int main(){
int right[2][3] = {
{1,4,6}, {2,7,5}
}
....
calc(right);
}
int calc(int ** right){
printf("%i", right[0][0]);
}
I calc function that calculate some numbers based on a matrix, but I dont' know why i get seg fault when I access the variable right within the calc function. does any body know the solution?
edit:
right now that is all it's doing at calc function. I have some calc stuff but it's all commented out trying to figure out how to access this variable.
Two-dimensional arrays in C don't work the way you think they do. (Don't worry, you're not alone -- this is a common misconception.)
The assumption implicit in the code is that right is an array of int * pointers, each of which points to an array of int. It could be done this way -- and, confusingly, the syntax for accessing such an array would be the same, which is probably what causes this misconception.
What C actually does is to make right an array of 12 ints, layed out contiguously in memory. An array access like this
a=right[i][j];
is effectively equivalent to this:
int *right_one_dimensional=(int *)right;
a=right[i*3 + j];
To pass your array to the calc function, you need to do this:
int calc(int *right, size_t d){
// For example
a=right[i*d + j];
}
and then call it like this:
int right[2][3] = {
{1,4,6}, {2,7,5}
};
calc(&right[0][0], 3);
Edit: For more background on this, the question linked to in Binary Worrier's comment is definitely worth looking at.
Although a one-dimensional array is automatically converted to a pointer, the same does not hold for a multi-dimensional array and multi-level pointers.
If you change the order of the calc and main functions (or if you provide a prototype for calc before main), you will get a complaint from the compiler that it can convert right to the type int**.
The reason is that right is declared as an "array of 4 arrays of 3 int". This can be automatically converted to "pointer to array of 3 int" (int (*)[3]), but that is where the conversions stop.
calc on the other hand expects a "pointer to a pointer to int", which is a completely different beast from a "pointer to array of 3 int".
There are two possible solutions:
Change calc to accept a pointer to an array (or array of arrays):
int calc(int right[][3])
Change right to be a pointer to a pointer:
int temp_array[4][3];
int* temp_array2[4] = { temp_array[0], temp_array[1], temp_array[2], temp_array[3] };
int** right = temp_array2;
Related
I've been learning C for about 2 months, still a novice:(
I know there are other similar questions on this site. I've read them, but still couldn't really understand, so here I am. Below is my code:
//naming my structure as ball
typedef struct ball_room {
int enter;
int exit;
} ball;
//I've omitted some irrelevant details for brevity
int i, n, max;
scanf("%d", &n);
ball person[n];
.../*assign values to ball.enter and ball.exit with user input*/
max = 1;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (ball_room(person, person[i].enter, n) > max)
max = ball_room(person, person[i].enter, n);
printf("%d\n", max);
return 0;
}
and below is my function receiving the array:
//This function returns the number of people in the ballroom
//when b[j](person[j] in "main") enters
int ball_room(ball *b, int i, int n)
{
int people = 0, j;
for (j = 0; j < n; j++)
if (b[j].enter <= i && b[j].exit > i)
people++;
return people;
}
my question is that why is it b[j].enter instead of b[j]->enter, which my compiler wouldn't accept?
In my limited experience, when manipulating structure itself (the object), I use . to go inside the structure, and when it's a pointer (the address), I use -> (hope this is correct.)
And in this case, I pass the array to function using ball *b, which represent the address of person[0], so I can access the whole array. But shouldn't ball *b be in the form of a pointer and therefore I should use -> to access its content? It's just an address that I pass to the function.
This is my first time doing something with an array of structures, please help me get this clear, thank you!
Given ball *b, b[j] is an element from the elements that b points to. Thus b[j] is not a pointer; it is a struct. Since it is a struct, you use . to refer to members in it.
The definition of b[j] in the C standard is that it is *((b)+(j)). So it takes the pointer b, moves j elements beyond it, and then applies *.
Since * is already applied in b[j], you do not need ->, just ..
you use . instead of -> because of this declaration of parameters:
int ball_room(ball *b, int i, int n)
b is expected to be pointer to data with type ball, so you can access it in various ways:
array way: e.g. b[5].somefield = 15 - you use dot here, because if b is of type ball *, it means that b is pointer OR it is array of objects with type b, if it's array of objects with type b (which is your case) you use . to access fields of object
pointer way: e.g. (b+5)->somefield = 15 - it will do exactly same thing as code above, but you will access data in pointer way
In C/C++ an array devolves into the address of it's first member. So when you pass the array to ball_room what actually gets passed is &ball[0].
Now inside ball_room the reverse happens. b is a pointer to ball. But here you use it as an array b[j]. So it un-devolves back into an array of structs. So what b[j] gives you is the struct and not a pointer to a struct. Consequently you access it using . instead of ->.
You can also use (b + j)->somefield. Or for even more fun how about writing j[b].somefield. The later being a really confusing left-over from the eraly compiler days when a[b] truly got turned into *(a + b) internally.
For explanation of the current issue, see Eric's answer; in some of the answers given so far there is dangerous wording applied, so just to make clear: When do we have an array and when a pointer???
Consider the following:
int a[7];
As long as we can refer to a directly, we still have an array and can use any operations that are valid on, e. g. getting size:
size_t n = sizeof(a); // size in bytes, not ints, i. e. 7*sizeof(int)
You can pass arrays to functions or even do pointer arithmetics on:
f(a);
a + 1;
In both cases, the array "decays" to a pointer, though, and the result is a pointer as well. Be aware that you can assign new values to a pointer, but not to an array itself (you can assign new values to the array's elements, directly or via pointer), so you cannot do things like ++a either.
When an array decays to a pointer, it gets a pointer to its first element:
int* ptr = a;
int* ptr = &*a; // only pointers can be dereferenced -> a decays!
int* ptr = &a[0]; // short for &*(a + 0)...
All result in exactly the same; however, the following is invalid:
int* ptr = &a;
Taking the address of an entire array actually is possible, but the resulting pointer is not of type "pointer to element" nor of type "pointer to pointer to element" (int** in the example), but of type "pointer to array of specific size". Syntax for is ugly, though, but the following would be legal again:
int(*aptr)[7] = &a;
You need to read: if I dereference ptr, I get int[7]...
Once decayed, there is only a pointer to the array left (more precisely: to one of the array elements, directly after decaying, to the first; array and first element always share the same address, so, although of different type, both pointers ptr and aptr from above hold exactly the same value). Pointers can be moved around within the array, but they do not hold as much information as the array itself, especially, the array size gets lost. This is why one needs to pass the array's length together with the pointer to functions (if needed; another variant is a sentinel value denoting the array end such as the terminating null character in strings or the null pointer following the string arguments in main's arguments list):
int a[7];
f(a, sizeof(a)/sizeof(*a)); // division: sizeof is in bytes, dividing by size
// of first element gives number of elements
Possibly with f as:
void f(int b[], size_t n)
// ^^^^^^^ in function parameter lists, just alternative syntax for int* b !!!
// however, we can show more explicitly that we expect a pointer
// to an array this way...
{
size_t m = sizeof(b); // as b is a POINTER, gives the constant (but hardware specific!)
// size of a pointer (on typical modern 64-bit hardware 8 bytes),
// no matter what size of the array being pointed to is!!!
while(n)
{
*b++ = n--;
// ^^ advances pointer, NOT array!
}
}
Hope this helps to avoid confusion.
In C, the array name is a pointer to array’s first element, hence your function declaration has name ball *band works when you pass a ball[] instance.
Try dynamically allocating the memory by using malloc() and passing that pointer to your function.
I started learning C recently, and I'm having a problem understanding pointer syntax, for example when I write the following line:
int ** arr = NULL;
How can I know if:
arr is a pointer to a pointer of an integer
arr is a pointer to an array of pointers to integers
arr is a pointer to an array of pointers to arrays of integers
Isn't it all the same with int ** ?
Another question for the same problem:
If I have a function that receives char ** s as a parameter, I want to refer to it as a pointer to an array of strings, meaning a pointer to an array of pointers to an array of chars, but is it also a pointer to a pointer to a char?
Isn't it all the same with int **?
You've just discovered what may be considered a flaw in the type system. Every option you specified can be true. It's essentially derived from a flat view of a programs memory, where a single address can be used to reference various logical memory layouts.
The way C programmers have been dealing with this since C's inception, is by putting a convention in place. Such as demanding size parameter(s) for functions that accept such pointers, and documenting their assumptions about the memory layout. Or demanding that arrays be terminated with a special value, thus allowing "jagged" buffers of pointers to buffers.
I feel a certain amount of clarification is in order. As you'd see when consulting the other very good answers here, arrays are most definitely not pointers. They do however decay into ones in enough contexts to warrant a decades long error in teaching about them (but I digress).
What I originally wrote refers to code as follows:
void func(int **p_buff)
{
}
//...
int a = 0, *pa = &a;
func(&pa);
//...
int a[3][10];
int *a_pts[3] = { a[0], a[1], a[2] };
func(a_pts);
//...
int **a = malloc(10 * sizeof *a);
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
a[i] = malloc(i * sizeof *a[i]);
func(a);
Assume func and each code snippet is compiled in a separate translation unit. Each example (barring any typos by me) is valid C. The arrays will decay into a "pointer-to-a-pointer" when passed as arguments. How is the definition of func to know what exactly it was passed from the type of its parameter alone!? The answer is that it cannot. The static type of p_buff is int**, but it still allows func to indirectly access (parts of) objects with vastly different effective types.
The declaration int **arr says: "declare arr as a pointer to a pointer to an integer". It (if valid) points to a single pointer that points (if valid) to a single integer object. As it is possible to use pointer arithmetic with either level of indirection (i.e. *arr is the same as arr[0] and **arr is the same as arr[0][0]) , the object can be used for accessing any of the 3 from your question (that is, for second, access an array of pointers to integers, and for third, access an array of pointers to first elements of integer arrays), provided that the pointers point to the first elements of the arrays...
Yet, arr is still declared as a pointer to a single pointer to a single integer object. It is also possible to declare a pointer to an array of defined dimensions. Here a is declared as a pointer to 10-element array of pointers to arrays of 10 integers:
cdecl> declare a as pointer to array 10 of pointer to array 10 of int;
int (*(*a)[10])[10]
In practice array pointers are most used for passing in multidimensional arrays of constant dimensions into functions, and for passing in variable-length arrays. The syntax to declare a variable as a pointer to an array is seldom seen, as whenever they're passed into a function, it is somewhat easier to use parameters of type "array of undefined size" instead, so instead of declaring
void func(int (*a)[10]);
one could use
void func(int a[][10])
to pass in a a multidimensional array of arrays of 10 integers. Alternatively, a typedef can be used to lessen the headache.
How can I know if :
arr is a pointer to a pointer of an integer
It is always a pointer to pointer to integer.
arr is a pointer to an array of pointers to integers
arr is a pointer to an array of pointers to arrays of integers
It can never be that. A pointer to an array of pointers to integers would be declared like this:
int* (*arr)[n]
It sounds as if you have been tricked to use int** by poor teachers/books/tutorials. It is almost always incorrect practice, as explained here and here and (
with detailed explanation about array pointers) here.
EDIT
Finally got around to writing a detailed post explaining what arrays are, what look-up tables are, why the latter are bad and what you should use instead: Correctly allocating multi-dimensional arrays.
Having solely the declaration of the variable, you cannot distinguish the three cases. One can still discuss if one should not use something like int *x[10] to express an array of 10 pointers to ints or something else; but int **x can - due to pointer arithmetics, be used in the three different ways, each way assuming a different memory layout with the (good) chance to make the wrong assumption.
Consider the following example, where an int ** is used in three different ways, i.e. p2p2i_v1 as a pointer to a pointer to a (single) int, p2p2i_v2 as a pointer to an array of pointers to int, and p2p2i_v3 as a pointer to a pointer to an array of ints. Note that you cannot distinguish these three meanings solely by the type, which is int** for all three. But with different initialisations, accessing each of them in the wrong way yields something unpredictable, except accessing the very first elements:
int i1=1,i2=2,i3=3,i4=4;
int *p2i = &i1;
int **p2p2i_v1 = &p2i; // pointer to a pointer to a single int
int *arrayOfp2i[4] = { &i1, &i2, &i3, &i4 };
int **p2p2i_v2 = arrayOfp2i; // pointer to an array of pointers to int
int arrayOfI[4] = { 5,6,7,8 };
int *p2arrayOfi = arrayOfI;
int **p2p2i_v3 = &p2arrayOfi; // pointer to a pointer to an array of ints
// assuming a pointer to a pointer to a single int:
int derefi1_v1 = *p2p2i_v1[0]; // correct; yields 1
int derefi1_v2 = *p2p2i_v2[0]; // correct; yields 1
int derefi1_v3 = *p2p2i_v3[0]; // correct; yields 5
// assuming a pointer to an array of pointers to int's
int derefi1_v1_at1 = *p2p2i_v1[1]; // incorrect, yields ? or seg fault
int derefi1_v2_at1 = *p2p2i_v2[1]; // correct; yields 2
int derefi1_v3_at1 = *p2p2i_v3[1]; // incorrect, yields ? or seg fault
// assuming a pointer to an array of pointers to an array of int's
int derefarray_at1_v1 = (*p2p2i_v1)[1]; // incorrect; yields ? or seg fault;
int derefarray_at1_v2 = (*p2p2i_v2)[1]; // incorrect; yields ? or seg fault;
int derefarray_at1_v3 = (*p2p2i_v3)[1]; // correct; yields 6;
How can I know if :
arr is a pointer to a pointer of an integer
arr is a pointer to an array of pointers to integers
arr is a pointer to an array of pointers to arrays of integers
You cannot. It can be any of those. What it ends up being depends on how you allocate / use it.
So if you write code using these, document what you're doing with them, pass size parameters to the functions using them, and generally be sure about what you allocated before using it.
Pointers do not keep the information whether they point to a single object or an object that is an element of an array. Moreover for the pointer arithmetic single objects are considered like arrays consisting from one element.
Consider these declarations
int a;
int a1[1];
int a2[10];
int *p;
p = &a;
//...
p = a1;
//...
p = a2;
In this example the pointer p deals with addresses. It does not know whether the address it stores points to a single object like a or to the first element of the array a1 that has only one element or to the first element of the array a2 that has ten elements.
The type of
int ** arr;
only have one valid interpretation. It is:
arr is a pointer to a pointer to an integer
If you have no more information than the declaration above, that is all you can know about it, i.e. if arr is probably initialized, it points to another pointer, which - if probably initialized - points to an integer.
Assuming proper initialization, the only guaranteed valid way to use it is:
**arr = 42;
int a = **arr;
However, C allows you to use it in multiple ways.
• arr can be used as a pointer to a pointer to an integer (i.e. the basic case)
int a = **arr;
• arr can be used as a pointer to a pointer to an an array of integer
int a = (*arr)[4];
• arr can be used as a pointer to an array of pointers to integers
int a = *(arr[4]);
• arr can be used as a pointer to an array of pointers to arrays of integers
int a = arr[4][4];
In the last three cases it may look as if you have an array. However, the type is not an array. The type is always just a pointer to a pointer to an integer - the dereferencing is pointer arithmetic. It is nothing like a 2D array.
To know which is valid for the program at hand, you need to look at the code initializing arr.
Update
For the updated part of the question:
If you have:
void foo(char** x) { .... };
the only thing that you know for sure is that **x will give a char and *x will give you a char pointer (in both cases proper initialization of x is assumed).
If you want to use x in another way, e.g. x[2] to get the third char pointer, it requires that the caller has initialized x so that it points to a memory area that has at least 3 consecutive char pointers. This can be described as a contract for calling foo.
C syntax is logical. As an asterisk before the identifier in the declaration means pointer to the type of the variable, two asterisks mean pointer to a pointer to the type of the variable.
In this case arr is a pointer to a pointer to integer.
There are several usages of double pointers. For instance you could represent a matrix with a pointer to a vector of pointers. Each pointer in this vector points to the row of the matrix itself.
One can also create a two dimensional array using it,like this
int **arr=(int**)malloc(row*(sizeof(int*)));
for(i=0;i<row;i++) {
*(arr+i)=(int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*col); //You can use this also. Meaning of both is same. //
arr[i]=(int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*col); }
There is one trick when using pointers, read it from right hand side to the left hand side:
int** arr = NULL;
What do you get: arr, *, *, int, so array is a pointer to a pointer to an integer.
And int **arr; is the same as int** arr;.
int ** arr = NULL;
It's tell the compiler, arr is a double pointer of an integer and assigned NULL value.
There are already good answers here, but I want to mention my "goto" site for complicated declarations: http://cdecl.org/
Visit the site, paste your declaration and it will translate it to English.
For int ** arr;, it says declare arr as pointer to pointer to int.
The site also shows examples. Test yourself on them, then hover your cursor to see the answer.
(double (^)(int , long long ))foo
cast foo into block(int, long long) returning double
int (*(*foo)(void ))[3]
declare foo as pointer to function (void) returning pointer to array 3 of int
It will also translate English into C declarations, which is prety neat - if you get the description correct.
This question already has answers here:
Should I use char** argv or char* argv[]?
(10 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I've been fiddling around to see if there's any way to retain information about an array's length automatically when passed into a function (see my other question here: Why is this array size "workaround" giving me a warning?), but my question is more about a warning that gcc is giving that doesn't make sense to me.
According to this website (EDIT: I misread the website), char *p[10] declares a pointer to a 10-wide array of chars. But when I tried to pass in a pointer to an array into a function, I got this error message from the compiler:
Here is the rest of the program:
I know that when an array is passed into a function, it decays into a pointer (losing information about its length), but it seems that the declaration itself is decaying. What's going on here?
EDIT: When I replace the char *p[10] with char (*p)[10], it doesn't give the warning anymore, and more importantly, it displays the proper array length: 10. I guess my questions are 1) Why do the parentheses change things? and 2) Is this a well-known workaround or am I relying on some behavior of the compiler that isn't guaranteed? (i.e. that array length info can be passed by indirectly passing in a pointer to it?)
In fact char *p[10] is an array, of length 10, of pointers to char. You are looking for char (*p)[10]. That is a pointer to an array, of length 10, of char.
You might find http://cdecl.org/ a useful resource to help you test your understanding of declarations.
Regarding the discussion surrounding dynamic arrays, you are going to have to accept that once you allocate an array dynamically, the system provides no means for you to recover the length of the array. It is your responsibility to remember that information.
The subject of your question has been answered already but I wanted to address the heart of it, which is "can I encode the length of an array in its type?" Which is in fact what a pointer-to-array does. The real question is whether you can actually gain any brevity or safety from this. Consider that in each scope where you have a declaration of your type, the length still needs to be known a-priori. To show you what I mean let's generalize your example slightly by making 10 a compile-time constant N.
#define N 10
size_t arraylength(char (*arrayp)[N]) {
return sizeof(*arrayp);
}
int main(void) {
char array[N];
assert( arraylength(&array) == N ); //always true
}
So far so good. We didn't have to pass the length of array anywhere. But it's easy to see that anywhere the expression sizeof(*arrayp) is used, we also could have written N. And any place we declare a char(*)[ ], the bracketed length must come from somewhere.
So what if N isn't a compile time constant, and array is either a VLA or a pointer-to-array from malloc? We can still write and call arraysize, but it looks like this:
size_t arraylength(size_t N, char (*arrayp)[N]) {
return sizeof(*arrayp);
}
int main(void) {
size_t N = length_from_somewhere();
char array[N];
assert( arraylength(sizeof(array), &array) == N );
}
In defining arraysize N must still be visible before the declaration of arrayp. In either case, we can't avoid having N visible outside of the declaration of arrayp. In fact, we didn't gain anything over writing arraysize(size_t N, char* array) and passing array directly (which is a bit silly given the purpose of this function.) Both times arraylength could have equally been written return N;
Which isn't to say that array pointers are useless as parameters to functions -- in the opposite situation, when you want to enforce a length, they can provide type checking to make sure somefunc(char (*)[10]); receives a pointer to an array that is really (sans shady casting) 10 elements long, which is stronger than what a construct like [static 10] provides.
Also keep in mind that all of the length measurements above depend on the underlying type being char where length == size. For any larger type, taking the length requires the usual arithmetic e.g.
sizeof(*arrayp)/sizeof((*arrayp)[0])
In C, arrays decay to pointers to their first elements on most uses. In particular, what a function receives is always just a pointer to the first element, the size of the array is not passed with it.
Get a good text on C and read up on arrays.
I've been fiddling around to see if there's any way to retain information about an array's length automatically when passed into a function
The problem is so annoying that lots of programmers would love to have an answer. Unfortunately, this is not possible.
It seems that the declaration itself is decaying
Pointer to an array is not the same as a pointer to a pointer; that is why you are getting an error.
There is no decaying going on in your code, because you are not passing an array in your code sample: instead, you are trying to pass a pointer to an array &p. The pointer to an array of characters is not compatible to the expected type of the function, which is char**. Array size from the declaration is ignored.
You need to keep in mind two things:
1. Arrays are not pointers.
2. Array names decays to pointers (in most cases) when passed as arguments to functions.
So, when you declare
int a[10]; // a is an array of 10 ints
int *b; // b is a pointer to int
both of a and b are of different types. Former is of type int [10] while latter is of type int *.
In case of function parameter
void foo1 (int a[10]); // Actually you are not passing entire array
void foo2 (int a[]); // And that's why you can omit the first dimension.
void foo3 (int *a); // and the compiler interprets the above two third
ain all of the above function declarations is of same data type int *.
Now in your case
unsigned long arraySize(char *p[10]);
you can declare it as
unsigned long arraySize(char *p[]);
and hence
unsigned long arraySize(char **p);
All are equivalent.
char *p[10] char *p[] and char **p all are exactly equivalent but when they are declared as parameter of a function otherwise char *p[10] (an array of 10 pointers to char) and char **p (a pointer to pointer to char)are entirely of different type.
Suggested reading: C-FAQ: 6. Arrays and Pointers explains this in detailed.
Array name itself is a constant pointer. for example int arr[10]={0};
arr contains the address of arr[0]. hence arr equals&arr[0] .
when u pass the arraysize(&p) , you are actually passing a double pointer .
The correct format to pass a array pointer would be arraysize(&p[0]) or arraysizeof(p)
Note Array name is constant pointer , you cant change its value .
int arr[10];
arr++;
is invalid.
In your case you cant find a size of an array in function by passing the array name . it would return size of pointer(4 or 8 depends on your processor .
The method is to pass the size along with the array
func(array_name , array_size);
This question already has answers here:
Create a pointer to two-dimensional array
(10 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
First of all I'm not confident with C, but I have a 2D array of int and I want a function to write all the values of a single line of this array.
For example:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int a[2][2];
a[0][0] = 1;
a[0][1] = 2;
a[1][0] = 3;
a[1][1] = 4;
change_array(&a[0]);
}
void change_array(int* array[])
{
(*array)[0] = -1;
(*array)[1] = -1;
}
The program crash immediately. I tried to change the change_array function to array[0] = -1 and... it works! Values are changed correctly (and I don't know why because it should be totally wrong), but if I use this function in other part of the program the values of array remain unchanged.
How it could be possible? Any suggestion to successfully change the values of my array?
Thank you very much!
You can try to do it like this:
#include <stdio.h>
void change_array(int array[2][2])
{
array[0][0] = -1;
array[0][1] = -1;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int a[2][2];
a[0][0] = 1;
a[0][1] = 2;
a[1][0] = 3;
a[1][1] = 4;
printf("%d %d\n%d %d\n\n", a[0][0], a[0][1], a[1][0], a[1][1]);
change_array(a);
printf("%d %d\n%d %d\n\n", a[0][0], a[0][1], a[1][0], a[1][1]);
}
It depends on your needs, but in some cases I have found that it is better to use a single-diemensional array and build a getter/setter for 2 diemensions. Such solution can be found in this answer: Correct way to allocate and free arrays of pointers to arrays
Your code passes something to change_array that is different from the parameter declared for change_array.
In the code change_array(&a[0]), a is an array of two arrays of two int. So a[0] is the first array of two int. So &a[0] is the address of the first array of two int. Compare this with the declaration of change_array. In void change_array(int* array[]), array is an array of pointers to int. So that is a different type.
Instead, you could declare change_array with void change_array(int (*array)[]). Then array is a pointer to an array of int, and your code would work (using (*array)[0] = -1).
Note: You should compile with warnings enabled, and preferably with strict or pedantic language semantics. Then the compiler should have warned you that change_array is used in main without a prior declaration. You should have a prior declaration, so that the compiler knows the full type of change_array before it is used. With that, the compiler would have seen that the wrong type was passed, and it would warn you.
Although the above would correct your code, most people would use a different solution. They would declare change_array with void change_array(int *array), and they would call it with change_array(a[0]).
In change_array(a[0]), a[0] is the first array of two int. However, there is a rule in the C language that an array expression is converted to a pointer to its first element. So a[0] automatically becomes &a[0][0]. (This conversion occurs whenever the array is not the operand of &, sizeof, or _Alignof and is not a string literal used to initialize an array.) So the call is passing a pointer to int, which matches the parameter that is a pointer to int. Then the parameter array can be used as array[i] to access array elements, so you can use the simpler syntax array[0] = -1 instead of (*array)[0] = -1.
In C, an array variable decays into a pointer to the memory address that contains the first element of the array, when it is passed as a parameter to a function. That is joined to the fact that all it's elements are placed in contigous memory. So C only needs to save the first position of the array (no matter how many dimensions it has) and will then be able to calculate, based on the indexes, what offset of the pointed memory it should access.
So, on your particular piece of code variable a points to the first element, which is a[0][0]. So, basically doing this:
change_array(&a[0]);
Is roughly (but not exactly) the same as doing:
change_array(a);
Now, knowing how arrays are passed in C, you should be able to deduce that, indeed, two dimensional arrays, when passed as parameters, actually contain on the access to their first coordinate a pointer to where the first element of the second coordinate is. So, when you do array[0] you're passing a pointer to the first element of the array under the first coordinate. and then when you do *(array[0]) you're actually accessing the first element of the second coordinate.
Here it is also important to add then that; since array variables decay into pointers, then all arrays in C are passed by reference, because you are passing a pointer. So all function calls that modify an array passed to them will do actual modifications.
Knowing this, then your function should be:
void change_array(int *array)
{
array[0] = -1;
array[1] = -1;
}
And then you can perform a call such as:
change_array(a[0]);
In order to modify the elements of the first array of a.
Now, as good practice in C, and in order to avoid segmentation faults, one would pass to the function along with the pointer, an integer saying the size of the array:
void change_array(int *array, int size);
And then always perform the access checking this bound.
G'day all,
I know this has been discussed a lot, but I still cant find what I need. I am pretty new to C and still am getting my head around pointers, namely, pointers to multi-dimensional arrays.
I have looked at examples such as int a[2][3]; int (*p) = a when a is a 2D array, but what does the brackets do?
I am creating a program which has a 2D array as a variable and it needs to pass that array onto an external function to modify it.
My array is initilised like this:
unsigned int node[3][2]={ {PINB,PINC}, {0,0}, {0,0} };
I believe the best way to do this is through pointers but I don't know how to setup the prototype for my function that takes in the 2D array.
This is the function im passing it to and how I call it:
NodeToMIDI(node, i, pMIDIdata);
And this is its prototype: //where "node_pointer" is the 2D array arg.
void NodeToMIDI(unsigned int node_pointer, unsigned int node_select, unsigned int * MidiPacket);
Can someone please explain the syntax and logic behind how to do this. Some of the other threads I have looked at have syntax that is unknown to me. Such as int ** a for example.
Thank-you for any help!
Andrew.
You can pass the array to function naturally only if you know (at compilation-time) the size of the inner array.
The examples you saw, are probably int a[2][3]; int (*p)[3] = a. The brackets means that p is pointer to array of 3 ints, not array of 3 pointers to int. Since you can dereference pointers like arrays, you can use p as if it was an array of arrays of 3 ints (which a is).
In the same way, you can write a prototype like void myfunc(int (*arr)[3]); - If you pass a to this function, it's exactly the same thing like pass array to function that gets pointer.
There is another way to write this prototype: void myfunc(int arr[][3]); - The compiler will understand it in the same way, and some people find this writing more understandable.
The signature you are looking for is:
void NodeToMIDI(unsigned node_pointer[][2], unsigned node_select, unsigned * MidiPacket);
which you would call
NodeToMIDI(node, /*something*/, /*something else*/);
Some background information:
An array behaves a bit like a pointer. if you have char* name = {"John"}; you can access the characters with name[2] = h for example.
Also name[0] (the first element) is the same like you use the pointer name directly. The pointer name refers to the adress of the first element in the array.
So an array of on array is... a pointer to a pointer. This looks like that what you described.
int ** a;
So this is an int pointer which referes to another int pointer which refers to a specific adress.
So you can take unsigned int** arrayOfArray as a function parameter.
Then you can access the element like you know it from arrays.
arrayOfArray[0][2] = 42;