Say I have a void pointer (more like; array), and I want to get the items inside it.
So, I know that pointer[i] won't work since it's void and I don't know the type; I tried using the offset technique:
void function(void* p, int eltSize){
int offset = 3;
for(i = 0; i<offset; i++){
memcpy(p+(i*eltsize), otherPointer, eltSize);//OtherPointer has same type.
}
//End function
}
This function works good and everything, but the only problem is that at the end of main(..) I get segmentation fault. I know it's because of the pointer and how I accessed the items of it, but I don't know how to correct the problem and avoid segmentation fault.
As pointed out by #sunqingyao and #flutter, you can not use arithmetic with void pointers in Standard C; instead, use a char * (a chunk of bytes a la qsort):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
void function(void *ptr, size_t eltSize, void *otherPointer, size_t offset)
{
char *p = ptr;
for (size_t i = 0; i < offset; i++) {
memcpy(p + (i * eltSize), otherPointer, eltSize);
}
}
int main(void)
{
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
int otherValue = 4;
function(arr, sizeof *arr, &otherValue, sizeof arr / sizeof *arr);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
printf("%d\n", arr[i]);
}
return 0;
}
Quoted from N1570 6.5.6 Additive operators(emphasis mine):
2 For addition, either both operands shall have arithmetic type, or
one operand shall be a pointer to a complete object type and the
other shall have integer type. (Incrementing is equivalent to adding
1.)
Obviously, void isn't a complete object type. Thus, applying + operator on void * invokes undefined behaviour, which may result in segmentation fault or anything else.
One approach to solve your problem would be declaring parameter p as a char *.
Related
I was reading about function pointer. That it contains address of instructions. And there I encountered one question to find an element in array using function pointer. Here is the code.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
bool compare(const void* a, const void* b)
{
return (*(int*)a == *(int*)b);
}
int search(void* arr, int arr_size, int ele_size, void* x, bool compare(const void*, const void*))
{
char* ptr = (char*)arr; // Here why not int *ptr = (int*)arr;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < arr_size; i++)
{
if (compare(ptr + i * ele_size, x))
{
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
int main()
{
int arr[] = { 2, 5, 7, 90, 70 };
int n = sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]);
int x = 7;
printf("Returned index is %d ", search(arr, n, sizeof(int), &x, compare));
return 0;
}
In the search function char *ptr = (char*)arr; is used which is giving perfect answer = 2.
But when I have used int *ptr = (int*)arr; it gives -1 as answer.
Why is this? Can anyone explain this?
A char is the smallest addressable unit in any C program, and on most system it corresponds to a single byte. That treats the array as a generic sequence of bytes, and uses the ele_size to calculate the byte-position of each element with ptr + i*ele_size.
If you use int *ptr then the byte-position calculation will be wrong by a factor of sizeof(int) (typically 4), since the pointer arithmetic will be done in units of the base type (int instead of char).
The function search knows nothing about what is the type of elements of the array pointed to by the pointer arr of the type void *.
So casting the pointer to the type int * does not make a sense. If to do so then the expression ptr + i*ele_size where the pointer arithmetic is used will produce an incorrect result.
That it contains address of instructions
There is a subtle difference between normal (object) pointers and function pointers. It is not possible to access the single instructions of a function - they do not have the same length.
With other pointers the increment (arithmetic) is adapted to the type, whether as p[i] or p + i or *(p+i).
Side note: there still is int at the bottom of the call chain:
return (*(int*)a == *(int*)b);
I'm trying to pick my C skills again. I want to sum a sequence in different threads, each thread would return a pointer of the sum of a part of the sequence. However, when I tried to convert the void* type value local_sum to int, problem occurred.
I tried to convert with sum += *(int*)local_sum;, a segment error occurred and I got Process finished with exit code 11.
I found that if I use sum += (int)local_sum;, it would be okay. But I couldn't convince myself: shouldn't local_sum be a void *? Why it can be converted to int with (int)local_sum?
I'm so grateful it you could answer the problem.
The part that sum each process's return value is here:
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i ++) {
void * local_sum;
pthread_join(count_threads[i], (&local_sum));
sum += (int)local_sum;
}
The function of a thread is here:
void * count_thr(void *arg) {
int terminal = ARRAY_SIZE / NUM_THREADS;
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < terminal; i ++) {
sum += *((int*)arg + i);
}
return (void*)sum;
}
You're returning the value of int sum by setting a void * address to it. In this case, the address is not valid. But, if you keep that in mind and get the value of sum by casting a void * to int it will work.
void * is used this way sometimes to return either a value (e.g. int) or an address to something (e.g. struct).
To illustrate this:
int a = 5;
void *p = (void *)a;
int b = (int)p;
a, p, and b all have a value of 5. p does not point to a valid address. Trying to dereference p would result in undefined behavior:
b = *(int *)p; // Undefined Behavior!
Consider the following program:
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int a, b;
void *p;
a = 5;
p = (void *)a;
b = (int)p;
printf("%d %p %d\n", a, p, b);
a = INT_MAX;
p = (void *)a + 1;
b = (int)p;
printf("%d %p %d\n", a, p, b);
return 0;
}
When compiled, I get the following warnings:
$ gcc main.c -o main.exe
main.c: In function ‘main’:
main.c:9:9: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
p = (void *)a;
^
main.c:10:9: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
b = (int)p;
...
A warning is issued because, as pointed out by #Gerhardh, the sizeof(int) and the sizeof(void *) may be different. You may suffer data loss if the value of the void * exceeds the maximum value a int can hold.
Output
$ ./main.exe
5 0x5 5
2147483647 0x80000000 -2147483648
You can't do *(int*)local_sum because local_sum is not an int* cast to void*. local_sum is an int cast to void*. It is a number reinterpreted as an address, but only for transfer purposes, because pthread_exit only allows you to return a void*, not an int and because the standard explicitly allows implementation-defined conversion (6.3.2.3p5, 6.3.2.3p6) between integers and numbers as long as the values fit (if they don't then, UB). If you return, e.g., 0x42, it is highly unlikely there's anything at address 0x42, so you should forget about dereferencing it and instead you should convert it back to an integer ASAP, either with (int)local_sum; or perhaps better with (int)(intptr_t)local_sum; (though intptr_t isn't guaranteed to exist) or (perhaps best) with (int)(intmax_t)local_sum; so as to avoid possible compiler warnings about converting to an integer of a different size on LP64 platforms.
A secure and portable solution could be the use of an union:
union void_cast {
void* ptr;
int value;
};
Then for example you can safely reinterpret a void* pointer with:
int VOID_TO_INT(void* ptr) {
union void_cast u;
u.ptr = ptr;
return u.value;
}
void* INT_TO_VOID(int value) {
union void_cast u;
u.value = value;
return u.ptr;
}
So your code can be changed to:
sum += VOID_TO_INT(local_sum);
code:
int arr[5] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int (*p)[5] = &arr;
printf("p:%p\n",p);
printf("*p:%p\n",*p);
result: p = *p = arr = 0x7ffee517c830 they are all the address of the array
The right way to use p to visit arr[i] is *(*p+i)
The type of pointer p is int(*)[5], so p point to an array which type is int [5]. But we can't say that p point to an invisible shell of arr, p is a variable after all. It stores the address of arr, which is also the address of arr[0], the first element of arr.
I thought *p will get me 1, which is the first element of arr.
The dereference operation means take the value in p as address and get the value from this address. Right?
So p stores the address of arr，which is 0x7ffee517c830 here, and 1 is stored in this address. Isn't **p illegal? The first dereference give us 1, and second dereference will use 1 as address which is illegal.
What I am missing?
The result of *p is an lvalue expression of array type. Using (*p) is exactly the same as using arr in any expression you could now think of.
For example:
&*p means &arr
**p means *arr (which is legal).
(*p)[i] means arr[i].
sizeof *p means sizeof arr.
Arrays are not special in this regard. You can see the same phenomenon with int x; int *q = &x;. Now *q and x have exactly the same meaning.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you are confusing yourself by imagining pointers as glorified integers. Some people teach pointers this way but IMO it is not a good teaching technique because it causes the exact confusing you are now having.
If you dereference an int(*)[5] you get an int[5] and that's all there is to it. The data type matters in dereferencing. It does not make sense to talk about "dereferencing 0x7ffee517c830". Again this is not peculiar to arrays; if you dereference a char ***, you get a char ** etc.
The only way in which arrays are "different" in this discussion is what happens if you try to do arithmetic on them, or output them, etc. If you supply an int[5] as a printf argument for example, there is implicit conversion to int * pointing at the first of those 5 ints. This conversion also happens when applying the * operator to an int[5], which is why you get an int out of that.
p is declared as a 'pointer to int[5]'.
arr is declared as an 'int[5]`
so the initializer p = &arr; is not really that strange. If you substituted any primitive type for int[5] you wouldn't bat an eye.
*p is another handle on arr. so (*p)[0] = 1.
This really only comes up in wierd cases. It's most natural where you dereference the pointer-to-array using the subscript operator. Here's a contrived example where I want to pass a table as argument.
#include <stdio.h>
int print_row_range(int (*tab) [2], int first, int last)
{
int i;
for(i=first; i<= last; i++)
{
printf("{%d, %d}\n", tab[i][0], tab[i][1]);
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int arr[3][2] = {{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}};
print_row_range(arr,1,2);
}
This example treats the table as an array of rows.
Dereferencing doesn't give you a value. It gives you an object, which can be used as a value of its type if it can be converted to.
*p, being identical to arr, is an object of an array of 5 ints, so if you want to get an integer from the array, you must dereference it again like (*p)[3].
Consider a bigger example:
int arr[5][5];
int (*p)[5] = arr;
Now you get arr[0] with *p, which itself is an array of 5. Here comes the difference:
*( p+1) == arr[1];
*(*p+1) == arr[0][1];
^ ^^^
Got the point?
One use case is to be able to allocate with malloc an 2D (or more) pointer of arrays with only one malloc:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static int (*foo(size_t n))[42] {
return malloc(sizeof *foo(0) * n);
// return malloc(sizeof(int [n][42]); works too
}
int main(void) {
size_t n = 42;
int (*p)[42] = foo(n);
if (!p) {
return 1;
}
printf("p:");
int accu = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < sizeof *p / sizeof **p; j++) {
p[i][j] = accu++;
printf(" %d", p[i][j]);
}
}
printf("\n");
free(p);
}
I think this very funny.
One more with VLA:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static void *foo(size_t elem, size_t n, size_t m) {
return malloc(elem * n * m);
}
int main(void) {
size_t n = 42;
int (*p)[n] = foo(sizeof **p, n, n);
if (!p) {
return 1;
}
printf("p:");
int accu = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < sizeof *p / sizeof **p; j++) {
p[i][j] = accu++;
printf(" %d", p[i][j]);
}
}
printf("\n");
free(p);
}
I am trying understand how pointers works in C. I am trying a simple case where an array, and a pointer to array are the arguments of a function which will copy the elements of the first one in the second one.
I have written this code
#include <stdio.h>
#define TAM 32
typedef int TablaArray[32];
void copyArray(TablaArray, TablaArray*, int);
void main(){
int t1[] = {1,2,3,4};
int t2[4];
copyArray(t1, t2,4);
for(int i = 0; i <= 3; i ++){
printf("%d - %d\n", t1[i], t2[i]);
}
}
void copyArray(TablaArray t1, TablaArray *t2, int tam){
for(int i = 0; i<tam-1; i++){
printf("%d\n", t1[i]);
*t2[i] = t1[i];
}
}
I am expecting to get something like this with the printf expression:
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3
4 - 4
But definitely I don't know the way... I have been looking in stackoverflow and because I am sure this trivial question is already answered... but I didn't find it...
You need to make sure you are passing two int pointers pointing to both arrays. In your code only one of the arguments is a pointer. The code below should make it more clear:
#include <stdio.h>
void copyArray(int * arr1, int * arr2, int size);
int main(void)
{
int t1[] = {1,2,3,4};
int t2[4];
copyArray(t1, t2,4);
for(int i = 0; i <= 3; i ++)
{
printf("%d - %d\n", t1[i], t2[i]);
}
return 0;
}
void copyArray(int * arr1, int * arr2, int size)
{
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
printf("%d\n", arr1[i]);
arr2[i] = arr1[i];
}
return;
}
Edit: in what you have written, a TablaArray * is a pointer to an array of 32 ints, while you need an int *
typedef int TablaArray[32];
is bad practice
The problem is connected with array to pointer decay and then with pointer arithmetics:
Pointer decay means that if you pass an array-object of type int x[32] as argument to a function, then it "decays" to a pointer like int *, which points to the first element of the integer array. So be aware that if you pass an int x[32]-object, it's actually passed by reference (the array is not copied) and you may alter the contents of the array in the function.
Now pointer arithmetics:
Incrementing a pointer (or accessing an array through array subscripting) implicitly does pointer arithmetics, and the number of bytes added to the initial value depends on the type of the object to which the pointer points:
typedef int Array10[10];
Array10 arr = { 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0 };
int *x = arr; // arrayOfInts decays to a pointer; x points to the &arr[0]
x++; // in terms of bytes, x is incremented by sizeof(int) bytes
int i = x[3]; // gets the int-value on the address of x + 3*sizeof(int)
Array10 *arr10ptr = arr;
arr10ptr++; // in terms of bytes, x is incremented by sizeof(Array10) bytes, which is 10*sizeof(int)
arr10ptr[3]; // 3*sizeof(Array10), i.e. 3*10*sizeof(int)
Now it should be clear why a function parameter being declared as a pointer to an array of int[32] behaves different from a function parameter being declared as an int[32].
So you could correct your program as follows, now knowing that TablaArray t2 will be a reference to the underlying array anyway:
void copyArray(TablaArray t1, TablaArray t2, int tam){
for(int i = 0; i<tam; i++){
printf("%d\n", t1[i]);
t2[i] = t1[i];
}
}
Hope it helps.
Compile with warnings enabled. If you used gcc -Wall -Werror, you would get the following errors:
luis.c:10:6: error: return type of ‘main’ is not ‘int’ [-Werror=main]
void main(){
^~~~
luis.c: In function ‘main’:
luis.c:15:19: error: passing argument 2 of ‘copyArray’ from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
copyArray(t1, t2,4);
^~
luis.c:8:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[32]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
void copyArray(TablaArray, TablaArray*, int);
^~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
The first one is simple, it should be int main.
The second one is a bit harder to see exactly because you used a typedef. So your prototype is now
void copyArray(int *, int (*)[32], int);
With the second value being a pointer-to-array that by itself is a construct that is not used often.
Instead, you'd just need two pointers to int here, and the size of an array should perhaps use size_t instead:
void copyArray(int *, int *, size_t);
void copyArray(int *t1, int *t2, size_t n){
for (int i = 0; i < tam; i++) {
t2[i] = t1[i];
}
}
Finally, if you use a C99, C11 compiler, it could be nice to use the variable-length arrays arrays to tell that one of the parameters tell the sizes of the arrays; for that we need to reorder the parameters:
void copyArray(size_t, int[*], int[*]);
void copyArray(size_t n, int t1[n], int t2[n]) {
...
}
void copyArray(TablaArray, TablaArray, int); // prototype
void copyArray(TablaArray t1, TablaArray t2, int tam){
for(int i = 0; i<tam; i++){
printf("%d\n", t1[i]);
t2[i] = t1[i];
}
}
this will help
// much faster
#include <string.h>
void copyArray(TablaArray t1, TablaArray t2, int tam){
memcpy(t2, t1, sizeof(t1[0]) * tam);
}
In Your Copy function you were copying the same value of T1 to T2 on the Address Of T2. you can do it with out pointers but pointers helps you to refer the Address
Greetings,
I am trying to learn pointers in C, I simply want my "addtwo" function to add 2 to every element of the input integer array, yet I get odd compilation errors, here is the non-pointer version which indeed won't properly compile.
addtwo(int *arr[]) {
int i=0;
for(;i< sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int);i++) {
arr[i] = arr[i] + 2;
}
}
main() {
int myarray[] = {1,2,3,4};
addtwo(myarray);
}
Regards
You've some problems. First, you try to pass a int* to a parameter that's type int**. That won't work. Give it type int*:
void addtwo(int *arr){
int i=0;
for(;i< sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int);i++){
arr[i] = arr[i] + 2;
}
}
Then, you need to pass the size in an additional argument. The problem is, that when you pass arrays, you really pass just a pointer (the compiler will make up a temporary pointer that points to the array's first element). So you need to keep track of the size yourself:
void addtwo(int *arr, int size){
int i=0;
for(;i<size;i++){
arr[i] = arr[i] + 2;
}
}
int main(void) {
int myarray[] = {1,2,3,4};
addtwo(myarray, sizeof myarray / sizeof myarray[0]);
}
Now it will work. Also put the return type before them. Some compilers may reject your code, since it doesn't comply to the most recent C Standard anymore, and has long been deprecated (omitting the return type was the way you coded with the old K&R C).
addtwo(int *arr[]) should be addtwo(int *arr)
You cannot use sizeof to get the size of an array from a pointer. Typically you would either pass the size of the array as a separate arg or have some special value marking the last element.
Not to do with the compile error, but...
You have to pass sizeof(arr) to the function instead of calling it in the function. When an array is passed to a function, C no longer sees it as an array, but as a single pointer to memory, so that sizeof(arr) as you are calling it now, will return the size of the pointer arr, which is most likely 4.
Here's what I mean in code:
void addtwo(int *arr, int size){
int i=0;
for(;i< size;i++){
arr[i] = arr[i] + 2;
}
}
int main(){
int myarray[] = {1,2,3,4};
addtwo(myarray, sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int));
return 0;
}
In C a notation int *arr[] is the same as int** arr.
You need to pass a pointer to the first element of the array and the array size. Array types decay to pointers in the context of function parameters. Try:
void addtwo(int *arr, size_t size){
for(size_t i = 0; i < size; i++){
arr[i] = arr[i] + 2;
}
}
int main() {
int v[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 };
addtwo(v, sizeof v / sizeof v[ 0 ]);
return 0;
}
Though others already gave the correct response, basically you have an array of pointers when you have
int *arr[]
I doubt that is what you want. If you have
int arr[]
then that will also be equivalent to
int *arr
addtwo argument declaration really reads:
arr is an array of pointers to integer
when you probably really want
a pointer to an array of integers
"How to Read C Declarations" has really helped me to grok the topic a while ago, maybe it will do the same for you.