Suppose I want to write a function:
int read_file (char *filename, void *abc)
that reads the file, and puts the numbers in an array, which abc points to.
I must use the void pointer - I know how I would do it if it were int *abc instead of void, as I could treat abc syntactically like an array, and do stuff like abc[0]=1, but here I can't do that, as it's a void pointer.
I'm not too familiar with void pointers, and how I should get this to work. Please help! I prefer not to post code, as this is for a school assignment, and just want to know how I would put the information in the file into an array pointed to by abc, maybe with casting (not sure how to do that though).
I am already familiar with putting file information into an array, if it's given by int abc.
If read_file is always called with an int array for the abc parameter, you can just copy it to an int pointer and work with that.
int *p = abc;
In most cases, you need to cast when changing from one type to another, however a void * may be freely cast to or from any non-function pointer without a cast safely.
Underneath the hood all pointers are the same - they're integers which represent memory addresses. So you can cast them every which way. Just go:
int *p = (int *)abc;
And voila - you have your int * which you already know how to deal with. This is the "casting" thing, by the way - write the desired type in parentheses in front of your expression to "cast" it. It'll take the same bits and reinterpret them in a different way.
In a few cases C is actually smart enough to convert the data rather than blindly use the same bits. For example:
float f = 3.75;
int i = (int)f;
In this case i will contain 3 because it rounds down in this case. And an int is stored in memory differently than a float, so there is actual conversion going on here.
And in other cases it will forbid you to cast at all, because of how little sense it makes:
char *c = "Hello, world!";
float f = (float)c;
But quite often you can get away with it. Especially with pointers, everything is fair game. Now, mind you, with great power comes great responsibility. Although you can do it, doesn't mean that the result will be sensible and that using it won't crash your program. Be careful.
Related
I've seen many topics about typecasting integers into void * but I still have trouble understanding why it works without casting them, and why solving these warnings are so time-consuming, at least the way I see it.
I tried to make this topic as small as possible but trying to explain everything, but I think explaining the steps I did, how I was trying to do it, etc.. is much easier for people to understand my issue.
I'm working with linked lists and my structure is :
typedef struct list_t {
struct list_t *prev;
void *data;
struct list_t *next;
}list_s;
In the beginning, I simply set the data type as an integer, because I would always use integers in my program. My only problem was if I wanted to set the data value to NULL to check if there was something in my linked list (if I already used it once).
Some people would say "just set it to zero" but I could have a zero-value in my list, so there could be an error at some point.
I thought about just setting a variable such as "has_list_been_already_used" or something like that but I think that it would just make my code way bigger just for nothing.
My first thought after having this warning :
warning: assignment to ‘void *’ from ‘int’ makes pointer from integer without a cast
was: "oh I'll just cast it to void * like (void*)my_atoi(datastring); and that's it.
but I got another warning :
warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size
At this point, I didn't know what to do and didn't really find any issue to typecast this way. On the other hand, I've found another way of doing it, but I wonder if this is the right thing to do and if there is another way that doesn't lead to modifying almost all of my code and expanding it. Let me explain :
Someone said that you could just cast integers to void * this way :
int x = 10;
void *pointer = &x;
and retrieving it in the code such as :
int y = *((int *) pointer);
In my code, everywhere I would be retrieving my data from my structure, I will always have to do it this way.
Is that really the only option I got? And why just type-casting it from an integer to a void* doesn't do the job, especially if it "works well", but indeed, have warnings.
Thanks.
Typecasting pointer usually doesn't do anything internally. It however tells your compiler that is is to treat the pointer as a typed pointer.
So a pointer is literally that. It points to a place in memory. And what type of object is stored at that place is not always known. You can tell your compiler that it is an integer by casting: (int* iptr = (int*) voidptr)
Now your compiler will read the memory location pointed to by the pointer as if it was an integer. If it was not an integer, you will get garbled data.
Now this example:
int x = 10;
void *pointer = &x;
This is ok, because you say "make a pointer (to anything) form this pointer to an int" Which is ok, because a pointer to an int always points to anything.
But if you do it the other ways you have to explicitly say that you are sure there is an int stored there, because the compiler doesn't know.
If you want, you can just make a linkedlist of integers. Then you don't even need to use pointers. Just put the integer in the struct instead of the void*.
The reason this linkedlist structure is written this way, is that it allows for any type of data, or data structure to be used. This is why they added stuff like templating in c++. ( But we are talking c now)
The proper c way to do it would probably be to make a macro like
#define declare_LL_type(type) ...
Which would make a custom typed linkedlist struct definition.
This question goes out to the C gurus out there:
In C, it is possible to declare a pointer as follows:
char (* p)[10];
.. which basically states that this pointer points to an array of 10 chars. The neat thing about declaring a pointer like this is that you will get a compile time error if you try to assign a pointer of an array of different size to p. It will also give you a compile time error if you try to assign the value of a simple char pointer to p. I tried this with gcc and it seems to work with ANSI, C89 and C99.
It looks to me like declaring a pointer like this would be very useful - particularly, when passing a pointer to a function. Usually, people would write the prototype of such a function like this:
void foo(char * p, int plen);
If you were expecting a buffer of an specific size, you would simply test the value of plen. However, you cannot be guaranteed that the person who passes p to you will really give you plen valid memory locations in that buffer. You have to trust that the person who called this function is doing the right thing. On the other hand:
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
..would force the caller to give you a buffer of the specified size.
This seems very useful but I have never seen a pointer declared like this in any code I have ever ran across.
My question is: Is there any reason why people do not declare pointers like this? Am I not seeing some obvious pitfall?
What you are saying in your post is absolutely correct. I'd say that every C developer comes to exactly the same discovery and to exactly the same conclusion when (if) they reach certain level of proficiency with C language.
When the specifics of your application area call for an array of specific fixed size (array size is a compile-time constant), the only proper way to pass such an array to a function is by using a pointer-to-array parameter
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
(in C++ language this is also done with references
void foo(char (&p)[10]);
).
This will enable language-level type checking, which will make sure that the array of exactly correct size is supplied as an argument. In fact, in many cases people use this technique implicitly, without even realizing it, hiding the array type behind a typedef name
typedef int Vector3d[3];
void transform(Vector3d *vector);
/* equivalent to `void transform(int (*vector)[3])` */
...
Vector3d vec;
...
transform(&vec);
Note additionally that the above code is invariant with relation to Vector3d type being an array or a struct. You can switch the definition of Vector3d at any time from an array to a struct and back, and you won't have to change the function declaration. In either case the functions will receive an aggregate object "by reference" (there are exceptions to this, but within the context of this discussion this is true).
However, you won't see this method of array passing used explicitly too often, simply because too many people get confused by a rather convoluted syntax and are simply not comfortable enough with such features of C language to use them properly. For this reason, in average real life, passing an array as a pointer to its first element is a more popular approach. It just looks "simpler".
But in reality, using the pointer to the first element for array passing is a very niche technique, a trick, which serves a very specific purpose: its one and only purpose is to facilitate passing arrays of different size (i.e. run-time size). If you really need to be able to process arrays of run-time size, then the proper way to pass such an array is by a pointer to its first element with the concrete size supplied by an additional parameter
void foo(char p[], unsigned plen);
Actually, in many cases it is very useful to be able to process arrays of run-time size, which also contributes to the popularity of the method. Many C developers simply never encounter (or never recognize) the need to process a fixed-size array, thus remaining oblivious to the proper fixed-size technique.
Nevertheless, if the array size is fixed, passing it as a pointer to an element
void foo(char p[])
is a major technique-level error, which unfortunately is rather widespread these days. A pointer-to-array technique is a much better approach in such cases.
Another reason that might hinder the adoption of the fixed-size array passing technique is the dominance of naive approach to typing of dynamically allocated arrays. For example, if the program calls for fixed arrays of type char[10] (as in your example), an average developer will malloc such arrays as
char *p = malloc(10 * sizeof *p);
This array cannot be passed to a function declared as
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
which confuses the average developer and makes them abandon the fixed-size parameter declaration without giving it a further thought. In reality though, the root of the problem lies in the naive malloc approach. The malloc format shown above should be reserved for arrays of run-time size. If the array type has compile-time size, a better way to malloc it would look as follows
char (*p)[10] = malloc(sizeof *p);
This, of course, can be easily passed to the above declared foo
foo(p);
and the compiler will perform the proper type checking. But again, this is overly confusing to an unprepared C developer, which is why you won't see it in too often in the "typical" average everyday code.
I would like to add to AndreyT's answer (in case anyone stumbles upon this page looking for more info on this topic):
As I begin to play more with these declarations, I realize that there is major handicap associated with them in C (apparently not in C++). It is fairly common to have a situation where you would like to give a caller a const pointer to a buffer you have written into. Unfortunately, this is not possible when declaring a pointer like this in C. In other words, the C standard (6.7.3 - Paragraph 8) is at odds with something like this:
int array[9];
const int (* p2)[9] = &array; /* Not legal unless array is const as well */
This constraint does not seem to be present in C++, making these type of declarations far more useful. But in the case of C, it is necessary to fall back to a regular pointer declaration whenever you want a const pointer to the fixed size buffer (unless the buffer itself was declared const to begin with). You can find more info in this mail thread: link text
This is a severe constraint in my opinion and it could be one of the main reasons why people do not usually declare pointers like this in C. The other being the fact that most people do not even know that you can declare a pointer like this as AndreyT has pointed out.
The obvious reason is that this code doesn't compile:
extern void foo(char (*p)[10]);
void bar() {
char p[10];
foo(p);
}
The default promotion of an array is to an unqualified pointer.
Also see this question, using foo(&p) should work.
I also want to use this syntax to enable more type checking.
But I also agree that the syntax and mental model of using pointers is simpler, and easier to remember.
Here are some more obstacles I have come across.
Accessing the array requires using (*p)[]:
void foo(char (*p)[10])
{
char c = (*p)[3];
(*p)[0] = 1;
}
It is tempting to use a local pointer-to-char instead:
void foo(char (*p)[10])
{
char *cp = (char *)p;
char c = cp[3];
cp[0] = 1;
}
But this would partially defeat the purpose of using the correct type.
One has to remember to use the address-of operator when assigning an array's address to a pointer-to-array:
char a[10];
char (*p)[10] = &a;
The address-of operator gets the address of the whole array in &a, with the correct type to assign it to p. Without the operator, a is automatically converted to the address of the first element of the array, same as in &a[0], which has a different type.
Since this automatic conversion is already taking place, I am always puzzled that the & is necessary. It is consistent with the use of & on variables of other types, but I have to remember that an array is special and that I need the & to get the correct type of address, even though the address value is the same.
One reason for my problem may be that I learned K&R C back in the 80s, which did not allow using the & operator on whole arrays yet (although some compilers ignored that or tolerated the syntax). Which, by the way, may be another reason why pointers-to-arrays have a hard time to get adopted: they only work properly since ANSI C, and the & operator limitation may have been another reason to deem them too awkward.
When typedef is not used to create a type for the pointer-to-array (in a common header file), then a global pointer-to-array needs a more complicated extern declaration to share it across files:
fileA:
char (*p)[10];
fileB:
extern char (*p)[10];
Well, simply put, C doesn't do things that way. An array of type T is passed around as a pointer to the first T in the array, and that's all you get.
This allows for some cool and elegant algorithms, such as looping through the array with expressions like
*dst++ = *src++
The downside is that management of the size is up to you. Unfortunately, failure to do this conscientiously has also led to millions of bugs in C coding, and/or opportunities for malevolent exploitation.
What comes close to what you ask in C is to pass around a struct (by value) or a pointer to one (by reference). As long as the same struct type is used on both sides of this operation, both the code that hand out the reference and the code that uses it are in agreement about the size of the data being handled.
Your struct can contain whatever data you want; it could contain your array of a well-defined size.
Still, nothing prevents you or an incompetent or malevolent coder from using casts to fool the compiler into treating your struct as one of a different size. The almost unshackled ability to do this kind of thing is a part of C's design.
You can declare an array of characters a number of ways:
char p[10];
char* p = (char*)malloc(10 * sizeof(char));
The prototype to a function that takes an array by value is:
void foo(char* p); //cannot modify p
or by reference:
void foo(char** p); //can modify p, derefernce by *p[0] = 'f';
or by array syntax:
void foo(char p[]); //same as char*
I would not recommend this solution
typedef int Vector3d[3];
since it obscures the fact that Vector3D has a type that you
must know about. Programmers usually dont expect variables of the
same type to have different sizes. Consider :
void foo(Vector3d a) {
Vector3d b;
}
where sizeof a != sizeof b
Maybe I'm missing something, but... since arrays are constant pointers, basically that means that there's no point in passing around pointers to them.
Couldn't you just use void foo(char p[10], int plen); ?
type (*)[];
// points to an array e.g
int (*ptr)[5];
// points to an 5 integer array
// gets the address of the array
type *[];
// points to an array of pointers e.g
int* ptr[5]
// point to an array of five integer pointers
// point to 5 adresses.
On my compiler (vs2008) it treats char (*p)[10] as an array of character pointers, as if there was no parentheses, even if I compile as a C file. Is compiler support for this "variable"? If so that is a major reason not to use it.
I've come across some C code that I don't quite understand. The following compiles and runs just fine. 1) Why can I cast a char* to a struct* and 2) is there any advantage to using this idiom instead of a void* ?
struct foo
{
int a;
int b;
char *nextPtr;
};
. . .
// This seems wrong
char *charPtr = NULL;
// Why not
//void *structPtr = NULL;
struct foo *fooPtr;
fooPtr = (struct foo*)charPtr;
// Edit removing the string portion as that's not really the point of the question.
You can convert between pointer types because this is the flexibility the language gives you. However, you should be cautious and know what you are doing or problems are likely.
No. There is an advantage to using the property pointer type so that no conversion is needed. If that isn't possible, it doesn't really matter if you use void*, although it may be slightly more clear to developers reading your code.
1) As mentioned, you can cast to any pointer type in C. (C++ may have more complex rules, the details of which I'm not aware)...
2) The benefit of char* vs void* is that you may perform pointer arithmetic on a char* but not on a void*.
The wisdom in performing pointer arithmetic is probably questionable based on the code you've posted, but it's often handy with structures which have variable length 'data'.
I think you're just coming across one of those classic "double-edged swords" of C.
In reality, a pointer is a pointer - just a variable that holds an address. You could, in theory, try to force that pointer to point to anything; a struct, an int, a (fill in the blank). C won't complain when you try to cast a pointer to one thing to a pointer for something else; it figures you know what you're doing. Heaven help you if you don't :)
In reality, yeah, a void * is probably a more apt way to declare a pointer that could point to next to anything, but I'm not sure it makes much difference in operation. Won't swear to that point, as there might be compiler optimizations and such that can take place if the pointer is strongly typed...
Yesterday while I was coding in C, my friend asked me pointing to a variable is it pointer or a variable ? I stucked up for a while. I didnt find an aswer to it , I just have to go back and search it and tell him.But I was thinking is there any function to differentiate them.
Can we differentiate a variable against a pointer variable
int a;
sizeof(a); // gives 2 bytes
int *b;
sizeof(b); // gives 2 bytes
// if we use sizeof() we get same answer and we cant say which is pointer
// and which is a variable
Is there a way to find out a variable is a normal variable or a pointer? I mean can someone say that it is a pointer or a variable after looking at your variable that you have declared at the beginning and then going down 1000 lines of your code?
After the comment
I wanted to say explicitly it's a 16 bit system architecture.
First, the question "Is it a pointer or a variable" doesn't make much sense. A pointer variable is a variable, just as an integer variable, or an array variable, is a variable.
So the real question is whether something is a pointer or not.
No, there's no function that can tell you whether something is a pointer or not. And if you think about it, in a statically typed language like C, there can't be. Functions take arguments of certain specified types. You can't pass a variable to a function unless the type (pointer or otherwise) is correct in the first place.
You mean differentiate them at run time without seeing the code? No, you can't. Pointers are variables that hold memory address. You can't check it at run time. That means, there is no such function isPointer(n) that will return true/false based on parameter n.
You can deduce the type from the use.
For example:
char* c;
...
c[0] = 'a';
*c = 'a';
Indexing and dereferencing would let you know it's a pointer to something (or it's an array if defined as char c[SOME_POSITIVE_NUMBER];).
Also, things like memset(c,...), memcpy(c,...) will suggest that c is a pointer (array).
OTOH, you can't normally do with pointers most of arithmetic, so, if you see something like
x = c * 2;
y = 3 / c;
z = c << 1;
w = 1 & c;
then c is not a pointer (array).
Three things:
What platform are you using where sizeof(int) returns 2? Seriously
Pointers are types. A pointer to an int is a type, just like an int is. The sizes of a type and a pointer to that type are sometimes equal but not directly related; for instance, a pointer to a double (on my machine, at least) has size 4 bytes while a double has size 8 bytes. sizeof() would be a very poor test, even if there was a situation where such a test would be appropriate (there isn't).
C is a strictly typed language, and your question doesn't really make sense in that context. As the programmer, you know exactly what a is and you will use it as such.
If you'd like to be able to tell whether a variable is a pointer or not when you see it in the source code, but without going back to look at the declaration, a common approach is to indicate it in the way you name your variables. For example, you might put a 'p' at the beginning of the names of pointers:
int *pValue; /* starts with 'p' for 'pointer' */
int iOther; /* 'i' for 'integer' */
...or even:
int *piSomething; /* 'pi' for 'Pointer to Integer' */
This makes it easy to tell the types when you see the variable in your code. Some people use quite a range of prefixes, to distinguish quite a range of types.
Try looking up "Hungarian notation" for examples.
no , you can't.
and what is the usage, as each time u run the code the pointer address will be different ?? however u can subtract two pointers and also can get the memory address value of any pointer.
This question goes out to the C gurus out there:
In C, it is possible to declare a pointer as follows:
char (* p)[10];
.. which basically states that this pointer points to an array of 10 chars. The neat thing about declaring a pointer like this is that you will get a compile time error if you try to assign a pointer of an array of different size to p. It will also give you a compile time error if you try to assign the value of a simple char pointer to p. I tried this with gcc and it seems to work with ANSI, C89 and C99.
It looks to me like declaring a pointer like this would be very useful - particularly, when passing a pointer to a function. Usually, people would write the prototype of such a function like this:
void foo(char * p, int plen);
If you were expecting a buffer of an specific size, you would simply test the value of plen. However, you cannot be guaranteed that the person who passes p to you will really give you plen valid memory locations in that buffer. You have to trust that the person who called this function is doing the right thing. On the other hand:
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
..would force the caller to give you a buffer of the specified size.
This seems very useful but I have never seen a pointer declared like this in any code I have ever ran across.
My question is: Is there any reason why people do not declare pointers like this? Am I not seeing some obvious pitfall?
What you are saying in your post is absolutely correct. I'd say that every C developer comes to exactly the same discovery and to exactly the same conclusion when (if) they reach certain level of proficiency with C language.
When the specifics of your application area call for an array of specific fixed size (array size is a compile-time constant), the only proper way to pass such an array to a function is by using a pointer-to-array parameter
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
(in C++ language this is also done with references
void foo(char (&p)[10]);
).
This will enable language-level type checking, which will make sure that the array of exactly correct size is supplied as an argument. In fact, in many cases people use this technique implicitly, without even realizing it, hiding the array type behind a typedef name
typedef int Vector3d[3];
void transform(Vector3d *vector);
/* equivalent to `void transform(int (*vector)[3])` */
...
Vector3d vec;
...
transform(&vec);
Note additionally that the above code is invariant with relation to Vector3d type being an array or a struct. You can switch the definition of Vector3d at any time from an array to a struct and back, and you won't have to change the function declaration. In either case the functions will receive an aggregate object "by reference" (there are exceptions to this, but within the context of this discussion this is true).
However, you won't see this method of array passing used explicitly too often, simply because too many people get confused by a rather convoluted syntax and are simply not comfortable enough with such features of C language to use them properly. For this reason, in average real life, passing an array as a pointer to its first element is a more popular approach. It just looks "simpler".
But in reality, using the pointer to the first element for array passing is a very niche technique, a trick, which serves a very specific purpose: its one and only purpose is to facilitate passing arrays of different size (i.e. run-time size). If you really need to be able to process arrays of run-time size, then the proper way to pass such an array is by a pointer to its first element with the concrete size supplied by an additional parameter
void foo(char p[], unsigned plen);
Actually, in many cases it is very useful to be able to process arrays of run-time size, which also contributes to the popularity of the method. Many C developers simply never encounter (or never recognize) the need to process a fixed-size array, thus remaining oblivious to the proper fixed-size technique.
Nevertheless, if the array size is fixed, passing it as a pointer to an element
void foo(char p[])
is a major technique-level error, which unfortunately is rather widespread these days. A pointer-to-array technique is a much better approach in such cases.
Another reason that might hinder the adoption of the fixed-size array passing technique is the dominance of naive approach to typing of dynamically allocated arrays. For example, if the program calls for fixed arrays of type char[10] (as in your example), an average developer will malloc such arrays as
char *p = malloc(10 * sizeof *p);
This array cannot be passed to a function declared as
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
which confuses the average developer and makes them abandon the fixed-size parameter declaration without giving it a further thought. In reality though, the root of the problem lies in the naive malloc approach. The malloc format shown above should be reserved for arrays of run-time size. If the array type has compile-time size, a better way to malloc it would look as follows
char (*p)[10] = malloc(sizeof *p);
This, of course, can be easily passed to the above declared foo
foo(p);
and the compiler will perform the proper type checking. But again, this is overly confusing to an unprepared C developer, which is why you won't see it in too often in the "typical" average everyday code.
I would like to add to AndreyT's answer (in case anyone stumbles upon this page looking for more info on this topic):
As I begin to play more with these declarations, I realize that there is major handicap associated with them in C (apparently not in C++). It is fairly common to have a situation where you would like to give a caller a const pointer to a buffer you have written into. Unfortunately, this is not possible when declaring a pointer like this in C. In other words, the C standard (6.7.3 - Paragraph 8) is at odds with something like this:
int array[9];
const int (* p2)[9] = &array; /* Not legal unless array is const as well */
This constraint does not seem to be present in C++, making these type of declarations far more useful. But in the case of C, it is necessary to fall back to a regular pointer declaration whenever you want a const pointer to the fixed size buffer (unless the buffer itself was declared const to begin with). You can find more info in this mail thread: link text
This is a severe constraint in my opinion and it could be one of the main reasons why people do not usually declare pointers like this in C. The other being the fact that most people do not even know that you can declare a pointer like this as AndreyT has pointed out.
The obvious reason is that this code doesn't compile:
extern void foo(char (*p)[10]);
void bar() {
char p[10];
foo(p);
}
The default promotion of an array is to an unqualified pointer.
Also see this question, using foo(&p) should work.
I also want to use this syntax to enable more type checking.
But I also agree that the syntax and mental model of using pointers is simpler, and easier to remember.
Here are some more obstacles I have come across.
Accessing the array requires using (*p)[]:
void foo(char (*p)[10])
{
char c = (*p)[3];
(*p)[0] = 1;
}
It is tempting to use a local pointer-to-char instead:
void foo(char (*p)[10])
{
char *cp = (char *)p;
char c = cp[3];
cp[0] = 1;
}
But this would partially defeat the purpose of using the correct type.
One has to remember to use the address-of operator when assigning an array's address to a pointer-to-array:
char a[10];
char (*p)[10] = &a;
The address-of operator gets the address of the whole array in &a, with the correct type to assign it to p. Without the operator, a is automatically converted to the address of the first element of the array, same as in &a[0], which has a different type.
Since this automatic conversion is already taking place, I am always puzzled that the & is necessary. It is consistent with the use of & on variables of other types, but I have to remember that an array is special and that I need the & to get the correct type of address, even though the address value is the same.
One reason for my problem may be that I learned K&R C back in the 80s, which did not allow using the & operator on whole arrays yet (although some compilers ignored that or tolerated the syntax). Which, by the way, may be another reason why pointers-to-arrays have a hard time to get adopted: they only work properly since ANSI C, and the & operator limitation may have been another reason to deem them too awkward.
When typedef is not used to create a type for the pointer-to-array (in a common header file), then a global pointer-to-array needs a more complicated extern declaration to share it across files:
fileA:
char (*p)[10];
fileB:
extern char (*p)[10];
Well, simply put, C doesn't do things that way. An array of type T is passed around as a pointer to the first T in the array, and that's all you get.
This allows for some cool and elegant algorithms, such as looping through the array with expressions like
*dst++ = *src++
The downside is that management of the size is up to you. Unfortunately, failure to do this conscientiously has also led to millions of bugs in C coding, and/or opportunities for malevolent exploitation.
What comes close to what you ask in C is to pass around a struct (by value) or a pointer to one (by reference). As long as the same struct type is used on both sides of this operation, both the code that hand out the reference and the code that uses it are in agreement about the size of the data being handled.
Your struct can contain whatever data you want; it could contain your array of a well-defined size.
Still, nothing prevents you or an incompetent or malevolent coder from using casts to fool the compiler into treating your struct as one of a different size. The almost unshackled ability to do this kind of thing is a part of C's design.
You can declare an array of characters a number of ways:
char p[10];
char* p = (char*)malloc(10 * sizeof(char));
The prototype to a function that takes an array by value is:
void foo(char* p); //cannot modify p
or by reference:
void foo(char** p); //can modify p, derefernce by *p[0] = 'f';
or by array syntax:
void foo(char p[]); //same as char*
I would not recommend this solution
typedef int Vector3d[3];
since it obscures the fact that Vector3D has a type that you
must know about. Programmers usually dont expect variables of the
same type to have different sizes. Consider :
void foo(Vector3d a) {
Vector3d b;
}
where sizeof a != sizeof b
Maybe I'm missing something, but... since arrays are constant pointers, basically that means that there's no point in passing around pointers to them.
Couldn't you just use void foo(char p[10], int plen); ?
type (*)[];
// points to an array e.g
int (*ptr)[5];
// points to an 5 integer array
// gets the address of the array
type *[];
// points to an array of pointers e.g
int* ptr[5]
// point to an array of five integer pointers
// point to 5 adresses.
On my compiler (vs2008) it treats char (*p)[10] as an array of character pointers, as if there was no parentheses, even if I compile as a C file. Is compiler support for this "variable"? If so that is a major reason not to use it.