Consider the following:
int i;
i = 12;
Which will obviously not give any errors. However, the following does:
int *i;
*i = 12;
Program received signal: “EXC_BAD_ACCESS”.
Why don't I have access to modify the integer? It's still in the process's address space right?
You don't allocate memory for the integer, you just create a pointer. I.e. when you try to access whatever the pointer points at to set the value, the pointer does not point to any valid allocated memory.
Understanding memory on this basic level is a necessity if you want to learn C. I suggest you buy an introduction to C book, or look up tutorials online. One of many places to start is here: http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/c-tutorial.html
You're missing a step. When you say:
int *i;
What you have is a pointer to an integer. Right now, it's not pointing to any integer in particular, which is why you can't dereference it and change the value. You'll need to set i to something:
int j = 5;
i = &j;
Now, i is a pointer that points to the value of j, which is 5. You can now change the value:
*i = 6; // j (which i points to) is now 6
To add to the answers already mentioned, you either need to point the pointer to something, or allocate memory for the pointer so that is has space in memory to point to. You can do this:
int *i;
i = malloc(sizeof(int));
if(i == NULL) // or if(i == 0) or if(NULL == i) or whatever you prefer
fprintf(stderr,"Some error blah blah\n")
*i = 5;
printf("i = %d\n",*i);
That would work as well. Just make sure if you use malloc to test for a null pointer after doing so, otherwise you could end up with problems later if for some strange reason you couldn't allocate the memory needed for an int.
No, when you declare a pointer without allocating memory to it, you are not guaranteed to point at a valid address in the address space of the process.
For example assume that it is a 32 bit pointer, your assumption would mean that every process has 4 GB of memory available. But you may not even have 4 GB physical memory in the computer.
What actually happens when you allocate memory is that the CPU, or the virtual memory hardware, is set up so it can translate the virtual address in your program into a physical memory address.
You can read a little more about virtual memory in wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
Related
In the example below I have allocated 20 bytes of memory to extend an array by 5 integers. After that I have set the last element to 15 and then reallocated the pointer to 4 bytes (1 integer). Then I print the first 10 elements of the array (it only consists of 6 at this point) and the 9th (which I've previously set to 15) is printed without warnings or errors.
The code :
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int arr[5] = {0};
int *ptr = &arr[0];
ptr = malloc(5 * sizeof(int));
arr[9] = 15;
ptr = realloc(ptr, 1 * sizeof(int));
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
printf("%d\n", arr[i]);
}
free(ptr);
return 0;
}
The result after compiling and running :
0
0
0
0
0
32766
681279744
-1123562100
-1261131712
15
My question is as follows : Why is the 9th element of the array still 15? (why am I able to access it?; Shouldn't the allocated memory be at the first free block of memory my compiler finds and not connected to the array's buffer whatsoever?)
The behaviour of malloc() \ realloc() is irrelevant in this case because in the code in the question the content of arr rather than ptr is modified and displayed, and arr is not dynamically allocated or reallocated. So there is no out-of-bounds access in the dynamic memory. The out-of-bounds access to arr[] has undefined behaviour. You will be stomping on memory not allocated to arr. In some cases that will modify adjacent variables, but in this case you have none, so since stacks most often grow downward, you may be modifying the local variables of the calling function or corrupting the return address of the current function - this being main() even that might not cause any noticeable error. In other cases it will lead to a crash.
However, had you modified ptr[15] and reallocated, then displayed the content at ptr it is most likely that you see a similar result because avoid an unnecessary data move, realloc() reuses the same memory block when the allocation is reduced, and simply reduces its size, returning the remainder to the heap.
Returning memory to the heap, does not change its content or make it inaccessible, and C does not perform any bounds checking, so if you code to access memory that is not part of the allocation it will let you. It simply makes the returned block available for allocation.
Strictly it is undefined behaviour, so other behaviour is possible, but generally C does not generate code to do anything other than the bare minimum required - except possibly in some cases to support debugging.
Your description of what the program is doing is all wrong.
In the example below I have allocated 20 bytes of memory to extend an array by 5 integers
No, you don't. You can't extend arr. It's just impossible.
After that I have set the last element to 15
No - because you didn't extend the array so index 9 does not represent the last element. You simply write outside the array.
Look at these lines:
int *ptr = &arr[0];
ptr = malloc(5 * sizeof(int));
First you make ptr point to the first element in arr but rigth after you you make ptr point to some dynamic allocated memory which have absolutely no relation to arr. In other words - the first line can simply be deleted (and probably the compiler will).
In the rest of your program you never use ptr for anything. In other words - you can simply remove all code using ptr. It has no effect.
So the program could simply be:
int main()
{
int arr[5] = {0};
arr[9] = 15;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
printf("%d\n", arr[i]);
}
return 0;
}
And it has undefined behavior because you access arr out of bounds.
Why is the 9th element of the array still 15?
The "most likely reality" is that the OS provides a way to allocate area/s of virtual pages (which aren't necessarily real memory and should be considered "pretend/fake memory"), and malloc() carves up the allocated "pretend/fake memory" (and allocates more area/s of virtual pages if/when necessary, and deallocates areas of virtual pages if/when convenient).
Freeing "pretend/fake memory that was carved up by malloc()" probably does no more than alter some meta-data used to manage the heap; and is unlikely to cause "pretend/fake memory" to be deallocated (and is even less likely to effect actual real physical RAM).
Of course all of this depends on the environment the software is compiled for, and it can be completely different; so as far as C is concerned (at the "C abstract machine" level) it's all undefined behavior (that might work like I've described, but may not); and even if it does work like I've described there's no guarantee that something you can't know about (e.g. a different thread buried in a shared library) won't allocate the same "pretend/fake memory that was carved up by malloc()" immediately after you free it and won't overwrite the data you left behind.
why am I able to access it?
This is partly because C isn't a managed (or "safe") language - for performance reasons; typically there are no checks for "array index out of bounds" and no checks for "used after it was freed". Instead, bugs cause undefined behavior (and may be critical security vulnerabilities).
int arr[5] = {0}; // these 5 integers are kept on the stack of the function
int *ptr = &arr[0]; // the pointer ptr is also on the stack and points to the address of arr[0]
ptr = malloc(5 * sizeof(int)); // malloc creates heap of size 5 * sizeof int and returns a ptr which points to it
// the ptr now points to the heap and not to the arr[] any more.
arr[9] = 15; //the array is of length 5 and arr[9] is out of the border of maximum arr[4] !
ptr = realloc(ptr, 1 * sizeof(int)); //does nothing here, since the allocated size is already larger than 1 - but it depends on implementation if the rest of 4 x integer will be free'd.
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) // undefined behavior!
{
printf("%d\n", arr[i]);
}
free(ptr);
return 0;`
In short:
Whatever you do with/to a copy of the address of an array inside a pointer variable, it has no influence on the array.
The address copy creates no relation whatsoever between the array and memory allocated (and referenced by the pointer) by a later malloc.
The allocation will not be right after the array.
A realloc of a pointer with a copy of an array access does not work. Realloc only works with pointers which carry the result of a succesful malloc. (Which is probably why you inserted the malloc.)
Longer:
Here are some important facts on your code, see my comments:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int arr[5] = {0}; /* size 5 ints, nothing will change that */
int *ptr = &arr[0]; /* this value will be ignored in the next line */
ptr = malloc(5 * sizeof(int)); /* overwrite value from previous line */
arr[9] = 15; /* arr still only has size 5 and this access beyond */
ptr = realloc(ptr, 1 * sizeof(int)); /* irrelevant, no influence on arr */
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) /* 10 is larger than 5 ... */
{
printf("%d\n", arr[i]); /* starting with 5, this access beyond several times */
}
free(ptr);
return 0;
}
Now let us discuss your description:
In the example below I have allocated 20 bytes of memory ....
True, in the line ptr = malloc(5 * sizeof(int)); (assuming that an int has 4 bytes; not guaranteed, but let's assume it).
... to extend an array by 5 integers.
No. No attribute of the array is affected by this line. Especially not the size.
Note that with the malloc, the line int *ptr = &arr[0]; is almost completely ignored. Only the part int *ptr; remains relevant. The malloc determines the value in the pointer and there is no relation to the array whatsoever.
After that I have set the last element to 15 ...
No, you access memory beyond the array. The last useable array element is arr[4] noce code until now has changed that. Judgin from the output, which still contains "15", you got "lucky", the value has not killed anything and still is in memory. But it is practically unrelated to the array and is also practically guaranteed outside of the allocated memory referenced by ptr.
... and then reallocated the pointer to 4 bytes (1 integer).
True. But I do not really get the point you try to make.
Then I print the first 10 elements of the array ...
No, you print the first 5 elements of the array, i.e. all of them.
Then you print 3 values which happen to be inside memory which you should not access at all. Afterwards you print a fifth value outside of the array, which you also should not access, but which happens to be still be the 15 you wrote there earlier - and should not have in the first place either.
... (it only consists of 6 at this point) ...
You probabyl mean 5 values from the array and 1 from ptr, but they are unrelated and unlikely to be consecutive.
... and the 9th (which I've previously set to 15) is printed without warnings or errors.
There is no 9th, see above. Concerning the lack of errors, well, you are not always lucky enough to be told by the compiler or the runtime that you make a mistake. Life would be so much easier if they could notify you of reliably all mistakes.
Let us go on with your comments:
But isn't arr[9] part of the defined heap?
No. I am not sure what you mean by "the defined heap", but it is surely neither part of the array nor the allocated memory referenced by the pointer. The chance that the allocation is right after the array is as close to zero as it gets - maybe not precisely 0, but you simply are not allowed to assume that.
I have allocated 20 bytes, ...
On many current machines, but assuming that an int has four bytes is also not a afe assumption. However, yes, lets assume that 5 ints have 20 bytes.
... so arr should now consist of 10 integers, instead of 5.
Again no, whatever you do via ptr, it has no influence on the array and there is practically no chance that the ptr-referenced memory is right after the array by chance. It seems that you assume that copying the address of the array into the pointer has an influence on array. That is not the case. It had once a copy of the arrays address, but even that has been overwritten one line later. And even if it had not been overwritten, reallocing the ptr would make an error (that is why you inserted the malloc line, isn't it?) but still not have any effect on the array or its size.
... But I don't think I am passing the barrier of the defined heap.
Again, lets assume that by "the defined heap" you mean either the array or the allocated memory referenced by ptr. Neither can be assumed to contain the arr[9] you access. So yes, you ARE accessing outside of any memory you are allowed to access.
I shouldn't be able to access arr[9], right?
Yes and no. Yes, you are not allowed to do that (with or without the realloc to 1).
No, you cannot expect to get any helpful error message.
Let's look at your comment to another answer:
My teacher in school told me that using realloc() with a smaller size than the already allocated memory frees it until it becomes n bytes.
Not wrong. It is freed, which means you are not allowed to use it anymore.
It is also theoretically freed so that it could be used by the next malloc. That does however not mean that the next malloc will. In no case implies freeing memory any change to the content of that freed memory. It definitly could change, but you cannot expect it or even rely on it. Tom Kuschels answer to this comment is also right.
int main()
{
int *p,*q;
p=(int *)1000;
q=(int *)2000;
printf("%d:%d:%d",q,p,(q-p));
}
output
2000:1000:250
1.I cannot understand p=(int *)1000; line, does this mean that p is pointing to 1000 address location? what if I do *p=22 does this value is stored at 1000 address and overwrite the existing value? If it overwrites the value, what if another program is working with 1000 address space?
how q-p=250?
EDIT: I tried printf("%u:%u:%u",q,p,(q-p)); the output is the same
int main()
{
int *p;
int i=5;
p=&i;
printf("%u:%d",p,i);
return 0;
}
the output
3214158860:5
does this mean the addresses used by compiler are integers? there is no difference between normal integers and address integers?
does this mean that p is pointing to 1000 address location?
Yes.
what if I do *p=22
It's invoking undefined behavior - your program will most likely crash with a segfault.
Note that in modern OSes, addresses are virtual - you can't overwrite an other process' adress space like this, but you can attempt writing to an invalid memory location in your own process' address space.
how q-p=250?
Because pointer arithmetic works like this (in order to be compatible with array indexing). The difference of two pointers is the difference of their value divided by sizeof(*ptr). Similarly, adding n to a pointer ptr of type T results in a numeric value ptr + n * sizeof(T).
Read this on pointers.
does this mean the addresses used by compiler are integers?
That "used by compiler" part is not even necessary. Addresses are integers, it's just an abstraction in C that we have nice pointers to ease our life. If you were coding in assembly, you would just treat them as unsigned integers.
By the way, writing
printf("%u:%d", p, i);
is also undefined behavior - the %u format specifier expects an unsigned int, and not a pointer. To print a pointer, use %p:
printf("%p:%d", (void *)p, i);
Yes, with *p=22 you write to 1000 address.
q-p is 250 because size of int is 4 so it's 2000-1000/4=250
The meaning of p = (int *) 1000 is implementation-defined. But yes, in a typical implementation it will make p to point to address 1000.
Doing *p = 22 afterwards will indeed attempt to store 22 at address 1000. However, in general case this attempt will lead to undefined behavior, since you are not allowed to just write data to arbitrary memory locations. You have to allocate memory in one way or another in order to be able to use it. In your example you didn't make any effort to allocate anything at address 1000. This means that most likely your program will simply crash, because it attempted to write data to a memory region that was not properly allocated. (Additionally, on many platforms in order to access data through pointers these pointers must point to properly aligned locations.)
Even if you somehow succeed succeed in writing your 22 at address 1000, it does not mean that it will in any way affect "other programs". On some old platforms it would (like DOS, fro one example). But modern platforms implement independent virtual memory for each running program (process). This means that each running process has its own separate address 1000 and it cannot see the other program's address 1000.
Yes, p is pointing to virtual address 1000. If you use *p = 22;, you are likely to get a segmentation fault; quite often, the whole first 1024 bytes are invalid for reading or writing. It can't affect another program assuming you have virtual memory; each program has its own virtual address space.
The value of q - p is the number of units of sizeof(*p) or sizeof(*q) or sizeof(int) between the two addresses.
Casting arbitrary integers to pointers is undefined behavior. Anything can happen including nothing, a segmentation fault or silently overwriting other processes' memory (unlikely in the modern virtual memory models).
But we used to use absolute addresses like this back in the real mode DOS days to access interrupt tables and BIOS variables :)
About q-p == 250, it's the result of semantics of pointer arithmetic. Apparently sizeof int is 4 in your system. So when you add 1 to an int pointer it actually gets incremented by 4 so it points to the next int not the next byte. This behavior helps with array access.
does this mean that p is pointing to 1000 address location?
yes. But this 1000 address may belong to some other processes address.In this case, You illegally accessing the memory of another process's address space. This may results in segmentation fault.
I was writing a code using malloc for something and then faced a issue so i wrote a test code which actually sums up the whole confusion which is below::
# include <stdio.h>
# include <stdlib.h>
# include <error.h>
int main()
{
int *p = NULL;
void *t = NULL;
unsigned short *d = NULL;
t = malloc(2);
if(t == NULL) perror("\n ERROR:");
printf("\nSHORT:%d\n",sizeof(short));
d =t;
(*d) = 65536;
p = t;
*p = 65536;
printf("\nP:%p: D:%p:\n",p,d);
printf("\nVAL_P:%d ## VAL_D:%d\n",(*p),(*d));
return 0;
}
Output:: abhi#ubuntu:~/Desktop/ad/A1/CC$ ./test
SHORT:2
P:0x9512008: D:0x9512008:
VAL_P:65536 ## VAL_D:0
I am allocating 2 bytes of memory using malloc. Malloc which returns a void * pointer is stored in a void* pointer 't'.
Then after that 2 pointers are declared p - integer type and d - of short type. then i assigned t to both of them*(p =t and d=t)* that means both d & p are pointing to same mem location on heap.
on trying to save 65536(2^16) to (*d) i get warning that large int value is truncated which is as expected.
Now i again saved 65536(2^16) to (*p) which did not caused any warning.
*On printing both (*p) and (d) i got different values (though each correct for there own defined pointer type).
My question are:
Though i have allocated 2 bytes(i.e 16 bits) of heap mem using malloc how am i able to save 65536 in those two bytes(by using (p) which is a pointer of integer type).??
i have a feeling that the cause of this is automatic type converion of void to int* pointer (in p =t) so is it that assigning t to p leads to access to memory regions outside of what is allocated through malloc . ??.
Even though all this is happening how the hell derefrencing the same memory region through (*p) and (*d) prints two different answers( though this can also be explained if what i am thinking the cause in question 1).
Can somebody put some light on this, it will be really appreciated..and also if some one can explain the reasons behind this..
Many thanks
Answering your second question first:
The explanation is the fact that an int is generally 4 bytes, and the most significant bytes may be stored in the first two positions. A short, which is only 2 bytes, also stores its data in the first two positions. Clearly, then, storing 65536 in an int and a short, but pointing at the same memory location, will cause the data to be stored offset by two bytes for the int in relation to the short, with the two least significant bytes of the int corresponding to the storage for the short.
Therefore, when the compiler prints *d, it interprets this as a short and looks at the area corresponding to storage for a short, which is not where the compiler previously stored the 65536 when *p was written. Note that writing *p = 65536; overwrote the previous *d = 65536;, populating the two least significant bytes with 0.
Regarding the first question: The compiler does not store the 65536 for *p within 2 bytes. It simply goes outside the bounds of the memory you've allocated - which is likely to cause a bug at some point.
In C there is no protection at all for writing out of bounds of an allocation. Just don't do it, anything can happen. Here it seems to work for you because by some coincidence the space behind the two bytes you allocated isn't used for something else.
1) The granularity of the OS memory manager is 4K. An ovewrite by one bit is unlikely to trigger an AV/segfault, but will it corrupt any data in the adjacent location, leading to:
2) Undefined behaviour. This set of behaviour includes 'aparrently correct operation', (for now!).
Suppose I do the following
int *p = 1;
printf("%d", *p);
I get a segfault. Now, as I understand it, this memory location 1 is in the address space of my program. Why should there be a problem in reading this memory location ?
Your pointer doesn't point to anything valid. All you do is assign the value 1 to a pointer-to-int, but 1 isn't a valid memory location.
The only valid way to obtain an pointer value is either take the address-of a variable or call an allocation function:
int a;
int * p1 = &a; // OK
int * p2 = malloc(sizeof(int)); // also OK
*p1 = 2;
*p2 = 3;
As for "why there should be a problem": As far as the language is concerned, if you dereference an invalid pointer, you have undefined behaviour, so anything can happen -- this is really the only sensible way to specify the language if you don't want to introduce any arbitrary restrictions, and C is all about being easy-to-implement.
Practically, modern operating systems will usually have a clever virtual memory manager that needs to request memory when and as needed, and if the memory at address 1 isn't on a committed page yet, you'll actually get an error from the OS. If you try a pointer value near some actual address, you might not get an error (until you overstep the page boundary, perhaps).
To answer this properly will really depend upon a number of factors. However, it is quite likely that the address 0x00000001 (page 0) is not mapped and/or read protected.
Typically, addresses in the page 0 range are disallowed from a user application for one reason or another. Even in kernel space (depending upon the processor), addresses in page 0 are often protected and require that the page be both mapped and access enabled.
EDIT:
Another possible reason is that it could be segfaulting is that integer access is not aligned.
Your operating system won't let you access memory locations that don't belong to your program. It would work on kernel mode though...
No, address 1 is not in the address space of your program. You are trying to access a segment you do not own and receive segmentation fault.
You're trying to print 1, not the memory location. 1 isn't a valid memory location. To print the actual memory location do:
printf("%p", p);
Note the %p as icktoofay pointed out.
This is actually a much more concise, much more clear question than the one I had asked here before(for any who cares): C Language: Why does malloc() return a pointer, and not the value? (Sorry for those who initially think I'm spamming... I hope it's not construed as the same question since I think the way I phrased it there made it unintentionally misleading)
-> Basically what I'm trying to ask is: Why does a C programmer need a pointer to a dynamically-allocated variable/object? (whatever the difference is between variable/object...)
If a C programmer has the option of creating just 'int x' or just 'int *x' (both statically allocated), then why can't he also have the option to JUST initialize his dynamically-allocated variable/object as a variable (and NOT returning a pointer through malloc())?
*If there are some obscure ways to do what I explained above, then, well, why does malloc() seem the way that most textbooks go about dynamic-allocation?
Note: in the following, byte refers to sizeof(char)
Well, for one, malloc returns a void *. It simply can't return a value: that wouldn't be feasible with C's lack of generics. In C, the compiler must know the size of every object at compile time; since the size of the memory being allocated will not be known until run time, then a type that could represent any value must be returned. Since void * can represent any pointer, it is the best choice.
malloc also cannot initialize the block: it has no knowledge of what's being allocated. This is in contrast with C++'s operator new, which does both the allocation and the initialization, as well as being type safe (it still returns a pointer instead of a reference, probably for historical reasons).
Also, malloc allocates a block of memory of a specific size, then returns a pointer to that memory (that's what malloc stands for: memory allocation). You're getting a pointer because that's what you get: an unitialized block of raw memory. When you do, say, malloc(sizeof(int)), you're not creating a int, you're allocating sizeof(int) bytes and getting the address of those bytes. You can then decide to use that block as an int, but you could also technically use that as an array of sizeof(int) chars.
The various alternatives (calloc, realloc) work roughly the same way (calloc is easier to use when dealing with arrays, and zero-fills the data, while realloc is useful when you need to resize a block of memory).
Suppose you create an integer array in a function and want to return it. Said array is a local variable to the function. You can't return a pointer to a local variable.
However, if you use malloc, you create an object on the heap whose scope exceeds the function body. You can return a pointer to that. You just have to destroy it later or you will have a memory leak.
It's because objects allocated with malloc() don't have names, so the only way to reference that object in code is to use a pointer to it.
When you say int x;, that creates an object with the name x, and it is referenceable through that name. When I want to set x to 10, I can just use x = 10;.
I can also set a pointer variable to point to that object with int *p = &x;, and then I can alternatively set the value of x using *p = 10;. Note that this time we can talk about x without specifically naming it (beyond the point where we acquire the reference to it).
When I say malloc(sizeof(int)), that creates an object that has no name. I cannot directly set the value of that object by name, since it just doesn't have one. However, I can set it by using a pointer variable that points at it, since that method doesn't require naming the object: int *p = malloc(sizeof(int)); followed by *p = 10;.
You might now ask: "So, why can't I tell malloc to give the object a name?" - something like malloc(sizeof(int), "x"). The answer to this is twofold:
Firstly, C just doesn't allow variable names to be introduced at runtime. It's just a basic restriction of the language;
Secondly, given the first restriction the name would have to be fixed at compile-time: if this is the case, C already has syntax that does what you want: int x;.
You are thinking about things wrong. It is not that int x is statically allocated and malloc(sizeof(int)) is dynamic. Both are allocated dynamically. That is, they are both allocated at execution time. There is no space reserved for them at the time you compile. The size may be static in one case and dynamic in the other, but the allocation is always dynamic.
Rather, it is that int x allocates the memory on the stack and malloc(sizeof(int)) allocates the memory on the heap. Memory on the heap requires that you have a pointer in order to access it. Memory on the stack can be referenced directly or with a pointer. Usually you do it directly, but sometimes you want to iterate over it with pointer arithmetic or pass it to a function that needs a pointer to it.
Everything works using pointers. "int x" is just a convenience - someone, somewhere got tired of juggling memory addresses and that's how programming languages with human-readable variable names were born.
Dynamic allocation is... dynamic. You don't have to know how much space you are going to need when the program runs - before the program runs. You choose when to do it and when to undo it. It may fail. It's hard to handle all this using the simple syntax of static allocation.
C was designed with simplicity in mind and compiler simplicity is a part of this. That's why you're exposed to the quirks of the underlying implementations. All systems have storage for statically-sized, local, temporary variables (registers, stack); this is what static allocation uses. Most systems have storage for dynamic, custom-lifetime objects and system calls to manage them; this is what dynamic allocation uses and exposes.
There is a way to do what you're asking and it's called C++. There, "MyInt x = 42;" is a function call or two.
I think your question comes down to this:
If a C programmer has the option of creating just int x or just int *x (both statically allocated)
The first statement allocates memory for an integer. Depending upon the placement of the statement, it might allocate the memory on the stack of a currently executing function or it might allocate memory in the .data or .bss sections of the program (if it is a global variable or static variable, at either file scope or function scope).
The second statement allocates memory for a pointer to an integer -- it hasn't actually allocated memory for the integer itself. If you tried to assign a value using the pointer *x=1, you would either receive a very quick SIGSEGV segmentation violation or corrupt some random piece of memory. C doesn't pre-zero memory allocated on the stack:
$ cat stack.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int i;
int j;
int k;
int *l;
int *m;
int *n;
printf("i: %d\n", i);
printf("j: %d\n", j);
printf("k: %d\n", k);
printf("l: %p\n", l);
printf("m: %p\n", m);
printf("n: %p\n", n);
return 0;
}
$ make stack
cc stack.c -o stack
$ ./stack
i: 0
j: 0
k: 32767
l: 0x400410
m: (nil)
n: 0x4005a0
l and n point to something in memory -- but those values are just garbage, and probably don't belong to the address space of the executable. If we store anything into those pointers, the program would probably die. It might corrupt unrelated structures, though, if they are mapped into the program's address space.
m at least is a NULL pointer -- if you tried to write to it, the program would certainly die on modern hardware.
None of those three pointers actually point to an integer yet. The memory for those integers doesn't exist. The memory for the pointers does exist -- and is initially filled with garbage values, in this case.
The Wikipedia article on L-values -- mostly too obtuse to fully recommend -- makes one point that represented a pretty significant hurdle for me when I was first learning C: In languages with assignable variables it becomes necessary to distinguish between the R-value (or contents) and the L-value (or location) of a variable.
For example, you can write:
int a;
a = 3;
This stores the integer value 3 into whatever memory was allocated to store the contents of variable a.
If you later write:
int b;
b = a;
This takes the value stored in the memory referenced by a and stores it into the memory location allocated for b.
The same operations with pointers might look like this:
int *ap;
ap=malloc(sizeof int);
*ap=3;
The first ap= assignment stores a memory location into the ap pointer. Now ap actually points at some memory. The second assignment, *ap=, stores a value into that memory location. It doesn't update the ap pointer at all; it reads the value stored in the variable named ap to find the memory location for the assignment.
When you later use the pointer, you can choose which of the two values associated with the pointer to use: either the actual contents of the pointer or the value pointed to by the pointer:
int *bp;
bp = ap; /* bp points to the same memory cell as ap */
int *bp;
bp = malloc(sizeof int);
*bp = *ap; /* bp points to new memory and we copy
the value pointed to by ap into the
memory pointed to by bp */
I found assembly far easier than C for years because I found the difference between foo = malloc(); and *foo = value; confusing. I hope I found what was confusing you and seriously hope I didn't make it worse.
Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between declaring 'int x' and 'int *x'. The first allocates storage for an int value; the second doesn't - it just allocates storage for the pointer.
If you were to "dynamically allocate" a variable, there would be no point in the dynamic allocation anyway (unless you then took its address, which would of course yield a pointer) - you may as well declare it statically. Think about how the code would look - why would you bother with:
int x = malloc(sizeof(int)); *x = 0;
When you can just do:
int x = 0;