I wrote a simple piece of C++ code to pass addresses by reference.
I am passing the address of a variable (say y) and an array (say arr) to a class. Both arr and y will get modified inside the class. I want to have the modified values in my main().
Please find my question in the below piece of code as it is easier that way. Thanks.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
// Assign values to the array and increment _x.
void increment()
{
(*_x)++;
(*_arr)[0] = 1; // Q1. Is it safe to directly access the array like this.
(*_arr)[1] = 2; // Don't I have to allocate memory to the array ?
(*_arr)[2] = 3;
}
// Get the address of the Variable that is passed in main. x will now have &y2.
A (int* &arr, int* &x):
_x(x)
{
*_arr = arr;
}
private:
int* _x;
int** _arr;
};
int main()
{
int y = 9;
int arr[5];
int *pY = &y;
int *pArr = arr;
A *obj1 = new A(pArr, pY);
// This gives a compile time error. warning: initialization of non-const reference int *&' from rvalue `int *'
// A *obj1 = new A(&y); <-- Q2. Why does this give a Compile Time Error ?
obj1->increment();
cout << "y : " << y << endl;
cout << "[0]: " << arr[0] << "; [1]: " << arr[1] << "; [2]: " << arr[2] << endl;
cout << endl;
return 0;
}
In A::increment() function, I am directly assigning values to the array without
allocating memory. Is it safe to do ? If not, how can I allocate memory so that
I can still get the modified array values in main() ?
Why do I get a compile time error whey I pass &y to A's constructor ?
Thanks in advance.
Question 1
In A::increment() function, I am directly assigning values to the array without allocating memory. Is it safe to do ? If not, how can I allocate memory so that I can still get the modified array values in main() ?
Answer
Yes, it is safe.
Question 2
Why do I get a compile time error whey I pass &y to A's constructor ?
Answer
&y is not an lvalue. Hence, it cannot be used where the argument type is int*&.
Problem in posted code
*_arr = arr;
That is a problem since _arr has not been initialized to point to a valid memory. Using *_arr when _arr has not been initialized causes undefined behavior. You can change the type of _arr to:
int* _arr;
and simplify your code a little bit.
class A
{
public:
// Assign values to the array and increment _x.
void increment()
{
(*_x)++;
_arr[0] = 1; // Q1. Is it safe to directly access the array like this.
_arr[1] = 2; // Don't I have to allocate memory to the array ?
_arr[2] = 3;
}
// Get the address of the Variable that is passed in main. x will now have &y2.
A (int* &arr, int* &x):
_x(x),
_arr(arr)
{
}
private:
int* _x;
int* _arr;
};
without changing anything in main.
This is very rarely what you want; a T** is generally an array of arrays or else a pointer value that you want to modify in the caller’s scope. However, neither seems to be what you’re doing here.
It is safe to modify *_arr[0] if and only if _arr has been initialized to a array of non-const arrays, and (*_arr)[0] if and only if it has been initialized as a pointer to a non-const array. Neither appears to be the case here, but if it is, you probably want to give the array length explicitly.
In this example, &y is a constant. You can’t modify it, so you can’t pass it as a non-const variable. You can declare a pointer int *py = &y; and pass that. But consider whether that’s what you want to do.
By the way, it’s not good style to use identifiers that start with underscores, because by the standard, they’re reserved for the compiler to use.
You should tell us what you are trying to do. In my opinion it's nonsense using raw pointers/arrays and naked new/(missing?) delete in C++ without good reason. I would also like to note that it is not considered good practice using the _prefix for class members. Usually leading _ are used for std implementations. I recommend using m_prefix if you insist on one. And why do you give _arr the type int**? Is is supposed to be a 2D-Array? Additionally, it doesn't really make sense passing a pointer by reference. A pointer is already a pointer, if you know what I mean, just pass the pointer around.
I'm just going to assume that you are doing this to understand manual memory management or pointer arithmetics or - wait, right: Tell us what you are trying to do and why. Nevertheless, I don't understand what you have the class for:
#include <iostream>
void increment(int& x, int *arr, int sz)
{
++x;
for (int i = 0; i != sz; ++i)
{
// this just numbers the values respectively (starting at 1)
arr[i] = i + 1;
}
}
int main()
{
using namespace std;
int y = 9;
const int sz = 5;
int arr[sz];
increment(y, arr, sz);
cout << "y : " << y << '\n'
<< "[0]: " << arr[0] << "; [1]: " << arr[1] << "; [2]: " << arr[2] << "\n\n";
}
To answer your questions:
2. First thing first: I don't see any constructor that only takes one argument.
Read up on "Undefined Behaviour (UB)" starting point: What are all the common undefined behaviours that a C++ programmer should know about?
I can't repeat enough that I don't understand what you are going for and that makes it hard to give solid advice.
I tried fixing your version.. well its still terrible... I highly recommend on reading up on std::array, std::vector. Maybe on pointers, C-Style Arrays and how to pass C-Style Arrays as function arguments (note: for regular C++ programming you wouldn't be doing/using that, usually).
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
// Assign values to the array and increment m_x.
void increment()
{
++(*m_x);
m_arr[0] = 1;
m_arr[1] = 2;
m_arr[2] = 3;
}
A (int* arr, int* x):
m_x(x), m_arr(arr)
{
}
private:
int* m_x;
int* m_arr;
};
int main()
{
using namespace std;
int y = 9;
int arr[5];
A obj1(arr, &y);
obj1.increment();
cout << "y : " << y << '\n'
<< "[0]: " << arr[0] << "; [1]: " << arr[1] << "; [2]: " << arr[2] << "\n\n";
A obj2(arr, &y);
obj2.increment();
cout << "y : " << y << '\n'
<< "[0]: " << arr[0] << "; [1]: " << arr[1] << "; [2]: " << arr[2] << "\n\n";
}
You should also read up un pointers/references and their differences
I am actually trying to make your programming life easier. Sorry for long answer.
In answer to your first question
In A::increment() function, I am directly assigning values to the
array without allocating memory. Is it safe to do ? If not, how can I
allocate memory so that I can still get the modified array values in
main() ?
you allocated memory in main(), in the line
int arr[5];
In terms of class design, you defined your class constructor to accept reference arguments, which means that an existing int* must be passed to each argument:
A (int* &arr, int* &x)
and you do so when you invoke the constructor:
A *obj1 = new A(pArr, pY);
so in this program, what you are doing is safe. A potential danger if you expect to use this class in another context would be if your arr array in main() contained fewer than 3 elements, since your increment() function initializes the third element of the array.
In answer to your second question
Why do I get a compile time error whey I pass &y to A's constructor ?
In your original constructor,
// Get the address of the Variable that is passed in main. x will now have &y2.
A (int* &arr, int* &x):
_x(x)
{
*_arr = arr;
}
you are dereferencing _arr before it has been initialized. One way to solve this would be to do this:
// Get the address of the Variable that is passed in main. x will now have &y2.
A (int* &arr, int* &x):
_x(x)
{
_arr = new (int*);
*_arr = arr;
}
// Destructor
~A ()
{
delete _arr;
}
As an aside, you also use new in main(). Whenever you use new, you should also use delete to avoid a memory leak. So at the bottom of your program, before the return statement, add the following:
delete obj1;
Related
I am trying to understand how to use reference parameters. There are several examples in my text, however they are too complicated for me to understand why and how to use them.
How and why would you want to use a reference? What would happen if you didn't make the parameter a reference, but instead left the & off?
For example, what's the difference between these functions:
int doSomething(int& a, int& b);
int doSomething(int a, int b);
I understand that reference variables are used in order to change a formal->reference, which then allows a two-way exchange of parameters. However, that is the extent of my knowledge, and a more concrete example would be of much help.
Think of a reference as an alias. When you invoke something on a reference, you're really invoking it on the object to which the reference refers.
int i;
int& j = i; // j is an alias to i
j = 5; // same as i = 5
When it comes to functions, consider:
void foo(int i)
{
i = 5;
}
Above, int i is a value and the argument passed is passed by value. That means if we say:
int x = 2;
foo(x);
i will be a copy of x. Thus setting i to 5 has no effect on x, because it's the copy of x being changed. However, if we make i a reference:
void foo(int& i) // i is an alias for a variable
{
i = 5;
}
Then saying foo(x) no longer makes a copy of x; i is x. So if we say foo(x), inside the function i = 5; is exactly the same as x = 5;, and x changes.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit.
Why is this important? When you program, you never want to copy and paste code. You want to make a function that does one task and it does it well. Whenever that task needs to be performed, you use that function.
So let's say we want to swap two variables. That looks something like this:
int x, y;
// swap:
int temp = x; // store the value of x
x = y; // make x equal to y
y = temp; // make y equal to the old value of x
Okay, great. We want to make this a function, because: swap(x, y); is much easier to read. So, let's try this:
void swap(int x, int y)
{
int temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
This won't work! The problem is that this is swapping copies of two variables. That is:
int a, b;
swap(a, b); // hm, x and y are copies of a and b...a and b remain unchanged
In C, where references do not exist, the solution was to pass the address of these variables; that is, use pointers*:
void swap(int* x, int* y)
{
int temp = *x;
*x = *y;
*y = temp;
}
int a, b;
swap(&a, &b);
This works well. However, it's a bit clumsy to use, and actually a bit unsafe. swap(nullptr, nullptr), swaps two nothings and dereferences null pointers...undefined behavior! Fixable with some checks:
void swap(int* x, int* y)
{
if (x == nullptr || y == nullptr)
return; // one is null; this is a meaningless operation
int temp = *x;
*x = *y;
*y = temp;
}
But looks how clumsy our code has gotten. C++ introduces references to solve this problem. If we can just alias a variable, we get the code we were looking for:
void swap(int& x, int& y)
{
int temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
int a, b;
swap(a, b); // inside, x and y are really a and b
Both easy to use, and safe. (We can't accidentally pass in a null, there are no null references.) This works because the swap happening inside the function is really happening on the variables being aliased outside the function.
(Note, never write a swap function. :) One already exists in the header <algorithm>, and it's templated to work with any type.)
Another use is to remove that copy that happens when you call a function. Consider we have a data type that's very big. Copying this object takes a lot of time, and we'd like to avoid that:
struct big_data
{ char data[9999999]; }; // big!
void do_something(big_data data);
big_data d;
do_something(d); // ouch, making a copy of all that data :<
However, all we really need is an alias to the variable, so let's indicate that. (Again, back in C we'd pass the address of our big data type, solving the copying problem but introducing clumsiness.):
void do_something(big_data& data);
big_data d;
do_something(d); // no copies at all! data aliases d within the function
This is why you'll hear it said you should pass things by reference all the time, unless they are primitive types. (Because internally passing an alias is probably done with a pointer, like in C. For small objects it's just faster to make the copy then worry about pointers.)
Keep in mind you should be const-correct. This means if your function doesn't modify the parameter, mark it as const. If do_something above only looked at but didn't change data, we'd mark it as const:
void do_something(const big_data& data); // alias a big_data, and don't change it
We avoid the copy and we say "hey, we won't be modifying this." This has other side effects (with things like temporary variables), but you shouldn't worry about that now.
In contrast, our swap function cannot be const, because we are indeed modifying the aliases.
Hope this clarifies some more.
*Rough pointers tutorial:
A pointer is a variable that holds the address of another variable. For example:
int i; // normal int
int* p; // points to an integer (is not an integer!)
p = &i; // &i means "address of i". p is pointing to i
*p = 2; // *p means "dereference p". that is, this goes to the int
// pointed to by p (i), and sets it to 2.
So, if you've seen the pointer-version swap function, we pass the address of the variables we want to swap, and then we do the swap, dereferencing to get and set values.
Lets take a simple example of a function named increment which increments its argument. Consider:
void increment(int input) {
input++;
}
which will not work as the change takes place on the copy of the argument passed to the function on the actual parameter. So
int i = 1;
std::cout<<i<<" ";
increment(i);
std::cout<<i<<" ";
will produce 1 1 as output.
To make the function work on the actual parameter passed we pass its reference to the function as:
void increment(int &input) { // note the &
input++;
}
the change made to input inside the function is actually being made to the actual parameter. This will produce the expected output of 1 2
GMan's answer gives you the lowdown on references. I just wanted to show you a very basic function that must use references: swap, which swaps two variables. Here it is for ints (as you requested):
// changes to a & b hold when the function exits
void swap(int& a, int& b) {
int tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
// changes to a & b are local to swap_noref and will go away when the function exits
void swap_noref(int a, int b) {
int tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
// changes swap_ptr makes to the variables pointed to by pa & pb
// are visible outside swap_ptr, but changes to pa and pb won't be visible
void swap_ptr(int *pa, int *pb) {
int tmp = *pa;
*pa = *pb;
*pb = tmp;
}
int main() {
int x = 17;
int y = 42;
// next line will print "x: 17; y: 42"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
// swap can alter x & y
swap(x,y);
// next line will print "x: 42; y: 17"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
// swap_noref can't alter x or y
swap_noref(x,y);
// next line will print "x: 42; y: 17"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
// swap_ptr can alter x & y
swap_ptr(&x,&y);
// next line will print "x: 17; y: 42"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
}
There is a cleverer swap implementation for ints that doesn't need a temporary. However, here I care more about clear than clever.
Without references (or pointers), swap_noref cannot alter the variables passed to it, which means it simply cannot work. swap_ptr can alter variables, but it uses pointers, which are messy (when references won't quite cut it, however, pointers can do the job). swap is the simplest overall.
On Pointers
Pointers let you do some of the same things as references. However, pointers put more responsibility on the programmer to manage them and the memory they point to (a topic called "memory management"–but don't worry about it for now). As a consequence, references should be your preferred tool for now.
Think of variables as names bound to boxes that store a value. Constants are names bound directly to values. Both map names to values, but the value of constants can't be changed. While the value held in a box can change, the binding of name to box can't, which is why a reference cannot be changed to refer to a different variable.
Two basic operations on variables are getting the current value (done simply by using the variable's name) and assigning a new value (the assignment operator, '='). Values are stored in memory (the box holding a value is simply a contiguous region of memory). For example,
int a = 17;
results in something like (note: in the following, "foo # 0xDEADBEEF" stands for a variable with name "foo" stored at address "0xDEADBEEF". Memory addresses have been made up):
____
a # 0x1000: | 17 |
----
Everything stored in memory has a starting address, so there's one more operation: get the address of the value ("&" is the address-of operator). A pointer is a variable that stores an address.
int *pa = &a;
results in:
______ ____
pa # 0x10A0: |0x1000| ------> # 0x1000: | 17 |
------ ----
Note that a pointer simply stores a memory address, so it doesn't have access to the name of what it points to. In fact, pointers can point to things without names, but that's a topic for another day.
There are a few operations on pointers. You can dereference a pointer (the "*" operator), which gives you the data the pointer points to. Dereferencing is the opposite of getting the address: *&a is the same box as a, &*pa is the same value as pa, and *pa is the same box as a. In particular, pa in the example holds 0x1000; * pa means "the int in memory at location pa", or "the int in memory at location 0x1000". "a" is also "the int at memory location 0x1000". Other operation on pointers are addition and subtraction, but that's also a topic for another day.
// Passes in mutable references of a and b.
int doSomething(int& a, int& b) {
a = 5;
cout << "1: " << a << b; // prints 1: 5,6
}
a = 0;
b = 6;
doSomething(a, b);
cout << "2: " << a << ", " << b; // prints 2: 5,6
Alternatively,
// Passes in copied values of a and b.
int doSomething(int a, int b) {
a = 5;
cout << "1: " << a << b; // prints 1: 5,6
}
a = 0;
b = 6;
doSomething(a, b);
cout << "2: " << a << ", " << b; // prints 2: 0,6
Or the const version:
// Passes in const references a and b.
int doSomething(const int &a, const int &b) {
a = 5; // COMPILE ERROR, cannot assign to const reference.
cout << "1: " << b; // prints 1: 6
}
a = 0;
b = 6;
doSomething(a, b);
References are used to pass locations of variables, so they don't need to be copied on the stack to the new function.
A simple pair of examples which you can run online.
The first uses a normal function, and the second uses references:
Example 1 (no reference)
Example 2 (reference)
Edit - here's the source code incase you don't like links:
Example 1
using namespace std;
void foo(int y){
y=2;
}
int main(){
int x=1;
foo(x);
cout<<x;//outputs 1
}
Example 2
using namespace std;
void foo(int & y){
y=2;
}
int main(){
int x=1;
foo(x);
cout<<x;//outputs 2
}
I don't know if this is the most basic, but here goes...
typedef int Element;
typedef std::list<Element> ElementList;
// Defined elsewhere.
bool CanReadElement(void);
Element ReadSingleElement(void);
int ReadElementsIntoList(int count, ElementList& elems)
{
int elemsRead = 0;
while(elemsRead < count && CanReadElement())
elems.push_back(ReadSingleElement());
return count;
}
Here we use a reference to pass our list of elements into ReadElementsIntoList(). This way, the function loads the elements right into the list. If we didn't use a reference, then elems would be a copy of the passed-in list, which would have the elements added to it, but then elems would be discarded when the function returns.
This works both ways. In the case of count, we don't make it a reference, because we don't want to modify the count passed in, instead returning the number of elements read. This allows the calling code to compare the number of elements actually read to the requested number; if they don't match, then CanReadElement() must have returned false, and immediately trying to read some more would likely fail. If they match, then maybe count was less than the number of elements available, and a further read would be appropriate. Finally, if ReadElementsIntoList() needed to modify count internally, it could do so without mucking up the caller.
How about by metaphor: Say your function counts beans in a jar. It needs the jar of beans and you need to know the result which can't be the return value (for any number of reasons). You could send it the jar and the variable value, but you'll never know if or what it changes the value to. Instead, you need to send it that variable via a return addressed envelope, so it can put the value in that and know it's written the result to the value at said address.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a reference is only a dereferenced pointer, or?
The difference to a pointer is, that you can't easily commit a NULL.
I am trying to understand how to use reference parameters. There are several examples in my text, however they are too complicated for me to understand why and how to use them.
How and why would you want to use a reference? What would happen if you didn't make the parameter a reference, but instead left the & off?
For example, what's the difference between these functions:
int doSomething(int& a, int& b);
int doSomething(int a, int b);
I understand that reference variables are used in order to change a formal->reference, which then allows a two-way exchange of parameters. However, that is the extent of my knowledge, and a more concrete example would be of much help.
Think of a reference as an alias. When you invoke something on a reference, you're really invoking it on the object to which the reference refers.
int i;
int& j = i; // j is an alias to i
j = 5; // same as i = 5
When it comes to functions, consider:
void foo(int i)
{
i = 5;
}
Above, int i is a value and the argument passed is passed by value. That means if we say:
int x = 2;
foo(x);
i will be a copy of x. Thus setting i to 5 has no effect on x, because it's the copy of x being changed. However, if we make i a reference:
void foo(int& i) // i is an alias for a variable
{
i = 5;
}
Then saying foo(x) no longer makes a copy of x; i is x. So if we say foo(x), inside the function i = 5; is exactly the same as x = 5;, and x changes.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit.
Why is this important? When you program, you never want to copy and paste code. You want to make a function that does one task and it does it well. Whenever that task needs to be performed, you use that function.
So let's say we want to swap two variables. That looks something like this:
int x, y;
// swap:
int temp = x; // store the value of x
x = y; // make x equal to y
y = temp; // make y equal to the old value of x
Okay, great. We want to make this a function, because: swap(x, y); is much easier to read. So, let's try this:
void swap(int x, int y)
{
int temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
This won't work! The problem is that this is swapping copies of two variables. That is:
int a, b;
swap(a, b); // hm, x and y are copies of a and b...a and b remain unchanged
In C, where references do not exist, the solution was to pass the address of these variables; that is, use pointers*:
void swap(int* x, int* y)
{
int temp = *x;
*x = *y;
*y = temp;
}
int a, b;
swap(&a, &b);
This works well. However, it's a bit clumsy to use, and actually a bit unsafe. swap(nullptr, nullptr), swaps two nothings and dereferences null pointers...undefined behavior! Fixable with some checks:
void swap(int* x, int* y)
{
if (x == nullptr || y == nullptr)
return; // one is null; this is a meaningless operation
int temp = *x;
*x = *y;
*y = temp;
}
But looks how clumsy our code has gotten. C++ introduces references to solve this problem. If we can just alias a variable, we get the code we were looking for:
void swap(int& x, int& y)
{
int temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
int a, b;
swap(a, b); // inside, x and y are really a and b
Both easy to use, and safe. (We can't accidentally pass in a null, there are no null references.) This works because the swap happening inside the function is really happening on the variables being aliased outside the function.
(Note, never write a swap function. :) One already exists in the header <algorithm>, and it's templated to work with any type.)
Another use is to remove that copy that happens when you call a function. Consider we have a data type that's very big. Copying this object takes a lot of time, and we'd like to avoid that:
struct big_data
{ char data[9999999]; }; // big!
void do_something(big_data data);
big_data d;
do_something(d); // ouch, making a copy of all that data :<
However, all we really need is an alias to the variable, so let's indicate that. (Again, back in C we'd pass the address of our big data type, solving the copying problem but introducing clumsiness.):
void do_something(big_data& data);
big_data d;
do_something(d); // no copies at all! data aliases d within the function
This is why you'll hear it said you should pass things by reference all the time, unless they are primitive types. (Because internally passing an alias is probably done with a pointer, like in C. For small objects it's just faster to make the copy then worry about pointers.)
Keep in mind you should be const-correct. This means if your function doesn't modify the parameter, mark it as const. If do_something above only looked at but didn't change data, we'd mark it as const:
void do_something(const big_data& data); // alias a big_data, and don't change it
We avoid the copy and we say "hey, we won't be modifying this." This has other side effects (with things like temporary variables), but you shouldn't worry about that now.
In contrast, our swap function cannot be const, because we are indeed modifying the aliases.
Hope this clarifies some more.
*Rough pointers tutorial:
A pointer is a variable that holds the address of another variable. For example:
int i; // normal int
int* p; // points to an integer (is not an integer!)
p = &i; // &i means "address of i". p is pointing to i
*p = 2; // *p means "dereference p". that is, this goes to the int
// pointed to by p (i), and sets it to 2.
So, if you've seen the pointer-version swap function, we pass the address of the variables we want to swap, and then we do the swap, dereferencing to get and set values.
Lets take a simple example of a function named increment which increments its argument. Consider:
void increment(int input) {
input++;
}
which will not work as the change takes place on the copy of the argument passed to the function on the actual parameter. So
int i = 1;
std::cout<<i<<" ";
increment(i);
std::cout<<i<<" ";
will produce 1 1 as output.
To make the function work on the actual parameter passed we pass its reference to the function as:
void increment(int &input) { // note the &
input++;
}
the change made to input inside the function is actually being made to the actual parameter. This will produce the expected output of 1 2
GMan's answer gives you the lowdown on references. I just wanted to show you a very basic function that must use references: swap, which swaps two variables. Here it is for ints (as you requested):
// changes to a & b hold when the function exits
void swap(int& a, int& b) {
int tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
// changes to a & b are local to swap_noref and will go away when the function exits
void swap_noref(int a, int b) {
int tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
// changes swap_ptr makes to the variables pointed to by pa & pb
// are visible outside swap_ptr, but changes to pa and pb won't be visible
void swap_ptr(int *pa, int *pb) {
int tmp = *pa;
*pa = *pb;
*pb = tmp;
}
int main() {
int x = 17;
int y = 42;
// next line will print "x: 17; y: 42"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
// swap can alter x & y
swap(x,y);
// next line will print "x: 42; y: 17"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
// swap_noref can't alter x or y
swap_noref(x,y);
// next line will print "x: 42; y: 17"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
// swap_ptr can alter x & y
swap_ptr(&x,&y);
// next line will print "x: 17; y: 42"
std::cout << "x: " << x << "; y: " << y << std::endl
}
There is a cleverer swap implementation for ints that doesn't need a temporary. However, here I care more about clear than clever.
Without references (or pointers), swap_noref cannot alter the variables passed to it, which means it simply cannot work. swap_ptr can alter variables, but it uses pointers, which are messy (when references won't quite cut it, however, pointers can do the job). swap is the simplest overall.
On Pointers
Pointers let you do some of the same things as references. However, pointers put more responsibility on the programmer to manage them and the memory they point to (a topic called "memory management"–but don't worry about it for now). As a consequence, references should be your preferred tool for now.
Think of variables as names bound to boxes that store a value. Constants are names bound directly to values. Both map names to values, but the value of constants can't be changed. While the value held in a box can change, the binding of name to box can't, which is why a reference cannot be changed to refer to a different variable.
Two basic operations on variables are getting the current value (done simply by using the variable's name) and assigning a new value (the assignment operator, '='). Values are stored in memory (the box holding a value is simply a contiguous region of memory). For example,
int a = 17;
results in something like (note: in the following, "foo # 0xDEADBEEF" stands for a variable with name "foo" stored at address "0xDEADBEEF". Memory addresses have been made up):
____
a # 0x1000: | 17 |
----
Everything stored in memory has a starting address, so there's one more operation: get the address of the value ("&" is the address-of operator). A pointer is a variable that stores an address.
int *pa = &a;
results in:
______ ____
pa # 0x10A0: |0x1000| ------> # 0x1000: | 17 |
------ ----
Note that a pointer simply stores a memory address, so it doesn't have access to the name of what it points to. In fact, pointers can point to things without names, but that's a topic for another day.
There are a few operations on pointers. You can dereference a pointer (the "*" operator), which gives you the data the pointer points to. Dereferencing is the opposite of getting the address: *&a is the same box as a, &*pa is the same value as pa, and *pa is the same box as a. In particular, pa in the example holds 0x1000; * pa means "the int in memory at location pa", or "the int in memory at location 0x1000". "a" is also "the int at memory location 0x1000". Other operation on pointers are addition and subtraction, but that's also a topic for another day.
// Passes in mutable references of a and b.
int doSomething(int& a, int& b) {
a = 5;
cout << "1: " << a << b; // prints 1: 5,6
}
a = 0;
b = 6;
doSomething(a, b);
cout << "2: " << a << ", " << b; // prints 2: 5,6
Alternatively,
// Passes in copied values of a and b.
int doSomething(int a, int b) {
a = 5;
cout << "1: " << a << b; // prints 1: 5,6
}
a = 0;
b = 6;
doSomething(a, b);
cout << "2: " << a << ", " << b; // prints 2: 0,6
Or the const version:
// Passes in const references a and b.
int doSomething(const int &a, const int &b) {
a = 5; // COMPILE ERROR, cannot assign to const reference.
cout << "1: " << b; // prints 1: 6
}
a = 0;
b = 6;
doSomething(a, b);
References are used to pass locations of variables, so they don't need to be copied on the stack to the new function.
A simple pair of examples which you can run online.
The first uses a normal function, and the second uses references:
Example 1 (no reference)
Example 2 (reference)
Edit - here's the source code incase you don't like links:
Example 1
using namespace std;
void foo(int y){
y=2;
}
int main(){
int x=1;
foo(x);
cout<<x;//outputs 1
}
Example 2
using namespace std;
void foo(int & y){
y=2;
}
int main(){
int x=1;
foo(x);
cout<<x;//outputs 2
}
I don't know if this is the most basic, but here goes...
typedef int Element;
typedef std::list<Element> ElementList;
// Defined elsewhere.
bool CanReadElement(void);
Element ReadSingleElement(void);
int ReadElementsIntoList(int count, ElementList& elems)
{
int elemsRead = 0;
while(elemsRead < count && CanReadElement())
elems.push_back(ReadSingleElement());
return count;
}
Here we use a reference to pass our list of elements into ReadElementsIntoList(). This way, the function loads the elements right into the list. If we didn't use a reference, then elems would be a copy of the passed-in list, which would have the elements added to it, but then elems would be discarded when the function returns.
This works both ways. In the case of count, we don't make it a reference, because we don't want to modify the count passed in, instead returning the number of elements read. This allows the calling code to compare the number of elements actually read to the requested number; if they don't match, then CanReadElement() must have returned false, and immediately trying to read some more would likely fail. If they match, then maybe count was less than the number of elements available, and a further read would be appropriate. Finally, if ReadElementsIntoList() needed to modify count internally, it could do so without mucking up the caller.
How about by metaphor: Say your function counts beans in a jar. It needs the jar of beans and you need to know the result which can't be the return value (for any number of reasons). You could send it the jar and the variable value, but you'll never know if or what it changes the value to. Instead, you need to send it that variable via a return addressed envelope, so it can put the value in that and know it's written the result to the value at said address.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a reference is only a dereferenced pointer, or?
The difference to a pointer is, that you can't easily commit a NULL.
I am new to c++ and trying to understand pointers. I read a example somewhere, which is like this:
#include<iostream>
#define N 5
using namespace std;
class Test {
int x, y;
public:
Test(int a, int b)
: x(a), y(b)
{
}
void print()
{
cout << x << " " << y << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Test **arr = new Test*[N];
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
arr[i] = new Test(i, i + 1);
}
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
arr[i]->print();
}
}
So, in the line
Test **arr = new Test*[N];
as far as i understand, **arr means that it's a pointer to a pointer which points to a object. So when we assign it to new Test*[N], does it means *arr stores address of N object pointers?
And if it is correct, then how can i print the address of a object from the array of objects? let's say i want to print the address of the object Test[3]?
In modern C++, there's are better alternatives than having owning raw pointers, and better alternatives than manually new'ing up an array.
There are containers (such as std::vector), there are smart pointers (such as std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr).
Polymorphism needs to be done through a pointer (including smart pointer) or reference, but that is not a factor in the posted code.
The OP posted code has a memory leak, since it did not clean up the arr. In these kinds of small programs, memory leaks are sometimes handwaved away and ignored.
For the code you posted, I'd have done it this way, which eliminates the pointers altogether:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using std::cout;
using std::vector;
constexpr int N = 5;
class Test {
int x;
int y;
public:
Test(int x_, int y_)
: x{x_}, y{y_}
{ }
void print() const {
cout << x << " " << y << "\n";
}
};
int main() {
vector<Test> arr;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
arr.emplace_back(Test{i, i+1});
}
for (auto const& test : arr) {
test.print();
}
}
I had to add a little const correctness. I relied on vector and have no need for a pointer or smart pointer, in this particular example.
In my last decade of programming C++, I've never needed to use a new or an owning raw pointer.
Raw pointers are still suitable for non-owning parameters which could be nullptr, and non-owning return values which could be nullptr. But since they are non-owning, there's no concern over memory management.
Update:
"... trying to understand pointers..."
Caveat. Unfortunately, my example of "how I'd do this kind of program" does not lend itself to the OP's goal of trying to understand pointers. That kind of topic is actually bit broad, and should be thoroughly covered in the first chapter or two of a good C++ book.
The answer to the first question is YES.
To the second question you can just send the pointer to cout without dereferencing it.
cout << arr[3];
Or use C's printf function:
printf("%p", arr[3]);
If you want to print it from the method, you use the this pointer:
void print()
{
cout << this << "- " << x << " " << y << endl;
}
To fully understand how pointers, values, and references work, I am making a basic C++ program that attempts to tamper with some static and dynamic arrays and understand exactly how they should be passed in.
First I generate a static array of 3 elements. I then pass it into a function that modifies all elements. I then pass it into another function with a slightly different signature, but can also alter the array's values.
Next I generate a dynamically sized array, pass it into a function by reference so that all of the values in this dynamically sized array can be altered.
The code is as follows:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
void changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1(int* stat);
void changeIndexStaticArrayMethod2(int (&stat)[3]);
void changeIndexDynamicArrayMethod1(int* dyn, int size);
int main() {
const int MAX = 3;
int arr[MAX] = { 1,2,3 };
changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1(arr);
cout << arr[0] << endl;
cout << arr[1] << endl;
cout << arr[2] << endl;
cout << endl;
changeIndexStaticArrayMethod2(arr);
cout << arr[0] << endl;
cout << arr[1] << endl;
cout << arr[2] << endl;
int SIZE;
cout << "Please choose a size for the array" << endl;
cin >> SIZE;
int *ne = new int[SIZE];
//Build array
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
ne[i] = i;
}
changeIndexDynamicArrayMethod1(ne, SIZE);
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
cout << "ne[" << i << "] = " << ne[i] << endl;
}
//To hang program
cin >> SIZE;
delete[] arr;
delete[] ne;
return 0;
}
void changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1(int* stat) {
stat[0] = 10;
stat[1] = 20;
stat[2] = 30;
}
void changeIndexStaticArrayMethod2(int (&stat)[3]) {
stat[0] = 40;
stat[1] = 50;
stat[2] = 60;
}
void changeIndexDynamicArrayMethod1(int* dyn, int size) {
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
dyn[i] = i * 10;
}
}
All of the above code works how I want it to, I just have a few questions as to why (some of the methods of passing arrays by reference I have found on other SO questions).
In the changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1() and changeIndexDynamicArrayMethod1() functions, why are we able to use the dereference * operator for our array as reference? My knee jerk reaction is seeing that as practically passing the array in by values since it is the dereference operator. I know that with arrays, it is much different than using variables, but also, why will the following not work for single int variables:
void changeStaticNumber(int* num){
num = 100;
}
Obviously the above will work if we use &num and not int* num, and obviously I don't fully understand the relationship between pointers and arrays, but I cannot figure out why when we pass an array by reference, int* staticArray is ok.
Any explanation for these problems I am having would be much appreciated. Thanks.
why are we able to use the dereference * operator for our array as reference?
The * in C means many things. It can mean the unary indirection ("contents of") operator, it can mean the binary multiplication operator and it can mean a pointer declaration. The int* stat is a pointer declaration.
Since you aren't using the * to dereference the contents of the pointer inside that function, I'm not quite sure what you are asking.
When you take the array name of your array in main(), it "decays" into a pointer to the first element. So what those function do, is to take a pointer by value. If you dereference the pointer by typing *stat = something; you access the actual array in main.
Should you do something weird like changing the pointer itself, for example stat++;, then it will not affect the address used in main. You passed the pointer itself by value, so the pointer is a local copy.
My knee jerk reaction is seeing that as practically passing the array in by values since it is the dereference operator.
You can't really pass arrays by value in C or C++, without resorting to dirty tricks (storing them inside structs or classes). For example, had your function been written as void changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1(int stat[3]) it would still give you a pointer to the first element. It will not pass an array by value, as the syntax might trick you into believing.
why will the following not work for single int variables:
void changeStaticNumber(int* num){ num = 100; }
Because num is the pointer itself, not its contents. In order to write code like that, you could pass the variable by reference int& num. Behind the lines this is really the same thing as passing a pointer, just with simplified syntax.
To understand the relation between pointers and arrays better, start by reading this whole chapter: http://c-faq.com/aryptr/index.html (C and C++ are identical when it comes to pointers).
Let me see if I can take a stab at this.
Pointers are simply address holders. Once you do int * ptr = myarray; --- what you are in tern doing is storing the address of the pointer my array into ptr --- array names are actually pointers to the first memory location in the array. You can use pointer arithmetic to get at everything else for example myarray +1 will point you to the next location or myarray[1].
Passing by value is not very useful when you need to modify your array. Passing in by reference is essentially making a pointer to the array and passing that. Since arrays like vectors are contiguous blocks of memory you can index through them rather easily.
As far as your example goes void changeStaticNumber(int* num){ num = 100; } will not work because what you are attempting to do is store 100 into the pointer's address. If you deference num and make it void changeStaticNumber(int* num){ *num = 100; } it will work because you are actually going one step further and accessing the data that num is pointing to. When you use &num it is essentially the same thing - & just gives you the address of something.
For example if you want to point a pointer to an int what you would do is
int num = 5;
int *ptr = #
at this point in time ptr has the same address in num. To print out the data in num or that ptr is pointing to you need to dereference or go one step further as I like to tell myself and dereference to so cout << *ptr;
In both changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1 and changeIndexDynamicArrayMethod1 you are not passing an array there is no pass by reference (which only happens if the parameter type is a reference type -- i.e. with &). The parameter has type int * (pointer to int). You are passing a pointer to int by value. There is no "dereference operator" in either function.
ne is already an int *, so passing it is nothing special. arr is an int [3], an array, not a pointer. In C, when an array-of-T is used in a context that expects a pointer-to-T, it is implicitly converted (without you needing to do anything) to a pointer to its first element. So when you do, changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1(arr), the compiler gets a pointer to the first element of arr, and passes that to the function.
The [] operator works on pointers. a[i] is always guaranteed to be the same as *(a + i). Inside both the changeIndexStaticArrayMethod1 and changeIndexDynamicArrayMethod1 functions, [] is used to access subsequent elements using a pointer to the first element.
I was trying to access the private data members of the class. Everything was going fine until I came upon the int*. I don’t get what it is. I think it’s something that we can use to create a new memory address.
My code :
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class x
{
int a, b, c, d;
public:
x()
{
a = 100;
b = 200;
c = 300;
d = 400;
}
};
int main()
{
x ob;
int *y = (int *)&ob;
cout << *y << " " << y[1] << " " << y[2] << " " << y[3] << endl;
}
Can anyone help me in understanding it?
Its a c-style cast to access the memory occupied by the struct x as a set of ints.
It takes the address of ob, casts it from 'address of' (ie a pointer to) x into a pointer to int. The compiler happily assigns this cast to y, so you can manipulate it, or in this case, print out the memory blocks as ints. As the struct happens to be a group of ints anyway, it all works even though its a bit of a hack. I guess the original coder wanted to print out all 4 ints without having to specify each one in turn by variable name. Lazy.
Try using a cast to a char* (ie 1 byte at a time) and print those out. You'll be basically printing out the raw memory occupied by the struct.
A good C++ way would be to create an operator<< function that returns each variable formatted for output like this, then write cout << ob << endl; instead.