Why is setting a derefernce pointer equal to a primitive illegal? - c

Question

Why does setting the value of a dereferenced pointer raise a Segmentation fault 11? To make what I mean clear look a the follow code:
#include <stdio.h>
int *ptr;
*ptr = 2;
int main(){
printf("%d\n", *ptr);
return 0;
}
I thought that *ptr=2 would set the rvalue that the pointer ptr is point to to 2. Is that not the case? I apologize if for those c expert programmers, this is really easy/obvious.
Are we only allowed to set a dereferenced pointer (i.e. *ptr) to a value if that value had a memory address? i.e. like doing:
int k = 7;
int *ptr = k;
and then:
*ptr = 2;

Answer 1

The problem here is that ptr is not pointing to allocated space. See the following:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){
// Create a pointer to an integer.
// This pointer will point to some random (likely unallocated) memory address.
// Trying set the value at this memory address will almost certainly cause a segfault.
int *ptr;
// Create a new integer on the heap, and assign its address to ptr.
// Don't forget to call free() on it later!
ptr = malloc(sizeof(*ptr));
// Alternatively, we could create a new integer on the stack, and have
// ptr point to this.
int value;
ptr = &value;
// Set the value of our new integer to 2.
*ptr = 2;
// Print out the value at our now properly set integer.
printf("%d\n", *ptr);
return 0;
}

Answer 2

It's not 'illegal', it's simply implementation defined. In fact, on some platforms (such as DOS), specific memory addresses were necessary, for example to write text to the video buffer which started at 0xB8000, or memory mapped controller I/O on the SNES.
On most current OS's, a feature called ASLR is used, for security reasons, which makes ancient modes of dedicated addresses a thing of the past, in favor of going through driver and kernel layers, which is what makes it 'illegal' for most places you would run it.

Answer 3

The most basic issue here is that you are not assigning ptr to a valid memory address, there are some cases where 0 is a valid memory address but usually not. Since ptr is global variable in your first case, it will be initialized to 0. remyabal asked a great follow-up question and best answer made me realize that this is a redeclaration here:
*ptr = 2;
and you are then setting ptr to have a value of 2 which is except by chance unlikely to point to a valid memory address.
If ptr was a local or automatic variable then it would be uninitialized and it's value would be indeterminate. Using a pointer with an indeterminate value is undefined behavior in both C and C++. It is in most case undefined behavior to use a NULL pointer as well although implementations are allowed to define the behavior.
On most modern system attempting to access memory your process does not own will result in a segmentation fault.
You can assign a valid memory address to ptr in a few ways, for example:
int k = 7;
int *ptr = &k;
^
note the use of of & to take the address of k or you could use malloc to allocate memory dynamically for it.

Answer 4

Your code is invalid, though some C compilers may permit it for compatibility with older versions of the language.
Statements, including assignment statements, are illegal (a syntax error) if they appear outside the body of a function.
You have:
int *ptr;
*ptr = 2;
at file scope. The first line is a valid declaration of an int* object called ptr, implicitly initialized to a null pointer value. The second line looks like an assignment statement, but since it's outside a function, the compiler most likely won't even try to interpret it that way. gcc treats it as a declaration. Old versions of C permitted you to omit the type name in a declaration; C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule. So gcc treats
*ptr = 2;
as equivalent to
int *ptr = 2;
and produces the following warnings:
c.c:4:1: warning: data definition has no type or storage class [enabled by default]
c.c:4:8: warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
The first warning is because you omitted the int (or other type name) from the declaration. The second is because 2 is a value of type int, and you're using it to initialize an object of type int*; there is no implicit conversion from int to int* (other than the special case of a null pointer constant).
Once you get past that, you have two declarations of the same object -- but they're compatible, so that's permitted. And the pointer variable is initialized to (int*)2, which is a garbage pointer value (there's not likely to be anything useful at memory address 0x00000002).
In your main function, you do:
printf("%d\n", *ptr);
which attempts to print the value of an int object at that memory address. Since that address is not likely to be one that your program has permission to access, a segmentation fault is not a surprising result. (More generally, the behavior is undefined.)
(This is a fairly common problem in C: minor errors in a program can result in something that still compiles, but is completely different from what you intended. The way I think of it is that C's grammar is relatively"dense"; small random tweaks to a valid program often produce different but syntactically valid programs rather than creating syntax errors.)
So that's what your program actually does; I'm sure it's not what you intended it to do.
Take a deep breath and read on.
Here's something that's probably closer to what you intended:
#include <stdio.h>
int *ptr;
int main(void) {
*ptr = 2;
printf("%d\n", *ptr);
return 0;
}
Since there's now no initializer for ptr, it's implicitly initialized to a null pointer value. (And if ptr were defined inside main, its initial value would be garbage.) The assignment statement attempts to dereference that null pointer, causing a segmentation fault (again, the behavior is undefined; a segmentation fault is a likely result). Execution never reaches the printf call.
I thought that *ptr=2 would set the rvalue that the pointer ptr is point to to 2. Is that not the case?
Not quite. Pointers don't point to rvalues; an "rvalue" is merely the value of an expression. Pointers point to objects (if they point to anything). The assignment
*ptr = 2;
would assign the value 2 to the object that ptr points to -- but ptr doesn't point to an object!
Now let's see a version of your program that actually works:
#include <stdio.h>
int *ptr;
int variable;
int main(void) {
ptr = &variable;
*ptr = 2;
printf("*ptr = %d\n", *ptr);
printf("variable = %d\n", variable);
return 0;
}
Now ptr points to an object, and *ptr = 2 assigns a value to that object. The output is:
*ptr = 2
variable = 2