pointer to int[4]
0x17b00 0x17b30 // 48 bytes, pointer to int[3][4]
0x17b00 0x17b60 // 96 bytes, pointer to int[2][3][4]
Note that when you add 1 to any pointer, the size of the object is added to the pointer. For example, if you have an int * and you add 1 to that pointer, the value of the pointer will increase by 4 because sizeof(int) == 4. (Yes, that assumes that ints are 32-bits, thank you.)
So by adding 1 to a pointer, you can determine the size of the object that the pointer points to. That gives you a clue about the type of the pointer from the compiler's point of view. In the example above, notice that adding 1 to ptrArray1 changes the pointer by 16. That's because ptrArray1 points to an object of size 16, specifically it points to an array of 4 ints.
Just so that we're all completely confused, allow me to say that the following line of code will print the number 8. I chose 8 since it only appears once in the array, so you can tell where it's coming from.
printf( "%d\n", ptrArray3[0][1][1][2]);
Notice that it appears that I'm using ptrArray3 as a 4-dimensional array. This is why pointers to multidimensional arrays are so confusing in C. When you convert an array to a pointer, the pointer has one less dimension than the array. But when you use the pointer with array syntax, you use it as though it had one more dimension.
So for example, start with a 2D array
int array[4][100];
The corresponding pointer is a pointer to a 1D array
int (*ptr)[100] = array;
But you can use that pointer like a 2D array
ptr[2][100] = 6;
That is the basis for all of the confusion, and the reason that pointer-to-array is a seldom used feature in C.
a has the type array of size 2 of arrays of size 3 of arrays of size 4 of int.
*a has the type array of size 3 of arrays of size 4 of int.
**a has the type array of size 4 of int.
All three arrays when decayed to corresponding pointers have the same value because they point to the same location in memory.
Try the following Code:
int main()
{
int a[2][3][4]={
{
{1,2,3,4},
{4,5,6,7},
{9,1,1,2}
},
{
{2,1,4,7},
{6,7,8,9},
{0,0,0,0}
}
};
printf("%u %u %u u%",a,*a,**a,***a);//how a == *a == **a print address 1002 please help me to understand ?
}
The reason it was returning the address was because you didn't declare your 3d array properly at all. The above is the corrected code, try it out and let us know how it goes
I have a two dimensional array like this:
void getC(int **p)
{
*p = &c[0][0];
}
int c[10][10];
int *a;
getC(a);
a[0][0];
it says error: no match for 'operator[]' in `a[0][0];` what is the problem and how to fix it?
You're compiling a C program with a C++ compiler. Watch out!
You need to put the definition of c above the getC function (or provide a forward declaration).
You have statements outside of a function, which isn't allowed in C. Wrap the int *a and subsequent lines with int main(void) { ... }
You need a & to make your getC() call legal - you're passing an int *, but it expects int **:
getC(&a);
The statement a[0][0] has no effect, and is anyway wrong since a is just an int *; you can't dereference it twice.
You should probably get a beginner C book and start working through it.
Essentially you are sort of downgrading the array/pointer from an int (*)[10] (pointer to array of 10 int) to a simple int pointer, by just returning the address of the first element of the 2dim array. While this is techically correct (the address of one element of the 2dim array is of course an int*), the information about the structure/layout of the ints in the array is lost, so the resulting a-ptr doesn't now anything about the fact that the int was part of a [10][10] structure.
In your case, the only way to get to the array elements would be to multiply your way through the int arrays, based on your own knowledge that at address a there are 100 ints organized 10x10:
int *a;
getC(&a);
...= a[10*x + y]; // equivalent of c[x][y];
.
However, essentially, the correct way (completely preserving types) would be
int c[10][10];
void getC(int (**p)[10]) // pointer to pointer to array of 10 ints
{
*p = c; // c itself can seamlessly change into a pointer to one sub-element
// (i.e. pointer to array of 10)
}
int main()
{
int (*a)[10]; // pointer to array(s) of 10 ints
int q;
getC(&a);
q= a[9][9];
...
}
The same again with one more dimension level (probably the most intutive solution):
However, essentially, the correct way (completely preserving types) would be
int c[10][10];
void getC(int (**p)[10][10]) // pointer to pointer to array of 10x10 ints
{
*p = &c; // &c can seamlessly change into a pointer to 10x10 ints
}
int main()
{
int (*a)[10][10]; // pointer to array(s) of 10x10 ints
int q;
getC(&a); // pass adress of pointer to 10x10 ints
q= (*a)[9][9]; // need *a in brackets to derference the pointer (operator precedence)
...
}
Suppose I have:
int (* arrPtr)[10] = NULL; // A pointer to an array of ten elements with type int.
int (*ptr)[3]= NULL;
int var[10] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
int matrix[3][10];
Now if I do,
arrPtr = matrix; //.....This is fine...
Now can I do this:
ptr = var; //.....***This is working***
OR is it compulsory to do this:
ptr= (int (*)[10])var; //....I dont understand why this is necessary
Also,
printf("%d",(*ptr)[4]);
is working even though we declare
int (*ptr)[3]=NULL;
^^^
In some cases, Name of Array is Pointer to it's First Location.
So, when you do,
ptr = var;
You are assigning address of var[0] to ptr[0]
int var[10] declaration makes var as an int pointer
As both are int pointers, the operation is valid.
For Second Question,
When you declare a Pointer, It points to some address.
Say
int * ptr = 0x1234; //Some Random address
now when you write ptr[3], it's 0x1234 + (sizeof(int) * 3).
So Pointer works irrespective of it's declared array size.
So when ptr = NULL,
*ptr[4] will point to NULL + (sizeof(int) * 4)
i.e. A Valid Operation!
ptr and var aren't compatible pointers because ptr is a pointer to an array of 3 ints and var is an array of 10 ints, 3 ≠ 10.
(*ptr)[4] works likely because the compiler doesn't do rigorous boundary checks when indexing arrays. This probably has to do with the fact that a lot of existing C code uses variable-size structures defined something like this:
typedef struct
{
int type;
size_t size; // actual number of chars in data[]
unsigned char data[1];
} DATA_PACKET;
The code allocates more memory to a DATA_PACKET* pointer than sizeof(DATA_PACKET), here it would be sizeof(DATA_PACKET)-1+how many chars need to be in data[].
So, the compiler ignores index=4 when dereferencing (*ptr)[4] even though it's >= 3 in the declaration int (*ptr)[3].
Also, the compiler cannot always keep track of arrays and their sizes when accessing them through pointers. Code analysis is hard.
ptr is a pointer to array of 3 integers, so ptr[0] will point to the start of the first array, ptr[1] will point to the start of the second array and so on.
In your case:
printf("%d",(*ptr)[4]);
works as you print the element no 5 of the first array
and
printf("%d",(*ptr+1)[4]);
print the element no 5 of the second array ( which of course doesn't exists)
for example the following is the same as yours
printf("%d",ptr[0][4]);
but this doesn't mean that you depend on this as var is array of 10 integers, so ptr has to be decelared as
int *ptr = NULL
in this case to print the element no 5
printf("%d", ptr[4]);