Related
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];
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?
I've been having trouble the past couple hours on a problem I though I understood. Here's my trouble:
void cut_str(char* entry, int offset) {
strcpy(entry, entry + offset);
}
char works[128] = "example1\0";
char* doesnt = "example2\0";
printf("output:\n");
cut_str(works, 2);
printf("%s\n", works);
cut_str(doesnt, 2);
printf("%s\n", doesnt);
// output:
// ample1
// Segmentation: fault
I feel like there's something important about char*/char[] that I'm not getting here.
The difference is in that doesnt points to memory that belongs to a string constant, and is therefore not writable.
When you do this
char works[128] = "example1\0";
the compiler copies the content of a non-writable string into a writable array. \0 is not required, by the way.
When you do this, however,
char* doesnt = "example2\0";
the compiler leaves the pointer pointing to a non-writable memory region. Again, \0 will be inserted by compiler.
If you are using gcc, you can have it warn you about initializing writable char * with string literals. The option is -Wwrite-strings. You will get a warning that looks like this:
warning: initialization discards qualifiers from pointer target type
The proper way to declare your doesnt pointer is as follows:
const char* doesnt = "example2\0";
The types char[] and char * are quite similar, so you are right about that. The difference lies in what happens when objects of the types are initialized. Your object works, of type char[], has 128 bytes of variable storage allocated for it on the stack. Your object doesnt, of type char *, has no storage on the stack.
Where exactly the string of doesnt is stored is not specified by the C standard, but most likely it is stored in a nonmodifiable data segment loaded when your program is loaded for execution. This isn't variable storage. Thus the segfault when you try to vary it.
This allocates 128 bytes on the stack, and uses the name works to refer to its address:
char works[128];
So works is a pointer to writable memory.
This creates a string literal, which is in read-only memory, and uses the name doesnt to refer to its address:
char * doesnt = "example2\0";
You can write data to works, because it points to writable memory. You can't write data to doesnt, because it points to read-only memory.
Also, note that you don't have to end your string literals with "\0", since all string literals implicitly add a zero byte to the end of the string.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What is the difference between char s[] and char *s in C?
Why is:
char *ptr = "Hello!"
different than:
char ptr[] = "Hello!"
Specifically, I don't see why you can use (*ptr)++ to change the value of 'H' in the array, but not the pointer.
Thanks!
You can (in general) use the expression (*ptr)++ to change the value that ptr points to when ptr is a pointer and not an array (ie., if ptr is declared as char* ptr).
However, in your first example:
char *ptr = "Hello!"
ptr is pointing to a literal string, and literal strings are not permitted to be modified (they may actually be stored in memory area which are not writable, such as ROM or memory pages marked as read-only).
In your second example,
char ptr[] = "Hello!";
The array is declared and the initialization actually copies the data in the string literal into the allocated array memory. That array memory is modifiable, so (*ptr)++ works.
Note: for your second declaration, the ptr identifier itself is an array identifier, not a pointer and is not an 'lvalue' so it can't be modified (even though it converts readily to a pointer in most situations). For example, the expression ++ptr would be invalid. I think this is the point that some other answers are trying to make.
When pointing to a string literal, you should not declare the chars to be modifiable, and some compilers will warn you for this:
char *ptr = "Hello!" /* WRONG, missing const! */
The reason is as noted by others that string literals may be stored in an immutable part of the program's memory.
The correct "annotation" for you is to make sure you have a pointer to constant char:
const char *ptr = "Hello!"
And now you see directly that you can't modify the text stored at the pointer.
Arrays automatically allocate space and they can't be relocated or resized while pointers are explicitly assigned to point to allocated space and can be relocated.
Array names are read only!
If You use a string literal "Hello!", the literal itself becomes an array of 7 characters and gets stored somewhere in a data memory. That memory may be read only.
The statement
char *ptr = "Hello!";
defines a pointer to char and initializes it, by storing the address of the beginning of the literal (that array of 7 characters mentioned earlier) in it. Changing contents of the memory pointed to by ptr is illegal.
The statement
char ptr[] = "Hello!";
defines a char array (char ptr[7]) and initializes it, by copying characters from the literal to the array. The array can be modified.
in C strings are arrays of characters.
A pointer is a variable that contains the memory location of another variable.
An array is a set of ordered data items.
when you put (*ptr)++ you are getting Segmentation Fault with the pointer.
Maybe you are adding 1 to the whole string (with the pointer), instead of adding 1 to the first character of the variable (with the array).
I'm learning C right now and got a bit confused with character arrays - strings.
char name[15]="Fortran";
No problem with this - its an array that can hold (up to?) 15 chars
char name[]="Fortran";
C counts the number of characters for me so I don't have to - neat!
char* name;
Okay. What now? All I know is that this can hold an big number of characters that are assigned later (e.g.: via user input), but
Why do they call this a char pointer? I know of pointers as references to variables
Is this an "excuse"? Does this find any other use than in char*?
What is this actually? Is it a pointer? How do you use it correctly?
thanks in advance,
lamas
I think this can be explained this way, since a picture is worth a thousand words...
We'll start off with char name[] = "Fortran", which is an array of chars, the length is known at compile time, 7 to be exact, right? Wrong! it is 8, since a '\0' is a nul terminating character, all strings have to have that.
char name[] = "Fortran";
+======+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+
|0x1234| |F|o|r|t|r|a|n|\0|
+======+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+
At link time, the compiler and linker gave the symbol name a memory address of 0x1234.
Using the subscript operator, i.e. name[1] for example, the compiler knows how to calculate where in memory is the character at offset, 0x1234 + 1 = 0x1235, and it is indeed 'o'. That is simple enough, furthermore, with the ANSI C standard, the size of a char data type is 1 byte, which can explain how the runtime can obtain the value of this semantic name[cnt++], assuming cnt is an integer and has a value of 3 for example, the runtime steps up by one automatically, and counting from zero, the value of the offset is 't'. This is simple so far so good.
What happens if name[12] was executed? Well, the code will either crash, or you will get garbage, since the boundary of the array is from index/offset 0 (0x1234) up to 8 (0x123B). Anything after that does not belong to name variable, that would be called a buffer overflow!
The address of name in memory is 0x1234, as in the example, if you were to do this:
printf("The address of name is %p\n", &name);
Output would be:
The address of name is 0x00001234
For the sake of brevity and keeping with the example, the memory addresses are 32bit, hence you see the extra 0's. Fair enough? Right, let's move on.
Now on to pointers...
char *name is a pointer to type of char....
Edit:
And we initialize it to NULL as shown Thanks Dan for pointing out the little error...
char *name = (char*)NULL;
+======+ +======+
|0x5678| -> |0x0000| -> NULL
+======+ +======+
At compile/link time, the name does not point to anything, but has a compile/link time address for the symbol name (0x5678), in fact it is NULL, the pointer address of name is unknown hence 0x0000.
Now, remember, this is crucial, the address of the symbol is known at compile/link time, but the pointer address is unknown, when dealing with pointers of any type
Suppose we do this:
name = (char *)malloc((20 * sizeof(char)) + 1);
strcpy(name, "Fortran");
We called malloc to allocate a memory block for 20 bytes, no, it is not 21, the reason I added 1 on to the size is for the '\0' nul terminating character. Suppose at runtime, the address given was 0x9876,
char *name;
+======+ +======+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+
|0x5678| -> |0x9876| -> |F|o|r|t|r|a|n|\0|
+======+ +======+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+
So when you do this:
printf("The address of name is %p\n", name);
printf("The address of name is %p\n", &name);
Output would be:
The address of name is 0x00005678
The address of name is 0x00009876
Now, this is where the illusion that 'arrays and pointers are the same comes into play here'
When we do this:
char ch = name[1];
What happens at runtime is this:
The address of symbol name is looked up
Fetch the memory address of that symbol, i.e. 0x5678.
At that address, contains another address, a pointer address to memory and fetch it, i.e. 0x9876
Get the offset based on the subscript value of 1 and add it onto the pointer address, i.e. 0x9877 to retrieve the value at that memory address, i.e. 'o' and is assigned to ch.
That above is crucial to understanding this distinction, the difference between arrays and pointers is how the runtime fetches the data, with pointers, there is an extra indirection of fetching.
Remember, an array of type T will always decay into a pointer of the first element of type T.
When we do this:
char ch = *(name + 5);
The address of symbol name is looked up
Fetch the memory address of that symbol, i.e. 0x5678.
At that address, contains another address, a pointer address to memory and fetch it, i.e. 0x9876
Get the offset based on the value of 5 and add it onto the pointer address, i.e. 0x987A to retrieve the value at that memory address, i.e. 'r' and is assigned to ch.
Incidentally, you can also do that to the array of chars also...
Further more, by using subscript operators in the context of an array i.e. char name[] = "..."; and name[subscript_value] is really the same as *(name + subscript_value).
i.e.
name[3] is the same as *(name + 3)
And since the expression *(name + subscript_value) is commutative, that is in the reverse,
*(subscript_value + name) is the same as *(name + subscript_value)
Hence, this explains why in one of the answers above you can write it like this (despite it, the practice is not recommended even though it is quite legitimate!)
3[name]
Ok, how do I get the value of the pointer?
That is what the * is used for,
Suppose the pointer name has that pointer memory address of 0x9878, again, referring to the above example, this is how it is achieved:
char ch = *name;
This means, obtain the value that is pointed to by the memory address of 0x9878, now ch will have the value of 'r'. This is called dereferencing. We just dereferenced a name pointer to obtain the value and assign it to ch.
Also, the compiler knows that a sizeof(char) is 1, hence you can do pointer increment/decrement operations like this
*name++;
*name--;
The pointer automatically steps up/down as a result by one.
When we do this, assuming the pointer memory address of 0x9878:
char ch = *name++;
What is the value of *name and what is the address, the answer is, the *name will now contain 't' and assign it to ch, and the pointer memory address is 0x9879.
This where you have to be careful also, in the same principle and spirit as to what was stated earlier in relation to the memory boundaries in the very first part (see 'What happens if name[12] was executed' in the above) the results will be the same, i.e. code crashes and burns!
Now, what happens if we deallocate the block of memory pointed to by name by calling the C function free with name as the parameter, i.e. free(name):
+======+ +======+
|0x5678| -> |0x0000| -> NULL
+======+ +======+
Yes, the block of memory is freed up and handed back to the runtime environment for use by another upcoming code execution of malloc.
Now, this is where the common notation of Segmentation fault comes into play, since name does not point to anything, what happens when we dereference it i.e.
char ch = *name;
Yes, the code will crash and burn with a 'Segmentation fault', this is common under Unix/Linux. Under windows, a dialog box will appear along the lines of 'Unrecoverable error' or 'An error has occurred with the application, do you wish to send the report to Microsoft?'....if the pointer has not been mallocd and any attempt to dereference it, is guaranteed to crash and burn.
Also: remember this, for every malloc there is a corresponding free, if there is no corresponding free, you have a memory leak in which memory is allocated but not freed up.
And there you have it, that is how pointers work and how arrays are different to pointers, if you are reading a textbook that says they are the same, tear out that page and rip it up! :)
I hope this is of help to you in understanding pointers.
That is a pointer. Which means it is a variable that holds an address in memory. It "points" to another variable.
It actually cannot - by itself - hold large amounts of characters. By itself, it can hold only one address in memory. If you assign characters to it at creation it will allocate space for those characters, and then point to that address. You can do it like this:
char* name = "Mr. Anderson";
That is actually pretty much the same as this:
char name[] = "Mr. Anderson";
The place where character pointers come in handy is dynamic memory. You can assign a string of any length to a char pointer at any time in the program by doing something like this:
char *name;
name = malloc(256*sizeof(char));
strcpy(name, "This is less than 256 characters, so this is fine.");
Alternately, you can assign to it using the strdup() function, like this:
char *name;
name = strdup("This can be as long or short as I want. The function will allocate enough space for the string and assign return a pointer to it. Which then gets assigned to name");
If you use a character pointer this way - and assign memory to it, you have to free the memory contained in name before reassigning it. Like this:
if(name)
free(name);
name = 0;
Make sure to check that name is, in fact, a valid point before trying to free its memory. That's what the if statement does.
The reason you see character pointers get used a whole lot in C is because they allow you to reassign the string with a string of a different size. Static character arrays don't do that. They're also easier to pass around.
Also, character pointers are handy because they can be used to point to different statically allocated character arrays. Like this:
char *name;
char joe[] = "joe";
char bob[] = "bob";
name = joe;
printf("%s", name);
name = bob;
printf("%s", name);
This is what often happens when you pass a statically allocated array to a function taking a character pointer. For instance:
void strcpy(char *str1, char *str2);
If you then pass that:
char buffer[256];
strcpy(buffer, "This is a string, less than 256 characters.");
It will manipulate both of those through str1 and str2 which are just pointers that point to where buffer and the string literal are stored in memory.
Something to keep in mind when working in a function. If you have a function that returns a character pointer, don't return a pointer to a static character array allocated in the function. It will go out of scope and you'll have issues. Repeat, don't do this:
char *myFunc() {
char myBuf[64];
strcpy(myBuf, "hi");
return myBuf;
}
That won't work. You have to use a pointer and allocate memory (like shown earlier) in that case. The memory allocated will persist then, even when you pass out of the functions scope. Just don't forget to free it as previously mentioned.
This ended up a bit more encyclopedic than I'd intended, hope its helpful.
Editted to remove C++ code. I mix the two so often, I sometimes forget.
char* name is just a pointer. Somewhere along the line memory has to be allocated and the address of that memory stored in name.
It could point to a single byte of memory and be a "true" pointer to a single char.
It could point to a contiguous area of memory which holds a number of characters.
If those characters happen to end with a null terminator, low and behold you have a pointer to a string.
char *name, on it's own, can't hold any characters. This is important.
char *name just declares that name is a pointer (that is, a variable whose value is an address) that will be used to store the address of one or more characters at some point later in the program. It does not, however, allocate any space in memory to actually hold those characters, nor does it guarantee that name even contains a valid address. In the same way, if you have a declaration like int number there is no way to know what the value of number is until you explicitly set it.
Just like after declaring the value of an integer, you might later set its value (number = 42), after declaring a pointer to char, you might later set its value to be a valid memory address that contains a character -- or sequence of characters -- that you are interested in.
It is confusing indeed. The important thing to understand and distinguish is that char name[] declares array and char* name declares pointer. The two are different animals.
However, array in C can be implicitly converted to pointer to its first element. This gives you ability to perform pointer arithmetic and iterate through array elements (it does not matter elements of what type, char or not). As #which mentioned, you can use both, indexing operator or pointer arithmetic to access array elements. In fact, indexing operator is just a syntactic sugar (another representation of the same expression) for pointer arithmetic.
It is important to distinguish difference between array and pointer to first element of array. It is possible to query size of array declared as char name[15] using sizeof operator:
char name[15] = { 0 };
size_t s = sizeof(name);
assert(s == 15);
but if you apply sizeof to char* name you will get size of pointer on your platform (i.e. 4 bytes):
char* name = 0;
size_t s = sizeof(name);
assert(s == 4); // assuming pointer is 4-bytes long on your compiler/machine
Also, the two forms of definitions of arrays of char elements are equivalent:
char letters1[5] = { 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', '\0' };
char letters2[5] = "abcd"; /* 5th element implicitly gets value of 0 */
The dual nature of arrays, the implicit conversion of array to pointer to its first element, in C (and also C++) language, pointer can be used as iterator to walk through array elements:
/ *skip to 'd' letter */
char* it = letters1;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
it++;
In C a string is actually just an array of characters, as you can see by the definition. However, superficially, any array is just a pointer to its first element, see below for the subtle intricacies. There is no range checking in C, the range you supply in the variable declaration has only meaning for the memory allocation for the variable.
a[x] is the same as *(a + x), i.e. dereference of the pointer a incremented by x.
if you used the following:
char foo[] = "foobar";
char bar = *foo;
bar will be set to 'f'
To stave of confusion and avoid misleading people, some extra words on the more intricate difference between pointers and arrays, thanks avakar:
In some cases a pointer is actually semantically different from an array, a (non-exhaustive) list of examples:
//sizeof
sizeof(char*) != sizeof(char[10])
//lvalues
char foo[] = "foobar";
char bar[] = "baz";
char* p;
foo = bar; // compile error, array is not an lvalue
p = bar; //just fine p now points to the array contents of bar
// multidimensional arrays
int baz[2][2];
int* q = baz; //compile error, multidimensional arrays can not decay into pointer
int* r = baz[0]; //just fine, r now points to the first element of the first "row" of baz
int x = baz[1][1];
int y = r[1][1]; //compile error, don't know dimensions of array, so subscripting is not possible
int z = r[1]: //just fine, z now holds the second element of the first "row" of baz
And finally a fun bit of trivia; since a[x] is equivalent to *(a + x) you can actually use e.g. '3[a]' to access the fourth element of array a. I.e. the following is perfectly legal code, and will print 'b' the fourth character of string foo.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char foo[] = "foobar";
printf("%c\n", 3[foo]);
return 0;
}
One is an actual array object and the other is a reference or pointer to such an array object.
The thing that can be confusing is that both have the address of the first character in them, but only because one address is the first character and the other address is a word in memory that contains the address of the character.
The difference can be seen in the value of &name. In the first two cases it is the same value as just name, but in the third case it is a different type called pointer to pointer to char, or **char, and it is the address of the pointer itself. That is, it is a double-indirect pointer.
#include <stdio.h>
char name1[] = "fortran";
char *name2 = "fortran";
int main(void) {
printf("%lx\n%lx %s\n", (long)name1, (long)&name1, name1);
printf("%lx\n%lx %s\n", (long)name2, (long)&name2, name2);
return 0;
}
Ross-Harveys-MacBook-Pro:so ross$ ./a.out
100001068
100001068 fortran
100000f58
100001070 fortran