Related
This is well known code to compute array length in C:
sizeof(array)/sizeof(type)
But I can't seem to find out the length of the array passed as an argument to a function:
#include <stdio.h>
int length(const char* array[]) {
return sizeof(array)/sizeof(char*);
}
int main() {
const char* friends[] = { "John", "Jack", "Jim" };
printf("%d %d", sizeof(friends)/sizeof(char*), length(friends)); // 3 1
}
I assume that array is copied by value to the function argument as constant pointer and reference to it should solve this, but this declaration is not valid:
int length(const char**& array);
I find passing the array length as second argument to be redundant information, but why is the standard declaration of main like this:
int main(int argc, char** argv);
Please explain if it is possible to find out the array length in function argument, and if so, why is there the redundancy in main.
sizeof only works to find the length of the array if you apply it to the original array.
int a[5]; //real array. NOT a pointer
sizeof(a); // :)
However, by the time the array decays into a pointer, sizeof will give the size of the pointer and not of the array.
int a[5];
int * p = a;
sizeof(p); // :(
As you have already smartly pointed out main receives the length of the array as an argument (argc). Yes, this is out of necessity and is not redundant. (Well, it is kind of reduntant since argv is conveniently terminated by a null pointer but I digress)
There is some reasoning as to why this would take place. How could we make things so that a C array also knows its length?
A first idea would be not having arrays decaying into pointers when they are passed to a function and continuing to keep the array length in the type system. The bad thing about this is that you would need to have a separate function for every possible array length and doing so is not a good idea. (Pascal did this and some people think this is one of the reasons it "lost" to C)
A second idea is storing the array length next to the array, just like any modern programming language does:
a -> [5];[0,0,0,0,0]
But then you are just creating an invisible struct behind the scenes and the C philosophy does not approve of this kind of overhead. That said, creating such a struct yourself is often a good idea for some sorts of problems:
struct {
size_t length;
int * elements;
}
Another thing you can think about is how strings in C are null terminated instead of storing a length (as in Pascal). To store a length without worrying about limits need a whopping four bytes, an unimaginably expensive amount (at least back then). One could wonder if arrays could be also null terminated like that but then how would you allow the array to store a null?
The array decays to a pointer when passed.
Section 6.4 of the C FAQ covers this very well and provides the K&R references etc.
That aside, imagine it were possible for the function to know the size of the memory allocated in a pointer. You could call the function two or more times, each time with different input arrays that were potentially different lengths; the length would therefore have to be passed in as a secret hidden variable somehow. And then consider if you passed in an offset into another array, or an array allocated on the heap (malloc and all being library functions - something the compiler links to, rather than sees and reasons about the body of).
Its getting difficult to imagine how this might work without some behind-the-scenes slice objects and such right?
Symbian did have a AllocSize() function that returned the size of an allocation with malloc(); this only worked for the literal pointer returned by the malloc, and you'd get gobbledygook or a crash if you asked it to know the size of an invalid pointer or a pointer offset from one.
You don't want to believe its not possible, but it genuinely isn't. The only way to know the length of something passed into a function is to track the length yourself and pass it in yourself as a separate explicit parameter.
As stated by #Will, the decay happens during the parameter passing. One way to get around it is to pass the number of elements. To add onto this, you may find the _countof() macro useful - it does the equivalent of what you've done ;)
First, a better usage to compute number of elements when the actual array declaration is in scope is:
sizeof array / sizeof array[0]
This way you don't repeat the type name, which of course could change in the declaration and make you end up with an incorrect length computation. This is a typical case of don't repeat yourself.
Second, as a minor point, please note that sizeof is not a function, so the expression above doesn't need any parenthesis around the argument to sizeof.
Third, C doesn't have references so your usage of & in a declaration won't work.
I agree that the proper C solution is to pass the length (using the size_t type) as a separate argument, and use sizeof at the place the call is being made if the argument is a "real" array.
Note that often you work with memory returned by e.g. malloc(), and in those cases you never have a "true" array to compute the size off of, so designing the function to use an element count is more flexible.
Regarding int main():
According to the Standard, argv points to a NULL-terminated array (of pointers to null-terminated strings). (5.1.2.2.1:1).
That is, argv = (char **){ argv[0], ..., argv[argc - 1], 0 };.
Hence, size calculation is performed by a function which is a trivial modification of strlen().
argc is only there to make argv length calculation O(1).
The count-until-NULL method will NOT work for generic array input. You will need to manually specify size as a second argument.
This is a old question, and the OP seems to mix C++ and C in his intends/examples. In C, when you pass a array to a function, it's decayed to pointer. So, there is no way to pass the array size except by using a second argument in your function that stores the array size:
void func(int A[])
// should be instead: void func(int * A, const size_t elemCountInA)
They are very few cases, where you don't need this, like when you're using multidimensional arrays:
void func(int A[3][whatever here]) // That's almost as if read "int* A[3]"
Using the array notation in a function signature is still useful, for the developer, as it might be an help to tell how many elements your functions expects. For example:
void vec_add(float out[3], float in0[3], float in1[3])
is easier to understand than this one (although, nothing prevent accessing the 4th element in the function in both functions):
void vec_add(float * out, float * in0, float * in1)
If you were to use C++, then you can actually capture the array size and get what you expect:
template <size_t N>
void vec_add(float (&out)[N], float (&in0)[N], float (&in1)[N])
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < N; i++)
out[i] = in0[i] + in1[i];
}
In that case, the compiler will ensure that you're not adding a 4D vector with a 2D vector (which is not possible in C without passing the dimension of each dimension as arguments of the function). There will be as many instance of the vec_add function as the number of dimensions used for your vectors.
int arsize(int st1[]) {
int i = 0;
for (i; !(st1[i] & (1 << 30)); i++);
return i;
}
This works for me :)
length of an array(type int) with sizeof:
sizeof(array)/sizeof(int)
Best example is here
thanks #define SIZE 10
void size(int arr[SIZE])
{
printf("size of array is:%d\n",sizeof(arr));
}
int main()
{
int arr[SIZE];
size(arr);
return 0;
}
This is well known code to compute array length in C:
sizeof(array)/sizeof(type)
But I can't seem to find out the length of the array passed as an argument to a function:
#include <stdio.h>
int length(const char* array[]) {
return sizeof(array)/sizeof(char*);
}
int main() {
const char* friends[] = { "John", "Jack", "Jim" };
printf("%d %d", sizeof(friends)/sizeof(char*), length(friends)); // 3 1
}
I assume that array is copied by value to the function argument as constant pointer and reference to it should solve this, but this declaration is not valid:
int length(const char**& array);
I find passing the array length as second argument to be redundant information, but why is the standard declaration of main like this:
int main(int argc, char** argv);
Please explain if it is possible to find out the array length in function argument, and if so, why is there the redundancy in main.
sizeof only works to find the length of the array if you apply it to the original array.
int a[5]; //real array. NOT a pointer
sizeof(a); // :)
However, by the time the array decays into a pointer, sizeof will give the size of the pointer and not of the array.
int a[5];
int * p = a;
sizeof(p); // :(
As you have already smartly pointed out main receives the length of the array as an argument (argc). Yes, this is out of necessity and is not redundant. (Well, it is kind of reduntant since argv is conveniently terminated by a null pointer but I digress)
There is some reasoning as to why this would take place. How could we make things so that a C array also knows its length?
A first idea would be not having arrays decaying into pointers when they are passed to a function and continuing to keep the array length in the type system. The bad thing about this is that you would need to have a separate function for every possible array length and doing so is not a good idea. (Pascal did this and some people think this is one of the reasons it "lost" to C)
A second idea is storing the array length next to the array, just like any modern programming language does:
a -> [5];[0,0,0,0,0]
But then you are just creating an invisible struct behind the scenes and the C philosophy does not approve of this kind of overhead. That said, creating such a struct yourself is often a good idea for some sorts of problems:
struct {
size_t length;
int * elements;
}
Another thing you can think about is how strings in C are null terminated instead of storing a length (as in Pascal). To store a length without worrying about limits need a whopping four bytes, an unimaginably expensive amount (at least back then). One could wonder if arrays could be also null terminated like that but then how would you allow the array to store a null?
The array decays to a pointer when passed.
Section 6.4 of the C FAQ covers this very well and provides the K&R references etc.
That aside, imagine it were possible for the function to know the size of the memory allocated in a pointer. You could call the function two or more times, each time with different input arrays that were potentially different lengths; the length would therefore have to be passed in as a secret hidden variable somehow. And then consider if you passed in an offset into another array, or an array allocated on the heap (malloc and all being library functions - something the compiler links to, rather than sees and reasons about the body of).
Its getting difficult to imagine how this might work without some behind-the-scenes slice objects and such right?
Symbian did have a AllocSize() function that returned the size of an allocation with malloc(); this only worked for the literal pointer returned by the malloc, and you'd get gobbledygook or a crash if you asked it to know the size of an invalid pointer or a pointer offset from one.
You don't want to believe its not possible, but it genuinely isn't. The only way to know the length of something passed into a function is to track the length yourself and pass it in yourself as a separate explicit parameter.
As stated by #Will, the decay happens during the parameter passing. One way to get around it is to pass the number of elements. To add onto this, you may find the _countof() macro useful - it does the equivalent of what you've done ;)
First, a better usage to compute number of elements when the actual array declaration is in scope is:
sizeof array / sizeof array[0]
This way you don't repeat the type name, which of course could change in the declaration and make you end up with an incorrect length computation. This is a typical case of don't repeat yourself.
Second, as a minor point, please note that sizeof is not a function, so the expression above doesn't need any parenthesis around the argument to sizeof.
Third, C doesn't have references so your usage of & in a declaration won't work.
I agree that the proper C solution is to pass the length (using the size_t type) as a separate argument, and use sizeof at the place the call is being made if the argument is a "real" array.
Note that often you work with memory returned by e.g. malloc(), and in those cases you never have a "true" array to compute the size off of, so designing the function to use an element count is more flexible.
Regarding int main():
According to the Standard, argv points to a NULL-terminated array (of pointers to null-terminated strings). (5.1.2.2.1:1).
That is, argv = (char **){ argv[0], ..., argv[argc - 1], 0 };.
Hence, size calculation is performed by a function which is a trivial modification of strlen().
argc is only there to make argv length calculation O(1).
The count-until-NULL method will NOT work for generic array input. You will need to manually specify size as a second argument.
This is a old question, and the OP seems to mix C++ and C in his intends/examples. In C, when you pass a array to a function, it's decayed to pointer. So, there is no way to pass the array size except by using a second argument in your function that stores the array size:
void func(int A[])
// should be instead: void func(int * A, const size_t elemCountInA)
They are very few cases, where you don't need this, like when you're using multidimensional arrays:
void func(int A[3][whatever here]) // That's almost as if read "int* A[3]"
Using the array notation in a function signature is still useful, for the developer, as it might be an help to tell how many elements your functions expects. For example:
void vec_add(float out[3], float in0[3], float in1[3])
is easier to understand than this one (although, nothing prevent accessing the 4th element in the function in both functions):
void vec_add(float * out, float * in0, float * in1)
If you were to use C++, then you can actually capture the array size and get what you expect:
template <size_t N>
void vec_add(float (&out)[N], float (&in0)[N], float (&in1)[N])
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < N; i++)
out[i] = in0[i] + in1[i];
}
In that case, the compiler will ensure that you're not adding a 4D vector with a 2D vector (which is not possible in C without passing the dimension of each dimension as arguments of the function). There will be as many instance of the vec_add function as the number of dimensions used for your vectors.
int arsize(int st1[]) {
int i = 0;
for (i; !(st1[i] & (1 << 30)); i++);
return i;
}
This works for me :)
length of an array(type int) with sizeof:
sizeof(array)/sizeof(int)
Best example is here
thanks #define SIZE 10
void size(int arr[SIZE])
{
printf("size of array is:%d\n",sizeof(arr));
}
int main()
{
int arr[SIZE];
size(arr);
return 0;
}
This is well known code to compute array length in C:
sizeof(array)/sizeof(type)
But I can't seem to find out the length of the array passed as an argument to a function:
#include <stdio.h>
int length(const char* array[]) {
return sizeof(array)/sizeof(char*);
}
int main() {
const char* friends[] = { "John", "Jack", "Jim" };
printf("%d %d", sizeof(friends)/sizeof(char*), length(friends)); // 3 1
}
I assume that array is copied by value to the function argument as constant pointer and reference to it should solve this, but this declaration is not valid:
int length(const char**& array);
I find passing the array length as second argument to be redundant information, but why is the standard declaration of main like this:
int main(int argc, char** argv);
Please explain if it is possible to find out the array length in function argument, and if so, why is there the redundancy in main.
sizeof only works to find the length of the array if you apply it to the original array.
int a[5]; //real array. NOT a pointer
sizeof(a); // :)
However, by the time the array decays into a pointer, sizeof will give the size of the pointer and not of the array.
int a[5];
int * p = a;
sizeof(p); // :(
As you have already smartly pointed out main receives the length of the array as an argument (argc). Yes, this is out of necessity and is not redundant. (Well, it is kind of reduntant since argv is conveniently terminated by a null pointer but I digress)
There is some reasoning as to why this would take place. How could we make things so that a C array also knows its length?
A first idea would be not having arrays decaying into pointers when they are passed to a function and continuing to keep the array length in the type system. The bad thing about this is that you would need to have a separate function for every possible array length and doing so is not a good idea. (Pascal did this and some people think this is one of the reasons it "lost" to C)
A second idea is storing the array length next to the array, just like any modern programming language does:
a -> [5];[0,0,0,0,0]
But then you are just creating an invisible struct behind the scenes and the C philosophy does not approve of this kind of overhead. That said, creating such a struct yourself is often a good idea for some sorts of problems:
struct {
size_t length;
int * elements;
}
Another thing you can think about is how strings in C are null terminated instead of storing a length (as in Pascal). To store a length without worrying about limits need a whopping four bytes, an unimaginably expensive amount (at least back then). One could wonder if arrays could be also null terminated like that but then how would you allow the array to store a null?
The array decays to a pointer when passed.
Section 6.4 of the C FAQ covers this very well and provides the K&R references etc.
That aside, imagine it were possible for the function to know the size of the memory allocated in a pointer. You could call the function two or more times, each time with different input arrays that were potentially different lengths; the length would therefore have to be passed in as a secret hidden variable somehow. And then consider if you passed in an offset into another array, or an array allocated on the heap (malloc and all being library functions - something the compiler links to, rather than sees and reasons about the body of).
Its getting difficult to imagine how this might work without some behind-the-scenes slice objects and such right?
Symbian did have a AllocSize() function that returned the size of an allocation with malloc(); this only worked for the literal pointer returned by the malloc, and you'd get gobbledygook or a crash if you asked it to know the size of an invalid pointer or a pointer offset from one.
You don't want to believe its not possible, but it genuinely isn't. The only way to know the length of something passed into a function is to track the length yourself and pass it in yourself as a separate explicit parameter.
As stated by #Will, the decay happens during the parameter passing. One way to get around it is to pass the number of elements. To add onto this, you may find the _countof() macro useful - it does the equivalent of what you've done ;)
First, a better usage to compute number of elements when the actual array declaration is in scope is:
sizeof array / sizeof array[0]
This way you don't repeat the type name, which of course could change in the declaration and make you end up with an incorrect length computation. This is a typical case of don't repeat yourself.
Second, as a minor point, please note that sizeof is not a function, so the expression above doesn't need any parenthesis around the argument to sizeof.
Third, C doesn't have references so your usage of & in a declaration won't work.
I agree that the proper C solution is to pass the length (using the size_t type) as a separate argument, and use sizeof at the place the call is being made if the argument is a "real" array.
Note that often you work with memory returned by e.g. malloc(), and in those cases you never have a "true" array to compute the size off of, so designing the function to use an element count is more flexible.
Regarding int main():
According to the Standard, argv points to a NULL-terminated array (of pointers to null-terminated strings). (5.1.2.2.1:1).
That is, argv = (char **){ argv[0], ..., argv[argc - 1], 0 };.
Hence, size calculation is performed by a function which is a trivial modification of strlen().
argc is only there to make argv length calculation O(1).
The count-until-NULL method will NOT work for generic array input. You will need to manually specify size as a second argument.
This is a old question, and the OP seems to mix C++ and C in his intends/examples. In C, when you pass a array to a function, it's decayed to pointer. So, there is no way to pass the array size except by using a second argument in your function that stores the array size:
void func(int A[])
// should be instead: void func(int * A, const size_t elemCountInA)
They are very few cases, where you don't need this, like when you're using multidimensional arrays:
void func(int A[3][whatever here]) // That's almost as if read "int* A[3]"
Using the array notation in a function signature is still useful, for the developer, as it might be an help to tell how many elements your functions expects. For example:
void vec_add(float out[3], float in0[3], float in1[3])
is easier to understand than this one (although, nothing prevent accessing the 4th element in the function in both functions):
void vec_add(float * out, float * in0, float * in1)
If you were to use C++, then you can actually capture the array size and get what you expect:
template <size_t N>
void vec_add(float (&out)[N], float (&in0)[N], float (&in1)[N])
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < N; i++)
out[i] = in0[i] + in1[i];
}
In that case, the compiler will ensure that you're not adding a 4D vector with a 2D vector (which is not possible in C without passing the dimension of each dimension as arguments of the function). There will be as many instance of the vec_add function as the number of dimensions used for your vectors.
int arsize(int st1[]) {
int i = 0;
for (i; !(st1[i] & (1 << 30)); i++);
return i;
}
This works for me :)
length of an array(type int) with sizeof:
sizeof(array)/sizeof(int)
Best example is here
thanks #define SIZE 10
void size(int arr[SIZE])
{
printf("size of array is:%d\n",sizeof(arr));
}
int main()
{
int arr[SIZE];
size(arr);
return 0;
}
Is there a standard function in C that would return the length of an array?
Often the technique described in other answers is encapsulated in a macro to make it easier on the eyes. Something like:
#define COUNT_OF( arr) (sizeof(arr)/sizeof(0[arr]))
Note that the macro above uses a small trick of putting the array name in the index operator ('[]') instead of the 0 - this is done in case the macro is mistakenly used in C++ code with an item that overloads operator[](). The compiler will complain instead of giving a bad result.
However, also note that if you happen to pass a pointer instead of an array, the macro will silently give a bad result - this is one of the major problems with using this technique.
I have recently started to use a more complex version that I stole from Google Chromium's codebase:
#define COUNT_OF(x) ((sizeof(x)/sizeof(0[x])) / ((size_t)(!(sizeof(x) % sizeof(0[x])))))
In this version if a pointer is mistakenly passed as the argument, the compiler will complain in some cases - specifically if the pointer's size isn't evenly divisible by the size of the object the pointer points to. In that situation a divide-by-zero will cause the compiler to error out. Actually at least one compiler I've used gives a warning instead of an error - I'm not sure what it generates for the expression that has a divide by zero in it.
That macro doesn't close the door on using it erroneously, but it comes as close as I've ever seen in straight C.
If you want an even safer solution for when you're working in C++, take a look at Compile time sizeof_array without using a macro which describes a rather complex template-based method Microsoft uses in winnt.h.
No, there is not.
For constant size arrays you can use the common trick Andrew mentioned, sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]) - but this works only in the scope the array was declared in.
sizeof(array) gives you the size of the whole array, while sizeof(array[0]) gives you the size of the first element.
See Michaels answer on how to wrap that in a macro.
For dynamically allocated arrays you either keep track of the size in an integral type or make it 0-terminated if possible (i.e. allocate 1 more element and set the last element to 0).
sizeof array / sizeof array[0]
The number of elements in an array x can be obtained by:
sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0])
You need to be aware that arrays, when passed to functions, are degraded into pointers which do not carry the size information. In reality, the size information is never available to the runtime since it's calculated at compile time, but you can act as if it is available where the array is visible (i.e., where it hasn't been degraded).
When I pass arrays to a function that I need to treat as arrays, I always ensure two arguments are passed:
the length of the array; and
the pointer to the array.
So, whilst the array can be treated as an array where it's declared, it's treated as a size and pointer everywhere else.
I tend to have code like:
#define countof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
: : :
int numbers[10];
a = fn (countof(numbers),numbers);
then fn() will have the size information available to it.
Another trick I've used in the past (a bit messier in my opinion but I'll give it here for completeness) is to have an array of a union and make the first element the length, something like:
typedef union {
int len;
float number;
} tNumber;
tNumber number[10];
: : :
number[0].len = 5;
a = fn (number);
then fn() can access the length and all the elements and you don't have to worry about the array/pointer dichotomy.
This has the added advantage of allowing the length to vary (i.e., the number of elements in use, not the number of units allocated). But I tend not to use this anymore since I consider the two-argument array version (size and data) better.
I created a macro that returns the size of an array, but yields a compiler error if used on a pointer. Do however note that it relies on gcc extensions. Because of this, it's not a portable solution.
#define COUNT(a) (__builtin_choose_expr( \
__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(&(a)[0])), \
(void)0, \
(sizeof(a)/sizeof((a)[0]))))
int main(void)
{
int arr[5];
int *p;
int x = COUNT(arr);
// int y = COUNT(p);
}
If you remove the comment, this will yield: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
The simple answer, of course, is no. But the practical answer is "I need to know anyway," so let's discuss methods for working around this.
One way to get away with it for a while, as mentioned about a million times already, is with sizeof():
int i[] = {0, 1, 2};
...
size_t i_len = sizeof(i) / sizeof(i[0]);
This works, until we try to pass i to a function, or take a pointer to i. So what about more general solutions?
The accepted general solution is to pass the array length to a function along with the array. We see this a lot in the standard library:
void *memcpy(void *s1, void *s2, size_t n);
Will copy n bytes from s1 to s2, allowing us to use n to ensure that our buffers never overflow. This is a good strategy - it has low overhead, and it actually generates some efficient code (compare to strcpy(), which has to check for the end of the string and has no way of "knowing" how many iterations it must make, and poor confused strncpy(), which has to check both - both can be slower, and either could be sped up by using memcpy() if you happen to have already calculated the string's length for some reason).
Another approach is to encapsulate your code in a struct. The common hack is this:
typedef struct _arr {
size_t len;
int arr[0];
} arr;
If we want an array of length 5, we do this:
arr *a = malloc(sizeof(*a) + sizeof(int) * 5);
a->len = 5;
However, this is a hack that is only moderately well-defined (C99 lets you use int arr[]) and is rather labor-intensive. A "better-defined" way to do this is:
typedef struct _arr {
size_t len;
int *arr;
} arr;
But then our allocations (and deallocations) become much more complicated. The benefit of either of these approaches is, of course, that now arrays you make will carry around their lengths with them. It's slightly less memory-efficient, but it's quite safe. If you chose one of these paths, be sure to write helper functions so that you don't have to manually allocate and deallocate (and work with) these structures.
If you have an object a of array type, the number of elements in the array can be expressed as sizeof a / sizeof *a. If you allowed your array object to decay to pointer type (or had only a pointer object to begin with), then in general case there's no way to determine the number of elements in the array.
This question goes out to the C gurus out there:
In C, it is possible to declare a pointer as follows:
char (* p)[10];
.. which basically states that this pointer points to an array of 10 chars. The neat thing about declaring a pointer like this is that you will get a compile time error if you try to assign a pointer of an array of different size to p. It will also give you a compile time error if you try to assign the value of a simple char pointer to p. I tried this with gcc and it seems to work with ANSI, C89 and C99.
It looks to me like declaring a pointer like this would be very useful - particularly, when passing a pointer to a function. Usually, people would write the prototype of such a function like this:
void foo(char * p, int plen);
If you were expecting a buffer of an specific size, you would simply test the value of plen. However, you cannot be guaranteed that the person who passes p to you will really give you plen valid memory locations in that buffer. You have to trust that the person who called this function is doing the right thing. On the other hand:
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
..would force the caller to give you a buffer of the specified size.
This seems very useful but I have never seen a pointer declared like this in any code I have ever ran across.
My question is: Is there any reason why people do not declare pointers like this? Am I not seeing some obvious pitfall?
What you are saying in your post is absolutely correct. I'd say that every C developer comes to exactly the same discovery and to exactly the same conclusion when (if) they reach certain level of proficiency with C language.
When the specifics of your application area call for an array of specific fixed size (array size is a compile-time constant), the only proper way to pass such an array to a function is by using a pointer-to-array parameter
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
(in C++ language this is also done with references
void foo(char (&p)[10]);
).
This will enable language-level type checking, which will make sure that the array of exactly correct size is supplied as an argument. In fact, in many cases people use this technique implicitly, without even realizing it, hiding the array type behind a typedef name
typedef int Vector3d[3];
void transform(Vector3d *vector);
/* equivalent to `void transform(int (*vector)[3])` */
...
Vector3d vec;
...
transform(&vec);
Note additionally that the above code is invariant with relation to Vector3d type being an array or a struct. You can switch the definition of Vector3d at any time from an array to a struct and back, and you won't have to change the function declaration. In either case the functions will receive an aggregate object "by reference" (there are exceptions to this, but within the context of this discussion this is true).
However, you won't see this method of array passing used explicitly too often, simply because too many people get confused by a rather convoluted syntax and are simply not comfortable enough with such features of C language to use them properly. For this reason, in average real life, passing an array as a pointer to its first element is a more popular approach. It just looks "simpler".
But in reality, using the pointer to the first element for array passing is a very niche technique, a trick, which serves a very specific purpose: its one and only purpose is to facilitate passing arrays of different size (i.e. run-time size). If you really need to be able to process arrays of run-time size, then the proper way to pass such an array is by a pointer to its first element with the concrete size supplied by an additional parameter
void foo(char p[], unsigned plen);
Actually, in many cases it is very useful to be able to process arrays of run-time size, which also contributes to the popularity of the method. Many C developers simply never encounter (or never recognize) the need to process a fixed-size array, thus remaining oblivious to the proper fixed-size technique.
Nevertheless, if the array size is fixed, passing it as a pointer to an element
void foo(char p[])
is a major technique-level error, which unfortunately is rather widespread these days. A pointer-to-array technique is a much better approach in such cases.
Another reason that might hinder the adoption of the fixed-size array passing technique is the dominance of naive approach to typing of dynamically allocated arrays. For example, if the program calls for fixed arrays of type char[10] (as in your example), an average developer will malloc such arrays as
char *p = malloc(10 * sizeof *p);
This array cannot be passed to a function declared as
void foo(char (*p)[10]);
which confuses the average developer and makes them abandon the fixed-size parameter declaration without giving it a further thought. In reality though, the root of the problem lies in the naive malloc approach. The malloc format shown above should be reserved for arrays of run-time size. If the array type has compile-time size, a better way to malloc it would look as follows
char (*p)[10] = malloc(sizeof *p);
This, of course, can be easily passed to the above declared foo
foo(p);
and the compiler will perform the proper type checking. But again, this is overly confusing to an unprepared C developer, which is why you won't see it in too often in the "typical" average everyday code.
I would like to add to AndreyT's answer (in case anyone stumbles upon this page looking for more info on this topic):
As I begin to play more with these declarations, I realize that there is major handicap associated with them in C (apparently not in C++). It is fairly common to have a situation where you would like to give a caller a const pointer to a buffer you have written into. Unfortunately, this is not possible when declaring a pointer like this in C. In other words, the C standard (6.7.3 - Paragraph 8) is at odds with something like this:
int array[9];
const int (* p2)[9] = &array; /* Not legal unless array is const as well */
This constraint does not seem to be present in C++, making these type of declarations far more useful. But in the case of C, it is necessary to fall back to a regular pointer declaration whenever you want a const pointer to the fixed size buffer (unless the buffer itself was declared const to begin with). You can find more info in this mail thread: link text
This is a severe constraint in my opinion and it could be one of the main reasons why people do not usually declare pointers like this in C. The other being the fact that most people do not even know that you can declare a pointer like this as AndreyT has pointed out.
The obvious reason is that this code doesn't compile:
extern void foo(char (*p)[10]);
void bar() {
char p[10];
foo(p);
}
The default promotion of an array is to an unqualified pointer.
Also see this question, using foo(&p) should work.
I also want to use this syntax to enable more type checking.
But I also agree that the syntax and mental model of using pointers is simpler, and easier to remember.
Here are some more obstacles I have come across.
Accessing the array requires using (*p)[]:
void foo(char (*p)[10])
{
char c = (*p)[3];
(*p)[0] = 1;
}
It is tempting to use a local pointer-to-char instead:
void foo(char (*p)[10])
{
char *cp = (char *)p;
char c = cp[3];
cp[0] = 1;
}
But this would partially defeat the purpose of using the correct type.
One has to remember to use the address-of operator when assigning an array's address to a pointer-to-array:
char a[10];
char (*p)[10] = &a;
The address-of operator gets the address of the whole array in &a, with the correct type to assign it to p. Without the operator, a is automatically converted to the address of the first element of the array, same as in &a[0], which has a different type.
Since this automatic conversion is already taking place, I am always puzzled that the & is necessary. It is consistent with the use of & on variables of other types, but I have to remember that an array is special and that I need the & to get the correct type of address, even though the address value is the same.
One reason for my problem may be that I learned K&R C back in the 80s, which did not allow using the & operator on whole arrays yet (although some compilers ignored that or tolerated the syntax). Which, by the way, may be another reason why pointers-to-arrays have a hard time to get adopted: they only work properly since ANSI C, and the & operator limitation may have been another reason to deem them too awkward.
When typedef is not used to create a type for the pointer-to-array (in a common header file), then a global pointer-to-array needs a more complicated extern declaration to share it across files:
fileA:
char (*p)[10];
fileB:
extern char (*p)[10];
Well, simply put, C doesn't do things that way. An array of type T is passed around as a pointer to the first T in the array, and that's all you get.
This allows for some cool and elegant algorithms, such as looping through the array with expressions like
*dst++ = *src++
The downside is that management of the size is up to you. Unfortunately, failure to do this conscientiously has also led to millions of bugs in C coding, and/or opportunities for malevolent exploitation.
What comes close to what you ask in C is to pass around a struct (by value) or a pointer to one (by reference). As long as the same struct type is used on both sides of this operation, both the code that hand out the reference and the code that uses it are in agreement about the size of the data being handled.
Your struct can contain whatever data you want; it could contain your array of a well-defined size.
Still, nothing prevents you or an incompetent or malevolent coder from using casts to fool the compiler into treating your struct as one of a different size. The almost unshackled ability to do this kind of thing is a part of C's design.
You can declare an array of characters a number of ways:
char p[10];
char* p = (char*)malloc(10 * sizeof(char));
The prototype to a function that takes an array by value is:
void foo(char* p); //cannot modify p
or by reference:
void foo(char** p); //can modify p, derefernce by *p[0] = 'f';
or by array syntax:
void foo(char p[]); //same as char*
I would not recommend this solution
typedef int Vector3d[3];
since it obscures the fact that Vector3D has a type that you
must know about. Programmers usually dont expect variables of the
same type to have different sizes. Consider :
void foo(Vector3d a) {
Vector3d b;
}
where sizeof a != sizeof b
Maybe I'm missing something, but... since arrays are constant pointers, basically that means that there's no point in passing around pointers to them.
Couldn't you just use void foo(char p[10], int plen); ?
type (*)[];
// points to an array e.g
int (*ptr)[5];
// points to an 5 integer array
// gets the address of the array
type *[];
// points to an array of pointers e.g
int* ptr[5]
// point to an array of five integer pointers
// point to 5 adresses.
On my compiler (vs2008) it treats char (*p)[10] as an array of character pointers, as if there was no parentheses, even if I compile as a C file. Is compiler support for this "variable"? If so that is a major reason not to use it.