This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C: How come an array’s address is equal to its value?
SA
In C I tried to print the address of the pointer of an array.
int a[3] = {0,1,2};
printf("\n%p",a);
printf("\n%p",(&a));
the 2 statement prints the same value why?thanks in advance
Any array argument to a function will decay to a pointer to the first element of the array.
The C Book has an excellent explanation of this:
Another case is when an array name is
the operand of the & address-of
operator. Here, it is converted into
the address of the whole array. What's
the difference? Even if you think that
addresses would be in some way ‘the
same’, the critical difference is that
they have different types. For an
array of n elements of type T, then
the address of the first element has
type ‘pointer to T’; the address of
the whole array has type ‘pointer to
array of n elements of type T’;
clearly very different
In C arrays "decay" to pointers to their first element in certain contexts. Passing an array to a function is one of these cases.
Because local arrays are treated as a special case (they decay to pointers).
In your case &a is translated to a.
If you try with an int pointer, e.g.,
int c = 3;
int* p = &c;
you should get different values.
An array "decays" into a pointer to it's elements in some situations. Passing it as an argument to a function is one of those. Thus in
void func(int * pi, size_t nints);
int a[3] = {0, 1, 2};
func(a, 3);
the pointer to a is passed to func. This is what happens in your code as well. This also happens when you assign it to a pointer:
int * pi = a;
assert(*pi == 0); assert(*(pi + 1) == 1); assert(*(pi + 2) == 2);
The asserts here would also work if you replace pi with a.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Difference between pointer to pointer and pointer to array?
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
Can anyone please tell if both the entity - i.e.
2-D array char array[][9] and
array of pointers char *array[9] are same or different??
They are different.
The most prominent difference is that in the case of the array the elements will be laid out contigously in memory but in the case of the array of pointers they will not.
To be able to use the elements of the array of pointers, you need to make them point to some valid memory, you can do that either by using malloc() or by pointing to an array for example. In both cases the elements of the potential array the pointer points to are not contiguous.
Your confusion might be due to the fact that arrays can be syntactically used as pointers, because if you pass an array to a function expecting a pointer then, it is equivalent to a pointer that points to the first element of such array.
Also,
int x[3] = {1, 2, 3};
int *y = x;
is valid and you can use y as if it was an array even though it's not. It's a pointer, and you can use it to traverse the elements of the array x using pointer arithmetic.
One way of expressing such arithmetic is by the use of the [] syntax, in fact
int value = y[1]
is equivalent to performing a pointer arithmetic operation on y and dereferencing it, exactly equivalent to
int value = *(y + 1);
i.e. move to the element that is (1×sizeof *y) bytes after the beginning of y and get the value there.
Is an array's name a pointer in C?
If not, what is the difference between an array's name and a pointer variable?
An array is an array and a pointer is a pointer, but in most cases array names are converted to pointers. A term often used is that they decay to pointers.
Here is an array:
int a[7];
a contains space for seven integers, and you can put a value in one of them with an assignment, like this:
a[3] = 9;
Here is a pointer:
int *p;
p doesn't contain any spaces for integers, but it can point to a space for an integer. We can, for example, set it to point to one of the places in the array a, such as the first one:
p = &a[0];
What can be confusing is that you can also write this:
p = a;
This does not copy the contents of the array a into the pointer p (whatever that would mean). Instead, the array name a is converted to a pointer to its first element. So that assignment does the same as the previous one.
Now you can use p in a similar way to an array:
p[3] = 17;
The reason that this works is that the array dereferencing operator in C, [ ], is defined in terms of pointers. x[y] means: start with the pointer x, step y elements forward after what the pointer points to, and then take whatever is there. Using pointer arithmetic syntax, x[y] can also be written as *(x+y).
For this to work with a normal array, such as our a, the name a in a[3] must first be converted to a pointer (to the first element in a). Then we step 3 elements forward, and take whatever is there. In other words: take the element at position 3 in the array. (Which is the fourth element in the array, since the first one is numbered 0.)
So, in summary, array names in a C program are (in most cases) converted to pointers. One exception is when we use the sizeof operator on an array. If a was converted to a pointer in this context, sizeof a would give the size of a pointer and not of the actual array, which would be rather useless, so in that case a means the array itself.
When an array is used as a value, its name represents the address of the first element.
When an array is not used as a value its name represents the whole array.
int arr[7];
/* arr used as value */
foo(arr);
int x = *(arr + 1); /* same as arr[1] */
/* arr not used as value */
size_t bytes = sizeof arr;
void *q = &arr; /* void pointers are compatible with pointers to any object */
If an expression of array type (such as the array name) appears in a larger expression and it isn't the operand of either the & or sizeof operators, then the type of the array expression is converted from "N-element array of T" to "pointer to T", and the value of the expression is the address of the first element in the array.
In short, the array name is not a pointer, but in most contexts it is treated as though it were a pointer.
Edit
Answering the question in the comment:
If I use sizeof, do i count the size of only the elements of the array? Then the array “head” also takes up space with the information about length and a pointer (and this means that it takes more space, than a normal pointer would)?
When you create an array, the only space that's allocated is the space for the elements themselves; no storage is materialized for a separate pointer or any metadata. Given
char a[10];
what you get in memory is
+---+
a: | | a[0]
+---+
| | a[1]
+---+
| | a[2]
+---+
...
+---+
| | a[9]
+---+
The expression a refers to the entire array, but there's no object a separate from the array elements themselves. Thus, sizeof a gives you the size (in bytes) of the entire array. The expression &a gives you the address of the array, which is the same as the address of the first element. The difference between &a and &a[0] is the type of the result1 - char (*)[10] in the first case and char * in the second.
Where things get weird is when you want to access individual elements - the expression a[i] is defined as the result of *(a + i) - given an address value a, offset i elements (not bytes) from that address and dereference the result.
The problem is that a isn't a pointer or an address - it's the entire array object. Thus, the rule in C that whenever the compiler sees an expression of array type (such as a, which has type char [10]) and that expression isn't the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, the type of that expression is converted ("decays") to a pointer type (char *), and the value of the expression is the address of the first element of the array. Therefore, the expression a has the same type and value as the expression &a[0] (and by extension, the expression *a has the same type and value as the expression a[0]).
C was derived from an earlier language called B, and in B a was a separate pointer object from the array elements a[0], a[1], etc. Ritchie wanted to keep B's array semantics, but he didn't want to mess with storing the separate pointer object. So he got rid of it. Instead, the compiler will convert array expressions to pointer expressions during translation as necessary.
Remember that I said arrays don't store any metadata about their size. As soon as that array expression "decays" to a pointer, all you have is a pointer to a single element. That element may be the first of a sequence of elements, or it may be a single object. There's no way to know based on the pointer itself.
When you pass an array expression to a function, all the function receives is a pointer to the first element - it has no idea how big the array is (this is why the gets function was such a menace and was eventually removed from the library). For the function to know how many elements the array has, you must either use a sentinel value (such as the 0 terminator in C strings) or you must pass the number of elements as a separate parameter.
Which *may* affect how the address value is interpreted - depends on the machine.
An array declared like this
int a[10];
allocates memory for 10 ints. You can't modify a but you can do pointer arithmetic with a.
A pointer like this allocates memory for just the pointer p:
int *p;
It doesn't allocate any ints. You can modify it:
p = a;
and use array subscripts as you can with a:
p[2] = 5;
a[2] = 5; // same
*(p+2) = 5; // same effect
*(a+2) = 5; // same effect
The array name by itself yields a memory location, so you can treat the array name like a pointer:
int a[7];
a[0] = 1976;
a[1] = 1984;
printf("memory location of a: %p", a);
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a, *a);
And other nifty stuff you can do to pointer (e.g. adding/substracting an offset), you can also do to an array:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a + 1, *(a + 1));
Language-wise, if C didn't expose the array as just some sort of "pointer"(pedantically it's just a memory location. It cannot point to arbitrary location in memory, nor can be controlled by the programmer). We always need to code this:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", &a[1], a[1]);
I think this example sheds some light on the issue:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
int **b = &a;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
return 0;
}
It compiles fine (with 2 warnings) in gcc 4.9.2, and prints the following:
a == &a: 1
oops :-)
So, the conclusion is no, the array is not a pointer, it is not stored in memory (not even read-only one) as a pointer, even though it looks like it is, since you can obtain its address with the & operator. But - oops - that operator does not work :-)), either way, you've been warned:
p.c: In function ‘main’:
pp.c:6:12: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
int **b = &a;
^
p.c:8:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
C++ refuses any such attempts with errors in compile-time.
Edit:
This is what I meant to demonstrate:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
void *c = a;
void *b = &a;
void *d = &c;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
printf("c == &c: %d\n", c == d);
return 0;
}
Even though c and a "point" to the same memory, you can obtain address of the c pointer, but you cannot obtain the address of the a pointer.
The following example provides a concrete difference between an array name and a pointer. Let say that you want to represent a 1D line with some given maximum dimension, you could do it either with an array or a pointer:
typedef struct {
int length;
int line_as_array[1000];
int* line_as_pointer;
} Line;
Now let's look at the behavior of the following code:
void do_something_with_line(Line line) {
line.line_as_pointer[0] = 0;
line.line_as_array[0] = 0;
}
void main() {
Line my_line;
my_line.length = 20;
my_line.line_as_pointer = (int*) calloc(my_line.length, sizeof(int));
my_line.line_as_pointer[0] = 10;
my_line.line_as_array[0] = 10;
do_something_with_line(my_line);
printf("%d %d\n", my_line.line_as_pointer[0], my_line.line_as_array[0]);
};
This code will output:
0 10
That is because in the function call to do_something_with_line the object was copied so:
The pointer line_as_pointer still contains the same address it was pointing to
The array line_as_array was copied to a new address which does not outlive the scope of the function
So while arrays are not given by values when you directly input them to functions, when you encapsulate them in structs they are given by value (i.e. copied) which outlines here a major difference in behavior compared to the implementation using pointers.
The array name behaves like a pointer and points to the first element of the array. Example:
int a[]={1,2,3};
printf("%p\n",a); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
printf("%p\n",&a[0]); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
Both the print statements will give exactly same output for a machine. In my system it gave:
0x7fff6fe40bc0
This question already has answers here:
Is an array name a pointer?
(8 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
If I have:
int a[] = {1,2,3};
int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(int);
I get 3, and I don't understand why.
They always taught me that an array is a pointer, doesn't store its length, but only the pointer to the first element.
Can someone explain this to me in a better way?
An array decays to a pointer to the first element of the array in most expressions. There are two cases where it does not and hence the outcome is not the same.
int array[5];
int* ptr = array; // Array decays to a pointer, OK.
// Same
int a = array[0];
int a = ptr[0];
// Same
void foo(int*);
foo(array);
foo(ptr);
// Not same
size_t s = sizeof(array); // s is 5*sizeof(int)
size_t s = sizeof(ptr); // s is sizeof(int*)
// Not same
int (*p1)[5] = &array; // p1 is a pointer to "an array of 5 ints"
int **p1 = &ptr; // p1 is a pointer to "an int*"
sizeof a returns the size of the entire array in storage units (bytes). sizeof (int) returns the size of a single integer in storage units. Since a is an array of 3 integers, sizeof a / sizeof (int) gives you 3.
They always taught me that an array that it is a pointer
"They" taught you incorrectly. Unless it is the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, an array expression will be converted ("decay") to a pointer expression, and the value of the pointer expression will be the address of the first element of the array, but an array object is not a pointer.
When you declare a, what you get in memory looks something like this:
+---+
a:| | a[0]
+---+
| | a[1]
+---+
| | a[2]
+---+
There is no object a that's separate from the array elements; there's no pointer anywhere.
They always taught me that an array that it is a pointer
That's your problem, right there. When you call a function and pass an array as an argument, it gets converted into a pointer to the first element. Otherwise, they're not equivalent. In particular, an array has an address, a type, and a size, whereas a pointer just has an address and a type.
This is a pretty common confusion among people learning C for the first time, and even some textbooks get it wrong.
edit: there are a few other cases where arrays "decay" to pointers, typically when they're used in an expression. See one of the other fine answers for a more-exhaustive treatment.
An array can decay to a pointer, but that does not mean an array is a pointer. See this SO question for details.
sizeof returns the size (in bytes) of the data type of its operand. In this case, the data type is an array of int of length three. But, since an int can be represented in different ways on different platforms, you must divide by the sizeof(int) to get the length.
See here for more details on sizeof.
This question already has answers here:
Difference between pointer to pointer and pointer to array?
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Whats the difference between last 2 statements:
int a[20];
int *b=a;
int *c=&a;
I think both are same, but in a recent interview the interviewer was keen to know the difference which I didn't know.
Can somebody please explain with detail example.
I went to this post but didn't understand the array related part:
Function pointers and address of a function
int a[20];
You are declaring an array a which can hold 20 int
int *b=a;
Since a is an array, a evaluates to the base address of array a (i.e. first element of a). So b is an int pointer which points to the first element in array a
int *c=&a;
&a means address of a which is being assigned to int pointer c. But, this is not good as &a is address of an array (not the base address of the array), so you should define c as int ** (i.e. pointer to a pointer) or assign it to &a[0] (i.e. the address of the first element of array a). Since array is assigned contiguous memory, once you have the base address of the array, you can easily access the remaining elements of the array by doing *(b+i) where i is an index of the element you want to access.
However,
int a = 5;
int *b= a ; // WRONG -- b will not point to the address of variable a, but to the memory location 5, which is what you do not want
int *c = &a; //CORRECT
Is an array's name a pointer in C?
If not, what is the difference between an array's name and a pointer variable?
An array is an array and a pointer is a pointer, but in most cases array names are converted to pointers. A term often used is that they decay to pointers.
Here is an array:
int a[7];
a contains space for seven integers, and you can put a value in one of them with an assignment, like this:
a[3] = 9;
Here is a pointer:
int *p;
p doesn't contain any spaces for integers, but it can point to a space for an integer. We can, for example, set it to point to one of the places in the array a, such as the first one:
p = &a[0];
What can be confusing is that you can also write this:
p = a;
This does not copy the contents of the array a into the pointer p (whatever that would mean). Instead, the array name a is converted to a pointer to its first element. So that assignment does the same as the previous one.
Now you can use p in a similar way to an array:
p[3] = 17;
The reason that this works is that the array dereferencing operator in C, [ ], is defined in terms of pointers. x[y] means: start with the pointer x, step y elements forward after what the pointer points to, and then take whatever is there. Using pointer arithmetic syntax, x[y] can also be written as *(x+y).
For this to work with a normal array, such as our a, the name a in a[3] must first be converted to a pointer (to the first element in a). Then we step 3 elements forward, and take whatever is there. In other words: take the element at position 3 in the array. (Which is the fourth element in the array, since the first one is numbered 0.)
So, in summary, array names in a C program are (in most cases) converted to pointers. One exception is when we use the sizeof operator on an array. If a was converted to a pointer in this context, sizeof a would give the size of a pointer and not of the actual array, which would be rather useless, so in that case a means the array itself.
When an array is used as a value, its name represents the address of the first element.
When an array is not used as a value its name represents the whole array.
int arr[7];
/* arr used as value */
foo(arr);
int x = *(arr + 1); /* same as arr[1] */
/* arr not used as value */
size_t bytes = sizeof arr;
void *q = &arr; /* void pointers are compatible with pointers to any object */
If an expression of array type (such as the array name) appears in a larger expression and it isn't the operand of either the & or sizeof operators, then the type of the array expression is converted from "N-element array of T" to "pointer to T", and the value of the expression is the address of the first element in the array.
In short, the array name is not a pointer, but in most contexts it is treated as though it were a pointer.
Edit
Answering the question in the comment:
If I use sizeof, do i count the size of only the elements of the array? Then the array “head” also takes up space with the information about length and a pointer (and this means that it takes more space, than a normal pointer would)?
When you create an array, the only space that's allocated is the space for the elements themselves; no storage is materialized for a separate pointer or any metadata. Given
char a[10];
what you get in memory is
+---+
a: | | a[0]
+---+
| | a[1]
+---+
| | a[2]
+---+
...
+---+
| | a[9]
+---+
The expression a refers to the entire array, but there's no object a separate from the array elements themselves. Thus, sizeof a gives you the size (in bytes) of the entire array. The expression &a gives you the address of the array, which is the same as the address of the first element. The difference between &a and &a[0] is the type of the result1 - char (*)[10] in the first case and char * in the second.
Where things get weird is when you want to access individual elements - the expression a[i] is defined as the result of *(a + i) - given an address value a, offset i elements (not bytes) from that address and dereference the result.
The problem is that a isn't a pointer or an address - it's the entire array object. Thus, the rule in C that whenever the compiler sees an expression of array type (such as a, which has type char [10]) and that expression isn't the operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, the type of that expression is converted ("decays") to a pointer type (char *), and the value of the expression is the address of the first element of the array. Therefore, the expression a has the same type and value as the expression &a[0] (and by extension, the expression *a has the same type and value as the expression a[0]).
C was derived from an earlier language called B, and in B a was a separate pointer object from the array elements a[0], a[1], etc. Ritchie wanted to keep B's array semantics, but he didn't want to mess with storing the separate pointer object. So he got rid of it. Instead, the compiler will convert array expressions to pointer expressions during translation as necessary.
Remember that I said arrays don't store any metadata about their size. As soon as that array expression "decays" to a pointer, all you have is a pointer to a single element. That element may be the first of a sequence of elements, or it may be a single object. There's no way to know based on the pointer itself.
When you pass an array expression to a function, all the function receives is a pointer to the first element - it has no idea how big the array is (this is why the gets function was such a menace and was eventually removed from the library). For the function to know how many elements the array has, you must either use a sentinel value (such as the 0 terminator in C strings) or you must pass the number of elements as a separate parameter.
Which *may* affect how the address value is interpreted - depends on the machine.
An array declared like this
int a[10];
allocates memory for 10 ints. You can't modify a but you can do pointer arithmetic with a.
A pointer like this allocates memory for just the pointer p:
int *p;
It doesn't allocate any ints. You can modify it:
p = a;
and use array subscripts as you can with a:
p[2] = 5;
a[2] = 5; // same
*(p+2) = 5; // same effect
*(a+2) = 5; // same effect
The array name by itself yields a memory location, so you can treat the array name like a pointer:
int a[7];
a[0] = 1976;
a[1] = 1984;
printf("memory location of a: %p", a);
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a, *a);
And other nifty stuff you can do to pointer (e.g. adding/substracting an offset), you can also do to an array:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", a + 1, *(a + 1));
Language-wise, if C didn't expose the array as just some sort of "pointer"(pedantically it's just a memory location. It cannot point to arbitrary location in memory, nor can be controlled by the programmer). We always need to code this:
printf("value at memory location %p is %d", &a[1], a[1]);
I think this example sheds some light on the issue:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
int **b = &a;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
return 0;
}
It compiles fine (with 2 warnings) in gcc 4.9.2, and prints the following:
a == &a: 1
oops :-)
So, the conclusion is no, the array is not a pointer, it is not stored in memory (not even read-only one) as a pointer, even though it looks like it is, since you can obtain its address with the & operator. But - oops - that operator does not work :-)), either way, you've been warned:
p.c: In function ‘main’:
pp.c:6:12: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
int **b = &a;
^
p.c:8:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
C++ refuses any such attempts with errors in compile-time.
Edit:
This is what I meant to demonstrate:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a[3] = {9, 10, 11};
void *c = a;
void *b = &a;
void *d = &c;
printf("a == &a: %d\n", a == b);
printf("c == &c: %d\n", c == d);
return 0;
}
Even though c and a "point" to the same memory, you can obtain address of the c pointer, but you cannot obtain the address of the a pointer.
The following example provides a concrete difference between an array name and a pointer. Let say that you want to represent a 1D line with some given maximum dimension, you could do it either with an array or a pointer:
typedef struct {
int length;
int line_as_array[1000];
int* line_as_pointer;
} Line;
Now let's look at the behavior of the following code:
void do_something_with_line(Line line) {
line.line_as_pointer[0] = 0;
line.line_as_array[0] = 0;
}
void main() {
Line my_line;
my_line.length = 20;
my_line.line_as_pointer = (int*) calloc(my_line.length, sizeof(int));
my_line.line_as_pointer[0] = 10;
my_line.line_as_array[0] = 10;
do_something_with_line(my_line);
printf("%d %d\n", my_line.line_as_pointer[0], my_line.line_as_array[0]);
};
This code will output:
0 10
That is because in the function call to do_something_with_line the object was copied so:
The pointer line_as_pointer still contains the same address it was pointing to
The array line_as_array was copied to a new address which does not outlive the scope of the function
So while arrays are not given by values when you directly input them to functions, when you encapsulate them in structs they are given by value (i.e. copied) which outlines here a major difference in behavior compared to the implementation using pointers.
NO. An array name is NOT a pointer. You cannot assign to or modify an array name, but you can for a pointer.
int arr[5];
int *ptr;
/* CAN assign or increment ptr */
ptr = arr;
ptr++;
/* CANNOT assign or increment arr */
arr = ptr;
arr++;
/* These assignments are also illegal */
arr = anotherarray;
arr = 0;
From K&R Book:
There is one difference between an array name and a pointer that must
be kept in mind. A pointer is a variable, but an array name is not a
variable.
sizeof is the other big difference.
sizeof(arr); /* size of the entire array */
sizeof(ptr); /* size of the memory address */
Arrays do behave like or decay into a pointer in some situations (&arr[0]). You can see other answers for more examples of this. To reiterate a few of these cases:
void func(int *arr) { }
void func2(int arr[]) { } /* same as func */
ptr = arr + 1; /* pointer arithmetic */
func(arr); /* passing to function */
Even though you cannot assign or modify the array name, of course can modify the contents of the array
arr[0] = 1;
The array name behaves like a pointer and points to the first element of the array. Example:
int a[]={1,2,3};
printf("%p\n",a); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
printf("%p\n",&a[0]); //result is similar to 0x7fff6fe40bc0
Both the print statements will give exactly same output for a machine. In my system it gave:
0x7fff6fe40bc0