What is necessary for storing the address of a pointer?
int a = 2;
int *p = &a;
int **q = &p;
Any practical use? Real time applications.
In C you can either pass "value" or "address" of an object. If you pass value in function call, then changes made in the function don't reflect at calling place. And to reflect changes, you need to pass address of the object, for example:
void insert(node* head){
head->data = 10; // address(or head) is still same
}
By object I means any type int, char or struct e.g. node
In the above example you change value at addressed by head pointer and change in data will be reflected.
But suppose if you want to change head itself in your list (e.g. insert new node as first node).
void insert(node* head){
head = malloc(sizeof(head)); // head changed
head->data = 10;
}
Then value doesn't reflect at calling place because this head in function is not the same as head at calling place.
You have two choice, either return head or use pointer to pointer (but remember only one value can be return).
Use pointer to pointer:
void insert(node** head){
(*head) = malloc(sizeof **head);
(*head)->data = 10;
}
Now changes will reflect!
The point is, if address is your value (need to updated address), then you need to use pointer of address or I should say pointer to pointer to reflect changes at the calling place.
As your question is what is need of pointer to pointers, one more place where pointer to pointer used in array of string, and dynamic 2-D arrays, and for same use you may need pointer to pointer to pointer for example dynamic matrix of String or/ 3D char array.
Read also this:Pointers to Pointers I just found, to tell you for an example.
A ** is just a pointer to a pointer. So where an *p contains the address of an p, p** contains the address of an p* that contains the address of an p object.
** is used when you want to preserve the Memory-Allocation or Assignment even outside of a function call.
Also check this article.
EXAMPLE:-
void allocate(int** p)
{
*p = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));
}
int main()
{
int* p = NULL;
allocate(&p);
*p = 1;
free(p);
}
Does
int main (int argc, char** argv) { ... }
Look familiar?
If you want to allocate Nth order pointer in other function, you should use (N+1)th order pointer. For example:
void allocate_matrix(int ***ptr, int x, int y);
Lets us allocate a matrix:
int **matrix:
allocate_matrix(&matrix, 5, 5);
One use for this is to change the value of a pointer from within a function. For example:
#include <stdio.h>
void swapStrings(const char **strA, const char **strB)
{
const char *tmp = *strB;
*strB = *strA;
*strA = tmp;
}
int main()
{
const char *a;
const char *b;
a = "hello";
b = "world";
swapStrings(&a,&b);
// now b points to "hello" and a points to "world"
printf("%s\n", a);
printf("%s\n", b);
}
Outputs:
world
hello
Related
When I was introduced to pointers, I was told that they are useful because they let us modify certain variables fed into functions that wouldn't normally be modifiable. For example:
void copy(int *p, int *s);
int main(){
int a = 4, b = 10, *p = &a, *s = &b;
copy(p, s);
}
void copy(int *p, int *s){
*s = *p;
*p = 0;
}
So at the end of this, "b" is equal to "a", and "a" is equal to 0, even though "a" and "b" wouldn't normally be modifiable.
When talking about lists and, specifically, adding an element to a list, I can use a function like this:
struct list{
int n;
struct list *next;
}
struct list *first = NULL;
int main(){
int n = 3;
first = add_to_list(first, n);
}
struct list *add_to_list(struct list *first, int n){
struct list *new_node;
new_node = malloc(sizeof(struct list));
if(new_node == NULL) exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
new_node->value = n;
new_node->next = first;
return new_node;
}
What concerns me specifically is why the function can't simply return a type void, and instead of writing "return new_node", I can't simply write "first = new_node". Because first is a pointer, if I modify it anywhere in my program the original pointer should be modified too, just like it happened in the first example I made, right?
Also, bit of an unrelated question, but if I've got a function like this:
void first_to_n(int a[], int n){
a[0] = n;
}
The first element of the original vector a, which lets say is declared in main, gets also modified, right? Because vectors can be considered as pointers
Lets say we have something like the following code
void funcA(int x)
{
x = 0;
}
void funcB(int *y)
{
y = NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
int a = 10;
int *b = &a;
funcA(a);
funcB(b);
}
What happens when funcA is called is that the value of a is copied into the separate variable x inside the function. When the call is being made there are two copies of the value 10 stored in to different places. When the assignment x = 0 is done inside the function, only the local variable x is modified.
For funcB just the same happens. The value of the variable b is copied into the separate variable y in the function. That means there are two separate and distinct variable pointing to the same location. But once the assignment y = NULL is done, that's no longer true. The variable y is no longer pointing to the same location, but in the main function b is unmodifed since only a copy of the value was passed to the function.
If we now take a slightly different example
void func(int *x, int **y)
{
*y = x;
}
int main(void)
{
int a = 10;
int b = 20;
int *c = &a; // Make c point to the variable a
func(&b, &c);
}
After the function is called, then c does no longer point to a, it points to b. That's because for the second argument the value we pass is &c which is a pointer to the variable c. Inside the function we can then use the dereference operator to access what y is pointing to (which will be the variable c in the main function).
When I was introduced to pointers, I was told that they are useful because they let us modify certain variables fed into functions that wouldn't normally be modifiable.
Among other things, like creating non-trivial data structures and to avoid copies.
Because first is a pointer, if I modify it anywhere in my program the original pointer should be modified too, just like it happened in the first example I made, right?
first (the parameter) is a copy of first (the global). Therefore, first = new_node would only modify your pointer, not the global one.
This is more clear in your first example:
void copy(int *p, int *s){
*s = *p;
*p = 0;
}
If you were doing p = 0;, for instance, you would only modify the pointer, not the value pointed to.
The first element of the original vector a, which lets say is declared in main, gets also modified, right? Because vectors can be considered as pointers
That is not a "vector" (array), it is a pointer even if it looks like an array. It is a big gotcha of C.
But, indeed, a[0] = 0; is modifying the first value (in main) pointed by the parameter.
What concerns me specifically is why the function can't simply return
a type void, and instead of writing "return new_node", I can't simply
write "first = new_node".
As the other answers explain, you can't due to first being a 'copy' of the pointer outside the function. If however you were to instead change the function such that you passed a 'pointer to the pointer' rather that just the 'pointer', then you could change the external value, which is what's going on the in the 'copy' function.
This uses a pointer to a literal string.
The pointer is pass to modifypointer() where it is modified to point to another literal string. The new literal string is printed in the function, but main() still prints the original.
The pointer is passed as a pointer to itself in modifypointertopointer() where it is dereferenced to point to another literal string. Now the function prints the new literal string and main() also prints the new literal string.
In your last example, first = new_node; could be used except the function declares a shadow variable first and the global first is no longer in the scope of the function.
#include <stdio.h>
void modifypointer( char *mod) {
mod = "modify pointer";
printf ( "%s\n", mod);
}
void modifypointertopointer( char **ptrmod) {
*ptrmod = "modify pointer to pointer";
printf ( "%s\n", *ptrmod);
}
int main( void) {
char *text = "original";
printf ( "%s\n", text);
modifypointer ( text);
printf ( "%s\n", text);
modifypointertopointer ( &text);
printf ( "%s\n", text);
return 0;
}
I was hoping someone could help me figure out why one version of the below code works, while the other doesn't. Below I've included the initArray method, stored in "worksheet.c". The function is accessed in main, both versions are given below.
void initArray(struct dynArray *a) {
a->data = malloc(10 * TYPE_SIZE);
assert(a->data != 0);
a->size = 0;
a->capacity = 10;
}
This works. I create a dynArray struct and pass it to initArray by reference.
#include "worksheet0.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
struct dynArray b;
initArray(&b);
return 0;
}
This fails with a seg fault. I thought that passing b here would be the same as passing the struct by reference.
int main(void)
{
struct dynArray *b = NULL;
initArray(b);
return 0;
}
Because in the second case there is no memory allocated to which the struct pointer points to. It is simply a pointer having the value NULL. On your case by dereferencing the value NULL you have invoked undefined behavior.
It would work if you allocate memory, make changes to it and then return it's value. [But then you have to return the address of the allocated memory.] OR you can pass the address of the pointer variable and allocate memory to which dereferenced pointer (here the pointer has type struct dynAray**) would point to and make changes to it.
Let's be more clear now slowly:
Why the first case works? You have a struct dynArray variable whose address you have passed into the function and then you have accessed the content of that address - wait! that means you have accessed the struct dynArray variable itself and made changes to its member variables. Yes that is what exactly happened in the first case.
In the second case, you have a pointer to struct dynArray. And then you passed it - de-referenced it. Where was it pointing to? Is it some struct dynArray variable's address that it contained? No. It was NULL. So it is wrong if you expect it to work.
The second would work - but you have to change things a bit! Let's see how:
struct dynArray* initArray() {
struct dynArray* a = malloc(sizeof *a);
assert(a != NULL);
a->data = malloc(10 * TYPE_SIZE);
assert(a->data != 0);
a->size = 0;
a->capacity = 10;
return a;
}
And in main()
struct dynArray* b;
b = initArray();
You don't even need to pass the pointer variable. That would be meaningless if you want to do it like this.
And you know you can also pass the address of the pointer variable so that you can make changes to it -
void initArray(struct dynArray** a) {
*a = malloc(sizeof **a);
assert((*a) != NULL);
(*a)->data = malloc(10 * TYPE_SIZE);
assert((*a)->data != 0);
(*a)->size = 0;
(*a)->capacity = 10;
}
For this in main() you would call it like this
struct dynArray* b;
initArray(&b);
In the first example a pointer holding the address of an actual struct is passed to the function. But, in the second example the pointer b does not point to a struct. Instead, this pointer is initialized to NULL, and when this null pointer is dereferenced in the initArray() function, undefined behavior ensues.
struct info
{
int val;
};
void copy(struct info ** dst, struct info * src)
{
*dst = (struct info *)malloc(sizeof(struct info));
**dst = *src;
}
int main()
{
struct info *a, *b;
a = (struct info *)malloc(sizeof(struct info));
a -> val = 7;
copy( , );
a -> val = 9;
printf("%d", b->val);
}
I have tried (b, a), (*b, *a), (b, *a) and so one but the argument is always unexpected by the compiler. Have been trying for an hour with no result - just a half melted brain.
The first argument is supposed to be a pointer to a pointer. Since b is a pointer, you need to take its address, which is &b.
The second argument is supposed to be a pointer. a is a pointer, so you just pass it directly.
copy(&b, a);
* is for indirecting through a pointer to access what it points to. That's the exact opposite of what you want, which is to get a pointer to the variable itself. You use * inside the copy function to access what the pointers given point to.
BTW, you should also see Do I cast the result of malloc?
And don't forget to free the structures when you're done using them.
In the following code p is pointer to an int. It is quite clear that p points to the address of i. Through my research i know &p points to the address of pointer p. But i don't get why would you need separate address for that. And also when would you use &p.
int main() {
int i = 3, *p = &i;
printf("%p",&p);
printf("%p",p);
return 0;
}
If p is pointer to int then
int **q = &p;
When you want to use pointer to pointer, then use the address of a single pointer to assign it to pointer to pointer.
Just to make a point that pointer is also a data-type and it stored in the memory location and it holds a valid memory location as its value. The address in which this valid memory location is stored is given by &p
Your printf() also needs to be fixed. %p expects void *
printf("%p",(void *)p);
But i don't get why would you need separate address for that
You don't, but there exists the address of operator so you can take the address of a pointer, which is what
printf("%p\n", &p);
is printing.
And also when would you use &p
There are cases where this might be useful, consider for example that you need to pass a pointer to a function which could be reassigned into the function, you can do something like this
int allocateIntegerArray(int **pointerToPointer, size_t someSize)
{
if (pointerToPointer == NULL)
return 0;
*pointerToPointer = malloc(someSize * sizeof(int));
return (*pointerToPointer != NULL);
}
then you could use this funciton the following way
int *pointer;
if (allocateIntergerArray(&pointer, 10) == 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error, cannot allocate integer array\n");
/* do some extra cleanup or recover from this error, or exit() */
exit(0);
}
The pointers themselves are also variables and as such they need to be sotred somewhere, so the address of a pointer tells you where is the pointer stored, it's value tells you where it is pointing to.
By knowing where it is stored you can do things like the one explained above.
A trivial example:
int nochange(int *c, int *val)
{
c = val; // Changes local pointer c to point to val
// Note that C passes copies of the arguments, not actual references.
}
int do_change(int **c, int *val)
{
*c = val; // Accesses the real pointer c at its real location and makes
// that one point to val
// Even though c is a pointer-to-pointer copy, its value is
// copied too, and the value is the address of the real c
}
int main()
{
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int *c = &a; // A pointer is also a datatype that resides in memory
printf("%d\n", *c); // Will print 1
nochange(c, &b);
printf("%d\n", *c); // Will print 1
do_change(&c, &b);
printf("%d\n", *c); // Will print 2 because c now points to b
}
I have a similar answer with a bit more detail here about pointer vs pointer-to-pointer: pointer of a pointer in linked list append
Please find the code snippet as shown below:
#include <stdio.h>
int My_func(int **);
int main()
{
int a =5;
int *p = &a;
My_Func(&p);
printf("The val of *p is %d\n,*p);
}
void My_Func(int **p)
{
int val = 100;
int *Ptr = &val;
*p = Ptr;
}
How does by using a double pointer as a argument in my_Func function and making change of value reflects the same in the main function but if we use a single pointer in My_Func does not change the value in main?Please do explain me with examples if possible
Advanced thanks
Maddy
int **p is a pointer to a pointer-to-int. My_Func(int **p) works by changing the value of integer that the pointer-to-int points to i.e. int a.
Without changing the implementation, the function will not work with a pointer-to-int parameter int *p as there is a second level of indirection. In addition, you're setting the value to a local variable that is created on the stack. When the function is completed the memory used for the variable will be reclaimed, therefore making the value of a invalid.
void My_Func(int **p)
{
int val = 100; // Local variable.
int *Ptr = &val; // This isn't needed.
*p = Ptr;
} // val dissapears.
Remove the second level of indirection and copy val by value instead of pointing to it:
#include <stdio.h>
void My_Func(int *p)
{
int val = 100;
*p = val;
}
int main(void)
{
int a = 5;
My_Func(&a);
printf("The val of a is %d\n", a);
return 0;
}
In short, in C when you pass something as a parameter, a copy will be passed to the function. Changing the copy doesn't affect the original value.
However, if the value is a pointer, what it points to can be changed. In this case, if you want to affect the pointer, you need to pass a pointer to it down to the function.
Use it in the function declaration:
void func(int *p)
{
int val =100;
int *temp=&val;
p=temp;
}
p starts pointing to another address i.e. address of val. So it will print the value 100.
Important note: Try it in your downloaded compiler (always in case of pointers) not in the online compiler. The online compiler doesn´t keep track of lost addresses in stack.
You are assigning the address of local variable, which will soon disappear when My_Func returns. You can use following in your code. However you can do the same thing just by using single pointer, double pointer is not required in this example.
void My_Func(int **p)
{
int val = 100;
int *Ptr = &val;
**p = *Ptr;
}