Can int store the base address of string in C? - c

Question

Why do the code run without error ?
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int i="string"; //the base of string can be stored in a character pointer
printf("%s\n",i);
printf("%d",i);
return 0;
}
//compiling on ideone.com language c
OUTPUT:
string
134513984 //some garbage(address of "string")
Please explain if there is some flexibility in the pointer in c. I tried it for c++ which gives error: cannot convert ‘const char*’ to ‘int*’ in initialization

Answer 1

No, you cannot assume this in general. In part, this is because int may not be the same size as char * (in fact, on many 64-bit compilers it will not be the same size).
If you want to store a pointer as an integer, the appropriate type to use is actually intptr_t, from <stdint.h>. This is an integer which is guaranteed to be able to hold a pointer's value.
However, the circumstances when you'd actually want to do this are somewhat rare, and when you do do this you should also include an explicit cast:
intptr_t i=(intptr_t)"string"; //the base of string can be stored in a character pointer
This also complicates printing its value, you'll need to use a macro to be portable:
printf("%"PRIiPTR,i);
To print the original string, you should also cast:
printf("%s", (char *)i);

Answer 2

In general, no: the C standard states that conversions from pointers to integers are implementation defined. Further, this can be problematic on systems where sizeof(char *) and sizeof(int) are different (i.e. x86-64), for two reasons:
int i = "string"; can lose information, if the e.g. 64-bit pointer cannot fit in a 32-bit integer.
printf expects a pointer to be passed in, but gets a smaller integer. It winds up reading some garbage into the full pointer, and can crash your code (or worse).
Often times, however, compilers are "smart" enough to "fix" arguments to printf. Further, you seem to be running on a platform where pointers and integers are the same size, so you got lucky.

Answer 3

If you compiled this program with warnings (which you should) you'd get the following complaints:
main.c:3:9: warning: incompatible pointer to integer conversion initializing 'int' with an expression of type 'char [7]' [-Wint-conversion]
int i="string"; //the base of string can be stored in a character pointer
^ ~~~~~~~~
main.c:4:19: warning: format specifies type 'char *' but the argument has type 'int' [-Wformat]
printf("%s\n",i);
~~ ^
%d
2 warnings generated.
Warnings generally mean you're doing something that could cause unexpected results.

Answer 4

Most C compilers will let you do this, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Here, the address of the character array "string" gets stored in i. The printf options are determining how the integer is interpreted (as an address or an integer). This can be problematic when char* is not the same size as an int (e.g. on most 64 bit machines).
The C++ compiler is more picky and won't let you compile code like this. C compilers are much more willing, although they will usually generate warnings letting the programmer know it is a bad idea.

Answer 5

Your code is ill-formed in both C and C++. It is illegal to do
int i = "string";
in both languages. In both languages conversion from a pointer to an integer requires an explicit cast.
The only reason your C compiler accepted it is that it was configured by default for rather loose error checking. (A rather typical situation with C compilers.) Tighten up your C compiler settings and it should issue an error for the above initialization. I.e. you can use an explicit conversion
int i = (int) "string";
with implementation-dependent results, but you can't legally do it implicitly.
In any case, the warning your compiler emitted for the above initialization is already a sufficient form of a diagnostic message for this violation.