I'm trying to better understand c, and I'm having a hard time understanding where I use the * and & characters. And just struct's in general. Here's a bit of code:
void word_not(lc3_word_t *R, lc3_word_t A) {
int *ptr;
*ptr = &R;
&ptr[0] = 1;
printf("this is R at spot 0: %d", ptr[0]);
}
lc3_word_t is a struct defined like this:
struct lc3_word_t__ {
BIT b15;
BIT b14;
BIT b13;
BIT b12;
BIT b11;
BIT b10;
BIT b9;
BIT b8;
BIT b7;
BIT b6;
BIT b5;
BIT b4;
BIT b3;
BIT b2;
BIT b1;
BIT b0;
};
This code doesn't do anything, it compiles but once I run it I get a "Segmentation fault" error. I'm just trying to understand how to read and write to a struct and using pointers. Thanks :)
New Code:
void word_not(lc3_word_t *R, lc3_word_t A) {
int* ptr;
ptr = &R;
ptr->b0 = 1;
printf("this is: %d", ptr->b0);
}
Here's a quick rundown of pointers (as I use them, at least):
int i;
int* p; //I declare pointers with the asterisk next to the type, not the name;
//it's not conventional, but int* seems like the full data type to me.
i = 17; //i now holds the value 17 (obviously)
p = &i; //p now holds the address of i (&x gives you the address of x)
*p = 3; //the thing pointed to by p (in our case, i) now holds the value 3
//the *x operator is sort of the reverse of the &x operator
printf("%i\n", i); //this will print 3, cause we changed the value of i (via *p)
And paired with structs:
typedef struct
{
unsigned char a;
unsigned char r;
unsigned char g;
unsigned char b;
} Color;
Color c;
Color* p;
p = &c; //just like the last code
p->g = 255; //set the 'g' member of the struct to 255
//this works because the compiler knows that Color* p points to a Color
//note that we don't use p[x] to get at the members - that's for arrays
And finally, with arrays:
int a[] = {1, 2, 7, 4};
int* p;
p = a; //note the lack of the & (address of) operator
//we don't need it, as arrays behave like pointers internally
//alternatively, "p = &a[0];" would have given the same result
p[2] = 3; //set that seven back to what it should be
//note the lack of the * (dereference) operator
//we don't need it, as the [] operator dereferences for us
//alternatively, we could have used "*(p+2) = 3;"
Hope this clears some things up - and don't hesitate to ask for more details if there's anything I've left out. Cheers!
I think you are looking for a general tutorial on C (of which there are many). Just check google. The following site has good info that will explain your questions better.
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/pointers/
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/structures/
They will help you with basic syntax and understanding what the operators are and how they work. Note that the site is C++ but the basics are the same in C.
First of all, your second line should be giving you some sort of warning about converting a pointer into an int. The third line I'm surprised compiles at all. Compile at your highest warning level, and heed the warnings.
The * does different things depending on whether it is in a declaration or an expression. In a declaration (like int *ptr or lc3_word_t *R) it just means "this is a pointer."
In an expression (like *ptr = &R) it means to dereference the pointer, which is basically to use the pointed-to value like a regular variable.
The & means "take the address of this." If something is not a pointer, you use it to turn it into a pointer. If something is already a pointer (like R or ptr in your function), you don't need to take the address of it again.
int *ptr;
*ptr = &R;
Here ptr is not initialized. It can point to whatever. Then you dereference it with * and assign it the address of R. That should not compile since &R is of type lc3_word_t** (pointer to pointer), while *ptr is of type int.
&ptr[0] = 1; is not legal either. Here you take the address of ptr[0] and try to assign it 1. This is also illegal since it is an rvalue, but you can think of it that you cannot change the location of the variable ptr[0] since what you're essentially trying to do is changing the address of ptr[0].
Let's step through the code.
First you declare a pointer to int: int *ptr. By the way I like to write it like this int* ptr (with * next to int instead of ptr) to remind myself that pointer is part of the type, i.e. the type of ptr is pointer to int.
Next you assign the value pointed to by ptr to the address of R. * dereferences the pointer (gets the value pointed to) and & gives the address. This is your problem. You've mixed up the types. Assigning the address of R (lc3_word_t**) to *ptr (int) won't work.
Next is &ptr[0] = 1;. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. &ptr[0] is the address of the first element of ptr (as an array). I'm guessing you want just the value at the first address, that is ptr[0] or *ptr.
Related
I am little confused and tried finding explanation but all "difference" questions asked are about type *name vs type* name which i know answer of.
I have code like this:
int a = 1;
printf("a = %d", a); // Prints 1
int *pt = a;
printf("pt = %d", pt); // Prints 1
*pt = 2; // Crash why? What am i pointing to here?
&pt = 2; // Not even compiling since
pt = 2; // Works
printf("pt = %d\n", pt); // Prints 2
printf("a = %d\n", a); // Prints 1
I know in order to change value of a i should have done int *pt = &a and then *pt = 2 and that is not my question.
My question is in this case, is using int *pt = a same as using int pt = a or is there any advantage of using it as pointer?
int a = 1;
...
int *pt = a;
Attempts to store the value 1 as the address held by pointer pt. Any dereference of pt is guaranteed to SegFault as address 1 is well down at the bottom of the system-reserved memory range -- which you have no ability to access, resulting in an access violation and SegFault.
What Is A Pointer?
A pointer is simply a normal variable that holds the address of something else as its value. In other words, a pointer points to the address where something else can be found. Where you normally think of a variable holding an immediate values, such as int a = 5;, a pointer would simply hold the address where 5 is stored in memory, e.g. int *b = &a;. It works the same way regardless what type of object the pointer points to. It is able to work that way because the type of the pointer controls the pointer arithmetic, e.g. with a char * pointer, pointer+1 point to the next byte, for an int * pointer (normal 4-byte integer), pointer+1 will point to the next int at an offset 4-bytes after pointer. (so a pointer, is just a pointer.... where arithmetic is automatically handled by the type)
So in your case:
int a = 1;
...
int *pt = &a;
Will assign the address where a is stored in memory to the pointer variable pt. You may then access the value at that address by dereferencing pt (e.g. *pt)
What you are doing is setting the address to which the pointer pt points to, to what a is currently holding (1 in your case). Since *a is most definitely not a valid and accessible address you will most likely get a segmentation fault when trying to dereference it. This is somewhat the same as if you are creating a null pointer by int *pt = 0 but instead of 0 you use whatever is in a.
Keep in mind that there is probably something funky going on with converting a signed int to an address which only makes the whole thing even worse.
Here is my code
struct ukai { int val[1]; };
struct kai { struct ukai daddr; struct ukai saddr; };
struct kai *k, uk;
uk.saddr.val[0] = 5;
k = &uk;
k->saddr.val[0] = 6;
unsigned int *p = (unsigned int *)malloc(sizeof(unsigned int));
p[0] = k;
int *vp;
vp = ((uint8_t *)p[0] + 4);
printf("%d\n", *vp);
This produces a segmentation fault. However if we replace the last line with printf("%u\n", vp) it gives the address i.e. &(k->saddr.val[0]). However I am unable to print the value present at the address using p[0] but able to print it using k->saddr.val[0].
I have to use p pointer in some way to access value at val[0], I can't use pointer k. I need help here, whether it is even possible or not please let me know.
The code makes no sense:
p[0] = k; converts the value of a pointer k to an int as p is a pointer to int. This is implementation defined and loses information if pointers are larger than type int.
vp = ((uint8_t *)p[0] + 4); converts the int pointed to by p to a pointer to unsigned char and makes vp point to the location 4 bytes beyond this pointer. If pointers are larger than int, this has undefined behavior. Just printing the the value of this bogus pointer might be OK, but dereferencing it has undefined behavior.
printf("%u\n", vp) uses an incorrect format for pointer vp, again this is undefined behavior, although it is unlikely to crash.
The problem is most likely related to the size of pointers and integers: if you compile this code as 64 bits, pointers are larger than ints, so converting one to the other loses information.
Here is a corrected version:
struct ukai { int val[1]; };
struct kai { struct ukai daddr; struct ukai saddr; };
struct kai *k, uk;
uk.saddr.val[0] = 5;
k = &uk;
k->saddr.val[0] = 6;
int **p = malloc(sizeof *p);
p[0] = k;
int *vp = (int *)((uint8_t *)p[0] + sizeof(int));
printf("%d\n", *vp); // should print 6
There is a lot of "dirty" mess with the addresses done here.
Some of this stuff is not recommended or even forbidden from the standard C point of view.
However such pointer/addresses tweaks are commonly used in low level programming (embedded, firmware, etc.) when some compiler implementation details are known to the user. Of course such code is not portable.
Anyway the issue here (after getting more details in the comments section) is that the machine on which this code runs is 64 bits. Thus the pointers are 64 bits width while int or unsigned int is 32 bits width.
So when storing address of k in p[0]
p[0] = k;
while p[0] is of type unsigned int and k is of type pointer to struct kai, the upper 32 bits of the k value are cut off.
To resolve this issue, the best way is to use uintptr_t as this type will alway have the proper width to hold the full address value.
uintptr_t *p = malloc(sizeof(uintptr_t));
Note: uintptr_t is optional, yet common. It is sufficient for a void*, but maybe not a function pointer. For compatible code, proper usage of uintptr_t includes object pointer --> void * --> uintptr_t --> void * --> object pointer.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
typedef struct{
int a;
} cool;
cool x;
(&x)->a = 3;
x.a = 4;
}
I was wondering if the (&x)-> a does the same thing as the x.a. I coded both of them up, and it seemed that both of them changed the value of x.a. I know it must be a pointer on the left side of ->, but the (&x) seems to work without problem. Printing out x.a works for both of them, and gives me the correct answer. I looked up a lot about pointers, linked list, and structures and am still not able to find out the answer. Would it be possible to get an explanation? Thank you!
The -> operator expects a pointer on the left hand side. &x returns the address of x so it satisfies that requirement (even if it is totally redundant). To think about it another way...
cool *y = x;
y->a = 3;
The . operator expects a stack allocated struct on the left hand side. x is that, so x.a works fine.
You can also go the other way, if you have a pointer y you can dereference it with *y and use . on it: (*y).a. This is also totally redundant.
The & prefix operator returns the memory address of whatever object you put it in front of.
This means that you have to put it in front of objects that actually have a memory address. For example, literals and temporary expression results don't necessarily have an address. Variables declared with register storage class don't have an address, either.
Thus:
int i = 5;
&i; // works
&5; // Nope!
&(i + 1); // Nope!
&i + 1; // Works, because &i has higher precedence than +1.
So what does the address of an object give you? It is a pointer to the object. This is how you can do dynamic memory allocation using the heap. This is where functions like malloc() come in. And this is how you can build arbitrarily large data structures.
In C, arrays are represented as pointers. So arrays and pointers are often used interchangeably. For example:
char buffer[100]; // array
strcpy(buffer, "hello"); // strcpy is declared to take (char *, const char *)
The opposite of the address_of operator is the * dereference operator. If I declare a pointer to something, I can get "what it points at" using this syntax:
int i = 5;
int *pi = &i; // pointer to int. Note the * in the declaration?
i + i; // 10
i + *pi; // Also 10, because pi "points to" i
In the case where you have an aggregate type like a struct or union, you would have to do something like this:
struct {
int a;
} s;
s.a = 5;
/* ??? */ ps = &s; // pointer to s
s.a; // 5
(*ps).a; // Also 5, because ps points to s.
ps->a; // 5, because a->b is shorthand for (*a).b
This only works, of course, if you have a pointer to an object that CAN use the .member and that has an appropriately named member. For example, you can't do this:
i = 5;
pi = &i;
pi->a; // WTF? There is no i.a so this cannot work.
If you have a pointer, you can take the address of it. You then have a pointer to a pointer. Sometimes this is an array of pointers, as with the argv array passed to main:
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]);
int main(int argc, const char **argv); // Effectively the same.
You can do weird stuff with pointers to pointers:
int i = 5;
int j = 100;
int * pij;
for (pij = &i; i < j; ) {
if (i & 1) {
*pij *= 2;
pij = &j;
}
else {
i += 1;
*pij -= 1;
pij = &i;
}
}
Note: I have no idea what that code does. But it's the kind of thing you can wind up doing if you're working with pointers.
Pointer1 points to 5.
Pointer2 points to 3.
I want to multiply 5*3, but I only have the pointers. How would I do this in C?
Also, what does uint32_t *pointer mean when:
pointer[2] = {1, 2};
I do not know what is so hard for the answerers to understand about this question. It is obviously about dereferencing pointers.
This is how you display the contents of the pointer that it is pointing to:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int num1 = 5;
int num2 = 3;
int* num1_ptr = &num1;
int* num2_ptr - &num2;
int sum = *num1_ptr * *num2_ptr;
printf("%d\n", sum);
return 0;
}
*num1_ptr and *num2_ptr takes your pointers and references what the contents of that memory address.
I can't answer the first half of your question without more information, but uint32_t* pointer is simply a pointer to an unsigned 32-bit integer value (unsigned int and uint32_t are usually equivalent types, depending on your compiler).
If I see a declaration that simply reads uint32_t* pointer without more information I'm going to assume it's a pointer to a single value, and that using the indexing operator [n] on such a pointer is basically overflowing the single-element-sized buffer. However if the pointer is assigned the result from an array or buffer function (e.g. malloc, calloc, etc) then using the indexing operator is fine, however I would prefer to see uint32_t pointer[] used as the declaration as it makes it much easier to determine the developer's intent.
uint32_t *pointer is just a pointer with garbage value unless you point it to something.
pointer[0] = 1;
pointer[1] = 2;
is only valid if you have earlier pointed it to some array of type uint32_t with atleast size two or to a block containing uint32_ts defined using malloc as follows:
uint32_t *pointer;
pointer = (uint32_t*)malloc(sizeof(int*SIZE); //SIZE > 2 here
or
uint32_t array[10];
pointer = & array[0]; // also, pointer = array; would also work.
int main(void)
{
int variableA = 5;
int variableB = 3;
int* ptr1 = &variableA; // Pointer1 points to 5.
int* ptr2 = &variableB; // Pointer2 points to 3.
int answer;
answer = (*ptr1) * (*ptr2); // I want to multiply 5*3, but I only have the pointers.
// Answer gets set to [value stored at ptr1(5)] MultipliedBy [value stored at ptr2(3)]
}
Your misconception is that pointers do not refer to values, such as 5 and 3.
pointers refer to variables, such as variableA and variableB; those variables have values which can be accessed and changed via the pointer.But the pointer only refers to the variable, not directly to the value behind it.
Code given below illustrates use of pointers as an exercise:
#include<stdio.h>
struct s{
int *p;
};
int main(){
struct s v;
int *a = 5;
v->p = a;
printf("%d",v->p);
return 0;
}
Why is the syntax error:
invalid type argument -> (struct s)
As with many questions about C on StackOverflow, you need to go back to the basics.
x->y is a concise way to write (*x).y.
The * operator takes a pointer and gives you the variable associated with that pointer.
So now the answer to your question is straightforward. v->p = a; means the same thing as (*v).p = a; The * operator on the value of v turns the pointer v into a variable... but v isn't a pointer. It's a struct s. Therefore, this is an error; the * operator can only be applied to things of pointer type.
You've declared v to NOT be a pointer (struct s v; -- no *), and you're trying to use ->, which only works on pointers. You're also declaring a to be pointer (int *a -- has a *), but you're trying to initialize it with an integer.
To access a member of a struct object we use the dot . operator.
v.p = a;
When the struct object need to be acceded through a pointer then we use the operator ->.
struct s *vp = &v;
vp->p = a;
Also you're assigning an integer to an pointer
int *a = 5;
which is very dangerous since any try to dereference it leads to a crash.
The invalid type argument of ‘->’ (have ‘struct s’) error shows up in lines 8 & 9. Both try to reference the struct's elements using v->p. In this instance, you should change v->p to v.p. This is because 'v' has been allocated and is not a pointer.
This is a neat piece of code for playing with pointers. Once you get the v.p compiling, you are going to see some core dump every time you reference 'a'. This is because you are declaring 'a' as a pointer and not allocating any space for the actual integer value. Try adding the following code to see where it goes:
int b = 5;
int* a = &b;
printf("%d\n", b);
printf("%d\n", *a);
printf("%d\n", a);