int ar[3][3]={{1,2,3},{4,5,6},{7,8,9}};
statment1: int k=(int *)((int *)(ar+1)+2);
statment2: int l=*(*(ar+1)+2);
statement3 int *p = (int *)a +1;
Statement1 does not compile.
Statement2 and Statement3 compiles.
Now, I cannot make out what difference does it make if I put (int *) instead of *, given that the array is of integer type.
You are confused about dereference operator * and cast operation (int *), and your very 1st line should have ring a bell:
int k = (int *)bar;
You try to affect an address (pointer to int) in an int variable.
The 2nd is ok because you are using * twice to get a value in your 2-dimension array.
The 3rd is also ok because your container int * p has the right type to get an address (and you dereference just "one dimension".
I hope it is clear enough, anyway you can have a look at this Wikipedia article abour dereference operator.
the confusion appears in this line where pointers are used instead of array indexes:
statment1: int k=(int *)((int *)(ar+1)+2);
It appears the meaning is intended to be ar[1][2] however, that is not what they have. In order to create an equivalent pointer representation of the ar[1][2] index, it would be:
statment1: int k = *(*(ar + 1) + 2) // equivalent to k = ar[1][2]
Related
So I am working on an assignment and I am having trouble figuring out how to use this 2d array which was passed by reference.
What I am given is this
int main(){
//cap and flow initialized
maximum_flow(1000, &(cap[0][0]), &(flow[0][0]));
}
So I wanted to copy the contents of cap over to another 2d array I dynamically allocated, but after hitting an error I decided to print out the values I have in cap2 and capacity, I'm not getting back all the values that I should.
void maximum_flow(int n, int *capacity, int *flow){
int **cap2;
cap2 = (int**) malloc(sizeof(int *)*n);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
cap2[i] = (int*) malloc(sizeof(int)*n);
}
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
for (j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
cap2[i][j] = (*(capacity + i*n + j));
(*(flow + i*n + j)) = 0;
}
}
}
This isn't going to be a terribly useful answer, since your code doesn't actually show the problem described; based on what's presented, I see no obvious reason why cap and cap2 shouldn't have the same contents by the end of the maximum_flow function. But I'd like to offer some background and a suggestion.
I'm going to assume cap and flow are declared as n by n arrays of int in main, where n is known at compile time.
The reason your instructor is using this interface is that passing multidimensional arrays as function arguments is problematic in C. Remember that unless it's the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, or is a string literal being used to initialize another array in a declaraiton, an expression of type "N-element array of T" will be converted ("decay") to an expression of type "pointer to T", and the value of the expression will be the address of the first element of the array.
So, assuming a declaration like
int cap[10][10];
int flow[10][10];
the expressions cap and flow will each "decay" to type int (*)[10] (pointer to 10-element array of int). So if you wrote your function call as
maximum_flow( 1000, cap, flow );
then the function definition would have to be written as
void maximum_flow( int n, int (*cap)[10], int (*flow)[10] ) { ... }
or
void maximum_flow( int n, int cap[][10], int flow[][10] ) { ... }
In the context of a function parameter declaration, T a[][N] and T (*a)[N] mean the same thing.
The size of the outer dimension has to be specified in the array pointer declaration, and the problem is that a pointer to a 10-element array is a different, incompatible type from a pointer to an any-value-other-than-10-element array; thus, maximum_flow could only ever be used for N x 10-element arrays, limiting its usefulness. One way around this problem is to have the function receive an explicit pointer to the first element, and treat that pointer as a 1D array of size N * M.
Long story short, since you're treating your input parameters as 1D arrays, you are probably better off creating cap2 as a 1D array as well:
int *cap2 = malloc( sizeof *cap2 * n * n );
...
cap2[i * n + j] = capacity[i * n + j]; // use array subscript notation instead
flow[i * n + j] = 0; // of explicit dereferences
From the code you've posted, it's not clear what maximum_flow is supposed to do, nor why you need cap2. Note also that at some point you need to free the memory allocated to cap2, otherwise you have a memory leak.
If you're using a C99 or later compiler, you should be able to use a variable-length array instead of malloc:
int cap2[n * n]; // or int cap2[n][n], but like I said above, if you're
// treating your inputs as 1D arrays, you should also treat
// cap2 as a 1D array.
The advantage of a VLA is that you don't need to know the size at compile time, and it's treated like any other auto variable, meaning the memory for it will be released when the function exits.
The disadvantage of a VLA is that you can't use it as anything but a local variable; you can't have a VLA as a struct or union member, nor can you declare one static or at file scope. Neither can you explicitly initialize a VLA.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
typedef struct{
int a;
} cool;
cool x;
(&x)->a = 3;
x.a = 4;
}
I was wondering if the (&x)-> a does the same thing as the x.a. I coded both of them up, and it seemed that both of them changed the value of x.a. I know it must be a pointer on the left side of ->, but the (&x) seems to work without problem. Printing out x.a works for both of them, and gives me the correct answer. I looked up a lot about pointers, linked list, and structures and am still not able to find out the answer. Would it be possible to get an explanation? Thank you!
The -> operator expects a pointer on the left hand side. &x returns the address of x so it satisfies that requirement (even if it is totally redundant). To think about it another way...
cool *y = x;
y->a = 3;
The . operator expects a stack allocated struct on the left hand side. x is that, so x.a works fine.
You can also go the other way, if you have a pointer y you can dereference it with *y and use . on it: (*y).a. This is also totally redundant.
The & prefix operator returns the memory address of whatever object you put it in front of.
This means that you have to put it in front of objects that actually have a memory address. For example, literals and temporary expression results don't necessarily have an address. Variables declared with register storage class don't have an address, either.
Thus:
int i = 5;
&i; // works
&5; // Nope!
&(i + 1); // Nope!
&i + 1; // Works, because &i has higher precedence than +1.
So what does the address of an object give you? It is a pointer to the object. This is how you can do dynamic memory allocation using the heap. This is where functions like malloc() come in. And this is how you can build arbitrarily large data structures.
In C, arrays are represented as pointers. So arrays and pointers are often used interchangeably. For example:
char buffer[100]; // array
strcpy(buffer, "hello"); // strcpy is declared to take (char *, const char *)
The opposite of the address_of operator is the * dereference operator. If I declare a pointer to something, I can get "what it points at" using this syntax:
int i = 5;
int *pi = &i; // pointer to int. Note the * in the declaration?
i + i; // 10
i + *pi; // Also 10, because pi "points to" i
In the case where you have an aggregate type like a struct or union, you would have to do something like this:
struct {
int a;
} s;
s.a = 5;
/* ??? */ ps = &s; // pointer to s
s.a; // 5
(*ps).a; // Also 5, because ps points to s.
ps->a; // 5, because a->b is shorthand for (*a).b
This only works, of course, if you have a pointer to an object that CAN use the .member and that has an appropriately named member. For example, you can't do this:
i = 5;
pi = &i;
pi->a; // WTF? There is no i.a so this cannot work.
If you have a pointer, you can take the address of it. You then have a pointer to a pointer. Sometimes this is an array of pointers, as with the argv array passed to main:
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]);
int main(int argc, const char **argv); // Effectively the same.
You can do weird stuff with pointers to pointers:
int i = 5;
int j = 100;
int * pij;
for (pij = &i; i < j; ) {
if (i & 1) {
*pij *= 2;
pij = &j;
}
else {
i += 1;
*pij -= 1;
pij = &i;
}
}
Note: I have no idea what that code does. But it's the kind of thing you can wind up doing if you're working with pointers.
Here's this code from the Art of Exploitation book by Jon Erikson. I understand the typecast on the second line makes the compiler leave you alone about data types. What I'm not sure about is why double typecasting is necessary on the bottom line.
int *int_pointer;
int_pointer = (int *) char_array;
for(i=0; i < 5; i++)
printf("[integer pointer] points to %p, which contains the char '%c'\n", int_pointer, *int_pointer);
int_pointer = (int *) ((char *) int_pointer + 1);
I am going to assume it's because leaving it like so without the (int *) would make it increment by the correct data type character, but is this not what you want? Why typecast back to int?
And what's up with the * inside the parenthesis? Is this de-referencing the data in the variable? Some explanation would be kindly appreciated.
It's not typecasting to int or char, it's typecasting the pointer to a char pointer or int pointer.
When you add one to a pointer, it advances to the next item being pointed at, by scaling the increment based on the type of the item.
If the items are int, it advances by the size of an int. This is probably 4 or 8 in the current environment but will hopefully will be larger in future so we can stop messing about with bignum libraries :-)
If the items are of type char, it advances by one (sizeof(char) is always one, since ISO C defines a byte as the size of a char rather than eight bits).
So, if you have four-byte int types, there's a big difference between advancing an int pointer and a char pointer. For example, consider the following code:
int *p = 0; // bad idea but shows the concept.
p = p + 1; // p is now 4.
p = (int*)(((char*)p) + 1) // p is now 5.
That last statement breaks down as:
(char*)p - get a char pointer version of p (a)
a + 1 - add one to it (b)
(int*)b - cast it back to an int pointer (c)
p = c - replace p with that value
So... I have a dynamically allocated array on my main:
int main()
{
int *array;
int len;
array = (int *) malloc(len * sizeof(int));
...
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I also wanna build a function that does something with this dynamically allocated array.
So far my function is:
void myFunction(int array[], ...)
{
array[position] = value;
}
If I declare it as:
void myFunction(int *array, ...);
Will I still be able to do:
array[position] = value;
Or I will have to do:
*array[position] = value;
...?
Also, if I am working with a dynamically allocated matrix, which one is the correct way to declare the function prototype:
void myFunction(int matrix[][], ...);
Or
void myFunction(int **matrix, ...);
...?
If I declare it as:
void myFunction(int *array, ...);
Will I still be able to do:
array[position] = value;
Yes - this is legal syntax.
Also, if I am working with a dynamically allocated matrix, which one
is correct to declare the function prototype:
void myFunction(int matrix[][], ...);
Or
void myFunction(int **matrix, ...);
...?
If you're working with more than one dimension, you'll have to declare the size of all but the first dimension in the function declaration, like so:
void myFunction(int matrix[][100], ...);
This syntax won't do what you think it does:
void myFunction(int **matrix, ...);
matrix[i][j] = ...
This declares a parameter named matrix that is a pointer to a pointer to int; attempting to dereference using matrix[i][j] will likely cause a segmentation fault.
This is one of the many difficulties of working with a multi-dimensional array in C.
Here is a helpful SO question addressing this topic:
Define a matrix and pass it to a function in C
Yes, please use array[position], even if the parameter type is int *array. The alternative you gave (*array[position]) is actually invalid in this case since the [] operator takes precedence over the * operator, making it equivalent to *(array[position]) which is trying to dereference the value of a[position], not it's address.
It gets a little more complicated for multi-dimensional arrays but you can do it:
int m = 10, n = 5;
int matrixOnStack[m][n];
matrixOnStack[0][0] = 0; // OK
matrixOnStack[m-1][n-1] = 0; // OK
// matrixOnStack[10][5] = 0; // Not OK. Compiler may not complain
// but nearby data structures might.
int (*matrixInHeap)[n] = malloc(sizeof(int[m][n]));
matrixInHeap[0][0] = 0; // OK
matrixInHeap[m-1][n-1] = 0; // OK
// matrixInHeap[10][5] = 0; // Not OK. coloring outside the lines again.
The way the matrixInHeap declaration should be interpreted is that the 'thing' pointed to by matrixInHeap is an array of n int values, so sizeof(*matrixInHeap) == n * sizeof(int), or the size of an entire row in the matrix. matrixInHeap[2][4] works because matrixInHeap[2] is advancing the address matrixInHeap by 2 * sizeof(*matrixInHeap), which skips two full rows of n integers, resulting in the address of the 3rd row, and then the final [4] selects the fifth element from the third row. (remember that array indices start at 0 and not 1)
You can use the same type when pointing to normal multidimensional c-arrays, (assuming you already know the size):
int (*matrixPointer)[n] = matrixOnStack || matrixInHeap;
Now lets say you want to have a function that takes one of these variably sized matrices as a parameter. When the variables were declared earlier the type had some information about the size (both dimensions in the stack example, and the last dimension n in the heap example). So the parameter type in the function definition is going to need that n value, which we can actually do, as long as we include it as a separate parameter, defining the function like this:
void fillWithZeros(int m, int n, int (*matrix)[n]) {
for (int i = 0; i < m; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < n; ++j)
matrix[i][j] = 0;
}
If we don't need the m value inside the function, we could leave it out entirely, just as long as we keep n:
bool isZeroAtLocation(int n, int (*matrix)[n], int i, int j) {
return matrix[i][j] == 0;
}
And then we just include the size when calling the functions:
fillWithZeros(m, n, matrixPointer);
assert(isZeroAtLocation(n, matrixPointer, 0, 0));
It may feel a little like we're doing the compilers work for it, especially in cases where we don't use n inside the function body at all (or only as a parameter to similar functions), but at least it works.
One last point regarding readability: using malloc(sizeof(int[len])) is equivalent to malloc(len * sizeof(int)) (and anybody who tells you otherwise doesn't understand structure padding in c) but the first way of writing it makes it obvious to the reader that we are talking about an array. The same goes for malloc(sizeof(int[m][n])) and malloc(m * n * sizeof(int)).
Will I still be able to do:
array[position] = value;
Yes, because the index operator p[i] is 100% identical to *(ptr + i). You can in fact write 5[array] instead of array[5] and it will still work. In C arrays are actually just pointers. The only thing that makes an array definition different from a pointer is, that if you take a sizeof of a "true" array identifier, it gives you the actual storage size allocates, while taking the sizeof of a pointer will just give you the size of the pointer, which is usually the system's integer size (can be different though).
Also, if I am working with a dynamically allocated matrix, which one is the correct way to declare the function prototype: (…)
Neither of them because those are arrays of pointers to arrays, which can be non-contigous. For performance reasons you want matrices to be contiguous. So you just write
void foo(int matrix[])
and internally calculate the right offset, like
matrix[width*j + i]
Note that writing this using the bracket syntax looks weird. Also take note that if you take the sizeof of an pointer or an "array of unspecified length" function parameter you'll get the size of a pointer.
No, you'd just keep using array[position] = value.
In the end, there's no real difference whether you're declaring a parameter as int *something or int something[]. Both will work, because an array definition is just some hidden pointer math.
However, there's is one difference regarding how code can be understood:
int array[] always denotes an array (it might be just one element long though).
int *pointer however could be a pointer to a single integer or a whole array of integers.
As far as addressing/representation goes: pointer == array == &array[0]
If you're working with multiple dimensions, things are a little bit different, because C forces you declare the last dimension, if you're defining multidimensional arrays explicitly:
int **myStuff1; // valid
int *myStuff2[]; // valid
int myStuff3[][]; // invalid
int myStuff4[][5]; // valid
void main()
{
int (*d)[10];
d[0] = 7;
d[1]=10;
printf("%d\n",*d);
}
It should print 10 but compiler is showing error such as follows:
test.c:4:7: error: incompatible types when assigning to type ‘int[10]’ from type ‘int’
Note that I have included some errors , not all.
As noted by chris, d is a pointer to an array. This means you use the variable improperly when you access it, but also that you will access random memory unless you assign d to point to a valid array.
Change your program as follows:
int main(void)
{
int (*d)[10]; /* A pointer to an array */
int a[10]; /* The actual array */
d = &a; /* Make `d` point to `a` */
/* Use the pointer dereference operator (unary prefix `*`)
to access the actual array `d` points to */
(*d)[0] = 7;
(*d)[1] = 10;
/* Double dereference is okay to access the first element of the
arrat `d` points to */
printf("%d\n", **d);
return 0;
}
In C, [] is the same as *, the pointer syntax. Thus the following lines are the same:
int** array2d1;
int* array2d2[];
int array2d3[][];
To relate to a closer example, the main function has the following popular forms:
int main(int argc, char** argv){ ... }
or
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){ ... }
Thus
int (*d)[10]
is the same as
int* d[10]
which is the same as
int** d;
int firstArray[10];
d = &firstArray;
Effectively, you are creating a pointer to a pointer (which is a pointer to an array) and allocating the first pointer to an array that 10 elements. Therefore, when you run the following lines:
d[0] = 7;
d[1] = 10;
You are assigning the 1st array's address to 7 and the second array's address to 10. So as Joachim has mentioned, to assign values, you need to deference twice:
(*d)[0] = 7
(*d)[1] = 10
Which says "Assign 7 to the 0th index at the value pointed by d". I hope that makes sense?
d is a pointer to an array of 10 ints.
int (*d)[10] is the declaration for a point to an array of 10 ints.
vs.
int *d[10], which is an array of 10 int pointers.
For more complex syntax like this (usually involving pointers), I use cdecl to help me decode it.
It's used in this form
int d[10]
I guess you are mistaken that d must be a "kind of pointer" and therfor you put an * before the d.
But that's not what you want. You wan to name an array of integer and the notation for that is seen above.
Concept of pointer can get confusing sometimes in C.
Consider an array int d[6] = {0,1,2,3,4,5}
Then, *d is equivalent to d[0]. d is itself an pointer to an array and *d dereferences that pointer and gives us the value.
Hence, following code would print the same values:
int main()
{
int (d)[10];
*d = 7;
*(d + 1)=10;
printf("%d\n",*d);
printf("%d\n",d[0]);
return 0;
}
result:
7
7
Please see http://codepad.org/LYY9ig1i.
If you change your code as follows:
#include<malloc.h>
int main()
{
int *d[10]; //not (*d)[10]
d[0] = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int *) * 10);
d[0][0] = 7;
printf("%d\n",d[0][0]);
return 0;
}
Hope this helps you!