int s[4][2] = {
{1234, 56},
{1212, 33},
{1434, 80},
{1312, 78}
};
int (*p)[1];
p = s[0];
printf("%d\n", *(*(p + 0))); // 1234
printf("%d\n", *(s[0] + 0)); // 1234
printf("%u\n", p); // 1256433(address of s[0][0])
printf("%u\n", *p); // 1256433(address of s[0][0])
Can anyone explain why doing *(*(p + 0)) prints 1234, and doing *(s[0] + 0) also prints 1234, when p = s[0] and also why does p and *p gives the same result?
Thanking you in anticipation.
This is the way arrays work in C -- arrays are not first class types, in that you can't do anything with them other than declaring them and getting their size. In any other context, when you use an expression with type array (of anything) it is silently converted into a pointer to the array's first element. This is often referred to as an array "decaying" into a pointer.
So lets look at your statements one by one:
p = s[0];
Here, s has array type (it's an int[4][2] -- a 2D int array), so its silently converted into a pointer to its first element (an int (*)[2], pointing at the word containing 1234). You then index this with [0] which adds 0 * sizeof(int [2]) bytes to the pointer, and then dereferences it, giving you an int [2] (1D array of 2 ints). Since this is an array, its silently converted into a pointer to its first element (an int * pointing at 1234). Note that this is the same pointer as before the index, just the pointed at type is different.
You then assign this int * to p, which was declared as int (*)[1]. Since C allows assigning any pointer to any other pointer (even if the pointed at types are different), this works, but any reasonable compiler will give you a type mismatch warning.
p now points at the word containing 1234 (the same place the pointer you get from s points at)
printf("%d\n", *(*(p+0)));
This first adds 0*sizeof(int[1]) to p and dereferences it, giving an array (int[1]) that immediately decays to a pointer to its first element (an int * still pointing at the same place). THAT pointer is then dereferenced, giving the int value 1234 which is printed.
printf("%d\n", *(s[0]+0));
We have s[0] again which via the multiple decay and dereference process noted in the description of the first line, becomes an int * pointing at 1234. We add 0*sizeof(int) to it, and then dereference, giving the integer 1234.
printf("%u\n", p);
p is a pointer, so the address of the pointer is simply printed.
printf("%u\n",*p)
p is dereferenced, giving an int [1] (1D integer array) which decays into a pointer to its first element. That pointer is then printed.
s[0]points to a location in memory. That memory location happens to be the starting point of int s[4][2]. When you make the assignment p = s[0], p and p+0 also point to s[0]. So when you print any one of these with a "%d" specifier, you will get the value stored at that location which happens to be `1234'. If you would like to verify the address is the same for all of these, use a format specifier "%p" instead of "%d".
EDIT to address OP comment question...
Here is an example using your own int **s:
First, C uses pointers. Only pointers. No arrays. The [] notation gives the appearance of arrays, but any variable that is created using the [] notation (eg. int s[4][2]) is resolved into a simple pointer (eg. int **s). Also, a pointer to a pointer is still just a pointer.
int a[8]={0}; (or int *a then malloced)
will look the same in memory as will:
int a[2][4]; ( or in **a=0; then malloced)
The statment:
s[row][col] = 1;
creates the same object code as
*(*(s + row) + col) = 1;
It is also true that
s[row] == *(s + row)
Since s[row] resolves to a pointer, then so does *(s + row)
It follows that s[0] == *(s + 0) == *s
If these three are equal, whatever value is held at this address will be displayed when printing it.
It follows that in your code: given that you have assigned p = s[0]; and s[0] == *s
*(*(p + 0)) == *(s[0] + 0) == *s[0] == **s
printf("%d\n", >>>fill in any one<<<); //will result in 1234
Note, in the following printf statements, your comment indicates addresses were printed. But because you used the unsigned int format specifier "%u",
Consider p == s[0]; which is a pointer to the first location of s. Note that either s[0][0] or **s would give you the value held at the first location of s, but s[0] is the _address_ of the first memory location of s. Therefore, since p is a pointer, pointing to the address at s[0], the following will give you the address of p, or s[0] (both same):
printf("%p\n", *p); // 1256433(address of s[0][0])
As for *p, p was created as int (*p)[1]; and pointer array of 1 element. an array is resolved into a pointer, so again, in the following you will get the address pointing to s[0]:
printf("%u\n", **p);
In summary, both p and *p are pointers. Both will result in giving address when printed.
Edit 2 Answer to your question: So my question is what is the difference between a simple pointer and a pointer to an array?
Look toward the bottom of this tutorial download a pdf. It may explain it better...
But in short, C Does not implement arrays in the same way other languages do. In C, an array of any data type always resolves into a pointer. int a[10]; is just really int *a;, with memory set aside for space to hold 10 integers consecutively. In memory it would look like:
a[0] a[9]
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| (if all were initialized to zero)
Likewise you would be tempted to think of float b[2][2][2]; as a 3 dimensional array: 2x2x2, it is not. It is really a place in memory, starting at b[0] that has room for 8 floating point numbers. Look at the illustrations HERE.
Related
I am currently trying to understand pointers in C but I am having a hard time understanding this code:
int a[10];
int *p = a+9;
while ( p > a )
*p-- = (int)(p-a);
I understand the code to some degree. I can see that an array with 10 integer elements is created then a pointer variable to type int is declared. (But I don't understand what a+9 means: does this change the value of the array?).
It would be very helpful if someone could explain this step by step, since I am new to pointers in C.
When used in an expression1, the name of an array in C, 'decays' to a pointer to its first element. Thus, in the expression a + 9, the a is equivalent to an int* variable that has the value of &a[0].
Also, pointer arithmetic works in units of the pointed-to type; so, adding 9 to &a[0] means that you get the address of a[9] – the last element of the array. So, overall, the p = a + 9 expression assigns the address of the array's last element to the p pointer (but it does not change anything in that array).
The subsequent while loop, however, does change the values of the array's elements, setting each to the value of its position (the result of the p - a expression) and decrementing the address in p by the size of an int. (Well, that what it's probably intended to do; but, as mentioned in the comments, the use of such "unsequenced operations" – i.e. the use of p-- and p - a in the same statement – is actually undefined behaviour because, in this case, the C Standard does not dictate which of those two expressions should be evaluated first.)
To avoid that undefined behaviour, the code should be written to use an explicit intermediate, like this:
int main()
{
int a[10];
int* p = a + 9;
while (p > a) {
int n = (int)(p - a); // Get the value FIRST ...
*p-- = n; // ... only THEN assign it
}
return 0;
}
1 There two exceptions: when that array name is used as the operand of a sizeof operator or of the unary & (address of) operator.
int a[10];
This declares an array on e.g. the stack. a represents the starting address of the array. The declaration tells the compiler that a will hold 10 integers. C assumes you know what you are doing so it is up to you to keep yourself in that range.
int *p = a+9;
p is declared a pointer e.g. like a RL street address. When you add an offset to a an offset is added to the address a. The compiler converts the offset like +5 to bytes +5*sizeof(int) so you don't need to think about that, so your p pointer is now pointing inside the array at offset 9 - which is the last int in the array a since index starts at 0 in C.
while( p > a )
The condition says that do this while the address of what p is pointing to is larger than the address where a is.
*p-- = (int)(p-a);
here the value what p points to is overwritten with a crude(1) subtraction between current p and starting address a before the pointer p is decremented.
(1) Undefined Behavior
Is an array's name a pointer in C?
If not, what is the difference between an array's name and a pointer variable?
An array is an array and a pointer is a pointer, but in most cases array names are converted to pointers. A term often used is that they decay to pointers.
Here is an array:
int a[7];
a contains space for seven integers, and you can put a value in one of them with an assignment, like this:
a[3] = 9;
Here is a pointer:
int *p;
p doesn't contain any spaces for integers, but it can point to a space for an integer. We can, for example, set it to point to one of the places in the array a, such as the first one:
p = &a[0];
What can be confusing is that you can also write this:
p = a;
This does not copy the contents of the array a into the pointer p (whatever that would mean). Instead, the array name a is converted to a pointer to its first element. So that assignment does the same as the previous one.
Now you can use p in a similar way to an array:
p[3] = 17;
The reason that this works is that the array dereferencing operator in C, [ ], is defined in terms of pointers. x[y] means: start with the pointer x, step y elements forward after what the pointer points to, and then take whatever is there. Using pointer arithmetic syntax, x[y] can also be written as *(x+y).
For this to work with a normal array, such as our a, the name a in a[3] must first be converted to a pointer (to the first element in a). Then we step 3 elements forward, and take whatever is there. In other words: take the element at position 3 in the array. (Which is the fourth element in the array, since the first one is numbered 0.)
So, in summary, array names in a C program are (in most cases) converted to pointers. One exception is when we use the sizeof operator on an array. If a was converted to a pointer in this context, sizeof a would give the size of a pointer and not of the actual array, which would be rather useless, so in that case a means the array itself.
When an array is used as a value, its name represents the address of the first element.
When an array is not used as a value its name represents the whole array.
int arr[7];
/* arr used as value */
foo(arr);
int x = *(arr + 1); /* same as arr[1] */
/* arr not used as value */
size_t bytes = sizeof arr;
void *q = &arr; /* void pointers are compatible with pointers to any object */
If an expression of array type (such as the array name) appears in a larger expression and it isn't the operand of either the & or sizeof operators, then the type of the array expression is converted from "N-element array of T" to "pointer to T", and the value of the expression is the address of the first element in the array.
In short, the array name is not a pointer, but in most contexts it is treated as though it were a pointer.
Edit
Answering the question in the comment:
If I use sizeof, do i count the size of only the elements of the array? Then the array “head” also takes up space with the information about length and a pointer (and this means that it takes more space, than a normal pointer would)?
When you create an array, the only space that's allocated is the space for the elements themselves; no storage is materialized for a separate pointer or any metadata. Given
char a[10];
what you get in memory is
+---+
a: | | a[0]
+---+
| | a[1]
+---+
| | a[2]
+---+
...
+---+
| | a[9]
+---+
The expression a refers to the entire array, but there's no object a separate from the array elements themselves. Thus, sizeof a gives you the size (in bytes) of the entire array. The expression &a gives you the address of the array, which is the same as the address of the first element. The difference between &a and &a[0] is the type of the result1 - char (*)[10] in the first case and char * in the second.
Where things get weird is when you want to access individual elements - the expression a[i] is defined as the result of *(a + i) - given an address value a, offset i elements (not bytes) from that address and dereference the result.
The problem is that a isn't a pointer or an address - it's the entire array object. Thus, the rule in C that whenever the compiler sees an expression of array type (such as a, which has type char [10]) and that expression isn't the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, the type of that expression is converted ("decays") to a pointer type (char *), and the value of the expression is the address of the first element of the array. Therefore, the expression a has the same type and value as the expression &a[0] (and by extension, the expression *a has the same type and value as the expression a[0]).
C was derived from an earlier language called B, and in B a was a separate pointer object from the array elements a[0], a[1], etc. Ritchie wanted to keep B's array semantics, but he didn't want to mess with storing the separate pointer object. So he got rid of it. Instead, the compiler will convert array expressions to pointer expressions during translation as necessary.
Remember that I said arrays don't store any metadata about their size. As soon as that array expression "decays" to a pointer, all you have is a pointer to a single element. That element may be the first of a sequence of elements, or it may be a single object. There's no way to know based on the pointer itself.
When you pass an array expression to a function, all the function receives is a pointer to the first element - it has no idea how big the array is (this is why the gets function was such a menace and was eventually removed from the library). For the function to know how many elements the array has, you must either use a sentinel value (such as the 0 terminator in C strings) or you must pass the number of elements as a separate parameter.
Which *may* affect how the address value is interpreted - depends on the machine.
An array declared like this
int a[10];
allocates memory for 10 ints. You can't modify a but you can do pointer arithmetic with a.
A pointer like this allocates memory for just the pointer p:
int *p;
It doesn't allocate any ints. You can modify it:
p = a;
and use array subscripts as you can with a:
p[2] = 5;
a[2] = 5; // same
*(p+2) = 5; // same effect
*(a+2) = 5; // same effect
The array name by itself yields a memory location, so you can treat the array name like a pointer:
int a[7];
a[0] = 1976;
a[1] = 1984;
printf("memory location of a: %p", a);
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a, *a);
And other nifty stuff you can do to pointer (e.g. adding/substracting an offset), you can also do to an array:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a + 1, *(a + 1));
Language-wise, if C didn't expose the array as just some sort of "pointer"(pedantically it's just a memory location. It cannot point to arbitrary location in memory, nor can be controlled by the programmer). We always need to code this:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", &a[1], a[1]);
I think this example sheds some light on the issue:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
int **b = &a;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
return 0;
}
It compiles fine (with 2 warnings) in gcc 4.9.2, and prints the following:
a == &a: 1
oops :-)
So, the conclusion is no, the array is not a pointer, it is not stored in memory (not even read-only one) as a pointer, even though it looks like it is, since you can obtain its address with the & operator. But - oops - that operator does not work :-)), either way, you've been warned:
p.c: In function ‘main’:
pp.c:6:12: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
int **b = &a;
^
p.c:8:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
C++ refuses any such attempts with errors in compile-time.
Edit:
This is what I meant to demonstrate:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
void *c = a;
void *b = &a;
void *d = &c;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
printf("c == &c: %d\n", c == d);
return 0;
}
Even though c and a "point" to the same memory, you can obtain address of the c pointer, but you cannot obtain the address of the a pointer.
The following example provides a concrete difference between an array name and a pointer. Let say that you want to represent a 1D line with some given maximum dimension, you could do it either with an array or a pointer:
typedef struct {
int length;
int line_as_array[1000];
int* line_as_pointer;
} Line;
Now let's look at the behavior of the following code:
void do_something_with_line(Line line) {
line.line_as_pointer[0] = 0;
line.line_as_array[0] = 0;
}
void main() {
Line my_line;
my_line.length = 20;
my_line.line_as_pointer = (int*) calloc(my_line.length, sizeof(int));
my_line.line_as_pointer[0] = 10;
my_line.line_as_array[0] = 10;
do_something_with_line(my_line);
printf("%d %d\n", my_line.line_as_pointer[0], my_line.line_as_array[0]);
};
This code will output:
0 10
That is because in the function call to do_something_with_line the object was copied so:
The pointer line_as_pointer still contains the same address it was pointing to
The array line_as_array was copied to a new address which does not outlive the scope of the function
So while arrays are not given by values when you directly input them to functions, when you encapsulate them in structs they are given by value (i.e. copied) which outlines here a major difference in behavior compared to the implementation using pointers.
The array name behaves like a pointer and points to the first element of the array. Example:
int a[]={1,2,3};
printf("%p\n",a); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
printf("%p\n",&a[0]); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
Both the print statements will give exactly same output for a machine. In my system it gave:
0x7fff6fe40bc0
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
As I'm learning C I often see pointers.
I get that a pointer is holding the hexadecimal value of a distinct location in memory. So a pointer is nothing other than e.g.:0x7fff5fbff85c
Every pointer is also of a distinct type.
int var = 10;
int *ptr = &var;
Ptr here points to the location of var. To get the value of var I have to dereference the pointer with *ptr.
Like
printf("Var = %d", *ptr);
would print `Var = 10;
However If I do a non inline declaration of a pointer like:
int var = 10;
int *ptr;
ptr = &var;
I don't have to use the * in the third line when I'm actually assigning the memory adress to the pointer.
But when I got a function that takes a pointer:
int var = 10;
void assignPointer(int *ptr) {
*ptr = 10;
}
Oh, wait! As I'm writing this I recognized that there are two different assignments for pointers:
*ptr = 10;
and
ptr = &var;
What is the difference? Am I in the first case first dereferencing the pointer, assigning 10 to the location that its holding?
And in the second case I'am assigning the actual location to the pointer.
I'm a little bit confused when to use the * and when not to in terms of assignment.
And if I'm working with arrays, why do I need pointers at all?
int array[];
"array" here is already holding the hexadecimal memory location. Doesn't that make it a pointer? So If I wanted to assign something to array wouldn't I write:
*array = [10, 2];
First I'm dereferencing, then I'm assigning.
I'm lost :(
EDIT: Maybe it's a bit unclear.
I don't know when you have to use a * when you are working with pointers an when not.
Everything that is carrying a hexadecimal is a pointer right?
The variable name of an array is carrying it's hexadecimal memory location. So why isn't it a pointer?
EDIT2: Thank you people you helped me a lot!
I don't know when you have to use a * when you are working with pointers an when not. Everything that is carrying a hexadecimal is a pointer right? The variable name of an array is carrying it's hexadecimal memory location. So why isn't it a pointer?
Last thing first - the name of an array is not a pointer; it does not store an address anywhere. When you define an array, it will be laid out more or less like the following:
+---+
arr: | | arr[0] Increasing address
+---+ |
| | arr[1] |
+---+ |
... |
+---+ |
| | arr[n-1] V
+---+
There is no storage set aside for an object arr separate from the array elements arr[0] through arr[n-1]. C does not store any metadata such as length or starting address as part of the array object.
Instead, there is a rule that says if an array expression appears in your code and that expression is not the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, it will be converted ("decay") to a pointer expression, and the value of the pointer expression will be the address of the first element of the array.
So given the declaration
T arr[N]; // for any type T
then the following are true:
Expression Type Decays to Value
---------- ---- --------- -----
arr T [N] T * Address of first element
&arr T (*)[N] n/a Address of array (same value
as above
*arr T n/a Value of arr[0]
arr[i] T n/a Value of i'th element
&arr[i] T * n/a Address of i'th element
sizeof arr size_t Number of storage units (bytes)
taken up by arr
The expressions arr, &arr, and &arr[0] all yield the same value (the address of the first element of the array is the same as the address of the array), but their types aren't all the same; arr and &arr[0] have type T *, while &arr has type T (*)[N] (pointer to N-element array of T).
Everything that is carrying a hexadecimal is a pointer right?
Hexadecimal is just a particular representation of binary data; it's not a type in and of itself. And not everything that can be written or displayed in hex is a pointer. I can assign the value 0xDEADBEEF to any 32-bit integer type; that doesn't make it a pointer.
The exact representation of a pointer can vary between architectures; it can even vary between different pointer types on the same architecture. For a flat memory model (like any modern desktop architecture) it will be a simple integral value. For a segmented architecture (like the old 8086/DOS days) it could be a pair of values for page # and offset.
A pointer value may not be as wide as the type used to store it. For example, the old Motorola 68000 only had 24 address lines, so any pointer value would only be 24 bits wide. However, to make life easier, most compilers used 32-bit types to represent pointers, leaving the upper 8 bits unused (powers of 2 are convenient).
I don't know when you have to use a * when you are working with pointers an when not.
Pretty simple - when you want to refer to the pointed-to entity, use the *; when you want to refer to the pointer itself, leave it off.
Another way to look at it - the expression *ptr is equivalent to the expression var, so any time you want to refer to the contents of var you would use *ptr.
A more concrete example might help. Assume the following:
void bar( T *p )
{
*p = new_value(); // write new value to *p
}
void foo( void )
{
T var;
bar( &var ); // write a new value to var
}
In the example above, the following are true:
p == &var
*p == var
If I write something to *p, I'm actually updating var. If I write something to p, I'm setting it to point to something other than var.
This code above is actually the primary reason why pointers exist in the first place. In C, all function arguments are passed by value; that is, the formal parameter in the function definition is a separate object from the actual parameter in the function call. Any updates to the formal parameter are not reflected in the actual parameter. If we change the code as follows:
void bar( T p )
{
p = new_value(); // write new value to p
}
void foo( void )
{
T var;
bar( var ); // var is not updated
}
The value of p is changed, but since p is a different object in memory from var, the value in var remains unchanged. The only way for a function to update the actual parameter is through a pointer.
So, if you want to update the thing p points to, write to *p. If you want to set p to point to a different object, write to p:
int x = 0, y = 1;
int *p = &x; // p initially points to x
printf( "&x = %p, x = %d, p = %p, *p = %d\n", (void *) &x, x, (void *) p, *p );
*p = 3;
printf( "&x = %p, x = %d, p = %p, *p = %d\n", (void *) &x, x, (void *) p, *p );
p = y; // set p to point to y
printf( "&y = %p, y = %d, p = %p, *p = %d\n", (void *) &y, y, (void *) p, *p );
At this point you're probably asking, "why do I use the asterisk in int *p = &x and not in p = y?" In the first case, we're declaring p as a pointer and initializing it in the same operation, and the * is required by the declaration syntax. In that case, we're writing to p, not *p. It would be equivalent to writing
int *p;
p = &x;
Also note that in a declaration the * is bound to the variable name, not the type specifier; it's parsed as int (*p);.
C declarations are based on the types of expressions, not objects. If p is a pointer to an int, and we want to refer to the pointed-to value, we use the * operator to dereference it, like so:
x = *p;
The type of the expression *p is int, so the declaration is written as
int *p;
C syntax is weird like this. When you declare a variable, the * is only there to indicate the pointer type. It does not actually dereference anything. Thus,
int *foo = &bar;
is as if you wrote
int *foo;
foo = &bar;
Pointers are declared similar to regular variables.The asterisk character precede the name of the pointer during declaration to distinguish it as a pointer.At declaration you are not de-referencing,e.g.:
int a = 0;
int *p = &a // here the pointer of type int is declared and assigned the address of the variable a
After the declaration statement,to assign the pointer an address or value,you use it's name without the asterisk character,e.g:
int a;
int *p;
p = &a;
To assign the target of the pointer a value,you dereference it by preceding the pointer name with *:
int a = 0;
int *p;
p = &a;
*p = 1;
Dereferenced pointer is the memory it points to. Just don't confuse declaring the pointer and using it.
It may be a bit easier to understand if you write * in declaration near the type:
int* p;
In
int some_int = 10;
int* p = &some_int; // the same as int *p; p = &some_int;
*p = 20; // actually does some_int = 20;
You are pretty much correct.
Am I in the first case first dereferencing the pointer, assigning 10 to the location that its holding? And in the second case I'am assigning the actual location to the pointer.
Exactly. These are two logically different actions as you see.
"array" here is already holding the hexadecimal memory location. Doesn't that make it a pointer?
And you got the grasp of it as well here. For the sake of your understanding I would say that arrays are pointers. However in reality it is not that simple -- arrays only decay into pointers in most circumstances. If you are really into that matter, you can find a couple of great posts here.
But, since it is only a pointer, you can't "assign to array". How to handle an array in pointer context is usually explained in a pretty good way in any C book under the "Strings" section.
You are right about the difference between assignment and dereferencing.
What you need to understand is that your array variable is a pointer to the first element of your continuous memory zone
So you can access the first element by dereferencing the pointer :
*array = 10;
You can access the nth element by dereferencing a pointer to the nth element :
*(array + (n * sizeof(my_array_type)) ) = 10;
Where the address is the pointer to the first element plus the offset to the nth element (computed using the size of an element in this array times n).
You can also use the equivalent syntax the access the nth element :
array[n] = 10;
One of your examples isn't valid. *ptr = 10;. The reason is that 10 is a value but there is no memory assigned to it.
You can think of your examples as "assigning something to point at the address" or "the address of something is". So,
int *ptr is a pointer to the address of something. So ptr = &val; means ptr equals the address of val. Then you can say *ptr = 10; or val = 10; cause both *ptr and val are looking at the same memory location and, therefore, the same value. (Note I didn't say "pointing").
In the question Find size of array without using sizeof in C the asker treats an int array like an array of int arrays by taking the address and then specifying an array index of 1:
int arr[100];
printf ("%d\n", (&arr)[1] - arr);
The value ends up being the address of the first element in the "next" array of 100 elements after arr. When I try this similar code it doesn't seem to do the same thing:
int *y = NULL;
printf("y = %d\n", y);
printf("(&y)[0] = %d\n", (&y)[0]);
printf("(&y)[1] = %d\n", (&y)[1]);
I end up getting:
y = 1552652636
(&y)[0] = 1552652636
(&y)[1] = 0
Why isn't (&y)[1] the address of the "next" pointer to an int after y?
Here:
printf("(&y)[1] = %d\n", (&y)[1]);
You say first: take address of y. Then afterwards you say: add 1 times so many bytes as the size of the thing which is pointed to - which is pointer to int, and hence probably 4 bytes are added - and dereference whatever is that on that address. But you don't know what is on that new memory address and you can't/shouldn't access that.
Arrays are not pointers, and pointers are not arrays.
The "array size" code calculates the distance between two arrays, which will be the size of an array.
Your code attempts to calculate the distance between two pointers, which should be the size of a pointer.
I believe the source of confusion is that (&y)[1] is the value of the "next" pointer to an int after y, not its address.
Its address is &y + 1.
In the same way, the address of y is &y, and (&y)[0] - or, equivalently *(&y) - is y's value.
(In the "array size" code, (&arr)[1] is also the "next" value, but since this value is an array, it gets implicitly converted to a pointer to the array's first element — &((&array)[1])[0].)
If you run this:
int *y = NULL;
printf("y = %p\n", y);
printf("&y = %p\n", &y + 0);
printf("&y + 1 = %p\n", &y + 1);
the output looks somewhat like this:
y = (nil)
&y = 0xbf86718c
&y + 1 = 0xbf867190
and 0xbf867190 - 0xbf86718c = 4, which makes sense with 32-bit pointers.
Accessing (&y)[1] (i.e. *(&y + 1)) is undefined and probably results in some random garbage.
Thanks for the answers, I think the simplest way to answer the question is to understand what the value of each expression is. First we must know the type, then we can determine the value
I used the c compiler to generate a warning by assigning the values to the wrong type (a char) so I could see exactly what it thinks the types are.
Given the declaration int arr[100], the type of (&arr)[1] is int [100].
Given the declaration int *ptr, the type of (&ptr)[1] is int *.
The value of a int[100] is the constant memory address of where the array starts. I don't know all the history of why that is exactly.
The value of a int * on the other hand is whatever memory address that pointer happens to be holding at the time.
So they are very different things. To get the constant memory address of where a pointer starts you must dereference it. So &(&ptr)[1] is int ** which the constant memory address of where the int pointer starts.
Is an array's name a pointer in C?
If not, what is the difference between an array's name and a pointer variable?
An array is an array and a pointer is a pointer, but in most cases array names are converted to pointers. A term often used is that they decay to pointers.
Here is an array:
int a[7];
a contains space for seven integers, and you can put a value in one of them with an assignment, like this:
a[3] = 9;
Here is a pointer:
int *p;
p doesn't contain any spaces for integers, but it can point to a space for an integer. We can, for example, set it to point to one of the places in the array a, such as the first one:
p = &a[0];
What can be confusing is that you can also write this:
p = a;
This does not copy the contents of the array a into the pointer p (whatever that would mean). Instead, the array name a is converted to a pointer to its first element. So that assignment does the same as the previous one.
Now you can use p in a similar way to an array:
p[3] = 17;
The reason that this works is that the array dereferencing operator in C, [ ], is defined in terms of pointers. x[y] means: start with the pointer x, step y elements forward after what the pointer points to, and then take whatever is there. Using pointer arithmetic syntax, x[y] can also be written as *(x+y).
For this to work with a normal array, such as our a, the name a in a[3] must first be converted to a pointer (to the first element in a). Then we step 3 elements forward, and take whatever is there. In other words: take the element at position 3 in the array. (Which is the fourth element in the array, since the first one is numbered 0.)
So, in summary, array names in a C program are (in most cases) converted to pointers. One exception is when we use the sizeof operator on an array. If a was converted to a pointer in this context, sizeof a would give the size of a pointer and not of the actual array, which would be rather useless, so in that case a means the array itself.
When an array is used as a value, its name represents the address of the first element.
When an array is not used as a value its name represents the whole array.
int arr[7];
/* arr used as value */
foo(arr);
int x = *(arr + 1); /* same as arr[1] */
/* arr not used as value */
size_t bytes = sizeof arr;
void *q = &arr; /* void pointers are compatible with pointers to any object */
If an expression of array type (such as the array name) appears in a larger expression and it isn't the operand of either the & or sizeof operators, then the type of the array expression is converted from "N-element array of T" to "pointer to T", and the value of the expression is the address of the first element in the array.
In short, the array name is not a pointer, but in most contexts it is treated as though it were a pointer.
Edit
Answering the question in the comment:
If I use sizeof, do i count the size of only the elements of the array? Then the array “head” also takes up space with the information about length and a pointer (and this means that it takes more space, than a normal pointer would)?
When you create an array, the only space that's allocated is the space for the elements themselves; no storage is materialized for a separate pointer or any metadata. Given
char a[10];
what you get in memory is
+---+
a: | | a[0]
+---+
| | a[1]
+---+
| | a[2]
+---+
...
+---+
| | a[9]
+---+
The expression a refers to the entire array, but there's no object a separate from the array elements themselves. Thus, sizeof a gives you the size (in bytes) of the entire array. The expression &a gives you the address of the array, which is the same as the address of the first element. The difference between &a and &a[0] is the type of the result1 - char (*)[10] in the first case and char * in the second.
Where things get weird is when you want to access individual elements - the expression a[i] is defined as the result of *(a + i) - given an address value a, offset i elements (not bytes) from that address and dereference the result.
The problem is that a isn't a pointer or an address - it's the entire array object. Thus, the rule in C that whenever the compiler sees an expression of array type (such as a, which has type char [10]) and that expression isn't the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, the type of that expression is converted ("decays") to a pointer type (char *), and the value of the expression is the address of the first element of the array. Therefore, the expression a has the same type and value as the expression &a[0] (and by extension, the expression *a has the same type and value as the expression a[0]).
C was derived from an earlier language called B, and in B a was a separate pointer object from the array elements a[0], a[1], etc. Ritchie wanted to keep B's array semantics, but he didn't want to mess with storing the separate pointer object. So he got rid of it. Instead, the compiler will convert array expressions to pointer expressions during translation as necessary.
Remember that I said arrays don't store any metadata about their size. As soon as that array expression "decays" to a pointer, all you have is a pointer to a single element. That element may be the first of a sequence of elements, or it may be a single object. There's no way to know based on the pointer itself.
When you pass an array expression to a function, all the function receives is a pointer to the first element - it has no idea how big the array is (this is why the gets function was such a menace and was eventually removed from the library). For the function to know how many elements the array has, you must either use a sentinel value (such as the 0 terminator in C strings) or you must pass the number of elements as a separate parameter.
Which *may* affect how the address value is interpreted - depends on the machine.
An array declared like this
int a[10];
allocates memory for 10 ints. You can't modify a but you can do pointer arithmetic with a.
A pointer like this allocates memory for just the pointer p:
int *p;
It doesn't allocate any ints. You can modify it:
p = a;
and use array subscripts as you can with a:
p[2] = 5;
a[2] = 5; // same
*(p+2) = 5; // same effect
*(a+2) = 5; // same effect
The array name by itself yields a memory location, so you can treat the array name like a pointer:
int a[7];
a[0] = 1976;
a[1] = 1984;
printf("memory location of a: %p", a);
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a, *a);
And other nifty stuff you can do to pointer (e.g. adding/substracting an offset), you can also do to an array:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a + 1, *(a + 1));
Language-wise, if C didn't expose the array as just some sort of "pointer"(pedantically it's just a memory location. It cannot point to arbitrary location in memory, nor can be controlled by the programmer). We always need to code this:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", &a[1], a[1]);
I think this example sheds some light on the issue:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
int **b = &a;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
return 0;
}
It compiles fine (with 2 warnings) in gcc 4.9.2, and prints the following:
a == &a: 1
oops :-)
So, the conclusion is no, the array is not a pointer, it is not stored in memory (not even read-only one) as a pointer, even though it looks like it is, since you can obtain its address with the & operator. But - oops - that operator does not work :-)), either way, you've been warned:
p.c: In function ‘main’:
pp.c:6:12: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
int **b = &a;
^
p.c:8:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
C++ refuses any such attempts with errors in compile-time.
Edit:
This is what I meant to demonstrate:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
void *c = a;
void *b = &a;
void *d = &c;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
printf("c == &c: %d\n", c == d);
return 0;
}
Even though c and a "point" to the same memory, you can obtain address of the c pointer, but you cannot obtain the address of the a pointer.
The following example provides a concrete difference between an array name and a pointer. Let say that you want to represent a 1D line with some given maximum dimension, you could do it either with an array or a pointer:
typedef struct {
int length;
int line_as_array[1000];
int* line_as_pointer;
} Line;
Now let's look at the behavior of the following code:
void do_something_with_line(Line line) {
line.line_as_pointer[0] = 0;
line.line_as_array[0] = 0;
}
void main() {
Line my_line;
my_line.length = 20;
my_line.line_as_pointer = (int*) calloc(my_line.length, sizeof(int));
my_line.line_as_pointer[0] = 10;
my_line.line_as_array[0] = 10;
do_something_with_line(my_line);
printf("%d %d\n", my_line.line_as_pointer[0], my_line.line_as_array[0]);
};
This code will output:
0 10
That is because in the function call to do_something_with_line the object was copied so:
The pointer line_as_pointer still contains the same address it was pointing to
The array line_as_array was copied to a new address which does not outlive the scope of the function
So while arrays are not given by values when you directly input them to functions, when you encapsulate them in structs they are given by value (i.e. copied) which outlines here a major difference in behavior compared to the implementation using pointers.
NO. An array name is NOT a pointer. You cannot assign to or modify an array name, but you can for a pointer.
int arr[5];
int *ptr;
/* CAN assign or increment ptr */
ptr = arr;
ptr++;
/* CANNOT assign or increment arr */
arr = ptr;
arr++;
/* These assignments are also illegal */
arr = anotherarray;
arr = 0;
From K&R Book:
There is one difference between an array name and a pointer that must
be kept in mind. A pointer is a variable, but an array name is not a
variable.
sizeof is the other big difference.
sizeof(arr); /* size of the entire array */
sizeof(ptr); /* size of the memory address */
Arrays do behave like or decay into a pointer in some situations (&arr[0]). You can see other answers for more examples of this. To reiterate a few of these cases:
void func(int *arr) { }
void func2(int arr[]) { } /* same as func */
ptr = arr + 1; /* pointer arithmetic */
func(arr); /* passing to function */
Even though you cannot assign or modify the array name, of course can modify the contents of the array
arr[0] = 1;
The array name behaves like a pointer and points to the first element of the array. Example:
int a[]={1,2,3};
printf("%p\n",a); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
printf("%p\n",&a[0]); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
Both the print statements will give exactly same output for a machine. In my system it gave:
0x7fff6fe40bc0