Related
It seems there are many questions of the form "should I declare X?" but not this specific one. I hope it is ok to ask this.
The title says it all: why should I declare a pointer? Even better: there are risks if I do not declare the pointer? Consider the following examples:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <string.h>
void func(int *ptr);
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
int a;
int *PTRa;
a = -1;
PTRa = &a;
func(PTRa);
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
void func(int *ptr)
{
*ptr = 1;
return;
}
I get a=1. In this case I would say the pointer is declared (and assigned as well): I have the line int *PTRa; (declaration) and the line PTRa = &a; (assignment). The results is correct. I don't get any warning.
Imagine now to replace the main with the following:
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
int a;
a = -1;
func(&a);
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
Here I do not declare the pointer but just give the address of a to func. The result is correct and I don't get warnings.
My understanding is that the two approaches are identical: func always gets the same input, the address of a. I would even dare to say that I feel the second approach to be better, as I feel it to be clearer and I feel the variable PTRa to be useless and somewhat redundant. However, I always see codes where the first approach is used and I have the feeling I will be told to do so. Why?
You are correct: there's no point in declaring a pointer in your example. A pointer is just a variable that holds an address. The cleaner approach is to pass directly the address of the variable: func(&a) instead of doing one extra step and declaring PTRa.
Note that not all cases are this simple. For example, if you want to have an array of ints, but you want to be able to grow that array dynamically because you don't know how big it should be you have to declare a pointer:
int count = ...; // get the count from the user, from a file, etc
int *list_of_ints = malloc(sizeof(int) * count);
if (list_of_ints == NULL)
{
// malloc failed.
printf("Not enough memory!\n");
exit(1);
}
// Now `list_of_ints` has enough space to store exactly `count` `int`s
EDIT: as #paulsm4 pointed out in a comment, the question Why use pointers? is a great source of information related to this topic.
EDIT 2: one good reason to want a pointer to the address of a variable might be that you want a pointer inside a structure or array:
struct foo
{
int x;
};
struct bar
{
int y;
struct foo f;
};
struct bar b;
struct foo *ptr_foo = &b.f;
You can now work more easily with b.f because you're just working with a struct foo.
In this case there's no benefit in creating a separate pointer variable.
It might be necessary in more complex cases, just like it's sometimes necessary to create variables of any other type.
From the title, I thought you're talking about pointer type, but actually, you are asking if declaring a variable is needed.
Variable is a piece of memory, storing some numbers(bytes), and the type of the variable, indicating how you and your program interpret those bytes: integer? float? character? etc.
Pointer is the memory address, it could be of a variable, or a function, or something else.
A variable of pointer is a small area in the memory, storing the address of other(or even same) memory.
You decide if you need an extra variable to store the pointer. It's the same to the decision that if you want a variable to store an integer:
int v = -1;
abs(v); // use variable
abs(-1); // use constant
As far as I've understood this far array[1] and array+1 are practically two ways of writing the same thing. However I've been looking at void pointers and arrays recently and made this program to test my understanding of it.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){
void** data;
data = malloc(sizeof(int)*2);
*((int*)data) = 5;
*((int*)(data+1)) = 10;
printf("%d\n", *((int*)data));
printf("%d\n", *((int*)(data+1)));
free(data);
return 0;
}
That is the version of the program that works, for some reason however this version doesn't
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){
void** data;
data = malloc(sizeof(int)*2);
*((int*)data[0]) = 5;
*((int*)data[1]) = 10;
printf("%d\n", *((int*)data));
printf("%d\n", *((int*)data1]));
free(data);
return 0;
}
I'm not exactly getting compiler errors but program simply stops running, I've compiled this on a win 10 machine using gcc with the following flags -pedantic-errors -Wall and like i said before, the program compiles but when run I get the classic Program.exe has stopped working error message and so far I really can't think of a single reason why one of those would work and the other wouldn't.
data+1 is not valid C. You cannot do pointer arithmetic on void pointers, since that wouldn't make any sense.
So it would seem that you are using gcc in non-standard crap mode (default setting), which translates void pointer arithmetic to character arithmetic and therefore the program compiles, but as non-standard C. data+1 would then mean +1 byte, not +1 int.
Use gcc as a a standard C compiler instead -std=c11 -pedantic-errors. Then change the code to (int*)data+1.
Also the void** makes no sense, should be a void*. Please note that (int*)data[0] means "do pointer arithmetic on void** type, then cast the result to int*. This is an operator precedence bug. [] has higher precedence than the cast () operator.
Just toss that whole code out and use this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){
void* data;
data = malloc( sizeof(int[2]) );
((int*)data)[0] = 5;
((int*)data)[1] = 10;
printf("%d\n", *(int*)data );
printf("%d\n", *((int*)data+1) );
free(data);
return 0;
}
Both your examples are not correct.
void** data = malloc(sizeof(int)*2);
is allocating 2 int integers, but data if of type void**.If you wish to still use this, which is not recommended, you need to allocate 2 void* pointers. This would then be:
void** data = malloc(sizeof(void*)*2);
Having said this, using void** is not needed here. You can just use void* as pointed out in #Lundin's post. Your code would be optimal if you use int *data instead though, as it doesn't really make sense to use void* pointers here. If you decide to do this, your code can just be:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){
int *data;
data = malloc(sizeof(int)*2);
data[0] = 5;
data[1] = 10;
printf("%d\n", data[0]);
printf("%d\n", data[1]);
free(data);
return 0;
}
Which is more straightforward, and skips the complications that void* pointers bring in code.
Note: You must check return of malloc() always, as it can return NULL on failure.
first: please change the type of data to int* or at least to void*.
don't mess with void** unless you need to pass to a function a pointer.
second: change data[0/1] to &data[0/1].data[] is an argument and &data[] is his pointer. if you still using the void* choose *((int*)data+?). if yopu changed to int* use data[?].
third: why to use pointers in this function? this is not a function that need pointers.
fourth: i would suggest in this case to use an array instead of the pointers. if you already know the type and size of your argument so you better use arrays. more comfortable.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
pointer arithmetic in C for getting a string
I am a newbie in C and I would like to get the elements of an array with a function, I have tried different options, but I still do not get the elements.
My function is:
void getelements(int *a, int cl)
{
int *p;
for (p=&a[0];p<&a[cl];p++)
{
printf("%d\n",*p);
}
}
I know that the solution should work like that, but it only prints the first element and then memory positions. I am calling my function with:
int v={10,12,20,34,45};
getelements(&v,5);
Any help? I need to use arithmetic of pointers.
Thanks
First, Please don't update code to fix bugs while a question is open. It makes most of the current answers meaningless, doesn't grant credit where it is due to the person(s) that solved one or more issues in your prior code, and makes the casual reader looking for a related problem to their own completely confused by both the question and the answers therein. If you want to amend an update do so in addition to the original problem, but if it an entirely different issue, then mark as answered, give credit where it is due, and open a new question with your new code and different problem(s) (ideally, anyway).
As written now, your function is fine. But your real issue is this:
// compile with -Wall -Werror and look at the warning here
int v={10,12,20,34,45}; // <== WRONG
getelements(&v,5); // <== Harmless, but bad form.
This should be like this instead, assuming you want to print all elements in the array:
int v[] = {10,12,20,34,45};
getelements(v, sizeof(v)/sizeof(v[0]));
Note the [] following your array. Without it, the &v was masking what would have been a big-fat warning or error from the compiler that int is being passed as an int *. Furthermore, if you compile your prior code with full warnings treated as errors (-Wall -Werror for gcc) you will get an error like the following on your v declaration line:
main.c:116:15: Excess elements in scalar initializer
In other words, everything past the first element was ignored, and thus your pointer was running off into undefined behavior land. Changing the declaration and invocation to what I have above will address this as well as ensure you don't make that mistake again, since sizeof(v[0]) won't even compile unless v is an array or pointer type. The latter can still cause headaches when you use a pointer rather than an array with such a calculation, but thats something you just have to discipline yourself against doing in C.
try this and let me know if that works.
void getelements(int *a)
{
int *p;
int l=5;
for (p=a;p<a+l;p++)
{
printf("%d\n",*p);
}
}
It's best to pass in the length of the array along with the array itself.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void get_elements(int* values, int length)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < length; ++i)
{
printf("%d\n", values[i]);
}
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
int vals[3];
vals[0] = 0;
vals[1] = 1;
vals[2] = 2;
get_elements(vals, 3);
getchar();
return 0;
}
Using the code similar to your original post (before the addition of the array length as a method parameter), you could do the follow (which is a bit convoluted if you ask me).
void get_elements(int* values, int length)
{
int *p;
for (p = &values[0]; p < &values[length]; p++)
{
printf("%d\n", *p);
}
}
Actually you are passing array address in
getelements(&v,5)
in function
getelements()
you are treating it like an array!!!
void getelements(int *a, int cl)
{
int *p;
for (p=a;p<a+cl;p++)
{
printf("%d\n",*p);
}
}
Let me know if you are cleared conceptually!!!
As per my knowledge and seeing your code.you have hardcoded the length of array to 5. I think you can also pass array length as a parameter to function; or you can use this function and see if it gives the desired result
void getelements(int *a)
{
int *p;
int i = 0;
int l=5;
p = a
for (i = 0;i<l;i++)
{
printf("%d\n",*(p + i));
}
}
As we know, we can use int (*p)[10] to define a pointer which points to an int[10] array, so if we have p=0 and sizeof(int)==4, p+1 will be 0+10*4 = 40, this works because the compiler knows what p is when compiling.
And then what if we do it like this:
int main()
{
int sz = 10;
int (*p)[sz];
}
in other words, nobody would know the sz until the program runs there. I supposed this should not be working, but it does work..
So my question is, how it works? I mean, is there any place that store a value's type in c at runtime? If not, how this could work? Of this is just compiler-related?
I am using gcc version 4.4.5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5), and you can test it with the following code.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
int COL ;
int ROW ;
scanf("%d %d", &COL, &ROW);
int (*p)[COL];
int *mem = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*COL*ROW);
memset(mem,0,sizeof(int)*COL*ROW);
p = (int (*)[10])mem;
printf("0x%p\n", p);
printf("COL=%d\n", p+1, (((int)(p+1))-((int)p))/sizeof(int));
mem[2*COL+0] = 1;
printf("%d\n", p[2][0]);
mem[2*COL+5] = 2;
printf("%d\n", p[2][5]);
mem[6*COL+7] = 3;
printf("%d\n", p[6][7]);
p[1][2] = 4;
printf("%d\n", mem[1*COL+2]);
free(p);
return 0;
}
I hope I am not asking a stupid question nor making stupid mistake...
Pointer arithmetic on variable length array types is well defined per 6.5.6:10, which has example code very similar to yours. Per 6.5.3.4:2, when sizeof is applied to a variable length array, the operand is evaluated at runtime to determine the size, so variable length array pointer arithmetic proceeds likewise.
Variable length arrays (6.7.6.2:4) have been part of the standard since the second edition (ISO/IEC 9899:1999 as amended); they are however an optional feature that conformant implementations do not have to support (6.10.8.3).
I have a data type, say X, and I want to know its size without declaring a variable or pointer of that type and of course without using sizeof operator.
Is this possible? I thought of using standard header files which contain size and range of data types but that doesn't work with user defined data type.
To my mind, this fits into the category of "how do I add two ints without using ++, += or + ?". It's a waste of time. You can try and avoid the monsters of undefined behaviour by doing something like this.
size_t size = (size_t)(1 + ((X*)0));
Note that I don't declare a variable of type or pointer to X.
Look, sizeof is the language facility for this. The only one, so it is the only portable way to achieve this.
For some special cases you could generate un-portable code that used some other heuristic to understand the size of particular objects[*] (probably by making them keep track of their own size), but you'd have to do all the bookkeeping yourself.
[*] Objects in a very general sense rather than the OOP sense.
Well, I am an amateur..but I tried out this problem and I got the right answer without using sizeof. Hope this helps..
I am trying to find the size of an integer.
int *a,*s, v=10;
a=&v;
s=a;
a++;
int intsize=(int)a-(int)s;
printf("%d",intsize);
The correct answer to this interview question is "Why would I want to do that, when sizeof() does that for me, and is the only portable method of doing so?"
The possibility of padding prevent all hopes without the knowledge of the rules used for introducing it. And those are implementation dependent.
You could puzzle it out by reading the ABI for your particular processor, which explains how structures are laid out in memory. It's potentially different for each processor. But unless you're writing a compiler it's surprising you don't want to just use sizeof, which is the One Right Way to solve this problem.
if X is datatype:
#define SIZEOF(X) (unsigned int)( (X *)0+1 )
if X is a variable:
#define SIZEOF(X) (unsigned int)( (char *)(&X+1)-(char *)(&X) )
Try this:
int a;
printf("%u\n", (int)(&a+1)-(int)(&a));
Look into the compiler sources. You will get :
the size of standard data types.
the rules for padding of structs
and from this, the expected size of anything.
If you could at least allocate space for the variable, and fill some sentinel value into it, you could change it bit by bit, and see if the value changes, but this still would not tell you any information about padding.
Try This:
#include<stdio.h>
int main(){
int *ptr = 0;
ptr++;
printf("Size of int: %d",ptr);
return 0;
Available since C89 solution that in user code:
Does not declare a variable of type X.
Does not declare a pointer to type X.
Without using sizeof operator.
Easy enough to do using standard code as hinted by #steve jessop
offsetof(type, member-designator)
which expands to an integer constant expression that has type size_t, the value of which is the offset in bytes, to the structure member ..., from the beginning of its structure ... C11 ยง7.19 3
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
X member;
unsigned char uc;
} sud03r_type;
int main() {
printf("Size X: %zu\n", offsetof(sud03r_type, uc));
return 0;
}
Note: This code uses "%zu" which requires C99 onward.
This is the code:
The trick is to make a pointer object, save its address, increment the pointer and then subtract the new address from the previous one.
Key point is when a pointer is incremented, it actually moves by the size equal to the object it is pointing, so here the size of the class (of which the object it is pointing to).
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class abc
{
int a[5];
float c;
};
main()
{
abc* obj1;
long int s1;
s1=(int)obj1;
obj1++;
long int s2=(int)obj1;
printf("%d",s2-s1);
}
Regards
A lot of these answers are assuming you know what your structure will look like. I believe this interview question is intended to ask you to think outside the box. I was looking for the answer but didn't find any solutions I liked here. I will make a better assumption saying
struct foo {
int a;
banana b;
char c;
...
};
By creating foo[2], I will now have 2 consecutive foo objects in memory. So...
foo[2] buffer = new foo[2];
foo a = buffer[0];
foo b = buffer[1];
return (&b-&a);
Assuming did my pointer arithmetic correctly, this should be the ticket - and its portable! Unfortunately things like padding, compiler settings, etc.. would all play a part too
Thoughts?
put this to your code
then check the linker output ( map file)
unsigned int uint_nabil;
unsigned long ulong_nabil;
you will get something like this ;
uint_nabil 700089a8 00000004
ulong_nabil 700089ac 00000004
4 is the size !!
One simple way of doing this would be using arrays.
Now, we know for the fact that in arrays elements of the same datatype are stored in a contiguous block of memory. So, by exploiting this fact I came up with following:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int arr[2];
int* ptr = &arr[0];
int* ptr1 = &arr[1];
cout <<(size_t)ptr1-(size_t)ptr;
}
Hope this helps.
Try this,
#define sizeof_type( type ) ((size_t)((type*)1000 + 1 )-(size_t)((type*)1000))
For the following user-defined datatype,
struct x
{
char c;
int i;
};
sizeof_type(x) = 8
(size_t)((x*)1000 + 1 ) = 1008
(size_t)((x*)1000) = 1000
This takes into account that a C++ byte is not always 8 binary bits, and that only unsigned types have well defined overflow behaviour.
#include <iostream>
int main () {
unsigned int i = 1;
unsigned int int_bits = 0;
while (i!=0) {
i <<= 1;
++int_bits;
}
unsigned char uc = 1;
unsigned int char_bits = 0;
while (uc!=0) {
uc <<= 1;
++char_bits;
}
std::cout << "Type int has " << int_bits << "bits.\n";
std::cout << "This would be " << int_bits/8 << " IT bytes and "
<< int_bits/char_bits << " C++ bytes on your platform.\n";
std::cout << "Anyways, not all bits might be usable by you. Hah.\n";
}
Surely, you could also just #include <limit> or <climits>.
main()
{
clrscr();
int n;
float x,*a,*b;//line 1
a=&x;
b=(a+1);
printf("size of x is %d",
n=(char*)(b)-(char*)a);
}
By this code script the size of any data can be calculated without sizeof operator.Just change the float in line 1 with the type whose size you want to calculate
#include <stdio.h>
struct {
int a;
char c;
};
void main() {
struct node*temp;
printf("%d",(char*)(temp+1)-(char*)temp);
}
# include<stdio.h>
struct node
{
int a;
char c;
};
void main()
{
struct node*ptr;
ptr=(struct node*)0;
printf("%d",++ptr);
}
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
// take any datatype hear
char *a = 0; // output: 1
int *b = 0; // output: 4
long *c = 0; // output: 8
a++;
b++;
c++;
printf("%d",a);
printf("%d",b);
printf("%d",c);
return 0;
}