What is the difference between a pointer to an array and a pointer to the first element of an array? In most cases they would be same. Please specify an example when they are not the same. Thank you.
The type is different:
int x[1] = {0};
&x[0] is a pointer to the first element of x array and is of type int *.
&x is a pointer to x array and is of type int (*)[1].
But their value is the same because there is no padding in arrays:
(int *) &x == x /* in a value context the expression evaluates to 1 */
The identity of an object is given by the pair (address, type). Different objects can have the same address as long as their types are different, in which case one is a subobject of the other.
This is the case with arrays: The array is an object, and the array elements are objects, and the array elements are subobjects of the array. The first element happens to have the same address as the array itself. Something similar is true for structs and the first struct member.
So if you have an array T a[N], then the type of a is T[N] and the type of a[0] is T, and so the address of the array is
T (*array_addr)[N] = &a;
and the address of the first element is
T * elem_addr = &a[0];
Since a naked array expression decays to a pointer to the first element under certain conditions, the last line could also be written as T * elem_addr = a;, which has the exact same meaning.
The main difference is that when you obtain the reference to an array, it decays to a pointer and sizeof can't be used anymore on it to obtain the array size, eg:
int array[10];
printf("%d\n", sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0]));
printf("%d\n", sizeof(&array)/sizeof(array[0]));
This prints on x64:
10
2
Of course you will lose any reference to the size of the array even if you convert to a pointer without any use of the & operator:
printf("%d\n", sizeof((int*)array)/sizeof(array[0])); // prints 2
you can print the a and &a, than print a++ and &a++. Through the result, you will know the answer, just try it. a means a element address, and &a means the array address. int a[] = {1, 2 };
Pointer to an array and pointer to the first element of an array is represented as q=&a and p=a. When you increment the p as p++ it will point to the next element in array but when you increment q++ it will give to the next location to the last element in that array. Thus pointer to an array represents to whole array while pointer to first element in array represents only to the first element in array.
Related
After reading some posts on this site, I realized that array in C isn't just a constant pointer as I originaly thought, but is itself a distinct type, but in most cases array "decays" to a constant pointer to the first element of the array. Because of this new information, a question arised in my mind. Suppose we have a two-dimensional A[10][10]. Why is the result of the expression *A a pointer to the first element of the array ? I thought that in this expression, A decays to a constant pointer to the first element of the array A[0][0], and then the application of the indirection should give us the value of the A[0][0], but in fact it still gives us the address of the first element of the array. Certainly, something is wrong with my logic or my understanding of the arrays or pointers, so where do I get it wrong ?
Thanks in advance.
The first element of A is A[0], not A[0][0].
This is because A is an array of ten things. C does not have two-dimensional arrays as a primary type. An array with multiple dimensions is derived or constructed as multiple layers of arrays. To the compiler, the resulting type is still just an array, whose elements happen to be further arrays.
Thus, in *A:
A is converted to a pointer to its first element. That pointer is &A[0], so *A becomes *&A[0].
* and & cancel, so the expression becomes A[0].
A[0] is an array of ten elements, so it is converted to a pointer to its first element, &A[0][0].
*A, or A[0], is itself an array of 10 elements and and array is always expressed by a pointer to its first element. However A[10][10] (let's say an array of ints) is effectively a block of memory holding 100 ints, the 10 of the first row followed by the 10 of the second row and so on. But if the expression *A or A[0] would return an int instead of a ptr to that row, it would be impossible to use the expression A[0][0], right ?
However, because such multidimensional array is a single block of memory, it's also possible to cast it to a pointer and then access it with an expression of this kind :
((int *)A)[iRow * 10 + iCol];
Which is equivalent to the expression :
A[iRow][iCol];
But this if it's possible for a 2D array declared this way :
int main()
{
int A[10][10] = { 0 };
A[9][9] = 9999;
printf("==> %d\n", ((int *)A)[9 * 10 + 9]); //==> 9999
return 0;
}
It is not if the memory is potentially made of separate blocks of bytes (probably requiring several calls to malloc) as with this kind of expressions :
int * A[10]; // or
int ** A;
A decays to a constant pointer to the first element of the array
A[0][0]
No, it does not. Why?
C standard specifies that *(pointer + integer) == pointer[integer] so the *A is an equivalent of *(A + 0) which is A[0]. A[0] will not give you the element A[0][0] only the single dimensional array which will decay to pointer to the first element of the first row of this array.
int main()
{
int a[4][3] = {10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100,110,120};
printf("%d",((a==*a) && (*a==a[0])));
return 0;
}
Prints 1 on the console.
Anyone has logical explanation??
Arrays are converted to pointer when used in an expression except when they are an operand of sizeof and unary & operator. a and *a are of different types (after decay) but have the same address value.
a decays to pointer to first element (first row) of array and is of type int (*)[3].
*a dereference the row pointed by a and further decayed to pointer to first element of first row. It is of type int *.
a[0] is representing the first row which is of type int [3]. In expression it decays to pointer to first element of first row and is of type int * after decay.
As the address of an array the address of first byte, therefore address of an array, address of first row and address of first element all have the same value. So, after decay, all of a, *a and a[0] points to same location.
Here is a graphical view of the above explanation:
What exactly is the array name in c?
Is a==*a?
The answer is yes if the array a is multi dimensional array.
so what if it is single dimensional? let me give you an example.
void main()
{
int a[4]={1,2,3,4};
printf("%d",((a==*a)&&(*a==a[0])));
}
The answer in this case would be 0.
This is because 'a' represent address of array or address of first element of array but *a represent value(pointer to that value). the address and value are different types so answer would be 0.
But in case of multi dimensional arrays 'a' represented as a[0][0] because it represent pointer to the first element of first sub array of multi dimensional array.
So the answer is yes if the array is multi dimensional array
int stud[5][2] = {{1,2},{3,4},{5,6},{7,8},{9,8}};
printf("%u %u",*(stud+1),stud+1);
printf("%u, %u", &stud,stud);
Why this statement prints similar values, stud[1] or *(stud+1) is actually an array hence must get the base address i.e &stud[0][0], but stud itself is a pointer to an array of array. Also the third statement prints identical values.
Your observations are correct concerning the expressions are all address-results. But the types of those addresses per the standard are different. Your phrase "but stud itself is a pointer to an array of array". is not accurate. stud is an array of arrays. Pointers are not arrays. After decades of trying to come up with a solid vernacular that describes how it works, and refusing steadfastly to walk the "decay" plank (a word that appears exactly one times in the C standard and even there it is used as a verb-footnote), the best I could come up with is this:
Pointers are not arrays. A pointer holds an address. An array is an address.
Each expression is shown below Given int stud[5][2];
stud int (*)[2]
stud+1 int (*)[2]
*(stud+1) int *
&stud int (*)[5][2]
Remembering that, per the standard, the expressive value of an array is the address of its first element, and pointer-to-element-type is the type of said-address. In both outputs each pair of expressions have equivalent addresses, but they're different types. This is verifiable with some expansion of the original code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int stud[5][2] = {{1,2},{3,4},{5,6},{7,8},{9,8}};
printf("%p %p\n", *(stud+1), stud+1);
printf("%p %p\n", &stud,stud);
int (*p1)[2] = stud+1; // OK
// int (*p2)[2] = *(stud+1); // incompatible types
int *p3 = *(stud+1); // OK
int (*p4)[5][2] = &stud; // OK
return 0;
}
int stud[5][2] = {{1,2},{3,4},{5,6},{7,8},{9,8}};
The above statement defined stud to be an array of 5 elements where each element is of type int[2], i.e., an array of 2 integers. It also initializes the array with an initializer list.
Now, in the expression stud + 1, the array stud decays into a pointer to its first element. Therefore, stud + 1 evaluates to &stud[1] and is of type int (*)[2], i.e., a pointer to an array of 2 integers . *(stud + 1) is then *(&stud[1]), i.e., stud[1]. stud[1] is again an array type, i.e., int[2], so it again decays to a pointer to its first element, i.e., &stud[1][0] (which is the base address of second element of the array stud[1]) in the printf call.
Please note that stud + 1 and *(stud + 1) evaluate to the same address but they are not the same type.
Similarly, &stud and stud decay to the same address but they are different types. stud is of type int[5][2] where as &stud is of type int (*)[5][2].
Why this statement prints similar values, stud[1] or *(stud+1) is actually an array hence must get the base address i.e &stud[0][0], but
stud itself is a pointer to an array of array.
You are wrong here. The base address of stud[1] or *(stud + 1) is &stud[1][0] and not &stud[0][0]. Also, stud is not a pointer but an array type. It decays to a pointer to its first element in some cases like here but it does mean it is a pointer.
Also, you should use %p conversion specifier for printing addresses.
Without using any decaying syntax it may be clearer (these are the same addresses as your code; the first line is in the opposite order; and my parentheses are redundant but hopefully it improves clarity of this example):
printf( "%p %p\n", &(stud[1]), &(stud[1][0]) );
printf( "%p %p\n", &(stud), &(stud[0]) );
In both cases the first address on the line matches the second because the first element of an array lives at the same address as the array. Arrays can't have initial padding, and in C the address of an object is the address of its first byte.
The first element of stud is stud[0], and the first element of stud[1] is stud[1][0].
Since all of those values you are trying to display are all pointers you should use %p instead of %u. If you do that you will see that the addresses pointed to:
printf("%p, %p", &stud,stud);
are different than:
printf("%p %p",*(stud+1),stud+1);
because as you said stud is a pointer to an array of array.
Lets analyze the program
int stud[5][2] = {{1,2},{3,4},{5,6},{7,8},{9,8}};
Now address will be like this (assuming 2 byte integer). Brackets denote corresponding elements in array.
1 element of 2-D array ---> 4001(1) 4003(2)
2 element of 2-D array ---> 4005(3) 4007(4)
3 element of 2-D array ---> 4009(5) 4011(6)
4 element of 2-D array ---> 4013(7) 4015(8)
5 element of 2-D array ---> 4017(9) 4019(8)
We know that arr[i] gives the ith element of array. So when we say stud[0] we expect 0th element of array stud[5][2].
We can assume 2-d array as collection of 1-d array. So with statement like printf("%u",stud[0]) we exptect 0th element to get printed and what is 0th element for this array. It is one dimensional array. We know that just mentioning 1-D array gives its base address. Hence printf would print base address of 0th 1-D array and so on.
With this information we can analyze your problem.
Remember stud is 2-D array. stud is treated as pointer to zeroth element of 2-D array. So (stud + 1) would give address of 2nd element of 2-D array. And thus printing (stud+1) would print address of 2nd element of stud array. What is it. It will be 4005 from above addresses.
Now lets see why *(stud +1) also gives the same value.
Now we know that *(stud +1) is equivalent to stud[1]. From above we know stud[1] would print base address of 2nd 1-D array. What is 1-d array at 2nd position it is (3,4) with address (4005,4007). So what is it base address. It is 4005. Thus *(stud+1) also prints 4005.
Now you say stud[0] and &stud[0] print the same value.
From above stud[0] is 1-d array and printing it gives its base address. Now so &stud[0] should give address of 1-D array which is same as its base address. Thus they print the same address.
Similar explanation will hold for other cases.
I wrote the following code in C:
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[10][10]={1};
//------------------------
printf("%d\n",&a);
printf("%d\n",a);
printf("%d\n",*a);
//-------------------------
printf("%d",**a);
return 0;
}
With the above 3 printf statements I got the same value. On my machine it's 2686384. But with the last statement I got 1.
Isn't it something going wrong? These statements mean:
The address of a is 2686384
The value stored in a is 2686384
the value that is stored at address of variable pointed by a (i.e. at 2686384) is 2686384.
This means a must be something like a variable pointing towards itself...
Then why is the output of *(*a) 1? Why isn't it evaluated as *(*a)=*(2686384)=2686384?
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
// a[row][col]
int a[2][2]={ {9, 2}, {3, 4} };
// in C, multidimensional arrays are really one dimensional, but
// syntax alows us to access it as a two dimensional (like here).
//------------------------
printf("&a = %d\n",&a);
printf("a = %d\n",a);
printf("*a = %d\n",*a);
//-------------------------
// Thing to have in mind here, that may be confusing is:
// since we can access array values through 2 dimensions,
// we need 2 stars(asterisk), right? Right.
// So as a consistency in this aproach,
// even if we are asking for first value,
// we have to use 2 dimensional (we have a 2D array)
// access syntax - 2 stars.
printf("**a = %d\n", **a ); // this says a[0][0] or *(*(a+0)+0)
printf("**(a+1) = %d\n", **(a+1) ); // a[1][0] or *(*(a+1)+0)
printf("*(*(a+1)+1) = %d\n", *(*(a+1)+1) ); // a[1][1] or *(*(a+1)+1)
// a[1] gives us the value on that position,
// since that value is pointer, &a[i] returns a pointer value
printf("&a[1] = %d\n", &a[1]);
// When we add int to a pointer (eg. a+1),
// really we are adding the lenth of a type
// to which pointer is directing - here we go to the next element in an array.
// In C, you can manipulate array variables practically like pointers.
// Example: littleFunction(int [] arr) accepts pointers to int, and it works vice versa,
// littleFunction(int* arr) accepts array of int.
int b = 8;
printf("b = %d\n", *&b);
return 0;
}
An expression consisting the the name of an array can decay to a pointer to the first element of the array. So even though a has type int[10][10], it can decay to int(*)[10].
Now, this decay happens in the expression *a. Consequently the expression has type int[10]. Repeating the same logic, this again decays to int*, and so **a is an int, which is moreover the first element of the first element of the array a, i.e. 1.
The other three print statements print out the address of, respectively, the array, the first element of the array, and the first element of the first element of the array (which are of course all the same address, just different types).
First, a word on arrays...
Except when it is the operand0 of the sizeof, _Alignof, or unary & operators, or is a string literal being used to initialize another array in a declaration, an expression of type "N-element array of T" will be converted ("decay") to an expression of type "pointer to T", and the value of the expression will be the address of the first element in the array.
The expression &a has type "pointer to 10-element array of 10-element array of int", or int (*)[10][10]. The expression a has type "10-element array of 10-element array of int", which by the rule above decays to "pointer to 10-element array of int", or int (*)[10]. And finally, the expression *a (which is equivalent to a[0]) has type "10-element array of int", which again by the rule above decays to "pointer to int".
All three expressions have the same value because the address of an array and the address of its first element are the same: &a[0][0] == a[0] == *a == a == &a. However, the types of the expressions are different, which matters when doing pointer arithmetic. For example, if I have the following declarations:
int (*ap0)[10][10] = &a;
int (*ap1)[10] = a;
int *ip = *a;
then ap0++ would advance ap0 to point to the next 10x10 array of int, ap1++ would advance ap1 to pointer to the next 10-element array of int (or a[1]), and ip++ would advance ip to point to the next int (&a[0][1]).
**a is equivalent to *a[0] which is equivalent to a[0][0]. which is the value of the first element of a and has type int and the value 1 (note that only a[0][0] is initialized to 1; all remaining elements are initialized to 0).
Note that you should use %p to print out pointer values:
printf("&a = %p\n", &a);
printf(" a = %p\n", a);
printf("*a = %p\n", *a);
First of all, if you want to print out pointer values, use %p - if you're on a 64 bit machine int almost certainly is smaller than a pointer.
**a is double dereferencing what's effectively a int**, so you end up with what the first element of the first sub-array is: 1.
If you define a as T a[10] (where T is some typedef), then a simple unadorned a means the address of the start of the array, the same as &a[0]. They both have type T*.
&a is also the address of the start of the array, but it has type T**.
Things become trickier in the presence of multi-dimensional arrays. To see what is happening, it is easier to break things down into smaller chunks using typedefs. So, you effectively wrote
typedef int array10[10];
array10 a[10];
[Exercise to reader: What is the type of a? (it is not int**)]
**a correctly evaluates to the first int in the array a.
From C99 Std
Consider the array object defined by the declaration
int x[3][5];
Here x is a 3 × 5 array of ints; more precisely, x is an array of three element objects, each of which is an array of five ints. In the expression x[i], which is equivalent to (*((x)+(i))), x is first converted to a pointer to the initial array of five ints. Then i is adjusted according to the type of x, which conceptually entails multiplying i by the size of the object to which the pointer points, namely an array of five int objects. The results are added and indirection is applied to yield an array of five ints. When used in the expression x[i][j], that array is in turn converted to a pointer to the first of the ints, so x[i][j] yields an int.
so,
Initial array will be x[0][0] only.
all x, &x and *x will be pointing to x[0][0].
No, there's nothing wrong with your code. Just they way you are thinking about it... The more I think about it the harder I realize this is to explain, so before I go in to this, keep these points in mind:
arrays are not pointers, don't think of them that way, they are different types.
the [] is an operator. It's a shift and deference operator, so when I write printf("%d",array[3]); I am shifting and deferencing
So an array (lets think about 1 dimension to start) is somewhere in memory:
int arr[10] = {1};
//Some where in memory---> 0x80001f23
[1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1]
So if I say:
*arr; //this gives the value 1
Why? because it's the same as arr[0] it gives us the value at the address which is the start of the array. This implies that:
arr; // this is the address of the start of the array
So what does this give us?
&arr; //this will give us the address of the array.
//which IS the address of the start of the array
//this is where arrays and pointers really show some difference
So arr == &arr;. The "job" of an array is to hold data, the array will not "point" to anything else, because it's holding its own data. Period. A pointer on the other hand has the job to point to something else:
int *z; //the pointer holds the address of someone else's values
z = arr; //the pointer holds the address of the array
z != &z; //the pointer's address is a unique value telling us where the pointer resides
//the pointer's value is the address of the array
EDIT:
One more way to think about this:
int b; //this is integer type
&b; //this is the address of the int b, right?
int c[]; //this is the array of ints
&c; //this would be the address of the array, right?
So that's pretty understandable how about this:
*c; //that's the first element in the array
What does that line of code tell you? if I deference c, then I get an int. That means just plain c is an address. Since it's the start of the array it's the address of the array, thus:
c == &c;
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{ int x[3][5]={{1,2,10,4,5},{6,7,1,9,10},{11,12,13,14,15}};
printf("%d\n",x);
printf("%d\n",*x); }
Here first printf will print the address of first element.
So why not the second printf prints the value at the address x i.e the first value.
To print the value I need to write **x.
For pointers, x[0] is the same as *x. It follows from this that *x[0] is the same as **x.
In *x[0]:
x is a int[3][5], which gets converted to int(*)[5] when used in expression. So x[0] is lvalue of type int[5] (the first 5-element "row"), which gets once again converted to int*, and dereferenced to its first element.
*x is evaluated along the same lines, except the first dereference is done with an asterisk (as opposed to indexing), and there is no second dereference, so we end up with lvalue of type int[5], which is passed to printf as a pointer to its first element.
Arrays, when used as arguments to functions, decay into pointers to the first element of the array. That being said, the type of object that x decays into is a pointer to the first sub-array, which is a pointer to an array of int, or basically int (*)[5]. When you call printf("%d\n",*x), you are not feeding an integer value to printf, but rather a pointer to the first sub-array of x. Since that sub-array will also decay to a pointer to the first sub-array's element, you can do **x to dereference that subsequent pointer and get at the first element of the first sub-array of x. This is effectively the same thing as *x[0], which by operator precedence will index into the first sub-array of x, and then dereference the pointer to the first sub-array's element that the first sub-array will decay into.
Because of type of *x is 'pointer to array of 5 ints'. So, you need one more dereference to get the first element
PS:
#include <typeinfo>
#include <iostream>
typedef int arr[5]; // can't compile if put arr[4] here
void foo(arr& x)
{
}
int main()
{
int x[3][5]={{1,2,10,4,5},{6,7,1,9,10},{11,12,13,14,15}};
std::cout << typeid(*x).name() << std::endl;// output: int [5]
foo(x[0]);
return 0;
}
Think about a 2-d array as an array of pointers, with each element in the array pointing to the first element in another array. When you dereference x, you get the value that is in the memory location pointed to by x... a pointer to the first int in an array of ints. When you dereference that pointer, you will get the first element.