Just have a question in mind that troubles me.
I know pointers and arrays are different in C because pointers store an address while arrays store 'real' values.
But I'm getting confused when it comes to string.
char *string = "String";
I read that this line does several things :
An array of chars is created by the compiler and it has the value String.
Then, this array is considered as a pointer and the program assigns to the pointer string a pointer which points to the first element of the array created by the compiler.
This means, arrays are considered as pointers.
So, is this conclusion true or false and why ?
If false, what are then the differences between pointers and arrays ?
Thanks.
A pointer contains the address of an object (or is a null pointer that doesn't point to any object). A pointer has a specific type that indicates the type of object it can point to.
An array is a contiguous ordered sequence of elements; each element is an object, and all the elements of an array are of the same type.
A string is defined as "a contiguous sequence of characters terminated by and including the first null character". C has no string type. A string is a data layout, not a data type.
The relationship between arrays and pointers can be confusing. The best explanation I know of is given by section 6 of the comp.lang.c FAQ. The most important thing to remember is that arrays are not pointers.
Arrays are in a sense "second-class citizens" in C and C++. They cannot be assigned, passed as function arguments, or compared for equality. Code that manipulates arrays usually does so using pointers to the individual elements of the arrays, with some explicit mechanism to specify how long the array is.
A major source of confusion is the fact that an expression of array type (such as the name of an array object) is implicitly converted to a pointer value in most contexts. The converted pointer points to the initial (zeroth) element of the array. This conversion does not happen if the array is either:
The operand of sizeof (sizeof array_object yields the size of the array, not the size of a pointer);
The operand of unary & (&array_object yields the address of the array object as a whole); or
A string literal in an initializer used to initialize an array object.
char *string = "String";
To avoid confusion, I'm going to make a few changes in your example:
const char *ptr = "hello";
The string literal "hello" creates an anonymous object of type char[6] (in C) or const char[6] (in C++), containing the characters { 'h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o', '\0' }.
Evaluation of that expression, in this context, yields a pointer to the initial character of that array. This is a pointer value; there is no implicitly created pointer object. That pointer value is used to initialize the pointer object ptr.
At no time is an array "treated as" a pointer. An array expression is converted to a pointer type.
Another source of confusion is that function parameters that appear to be of array type are actually of pointer type; the type is adjusted at compile time. For example, this:
void func(char param[10]);
really means:
void func(char *param);
The 10 is silently ignored. So you can write something like this:
void print_string(char s[]) {
printf("The string is \"%s\"\n", s);
}
// ...
print_string("hello");
This looks like just manipulating arrays, but in fact the array "hello" is converted to a pointer, and that pointer is what's passed to the print_string function.
So, is this conclusion true or false and why ?
Your conclusion is false.
Arrays and pointers are different. comp.lang.c FAQ list · Question 6.8 explains the difference between arrays and pointers:
An array is a single, preallocated chunk of contiguous elements (all of the same type), fixed in size and location. A pointer is a reference to any data element (of a particular type) anywhere. A pointer must be assigned to point to space allocated elsewhere, but it can be reassigned (and the space, if derived from malloc, can be resized) at any time. A pointer can point to an array, and can simulate (along with malloc) a dynamically allocated array, but a pointer is a much more general data structure.
When you do
char *string = "String";
and when a C compiler encounters this, it sets aside 7 bytes of memory for the string literal String. Then set the pointer string to point to the starting location of the allocated memory.
When you declare
char string[] = "String";
and when a C compiler encounters this, it sets aside 7 bytes of memory for the string literal String. Then gives the name of that memory location, i.e. the first byte, string.
So,
In first case string is a pointer variable and in second case it is an array name.
The characters stored in first case can't be modified while in array version it can be modified.
This means arrays is not considered as pointers in C but they are closely related in the sense that pointer arithmetic and array indexing are equivalent in C, pointers and arrays are different.
You have to understand what is happening in memory here.
A string is a contiguous block of memory cells that terminates with a special value (a null terminator). If you know the start of this block of memory, and you know where it ends (either by being told the number of memory cells or by reading them until you get to the null) then you're good to go.
A pointer is nothing more than the start of the memory block, its the address of the first memory cell, or its a pointer to the first element. All those terms mean the same thing. Its like a cell reference in a spreadsheet, if you have a huge grid you can tell a particular cell by its X-Y co-ordinates, so cell B5 tells you of a particular cell. In computer terms (rather than spreadsheets) memory is really a very, very long list of cells, a 1-dimensional spreadsheet if you like, and the cell reference will look like 0x12345678 rather than B5.
The last bit is understanding that a computer program is a block of data that is loader by the OS into memory, the compiler will have figured out the location of the string relative to the start of the program, so you automatically know which block of memory it is located in.
This is exactly the same as allocating a block of memory on the heap (its just another part of the huge memory space) or the stack (again, a chunk of memory reserved for local allocations). You have the address of the first memory location where your string lives.
So
char* mystring = "string";
char mystring[7];
copy_some_memory(mystring, "string", 7);
and
char* mystring = new char(7);
copy_some_memory(mystring, "string", 7);
are all the same thing. mystring is the memory location of the first byte, that contains the value 's'. The language may make them look different, but that's just syntax. So an array is a pointer, its just that the language makes it look different, and you can operate on it with slightly different syntax designed to make operations on it safer.
(note: the big difference between the 1st and other examples is that the compiler-set set of data is read-only. If you could change that string data, you could change your program code, as it too it just a block of CPU instructions stored in a section of memory reserved for program data. For security reasons, these special blocks of memory are restricted to you).
Here's another way to look at them:
First, memory is some place you can store data.
Second, an address is the location of some memory. The memory referred to by the address may or may not exist. You can't put anything in an address, only at an address - you can only store data in the memory the address refers to.
An array is contiguous location in memory - it's a series of memory locations of a specific type. It exists, and can have real data put into it. Like any actual location in memory, it has an address.
A pointer contains an address. That address can come from anywhere.
A string is a NUL-terminated array of characters.
Look at it this way:
memory - A house. You can put things in it. The house has an address.
array - A row of houses, one next to the other, all the same.
pointer - a piece of paper you can write an address on. You can't store anything in the piece of paper itself (other than an address), but you can put things into the house at the address you write on the paper.
We can create an array with the name 'string'
char string[] = "Hello";
We can allocate a pointer to that string
char* stringPtr = string;
The array name is converted to a pointer
So, an array name is similar to the pointer. However, they're not the same, as the array is a contiguous block of memory, whereas the pointer references just a single location (address) in memory.
char *string = "String";
This declaration creates the array and sets the address of the pointer to the block of memory used to store the array.
This means, arrays are considered as pointers. So, is this conclusion true or false
False, arrays are not pointers. However, just to confuse(!), pointers can appear to be arrays, due to the dereference operator []
char *string = "String";
char letter = string[2];
In this case string[2], string is first converted to a pointer to the first character of the array and using pointer arithmetic, the relevant item is returned.
Then, this array is considered as a pointer and the program assigns to the pointer string a pointer which points to the first element of the array created by the compiler.
Not really great wording here. Array is still an array and is considered as such. The program assigns a pointer-to-first-element value (rvalue) to pointer-to-char variable (lvalue in general). That is the only intermediate/non-stored pointer value here, as compiler and linker know array's address at compile-link time. You can't directly access the array though, because it is anonymous literal. If you were instead initializing an array with literal, then literal would disappear (think like optimized-out as separate entity) and array would be directly accessible by its precomputed address.
char s[] = "String"; // char[7]
char *p = s;
char *p = &s[0];
Related
char string1[3][4]={"koo","kid","kav"}; //This is a 2D array
char * string[3]={"koo","kid","kav"}; //This is an array of 3 pointers pointing to 1D array as strings are stored as arrays in memory
char (*string1Ptr)[4]=string1; //This is a pointer to a 1D array of 4 characters
//I want to know differences between string1Ptr(pointer to array mentioned in question) and string(array of pointers mentioned in question). I only typed string1 here to give string1Ptr an address to strings
Besides the fact that string can point to strings of any size and string1Ptr can only point to strings of size 4 only(otherwise pointer arithmetic would go wrong), I don't see any differences between them.
For example,
printf("%s\n", string1[2]); // All print the same thing, ie, the word "kav"
printf("%s\n", string1Ptr[2]);
printf("%s\n", string[2]);
They all seem to perform the same pointer arithmetic.(My reason for assuming string and string1Ptr are almost similar besides for the difference I stated above)
So what are the differences between string and string1Ptr? Any reason to use one over the other?
PS: I'm a newbie so please go easy on me.
Also, I did check C pointer to array/array of pointers disambiguation, it didn't seem to answer my question.
char string1[3][4]={"koo","kid","kav"}; //This is a 2D array
char * string[3]={"koo","kid","kav"}; //This is an array of 3 pointers pointing to 1D array as strings are stored as arrays in memory
char (*string1Ptr)[4]=string1; //This is a pointer to a 1D array of 4 characters
Besides the fact that string can point to strings of any size and
string1Ptr can only point to strings of size 4 only(otherwise
pointer arithmetic would go wrong), I don't any differences between
them.
They are absolutely, fundamentally different, but C goes to some trouble to hide the distinction from you.
string is an array. It identifies a block of contiguous memory wherein its elements are stored. Those elements happen to be of type char * in this example, but that's a relatively minor detail. One can draw an analogy here to a house containing several rooms -- the rooms are physically part of and exist inside the physical boundaries of the house. I can decorate the rooms however I want, but they always remain the rooms of that house.
string1Ptr is a pointer. It identifies a chunk of memory whose contents describe how to access another, different chunk of memory wherein an array of 4 chars resides. In our real estate analogy, this is like a piece of paper on which is written "42 C Street, master bedroom". Using that information, you can find the room and redecorate it as you like, just as in the other case. But you can also replace the paper with a locator for a different room, maybe in a different house, or with random text, or you can even burn the whole envelope, without any of that affecting the room on C Street.
string1, for its part, is an array of arrays. It identifies a block of contiguous memory where its elements are stored. Each of those elements is itself an array of 4 chars, which, incidentally, happens to be just the type of object to which string1Ptr can point.
For example,
printf("%s\n", string1[2]); // All print the same thing, ie, the word "kav"
printf("%s\n", string1Ptr[2]);
printf("%s\n", string[2]);
They all seem to perform the same pointer arithmetic.(My reason for
assuming string and string1Ptr are almost similar besides for the
difference I stated above)
... and that is where C hiding the distinction comes in. One of the essential things to understand about C arrays is that in nearly all expressions,* values of array type are silently and automatically converted to pointers [to the array's first element]. This is sometimes called pointer "decay". The indexing operator is thus an operator on pointers, not on arrays, and indeed it does have similar behavior in your three examples. In fact, the pointer type to which string1 decays is the same as the type of string1Ptr, which is why the initialization you present for the latter is permitted.
But you should understand that the logical sequence of operations is not the same in those three cases. First, consider
printf("%s\n", string1Ptr[2]);
Here, string1Ptr is a pointer, to which the indexing operator is directly applicable. The result is equivalent to *(string1Ptr + 2), which has type char[4]. As a value of array type, that is converted to a pointer to the first element (resulting in a char *).
Now consider
printf("%s\n", string1[2]);
string1 is an array, so first it is converted to a pointer to its first element, resulting in a value of type char(*)[4]. This is the same type as string1Ptr1, and evaluation proceeds accordingly, as described above.
But this one is a bit more different:
printf("%s\n", string[2]);
Here, string is a pointer, so the indexing operation applies directly to it. The result is equivalent to *(string + 2), which has type char *. No automatic conversions are performed.
Any reason to use one over the other?
Many, in both directions, depending on your particular needs at the time. Generally speaking, pointers are more flexible, especially in that they are required for working with dynamically allocated memory. But they suffer from the issues that
a pointer may be in scope, but not point to anything, and
declaring a pointer does not create anything for it to point to. Also,
even if a pointer points to something at one time during an execution of the program, and its value is not subsequently written by the program, it can nevertheless stop pointing to anything. (This most often is a result of the pointer outliving the object to which it points.)
Additionally, it can be be both an advantage and a disadvantage that
a pointer can freely be assigned to point to a new object, any number of times during its lifetime.
Generally speaking, arrays are easier to use for many purposes:
declaring an array allocates space for all its elements. You may optionally specify initial values for them at the point of declaration, or in some (but not all) cases avail yourself of default initialization.
the identifier of an array is valid and refers to the array wherever it is in scope.
Optionally, if an initializer is provided then an array declaration can use it to automatically determine the array dimension(s).
* But only nearly all. There are a few exceptions, with the most important being the operand of a sizeof operator.
The difference between string1 and string is the same as the difference between:
char s1[4] = "foo";
char *s2 = "foo";
s1 is a writable array of 4 characters, s2 is a pointer to a string literal, which is not writable. See Why do I get a segmentation fault when writing to a string initialized with "char *s" but not "char s[]"?.
So in your example, it's OK to do string1[0][0] = 'f'; to change string1[0] to "foo", but string[0][0] = 'f'; causes undefined behavior.
Also, since string is an array of pointers, you can reassign those pointers, e.g. string[0] = "abc";. You can't assign to string1[0] because the elements are arrays, not pointers, just as you can't reassign s1.
The reason that string1Ptr works is because the string1 is a 2D array of char, which is guaranteed to be contiguous. string1Ptr is a pointer to an array of 4 characters, and when you index it you increment by that number of characters, which gets you to the next row of the string1 array.
Bear with me as I am adding some minor, secondary questions too instead of posting those separately
In a declaration char name[]="Germ"; the identifier Germ is of type char[5], right? But in an assignment like ptr="Germ", where ptr had been declared as a character pointer, "Germ" acts as a character pointer, right?
So here are my confusions which I request you to clear. Even one liners would be helpful:
1) Why is "Germ" an array object in declaration but a pointer in second? Should I conclude that a particular syntax has different meaning during declaration than in other statements? For example "{'a','b','c'}" is an initializer for an array and not a compound statement even though enclosed in curly brackets...
2) In the first declaration of this question, are "&name" and "name" of different types in that "&name" is the address of an array object of size 5 while "name" is the address of a character variable, i.e, the address of the first element of the array called name? I feel it is so, but want your confirmation.
3) And finally, if modifying strings is UB in C (I read in a good book), how come the following code doesn't show even a warning and prints "ariund"?
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
char str[]="around";
str[2]='i';
printf("%s",str);
return 0;
}
You answers will be very much appreciated.
This is not a direct answer to your question, but it might help you to understand some of the issues...
Given the following function:
void func()
{
char arr[] = "RW";
char* ptr = "RO";
}
During the build process, both strings are hard-coded into a read-only section of the executable image.
During runtime, every time the function is called:
The content of the "RW\0" string is copied into the stack (i.e., into arr)
The address of the "RO\0" string is copied into the stack (i.e., into ptr)
At this point, since you have a copy of the "RW\0" string, you can change the contents of that copy.
You cannot change either one of the original strings, as they both reside in a read-only memory section.
A few notable differences between arrays and pointers:
With int arr[10]:
Amount of memory used is sizeof(int)*10 bytes
The values of arr and &arr are necessarily identical
arr points to a valid memory address, but cannot be set to point to another memory address
With int* ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)*10):
Amount of memory used is sizeof(int*) + sizeof(int)*10 bytes
The values of ptr and &ptr are not necessarily identical (in fact, they are mostly different)
ptr can be set to point to both valid and invalid memory addresses, as many times as you will
I'm learning C programming in a self-taught fashion. I know that numeric pointer addresses must always be initialized, either statically or dynamically.
However, I haven't read about the compulsory need of initializing char pointer addresses yet.
For example, would this code be correct, or is a pointer address initialization needed?
char *p_message;
*p_message = "Pointer";
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "numeric pointer" as opposed to "char pointer". In C, a char is an integer type, so it is an arithmetic type. In any case, initialization is not required for a pointer, regardless of whether or not it's a pointer to char.
Your code has the mistake of using *p_message instead of p_message to set the value of the pointer:
*p_message = "Pointer" // Error!
This wrong because given that p_message is a pointer to char, *p_message should be a char, not an entire string. But as far as the need for initializing a char pointer when first declared, it's not a requirement. So this would be fine:
char *p_message;
p_message = "Pointer";
I'm guessing part of your confusion comes from the fact that this would not be legal:
char *p_message;
*p_message = 'A';
But then, that has nothing to do with whether or not the pointer was initialized correctly. Even as an initialization, this would fail:
char *p_message = 'A';
It is wrong for the same reason that int *a = 5; is wrong. So why is that wrong? Why does this work:
char *p_message;
p_message = "Pointer";
but this fail?
char *p_message;
*p_message = 'A';
It's because there is no memory allocated for the 'A'. When you have p_message = "Pointer", you are assigning p_message the address of the first character 'P' of the string literal "Pointer". String literals live in a different memory segment, they are considered immutable, and the memory for them doesn't need to be specifically allocated on the stack or the heap.
But chars, like ints, need to be allocated either on the stack or the heap. Either you need to declare a char variable so that there is memory on the stack:
char myChar;
char *pChar;
pChar = &myChar;
*pChar = 'A';
Or you need to allocate memory dynamically on the heap:
char* pChar;
pChar = malloc (1); // or pChar = malloc (sizeof (char)), but sizeof(char) is always 1
*pChar = 'A';
So in one sense char pointers are different from int or double pointers, in that they can be used to point to string literals, for which you don't have to allocate memory on the stack (statically) or heap (dynamically). I think this might have been your actual question, having to do with memory allocation rather than initialization.
If you are really asking about initialization and not memory allocation: A pointer variable is no different from any other variable with regard to initialization. Just as an uninitialized int variable will have some garbage value before it is initialized, a pointer too will have some garbage value before it is initialized. As you know, you can declare a variable:
double someVal; // no initialization, will contain garbage value
and later in the code have an assignment that sets its value:
someVal = 3.14;
Similarly, with a pointer variable, you can have something like this:
int ary [] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int *ptr; // no initialization, will contain garbage value
ptr = ary;
Here, ptr is not initialized to anything, but is later assigned the address of the first element of the array.
Some might say that it's always good to initialize pointers, at least to NULL, because you could inadvertently try to dereference the pointer before it gets assigned any actual (non-garbage) value, and dereferencing a garbage address might cause your program to crash, or worse, might corrupt memory. But that's not all that different from the caution to always initialize, say, int variables to zero when you declare them. If your code is mistakenly using a variable before setting its value as intended, I'm not sure it matters all that much whether that value is zero, NULL, or garbage.
Edit. OP asks in a comment: You say that "String literals live in a different memory segment, they are considered immutable, and the memory for them doesn't need to be specifically allocated on the stack or the heap", so how does allocation occur?
That's just how the language works. In C, a string literal is an element of the language. The C11 standard specifies in §6.4.5 that when the compiler translates the source code into machine language, it should transform any sequence of characters in double quotes to a static array of char (or wchar_t if they are wide characters) and append a NUL character as the last element of the array. This array is then considered immutable. The standard says: If the program attempts to modify such an array, the behavior is undefined.
So basically, when you have a statement like:
char *p_message = "Pointer";
the standard requires that the double-quoted sequence of characters "Pointer" be implemented as a static, immutable, NUL-terminated array of char somewhere in memory. Typically implementations place such string literals in a read-only area of memory such as the text block (along with program instructions). But this is not required. The exact way in which a given implementation handles memory allocation for this array / NUL terminated sequence of char / string literal is up to the particular compiler. However, because this array exists somewhere in memory, you can have a pointer to it, so the above statement does work legally.
An analogy with function pointers might be useful. Just as the code for a function exists somewhere in memory as a sequence of instructions, and you can have a function pointer that points to that code, but you cannot change the function code itself, so also the string literal exists in memory as a sequence of char and you can have a char pointer that points to that string, but you cannot change the string literal itself.
The C standard specifies this behavior only for string literals, not for character constants like 'A' or integer constants like 5. Setting aside memory to hold such constants / non-string literals is the programmer's responsibility. So when the compiler comes across statements like:
char *charPtr = 'A'; // illegal!
int *intPtr = 5; // illegal!
the compiler does not know what to do with them. The programmer has not set aside such memory on the stack or the heap to hold those values. Unlike with string literals, the compiler is not going to set aside any memory for them either. So these statements are illegal.
Hopefully this is clearer. If not, please comment again and I'll try to clarify some more.
Initialisation is not needed, regardless of what type the pointer points to. The only requirement is that you must not attempt to use an uninitialised pointer (that has never been assigned to) for anything.
However, for aesthetic and maintenance reasons, one should always initialise where possible (even if that's just to NULL).
First of all, char is a numeric type, so the distinction in your question doesn't make sense. As written, your example code does not even compile:
char *p_message;
*p_message = "Pointer";
The second line is a constraint violation, since the left-hand side has arithmetic type and the right-hand side has pointer type (actually, originally array type, but it decays to pointer type in this context). If you had written:
char *p_message;
p_message = "Pointer";
then the code is perfectly valid: it makes p_message point to the string literal. However, this may or may not be what you want. If on the other hand you had written:
char *p_message;
*p_message = 'P';
or
char *p_message;
strcpy(p_message, "Pointer");
then the code would be invoking undefined behavior by either (first example) applying the * operator to an invalid pointer, or (second example) passing an invalid pointer to a standard library function which expects a valid pointer to an object able to store the correct number of characters.
not needed, but is still recommended for a clean coding style.
Also the code you posted is completely wrong and won't work, but you know that and only wrote that as a quick example, right?
In this example seems that both strings "jesus" are equals(same memory location).
printf("%p\n","jesus");
printf("%p\n","jesus");
Also note that:
printf("%p\n",&"jesus");
printf("%p\n","jesus");
prints the same, but:
char* ptrToString = "jesus";
char* ptrToString = &"jesus"; //ERROR
So i wanna know how an unassigned string is stored in memory and how to point it...
First off, why are "jesus" and &"jesus" the same: "jesus" is an array of type const char[6], and it decays to a pointer to the first element. Taking the address of the array gives you a pointer to an array, whose type is const char (*)[6]. However, the pointer to the array is numerically the same as the pointer to its first element (only the types differ).
This also explains why you have an error in the last line - type type is wrong. You need:
const char (*pj)[6] = &"jesus";
Finally, the question is whether repeated string literals have the same address or not. This is entirely up to the compiler. If it were very naive, it could store a separate copy for each occurrence of a string literal in the source code. If it is slightly cleverer, it'll only store one unique copy for each string literal. String literals are of course stored in memory somewhere, typically in a read-only data segment of the program image. Think of them as statically initialized global variables.
One more thing: Your original code is actually undefined behaviour, since %p expects a void * argument, and not a const char * or a const char (*)[6]. So the correct code is:
printf("%p\n%p\n", (void const *)"jesus", (void const *)&"jesus");
C is a carefully specified language and we can make many observations about your examples that may answer some questions.
Character literals are stored in memory as initialized data. They have type array of char.
They are not necessarily strings because nul bytes can be embedded with \0.
It is not required that identical character string literals be unique, but it's undefined what happens if a program tries to modify one. This effectively allows them to be distinct or "interned" as the implementation sees fit.
In order to make that last line work, you need:
char (*ptrToString)[] = &"jesus"; // now not an ERROR
char *sample = "String Value";
&sample is a pointer to the pointer of "String Value"
is the above statement right?
If the above statement right, what is the equivalent of &sample if my declaration is
char sample[] = "String Value"
In the first one, there are two objects being created.
One is a char * (pointer-to-char) called sample, and the other is an unnamed array of 13 chars containing the characters of the string. In this case, &sample gives the address of the object sample, which is the address of a pointer-to-char - so, a pointer-to-pointer-to-char.
In the second example, there's only one object being created; an array of 13 chars called sample, initialised with the characters of the string. In this case, &sample gives the address of the object sample - so, a pointer-to-array-of-13-chars.
In the second example, there is no "equivalent" to &sample in the first example, in the sense of a pointer-to-pointer-to-char value. This is because there is no pointer-to-char value to take the address of. There is only the array.
While pointers provide enormous power and flexibility to the programmers, they may use cause manufactures if it not properly handled. Consider the following precaustions using pointers to prevent errors. We should make sure that we know where each pointer is pointing in a program. Here are some general observations and common errors that might be useful to remember. *ptr++, *p[],(ptr).member
In the first part &sample will return the address of 'sample' pointer created and in the second case the starting address of the string created as object.
In C arrays and pointers are more or less interchangable. You can treat an array name like it is a pointer, and a pointer like it is an array name.
If you take the address of (&) of a pointer, of course you get a pointer to a pointer.
&sample is the address of the pointer that points to "String Value".
For the second example, since an array name that is not followed by a subscript is interpreted as the pointer to the initial element of the array, which means
sample
and
&sample[0]
are the same, therefore &sample is also the address of the pointer that points to the string.