Please consider these 2 lines of code
void doStuff(int ** i)
void doStuff2( int && i)
in the first one I assume that it is a pointer of pointer and the second is an rvalue,
I came across this question and it explains the rvalue but when should I use the first and when should I use the second ?
could you clarify this to me please ?
int ** i is a pointer to a pointer.
Generally, use this sparingly, as this may have different meanings and you have better ways to express that in C++.
It may be a pointer to single variable containing a pointer to a single int:
int value = 0;
int * pValue = &value;
int ** ppValue = &pValue;
However, each may also be a pointer to the first element of an array:
int valuesA[1000], valuesB[100], valuesC[10];
int * pValues[] = { valuesA, valuesB, valuesC };
// these are actually pointers to the first element of the array
int ** ppValues = pValues;
Use this only with clear documentation how to access elements, how to know the element sizes, and who is responsible for freeing (if any), how long the pointers are valid etc.
Usually, if you have such an array / matrix, you certainly should wrap it behind a safe-to-use interface, or replace it alltogether e.g. with a vector<vector<int>>.
Even for the single-int use cases there are usually better options. E.g. a function signature that allows to modify a pointer, a reference to a pointer would be more suitable:
bool SelectValue(int *& p) { ... }
int && is a rvalue reference.
Unlike the int **, this is not a double indirection.
It is, roughly a reference that can also bind to a temporary value.
("Normal" references cannot).
A Brief Introduction to Rvalue References
Related
What is the purpose of a function parameter that has two indirection operators?
Since a call by reference is changing the value of the original variable I thought that a function parameter with two indirection operators might change the address of the original value.
But as my attemp below shows, it does not:
void addrchanger(int**);
int main()
{
int value1 = 4;
int* value1ptr = &value1;
std::cout<<&value1<<std::endl;
addrchanger(&value1ptr);
std::cout<<&value1<<std::endl;
//the address of value1 doesn't change.
}
void addrchanger(int** foo)
{
//this is an attempt to change the address of value1 to the next slot
++**foo;
}
The purpose is to pass a pointer to pointer(s) or a pointer to array(s). Such practise is C-like for historical functions like main() char** argv (that is why you also want an argc, because the size cannot be deduced by the pointer). It is also used when you want to be returned a pointer, so you pass a pointer to a pointer, like in many Win32 functions.
For example in StringFromIID
HRESULT StringFromIID(
REFIID rclsid,
LPOLESTR *lplpsz
);
you would pass a double pointer as the 2nd parameter (a wchar_t**) in order to be returned a pointer, which them must be deallocated like the doc says.
Avoid that completely nowadays in C++ and use std::vector in whatever depth is necessary.
The void addrchanger(int** foo) function can change:
the value: (**foo)++ making int value1 to 5
and address: (*foo)++ making value1ptr point to the next space after value1
I believe you expected the ++**foo to move value1 to the next position, which is not the case.
The pointer to pointer is also useful for matrix declarations, but most libraries such as the GNU scientific library, BLAS, OpenGL glLoadMatrixf(), prefer the use of a single pointer.
When p is of type int **,
++**p
increases the value of the int represented by **p.
In order to change the address of the int pointed to, you would use
++*p
With direct access to your variable, you would use one * less for everything:
int *p;
++*p; // increment the int value
++p; // increment the pointer
But inside such a function, every arguments is just a copy, so if you want to change something outside, you need a pointer to it, which means that one more * is used for everything.
function f(int **p) {
++**p; // increment the int value
++*p; // increment the pointer
// you can also increment the argument
// but you can't know whether it will then
// still point to another int pointer:
++p
}
In addition, you can use & instead of * in C++ which is used only for declaring a variable as a reference and then works like a secret, hidden pointer. You use one less * again, like outside the function at the beginning.
function f(int *&p) {
++*p; // increment the int value
++p; // increment the pointer
// you can also not increment the reference itself,
// as it is a hidden pointer.
}
This sounds dangerous because who would want secret pointers? But it is very common in C++ because people like typing less * all over the place.
I'm learning C and I'm still not sure if I understood the difference between & and * yet.
Allow me to try to explain it:
int a; // Declares a variable
int *b; // Declares a pointer
int &c; // Not possible
a = 10;
b = &a; // b gets the address of a
*b = 20; // a now has the value 20
I got these, but then it becomes confusing.
void funct(int a) // A declaration of a function, a is declared
void funct(int *a) // a is declared as a pointer
void funct(int &a) // a now receives only pointers (address)
funct(a) // Creates a copy of a
funct(*a) // Uses a pointer, can create a pointer of a pointer in some cases
funct(&a) // Sends an address of a pointer
So, both funct(*a) and funct(&a) are correct, right? What's the difference?
* and & as type modifiers
int i declares an int.
int* p declares a pointer to an int.
int& r = i declares a reference to an int, and initializes it to refer to i.
C++ only. Note that references must be assigned at initialization, therefore int& r; is not possible.
Similarly:
void foo(int i) declares a function taking an int (by value, i.e. as a copy).
void foo(int* p) declares a function taking a pointer to an int.
void foo(int& r) declares a function taking an int by reference. (C++ only)
* and & as operators
foo(i) calls foo(int). The parameter is passed as a copy.
foo(*p) dereferences the int pointer p and calls foo(int) with the int pointed to by p.
foo(&i) takes the address of the int i and calls foo(int*) with that address.
(tl;dr) So in conclusion, depending on the context:
* can be either the dereference operator or part of the pointer declaration syntax.
& can be either the address-of operator or (in C++) part of the reference declaration syntax.
Note that * may also be the multiplication operator, and & may also be the bitwise AND operator.
funct(int a)
Creates a copy of a
funct(int* a)
Takes a pointer to an int as input. But makes a copy of the pointer.
funct(int& a)
Takes an int, but by reference. a is now the exact same int that was given. Not a copy. Not a pointer.
void funct(int &a) declares a function that takes a reference. A reference is conceptually a pointer in that the function can modify the variable that's passed in, but is syntactically used like a value (so you don't have to de-reference it all the time to use it).
Originally in C there were pointers and no references. Very often though we just want to access a value without copying it and the fact that we're passing around an address and not the actual value is an unimportant detail.
C++ introduced references to abstract away the plumbing of pointers. If you want to "show" a value to a function in C++ then references are preferable. The function is guaranteed that a reference is not null and can access it as if it were the value itself. Pointers are still necessary for other purposes, for example, you can "re-aim" a pointer or delete with a pointer but you can't do so with a reference.
Their functionality does overlap and without a bit of history it should confuse you that we have both.
So the answer to your direct question is that very often there is no difference. That said, f(int*) can be useful if you want the function to be able to check if the pointer is null. If you're using C then pointers are the only option.
The meaning of * is dependent on context. When in a data or function argument declaration, it is a datatype qualifier, not an operator int* is a datatype in itself. For this reason it is useful perhaps to write:
int* x ;
rather than:
int *x ;
They are identical, but the first form emphasises that it the * is part of the type name, and visually distinguishes it from usage as dereference operator.
When applied to an instantiated pointer variable, it is the dereference operator, and yields the the value pointed to.
& in C is only an operator, it yields the address (or pointer to) of an object. It cannot be used in a declaration. In C++ it is a type qualifier for a reference which is similar to a pointer but has more restrictive behaviour and is therefore often safer.
Your suggestion in the comment here:
funct(&a) // Sends an address of a pointer
is not correct. The address of a is passed; that would only be "address of a pointer" is a itself is a pointer. A pointer is an address. The type of an address of a pointer to int would be int** (a pointer to a pointer).
Perhaps it is necessary to explain the fundamentals of pointer and value variables? A pointer describes the location in memory of a variable, while a value describes the content of a memory location.
<typename>* is a pointer-to-<typename> data type.
&*<value-variable> yields the address or location of <variable> (i.e. a pointer to <variable>),
**<pointer-variable> dereferences a pointer to yield the the value at the address represented by the pointer.
So given for example:
int a = 10 ;
int* pa = &a ;
then
*pa == 10
When you do func(&a) that's called a "call by reference" that means your parameter "a" can actually be modified within the function and any changes made will be visible to the calling program.
This is a useful way if you want to return multiple values from a function for example:
int twoValues(int &x)
{
int y = x * 2;
x = x + 10;
return y;
}
now if you call this function from your main program like this:
int A, B;
B = 5;
A = twoValues(B);
This will result in:
A holding the value 10 (which is 5 * 2)
and B will hold the value 15 (which is 5 + 10).
If you didn't have the & sign in the function signature, any changes you make to the parameter passed to the function "twoValues" would only be visible inside that function but as far as the calling program (e.g. main) is concerned, they will be the same.
Now calling a function with a pointer parameter is most useful when you want to pass an array of values or a list. Example:
float average ( int *list, int size_of_list)
{
float sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < size_of_list; i++)
{
sum += list[i];
}
return (sum/size_of_list);
}
note that the size_of_list parameter is simply the number of elements in the array you are passing (not size in bytes).
I hope this helps.
C++ is different from c in many aspects and references is a part of it.
In terms of c++ context:
void funct(int *a) // a is declared as a pointer
This corelates to the use of pointers in c..so, you can compare this feature to that of c.
void funct(int &a) // a now receives only pointers (address)
This would lead to the reference usage in c++...
you cannot corelate this to that of c..
Here is a good q&a clarifying differences between these two.
What are the differences between a pointer variable and a reference variable in C++?
until there I trusted that method like
bool solverMethod::buildSimplex(double** simplex_ , double* funcEvals_, double* initPt_)
{
// things
}
would change values for simplex, funcEvals_, initPt_ in the method where it is called (passage by pointer). Am I wrong? How to put it then?
thanks and regards and apologizes for simple question.
This is maybe not as much an answer as it is a general explanation of pointers, references and reference semantics.
A function is said to have reference semantics if it can change the argument objects that are passed to it. For example, the following swap function has reference semantics if it exchanges the values:
int x = 4;
int y = 8;
swap(x, y);
assert(x == 8 && y == 4);
The question is how you implement reference semantics. C++ has a native reference type that makes this very natural:
void swap(int & a, int & b) { int t = a; a = b; b = t; }
By contrast, C does not have such a native feature, and every object in C is passed by value. However, C has a different feature that can be used to implement reference semantics, namely pointers: For every type T, there is a related type T*, a value of which can be obtained by taking the address-of an object of type T: int x; int * p = &x;. Now you can pass those pointer objects around by value and use them to access the original object to which they point. Notice that we are passing the pointers by value!
void c_swap(int * p, int * q) { int t = *p; *p = *q; *q = t; }
We have to call the function differently: swap(&x, &y). Thus in C you can always tell whether an argument is being modified, because the only way to do this is by passing its address to a function. In C++, you have to know the actual function signature to know whether reference or value semantics are in place.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
c++ * vs & in function declaration
I know that this probably seems like an incredibly elementary question to many of you, but I have genuinely had an impossible time finding a good, thorough explanation, despite all my best Googling. I'm certain that the answer is out there, and so my search terms must be terrible.
In C++, a variety of symbols and combinations thereof are used to mark parameters (as well as arguments to those parameters). What, exactly, are their meanings?
Ex: What is the difference between void func(int *var) and void func(int **var)? What about int &var?
The same question stands for return types, as well as arguments. What does int& func(int var) mean, as compared to int* func(int var)? And in arguments, how does y = func(*x) differ from y = func(&x)?
I am more than happy to read enormous volumes on the subject if only you could point me in the right direction. Also, I'm extremely familiar with general programming concepts: OO, generics/templates, etc., just not the notation used in C/C++.
EDIT: It seems I may have given the impression that I do not know what pointers are. I wonder how that could be :)
So for clarification: I understand perfectly how pointers work. What I am not grasping, and am weirdly unable to find answers to, is the meaning of, for example 'void func(int &var)'. In the case of an assignment statement, the '&' operator would be on the right hand side, as in 'int* x = &y;', but in the above, the '&' operator is effectively on the left hand side. In other words, it is operating on the l-value, rather than the r-value. This clearly cannot have the same meaning.
I hope that I'm making more sense now?
To understand this you'll first need to understand pointers and references. I'll simply explain the type declaration syntax you're asking about assuming you already know what pointers and references are.
In C, it is said that 'declaration follows use.' That means the syntax for declaring a variable mimics using the variable: generally in a declaration you'll have a base type like int or float followed something that looks like an expression. For example in int *y the base type is int and the expression look-alike is *y. Thereafter that expression evaluates to a value with the given base type.
So int *y means that later an expression *y is an int. That implies that y must be a pointer to an int. The same holds true for function parameters, and in fact for whole function declarations:
int *foo(int **bar);
In the above int **bar says **bar is an int, implying *bar is a pointer to an int, and bar is a pointer to a pointer to an int. It also declares that *foo(arg) will be an int (given arg of the appropriate type), implying that foo(arg) results in a pointer to an int.¹ So the whole function declaration reads "foo is a function taking a pointer to a pointer to an int, and returning a pointer to an int."
C++ adds the concept of references, and messes C style declarations up a little bit in the process. Because taking the address of a variable using the address-of operator & must result in a pointer, C doesn't have any use for & in declarations; int &x would mean &x is an int, implying that x is some type where taking the address of that type results in an int.² So because this syntax is unused, C++ appropriates it for a completely different purpose.
In C++ int &x means that x is a reference to an int. Using the variable does not involve any operator to 'dereference' the reference, so it doesn't matter that the reference declarator symbol clashes with the address-of operator. The same symbol means completely different things in the two contexts, and there is never a need to use one meaning in the context where the other is allowed.
So char &foo(int &a) declares a function taking a reference to an int and returning a reference to a char. func(&x) is an expression taking the address of x and passing it to func.
1. In fact in the original C syntax for declaring functions 'declarations follow use' was even more strictly followed. For example you'd declare a function as int foo(a,b) and the types of parameters were declared elsewhere, so that the declaration would look exactly like a use, without the extra typenames.
2. Of course int *&x; could make sense in that *&x could be an int, but C doesn't actually do that.
What you're asking about are called pointers (*), and reference to (&), which I think is best explained here.
The symbols & and * are used to denote a reference and pointer type, respectively.
int means simply the type 'int',
int* means 'pointer to int',
int& means 'reference to int',
A pointer is a variable which is used to store the address of a variable.
A reference has the syntax of its base type, but the semantics of a pointer to that type. This means you don't need to dereference it in order to change the value.
To take an example, the following code blocks two are semantically equivalent:
int* a = &value;
*a = 0;
And:
int& a = value;
a = 0;
The main reasons to use pointers or references as an argument type is to avoid copying of objects and to be able to change the value of a passed argument. Both of these work because, when you pass by reference, only the address is copied, giving you access to the same memory location as was "passed" to the function.
In contrast, if a reference or pointer type is not used, a full copy of the argument will be made, and it is this copy which is available inside the function.
The symbols * and & have three meanings each in C++:
When applied to an expression, they mean "dereference" and "address-of" respectively, as you know.
When part of a type, they mean "pointer" and "reference", respectively.
Since C++ doesn't care about arbitrary spacing, the declaration int *ptr is exactly the same as the declaration int* ptr, in which you can now more clearly see that this is an object called ptr of type int*.1
When used between two expressions, they mean "multiply" and "bitwise AND", respectively.
1 - though, frustratingly, this isn't actually how the internal grammar reads it, thanks to the nasty legacy of C's type system. So avoid single-line multi-declarations involving pointers unless you want a surprise.
Ex: What is the difference between 'void func(int *var)' and 'void
func(int **var)'? What about 'int &var'?
The same question stands for return types, as well as arguments. What
does 'int& func(int var)' mean, as compared to 'int* func(int var)'?
And in arguments, how does 'y = func(*x)' differ from 'y = func(&x)'?
(1)
<return type> <function name> <parameters>
void func (int *var)
<parameter> here int *var is a pointer to integer, ie it can point to
an array or any buffer that should be handled with integer pointer
arithmetic. In simple terms , var holds the address of the respective
**actual parameter.**
eg: int arr[10];
func(arr);
int a = 33;
func(&a);
Here, &a means we are explicitly passing address of the the variable 'a'.
(2)
int m = 0;
int &var = m;
Here var means reference, ie it another alias name for variable 'm' ,
so any change 'var' makes will change the contents of variable 'm'.
var = 2; /* will change the actual contents of 'm' */
This simple example will not make sense , unless you understand the context.
Reference are usually use to pass parameter to function, so that changes made by
the function to the passed variable is visible at the caller.
int swap(int &m, int &n) {
tmp = m;
m = n;
n = tmp;
}
void main( void ) {
int x = 1, y = 2;
swap(x, y);
/* x = 2, y =1 */
}
(3)
'int& func(int var)' mean, as compared to 'int* func(int var)'?
int& func(int var) means the function returns a reference;
int* func(int var) means the function returns a pointer / address;
Both of the them has its context;
int& setNext() {
return next;
}
setNext() = previous;
where as
int* setNext() {
return &next;
}
int *inptr;
inptr = setNext();
*inptr = previous;
In the previous two lines,
int *inptr <- integer pointer declaration;
*inptr <- means we are accessing contents of the address pointed by inptr;
ie we are actually referring to 'next' variable.
The actual use is context specific. It can't be generalized.
(4)
how does 'y = func(*x)' differ from 'y = func(&x)'?
y = func(&x) is already explained.
y = func(*x) , well i'm not sure if you actually meant *x.
int swap(int *m, int *n) {
tmp = *m;
*m = *n;
*n = tmp;
}
I have a fairly good understanding of the dereferencing operator, the address of operator, and pointers in general.
I however get confused when I see stuff such as this:
int* returnA() {
int *j = &a;
return j;
}
int* returnB() {
return &b;
}
int& returnC() {
return c;
}
int& returnC2() {
int *d = &c;
return *d;
}
In returnA() I'm asking to return a pointer; just to clarify this works because j is a pointer?
In returnB() I'm asking to return a pointer; since a pointer points to an address, the reason why returnB() works is because I'm returning &b?
In returnC() I'm asking for an address of int to be returned. When I return c is the & operator automatically "appended" c?
In returnC2() I'm asking again for an address of int to be returned. Does *d work because pointers point to an address?
Assume a, b, c are initialized as integers as Global.
Can someone validate if I am correct with all four of my questions?
Although Peter answered your question, one thing that's clearly confusing you is the symbols * and &. The tough part about getting your head around these is that they both have two different meanings that have to do with indirection (even excluding the third meanings of * for multiplication and & for bitwise-and).
*, when used as part of a type
indicates that the type is a pointer:
int is a type, so int* is a
pointer-to-int type, and int** is a
pointer-to-pointer-to-int type.
& when used as part of a type indicates that the type is a reference. int is a type, so int& is a reference-to-int (there is no such thing as reference-to-reference). References and pointers are used for similar things, but they are quite different and not interchangable. A reference is best thought of as an alias, or alternate name, for an existing variable. If x is an int, then you can simply assign int& y = x to create a new name y for x. Afterwords, x and y can be used interchangeably to refer to the same integer. The two main implications of this are that references cannot be NULL (since there must be an original variable to reference), and that you don't need to use any special operator to get at the original value (because it's just an alternate name, not a pointer). References can also not be reassigned.
* when used as a unary operator performs an operation called dereference (which has nothing to do with reference types!). This operation is only meaningful on pointers. When you dereference a pointer, you get back what it points to. So, if p is a pointer-to-int, *p is the int being pointed to.
& when used as a unary operator performs an operation called address-of. That's pretty self-explanatory; if x is a variable, then &x is the address of x. The address of a variable can be assigned to a pointer to the type of that variable. So, if x is an int, then &x can be assigned to a pointer of type int*, and that pointer will point to x. E.g. if you assign int* p = &x, then *p can be used to retrieve the value of x.
So remember, the type suffix & is for references, and has nothing to do with the unary operatory &, which has to do with getting addresses for use with pointers. The two uses are completely unrelated. And * as a type suffix declares a pointer, while * as a unary operator performs an action on pointers.
In returnA() I'm asking to return a pointer; just to clarify this works because j is a pointer?
Yes, int *j = &a initializes j to point to a. Then you return the value of j, that is the address of a.
In returnB() I'm asking to return a pointer; since a pointer points to an address, the reason why returnB() works is because I'm returning &b?
Yes. Here the same thing happens as above, just in a single step. &b gives the address of b.
In returnC() I'm asking for an address of int to be returned. When I return c is the & operator automatically appended?
No, it is a reference to an int which is returned. A reference is not an address the same way as a pointer is - it is just an alternative name for a variable. Therefore you don't need to apply the & operator to get a reference of a variable.
In returnC2() I'm asking again for an address of int to be returned. Does *d work because pointers point to an address?
Again, it is a reference to an int which is returned. *d refers to the original variable c (whatever that may be), pointed to by c. And this can implicitly be turned into a reference, just as in returnC.
Pointers do not in general point to an address (although they can - e.g. int** is a pointer to pointer to int). Pointers are an address of something. When you declare the pointer like something*, that something is the thing your pointer points to. So in my above example, int** declares a pointer to an int*, which happens to be a pointer itself.
Tyler, that was very helpful explanation, I did some experiment using visual studio debugger to clarify this difference even further:-
int sample = 90;
int& alias = sample;
int* pointerToSample = &sample;
Name Address Type
&alias 0x0112fc1c {90} int *
&sample 0x0112fc1c {90} int *
pointerToSample 0x0112fc1c {90} int *
*pointerToSample 90 int
alias 90 int &
&pointerToSample 0x0112fc04 {0x0112fc1c {90}} int * *
Memory Layout
PointerToSample Sample/alias
_______________......____________________
0x0112fc1c | | 90 |
___________|___.....__|________|_______...
[0x0112fc04] ... [0x0112fc1c
In returnC() and returnC2() you are not asking to return the address.
Both these functions return references to objects.
A reference is not the address of anything it is an alternative name of something (this may mean the compiler may (or may not depending on situation) use an address to represent the object (alternatively it may also know to keep it in register)).
All you know that a reference points at a specific object.
While a reference itself is not an object just an alternative name.
All of your examples produce undefined run-time behavior. You are returning pointers or references to items that disappear after execution leaves the function.
Let me clarify:
int * returnA()
{
static int a; // The static keyword keeps the variable from disappearing.
int * j = 0; // Declare a pointer to an int and initialize to location 0.
j = &a; // j now points to a.
return j; // return the location of the static variable (evil).
}
In your function, the variable j is assigned to point to a's temporary location. Upon exit of your function the variable a disappears, but it's former location is returned via j. Since a no longer exists at the location pointed to by j, undefined behavior will happen with accessing *j.
Variables inside functions should not be modified via reference or pointer by other code. It can happen although it produces undefined behavior.
Being pedantic, the pointers returned should be declared as pointing to constant data. The references returned should be const:
const char * Hello()
{
static const char text[] = "Hello";
return text;
}
The above function returns a pointer to constant data. Other code can access (read) the static data but cannot be modified.
const unsigned int& Counter()
{
static unsigned int value = 0;
value = value + 1;
return value;
}
In the above function, the value is initialized to zero on the first entry. All next executions of this function cause value to be incremented by one. The function returns a reference to a constant value. This means that other functions can use the value (from afar) as if it was a variable (without having to dereference a pointer).
In my thinking, a pointer is used for an optional parameter or object. A reference is passed when the object must exist. Inside the function, a referenced parameter means that the value exists, however a pointer must be checked for null before dereferencing it. Also, with a reference, there is more guarantee that the target object is valid. A pointer could point to an invalid address (not null) and cause undefined behavior.
Semantically, references do act as addresses. However, syntactically, they are the compiler's job, not yours, and you can treat a reference as if it is the original object it points to, including binding other references to it and having them refer to the original object too. Say goodbye to pointer arithmetic in this case.
The downside of that is that you can't modify what they refer to - they are bound at construct time.