Assume that I define x as array like this: int x[30]={2,4,8,9,6,3,5,4,7,8,9,6,3,2,} and A as a pointer to an int like this: int *A.
Now I want to know what the difference is between these:
int *A=x[5]
int *A ; A=&x[5]
int *A=x+5
int *A ; *A=x+5
int *A ; A=*(x+5)
Why do number 1, 4 and 5 give an error?
Number 4 gives an error although number 3 doesn't. Why are these not equal?
In number 1, you're creating a variable A which is a pointer to an int, and x[5] is an int, not a pointer. So you're giving a pointer an int value, which produces an error.
In number 2, you create a pointer to an int and then make it point to the variable x[5], since &x[5] is the address of x[5]. That will compile just fine and the way you wrote it won't produce any error, however creating a pointer without any initial value is not recommended. When you create A without initializing it, it will take the value that was already in the memory which can be any value. Therefore, if you use the variable A before giving it an error, your program will crash. Instead, it's recommended to do:
int *A = NULL;
A = &x[5];
or simply:
int *A= &x[5];
In number 3, you're creating a pointer to an int and you're assigning it the value x + 5. This is OK since x is in fact a pointer to x[0] (x and &x[0] do exactly the same thing). So x + 5 is a pointer to the value that is 5 memory spaces after x[0], which is x[5]. In fact, when the compiler sees x[5], it converts it to *(x + 5).
In number 4, A is a pointer to an int, so *A is the value which A is pointing to, which is an int. In you're code, *A = x + 5 is wrong for two reasons: For the first reason, the code won't compile since x + 5 is a pointer and *A is an int, so you're assigning a pointer value to an int, which isn't valid. But there is another error in there. Imaging it compiled for some reason. Then, at runtime, what it does, is that it takes the memory space that A is pointing to and gives it the value x + 5. The problem is that A isn't initialized so it's very likely that A points to a variable used by another program. To prevent this from doing any damage, your OS will make the program crash. If you're "lucky", A will point to a variable in your program so it will assign a new value to a variable in your program without you knowing which variable it is, so your program will continue running but won't work correctly.
In number 5, A is a pointer to an int and you're assigning it the value *(x + 5). As I explained earlier, *(x + 5) is exactly the same thing as x[5], which is an int. So you're assigning an int value to a pointer, which is not valid. Note that if for some reason you want to assign an int value to a pointer, you could do A = (int*)(*(x + 5)), which would compile properly (but the program would probably crash at runtime). Then A would be a pointer pointing to the memory space 3. In the same way, you can also do x[5] = (int)A, which stores the address of the variable that A is pointing to as an int in x[5]. However, I've never seen any situation where these kinds of things would be useful in practice.
Related
I am trying to figure out this program and not understanding the usage of this double asterisk. I know it means a pointer to char but never used it before.
#include<stdio.h>
void fun(int **p);
int main()
{
int a[3][4] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 8, 7, 8, 9, 0};
int *ptr;
ptr = &a[0][0];
fun(&ptr);
return 0;
}
void fun(int **p)
{
printf("%d\n", **p);
}
There are three occurrences of the double asterisk in you original problem, and it’s unclear if you’re talking about a compiler error, a runtime “segfault” error, or the program didn’t throw an error but just didn’t print the results you expected, so there’s ambiguity in your question. But one explanation should clarify all.
The type of ptr is an int pointer (int*), so the type of &ptr becomes int**, which means a pointer to an int pointer.
If your compiler is generating an error when you didn’t use double asterisk in the function’s formal parameter list, thats because the type checking has failed. What you pass in to the function (ie the actual parameter) is &ptr, whose type is obviously int**.
C is a strongly typed language, so the C compiler forbids one to use an int** where int* is expected. But you can do (int*)(ptr) to cast ptr from one type to another.
On the other hand, If you’re using double asterisks in the function formal parameter list, but execute printf(…, *p), it will print the address of the stack variable ptr from function main. It won’t print the value of a[0][0].
To wrap up, the double asterisk has two different semantics depending on the how you use it. When declaring a variable, T **<variable name> means a “second-order pointer to type T”. Yet at other times - when you’re not declaring variables but using them - “**” means dereferencing twice.
Update: what does double dereferencing mean?
In c, every variable has an unique address. “Deference” is the operation of reading a value from an address that is indeterminate at compile time, and that address is in a value only known at run time. This value is called a pointer.
Double asterisk simply means to do the “dereference” operation first on a value, then do the “dereference” operation on the result.
A single * doesn't mean "a pointer to char", it means a pointer to whichever data type it is pointing at. In this case it's pointing to an int. Double asterisk means a pointer to pointer to int.
To dereference a pointer to an int, you'd use
int *p
But in this case, you passed a pointer to a pointer to an int. So to dereference the value, you'd need two levels of indirection. Hence
int **p
Edit 1: What is stored in the ptr variable is the address of a[0][0], so a single level of indirection gives the address of a[0][0], not the value stored at it.
Edit 2: The statement:
&ptr;
is sending the address of ptr variable to the function, which is a different from a[0][0] and has a different memory address.
Let's draw it out:
+------+ +-----------+
- - - -
- ptr - ----> - a[0][0] - ----> 1
- - - -
+------+. +-----------+
A pointer to a pointer to an int.
Im fairly new to C programming and I am confused as to how pointers work. How do you use ONLY pointers to copy values for example ... use only pointers to copy the value in x into y.
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void)
{
int x,y;
int *ptr1;
ptr1 = &x;
printf("Input a number: \n");
scanf("%d",&x);
y = ptr1;
printf("Y : %d \n",y);
return 0;
}
It is quite simple. & returns the address of a variable. So when you do:
ptr1 = &x;
ptr1 is pointing to x, or holding variable x's address.
Now lets say you want to copy the value from the variable ptr1 is pointing to. You need to use *. When you write
y = ptr1;
the value of ptr1 is in y, not the value ptr1 was pointing to. To put the value of the variable, ptr1 is pointing to, use *:
y = *ptr1;
This will put the value of the variable ptr1 was pointing to in y, or in simple terms, put the value of x in y. This is because ptr1 is pointing to x.
To solve simple issues like this next time, enable all warnings and errors of your compiler, during compilation.
If you're using gcc, use -Wall and -Wextra. -Wall will enable all warnings and -Wextra will turn all warnings into errors, confirming that you do not ignore the warnings.
What's a pointer??
A pointer is a special primitive-type in C. As well as the int type stored decimals, a pointer stored memory address.
How to create pointers
For all types and user-types (i.e. structures, unions) you must do:
Type * pointer_name;
int * pointer_to_int;
MyStruct * pointer_to_myStruct;
How to assing pointers
As I said, i pointer stored memory address, so the & operator returns the memory address of a variable.
int a = 26;
int *pointer1 = &a, *pointer2, *pointer3; // pointer1 points to a
pointer2 = &a; // pointer2 points to a
pointer3 = pointer2; // pointer3 points to the memory address that pointer2 too points, so pointer3 points to a :)
How to use a pointer value
If you want to access to the value of a pointer you must to use the * operator:
int y = *pointer1; // Ok, y = a. So y = 25 ;)
int y = pointer1; // Error, y can't store memory address.
Editing value of a variable points by a pointer
To change the value of a variable through a pointer, first, you must to access to the value and then change it.
*pointer1++; // Ok, a = 27;
*pointer1 = 12; // Ok, a = 12;
pointer1 = 12; // Noo, pointer1 points to the memory address 12. It's a problem and maybe it does crush your program.
pointer1++; // Only when you use pointer and arrays ;).
Long Winded Explanation of Pointers
When explaining what pointers are to people who already know how to program, I find that it's really easy to introduce them using array terminology.
Below all abstraction, your computer's memory is really just a big array, which we will call mem. mem[0] is the first byte in memory, mem[1] is the second, and so forth.
When your program is running, almost all variables are stored in memory somewhere. The way variables are seen in code is pretty simple. Your CPU knows a number which is an index in mem (which I'll call base) where your program's data is, and the actual code just refers to variables using base and an offset.
For a hypothetical bit of code, let's look at this:
byte foo(byte a, byte b){
byte c = a + b;
return c;
}
A naive but good example of what this actually ends up looking like after compiling is something along the lines of:
Move base to make room for three new bytes
Set mem[base+0] (variable a) to the value of a
Set mem[base+1] (variable b) to the value of b
Set mem[base+2] (variable c) to the sum mem[base+0] + mem[base+1]
Set the return value to mem[base+2]
Move base back to where it was before calling the function
The exact details of what happens is platform and convention specific, but will generally look like that without any optimizations.
As the example illustrates, the notion of a b and c being special entities kind of goes out the window. The compiler calculates what offset to give the variables when generating relevant code, but the end result just deals with base and hard-coded offsets.
What is a pointer?
A pointer is just a fancy way to refer to an index within the mem array. In fact, a pointer is really just a number. That's all it is; C just gives you some syntax to make it a little more obvious that it's supposed to be an index in the mem array rather than some arbitrary number.
What a does referencing and dereferencing mean?
When you reference a variable (like &var) the compiler retrieves the offset it calculated for the variable, and then emits some code that roughly means "Return the sum of base and the variable's offset"
Here's another bit of code:
void foo(byte a){
byte bar = a;
byte *ptr = &bar;
}
(Yes, it doesn't do anything, but it's for illustration of basic concepts)
This roughly translates to:
Move base to make room for two bytes and a pointer
Set mem[base+0] (variable a) to the value of a
Set mem[base+1] (variable bar) to the value of mem[base+0]
Set mem[base+2] (variable ptr) to the value of base+1 (since 1 was the offset used for bar)
Move base back to where it had been earlier
In this example you can see that when you reference a variable, the compiler just uses the memory index as the value, rather than the value found in mem at that index.
Now, when you dereference a pointer (like *ptr) the compiler uses the value stored in the pointer as the index in mem. Example:
void foo(byte* a){
byte value = *a;
}
Explanation:
Move base to make room for a pointer and a byte
Set mem[base+0] (variable a) to the value of a
Set mem[base+1] (variable value) to mem[mem[base+0]]
Move base back to where it started
In this example, the compiler uses the value in memory where the index of that value is specified by another value in memory. This can go as deep as you want, but usually only ever goes one or two levels deep.
A few notes
Since referenced variables are really just numbers, you can't reference a reference or assign a value to a reference, since base+offset is the value we get from the first reference, which is not stored in memory, and thus we cannot get the location where that is stored in memory. (&var = value; and &&var are illegal statements). However, you can dereference a reference, but that just puts you back where you started (*&var is legal).
On the flipside, since a dereferenced variable is a value in memory, you can reference a dereferenced value, dereference a dereferenced value, and assign data to a dereferenced variable. (*var = value;, &*var, and **var are all legal statements.)
Also, not all types are one byte large, but I simplified the examples to make it a bit more easy to grasp. In reality, a pointer would occupy several bytes in memory on most machines, but I kept it at one byte to avoid confusing the issue. The general principle is the same.
Summed up
Memory is just a big array I'm calling mem.
Each variable is stored in memory at a location I'm calling varlocation which is specified by the compiler for every variable.
When the computer refers to a variable normally, it ends up looking like mem[varlocation] in the end code.
When you reference the variable, you just get the numerical value of varlocation in the end code.
When you dereference the variable, you get the value of mem[mem[varlocation]] in the code.
tl;dr - To actually answer the question...
//Your variables x and y and ptr
int x, y;
int *ptr;
//Store the location of x (x_location) in the ptr variable
ptr = &x; //Roughly: mem[ptr_location] = x_location;
//Initialize your x value with scanf
//Notice scanf takes the location of (a.k.a. pointer to) x to know where
//to put the value in memory
scanf("%d", &x);
y = *ptr; //Roughly: mem[y_location] = mem[mem[ptr_location]]
//Since 'mem[ptr_location]' was set to the value 'x_location',
//then that line turns into 'mem[y_location] = mem[x_location]'
//which is the same thing as 'y = x;'
Overall, you just missed the star to dereference the variable, as others have already pointed out.
Simply change y = ptr1; to y = *ptr1;.
This is because ptr1 is a pointer to x, and to get the value of x, you have to dereference ptr1 by adding a leading *.
I wanted to test if I could change the constant pointer that points to the first element of an array in C. While testing I got some strange output that I don't understand:
//Constant pointer to pointer to constant value
void test(int const * * const a) {
//printf("%d", **a); //Program crashes (2)
(*a)++;
}
int main()
{
int a[5] = { 1,2,3,4,5 };
test(&a);
printf("%d", *a); //Prints 5 as output (1)
return 0;
}
I expected the compiler to give an error when I try to compile (*a)++ but instead I can run the code, but when I try to print the element I get a strange value (1).
Then I wanted to print out the value (2) of the first element of the array. When I tried this, the program crashes.
By doing &a you are making a pointer to an array (int (*)[]).
Then when this pointer to array is passed to the test function, it's converted to a pointer to a pointer(int **);
Then (*a)++; is UB.
1. So why 5?
On modern implementation of C like GCC, pointer to a array has the same numerical value as the beginning of the array, so is the address value when the array decays to a pointer: they all are the beginning address of the array.
So, in test, int **a points to the beginning of the array, (*a)++ deferences the pointer as int * and increment the pointer by 1 int element, which is usually implemented as adding the sizeof(int) to the numerical value of the pointer.
Then, 1+sizeof(int) gives you 5.
2. Why it crashed in the second case?
Assuming you are using a 32bit x86 machine, or some machine whose pointer type has the same size as int type, then *a equal to 1. Then further dereferencing the pointer at a memory address at 1 usually gives you a segfault.
The program crashes at the printf because test assumes that when it dereferences a the resulting object is a pointer. If it were one and contained a valid address, the second dereferencing would yield an int object. Alas, a contains the address of the array, which is numerically the address of its first element. The 4 or 8 bytes there are considered an address (because test thinks that *a is a pointer) and the code then tries to access the memory at address 1 in order to print the int value assumed at that address. The address is invalid though, so the program crashes.
Now that we have established that the program considers the data at the beginning of the array a pointer to int, we know what (*a)++ does: it increments the value there by sizeof(int) so that the "pointer" point to the next int "element". I guess an int on your machine is 4 bytes long because 1+4=5, which is printed.
This code is illegal in C, you should get a compiler diagnostic. (If not, turn up your warning level). The results of running any executable produced are meaningless.
The code is illegal because int (*)[5] does not implicitly convert to int const **.
the constant pointer that points to the first element of an array in C
There is no such thing. You misunderstand what arrays are. Arrays are a series of contiguous elements. int a[5] is like int a; except that there are 5 ints instead of 1.
int a; and int a[1]; cause identical memory layout. The only difference is the syntax used to access that memory.
In the question Find size of array without using sizeof in C the asker treats an int array like an array of int arrays by taking the address and then specifying an array index of 1:
int arr[100];
printf ("%d\n", (&arr)[1] - arr);
The value ends up being the address of the first element in the "next" array of 100 elements after arr. When I try this similar code it doesn't seem to do the same thing:
int *y = NULL;
printf("y = %d\n", y);
printf("(&y)[0] = %d\n", (&y)[0]);
printf("(&y)[1] = %d\n", (&y)[1]);
I end up getting:
y = 1552652636
(&y)[0] = 1552652636
(&y)[1] = 0
Why isn't (&y)[1] the address of the "next" pointer to an int after y?
Here:
printf("(&y)[1] = %d\n", (&y)[1]);
You say first: take address of y. Then afterwards you say: add 1 times so many bytes as the size of the thing which is pointed to - which is pointer to int, and hence probably 4 bytes are added - and dereference whatever is that on that address. But you don't know what is on that new memory address and you can't/shouldn't access that.
Arrays are not pointers, and pointers are not arrays.
The "array size" code calculates the distance between two arrays, which will be the size of an array.
Your code attempts to calculate the distance between two pointers, which should be the size of a pointer.
I believe the source of confusion is that (&y)[1] is the value of the "next" pointer to an int after y, not its address.
Its address is &y + 1.
In the same way, the address of y is &y, and (&y)[0] - or, equivalently *(&y) - is y's value.
(In the "array size" code, (&arr)[1] is also the "next" value, but since this value is an array, it gets implicitly converted to a pointer to the array's first element — &((&array)[1])[0].)
If you run this:
int *y = NULL;
printf("y = %p\n", y);
printf("&y = %p\n", &y + 0);
printf("&y + 1 = %p\n", &y + 1);
the output looks somewhat like this:
y = (nil)
&y = 0xbf86718c
&y + 1 = 0xbf867190
and 0xbf867190 - 0xbf86718c = 4, which makes sense with 32-bit pointers.
Accessing (&y)[1] (i.e. *(&y + 1)) is undefined and probably results in some random garbage.
Thanks for the answers, I think the simplest way to answer the question is to understand what the value of each expression is. First we must know the type, then we can determine the value
I used the c compiler to generate a warning by assigning the values to the wrong type (a char) so I could see exactly what it thinks the types are.
Given the declaration int arr[100], the type of (&arr)[1] is int [100].
Given the declaration int *ptr, the type of (&ptr)[1] is int *.
The value of a int[100] is the constant memory address of where the array starts. I don't know all the history of why that is exactly.
The value of a int * on the other hand is whatever memory address that pointer happens to be holding at the time.
So they are very different things. To get the constant memory address of where a pointer starts you must dereference it. So &(&ptr)[1] is int ** which the constant memory address of where the int pointer starts.
I am trying to learn C. The reading I've been doing explains pointers as such:
/* declare */
int *i;
/* assign */
i = &something;
/* or assign like this */
*i = 5;
Which I understand to mean i = the address of the thing stored in something
Or
Put 5, or an internal representation of 5, into the address that *i points to.
However in practice I am seeing:
i = 5;
Should that not cause a mismatch of types?
Edit: Semi-colons. Ruby habits..
Well, yes, in your example setting an int pointer to 5 is a mismatch of types, but this is C, so there's nothing stopping you. This will probably cause faults. Some real hackery could be expecting some relevant data at the absolute address of 5, but you should never do that.
The English equivalents:
i = &something
Assign i equal to the address of something
*i =5
Assign what i is pointing to, to 5.
If you set i = 5 as you wrote in your question, i would contain the address 0x00000005, which probably points to garbage.
Hope this helps explain things:
int *i; /* declare 'i' as a pointer to an integer */
int something; /* declare an integer, and set it to 42 */
something = 42;
i = &something; /* now this contains the address of 'something' */
*i = 5; /* change the value, of the int that 'i' points to, to 5 */
/* Oh, and 'something' now contains 5 rather than 42 */
If you're seeing something along the lines of
int *i;
...
i = 5;
then somebody is attempting to assign the address 0x00000005 to i. This is allowed, although somewhat dangerous (N1256):
6.3.2.3 Pointers
...
3 An integer constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type
void *, is called a null pointer constant.55) If a null pointer constant is converted to a
pointer type, the resulting pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function.
...
5 An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously specified, the
result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned, might not point to an
entity of the referenced type, and might be a trap representation.56)
...
55) The macro NULL is defined in <stddef.h> (and other headers) as a null pointer constant; see 7.17.
56) The mapping functions for converting a pointer to an integer or an integer to a pointer are intended to be consistent with the addressing structure of the execution environment.
Depending on the architecture and environment you're working in, 0x00000005 may not be a valid integer address (most architectures I'm familiar with require multibyte types to start with even addresses) and such a low address may not be directly accessible by your code (I don't do embedded work, so take that with a grain of salt).
I understand to mean i = the address of the thing stored in something
Actually i contains an address, which SHOULD be the address of a variable containing an int.
I said should because you can't be sure of that in C:
char x;
int *i;
i = (int *)&x;
if i is a pointer, than assign to it something different to a valid address accessible from you program, is an error an I think could lead to undefined behavior:
int *i;
i = 5;
*i; //undefined behavior..probably segfault
here's some examples:
int var;
int *ptr_to_var;
var = 5;
ptr_to_var = var;
printf("var %d ptr_to_var %d\n", var, *ptr_to_var); //both print 5
printf("value of ptr_to_var %p must be equal to pointed variable var %p \n" , ptr_to_var, &var);
I hope this helps.
This declares a variable name "myIntPointer" which has type "pointer to an int".
int *myIntPointer;
This takes the address of an int variable named "blammy" and stores it in the int pointer named "myIntPointer".
int blammy;
int *myIntPointer;
myIntPointer = &blammy;
This takes an integer value 5 and stores it in the space in memory that is addressed by the int variable named "blammy" by assigning the value through an int pointer named "myIntPointer".
int blammy;
int *myIntPointer;
myIntPointer = &blammy;
*myIntPointer = 5;
This sets the int pointer named "myIntPointer" to point to memory address 5.
int *myIntPointer;
myIntPointer = 5;
assignment of hard-coded addresses, is something that shouldn't be done (even in the embedded world, however there are some cases where it's suitable.)
when declaring a pointer, limit yourself to only assign a value to it with dynamiclly allocated memory(see malloc()) or with the & (the address) of a static (not temporary) variable. this will ensure rebust code, and less chance to get the famous segmentation fault.
good luck with learning c.