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++?
Related
Here is the way I understand * and & symbols in C and C++.
In C, * serves two purposes. First it can be used to declare a pointer variable like so int* pointerVariable
It can however be used as a dereference operator like so *pointerVariable which returns value saved at that address, it understands how to interpret bytes at that address based on what data type we have declared that pointer is pointing to. In our case int* therefore it reads bytes saved at that address and returns back whole number.
We also have address-of operator in C like so &someVariable which returns address of bytes saved underneath someVariable name.
However in C++ (not in C), we also get a possibility to use & in declaration of reference like so int& someReference. This will turn variable someReference into a reference, which means that whatever value we pass into that variable, it will automatically get address of the value we are passing into it and it will hold it.
Do I get this correctly?
Do I get this correctly?
Yes, but it is better to think about pointers and references in terms of what you want to do.
References are very useful for all those cases where you need to refer to some object without copying it. References are simple: they are always valid and there is no change in syntax when you use the object.
Pointers are for the rest of cases. Pointers allow you to work with addresses (pointer arithmetic), require explicit syntax to refer to the object behind them (*, &, -> operators), are nullable (NULL, nullptr), can be modified, etc.
In summary, references are simpler and easier to reason about. Use pointers when a reference does not cut it.
General Syntax for defining a pointer:
data-type * pointer-name = &variable-name
The data-type of the pointer must be the same as that of the variable to which it is pointing.
void type pointer can handle all data-types.
General Syntax for defining a reference variable:
data-type & reference-name = variable-name
The data-type of the reference variable must be the same as that of the variable of which it is an alias.
Let's look at each one of them, for the purpose of explanation, I will go with a simple Swap Program both in C and C++.
Swapping two variables by the pass by reference in C
#include <stdio.h>
void swap(int *,int *); //Function prototype
int main()
{
int a = 10;
int b = 20;
printf("Before Swap: a=%d, b=%d\n",a,b);
swap(&a,&b); //Value of a,b are passed by reference
printf("After Swap: a=%d, b=%d\n",a,b);
return 0;
}
void swap(int *ptra,int *ptrb)
{
int temp = *ptra;
*ptra = *ptrb;
*ptrb = temp;
}
In the code above we have declared and initialized variable a and
b to 10 and 20 respectively.
We then pass the address of a
and b to swap function by using the addressof (&) operator. This operator gives the address of the variable.
These passed arguments are assigned to the respective formal parameters which in this case are int pointers ptra and ptrb.
To swap the variables, we first need to temporarily store the value of one of the variables. For this, we stored value pointed by the pointer ptra to a variable temp. This was done by first dereferencing the pointer by using dereference (*) operator and then assigning it to temp. dereference (*) operator is used to access the value stored in the memory location pointed to by a pointer.
Once, the value of pointed by ptra is saved, we can then assign it a new value, which in this case, we assigned it the value of variable b(again with the help of dereference (*) operator). And the ptrb was assigned the value saved in temp(original value of a). Therefore, swapping the value of a and b, by altering the memory location of those variables.
Note: We can use dereference (*) operator and the addressof (&) operator together like this, *&a, they nullify each other resulting in just a
We can write a similar program in C++ by using pointers to swap two numbers as well but the language supports another type variable known as the reference variable. It provides an alias (alternative name) for a previously defined variable.
Swapping two variables by the call by reference in C++
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void swap(int &,int &); //Function prototype
int main()
{
int a = 10;
int b = 20;
cout << "Before Swap: a= " << a << " b= " << b << endl;
swap(a,b);
cout << "After Swap: a= " << a << " b= " << b << endl;
return 0;
}
void swap(int &refa,int &refb)
{
int temp = refa;
refa = refb;
refb = temp;
}
In the code above when we passed the variables a and b to the function swap, what happened is the variable a and b got their respective reference variables refa and refb inside the swap. It's like giving a variable another alias name.
Now, we can directly swap the variables without the dereferencing (*) operator using the reference variables.
Rest logic remains the same.
So before we get into the differences between pointers and references, I feel like we need to talk a little bit about declaration syntax, partly to explain why pointer and reference declarations are written that way and partly because the way many C++ programmers write pointer and reference declarations misrepresent that syntax (get comfortable, this is going to take a while).
In both C and C++, declarations are composed of a sequence of declaration specifiers followed by a sequence of declarators1. In a declaration like
static unsigned long int a[10], *p, f(void);
the declaration specifiers are static unsigned long int and the declarators are a[10], *p, and f(void).
Array-ness, pointer-ness, function-ness, and in C++ reference-ness are all specified as part of the declarator, not the declaration specifiers. This means when you write something like
int* p;
it’s parsed as
int (*p);
Since the unary * operator is a unique token, the compiler doesn't need whitespace to distinguish it from the int type specifier or the p identifier. You can write it as int *p;, int* p;, int * p;, or even int*p;
It also means that in a declaration like
int* p, q;
only p is declared as a pointer - q is a regular int.
The idea is that the declaration of a variable closely matches its use in the code ("declaration mimics use"). If you have a pointer to int named p and you want to access the pointed-to value, you use the * operator to dereference it:
printf( "%d\n", *p );
The expression *p has type int, so the declaration of p is written
int *p;
This tells us that the variable p has type "pointer to int" because the combination of p and the unary operator * give us an expression of type int. Most C programmers will write the pointer declaration as shown above, with the * visibly grouped with p.
Now, Bjarne and the couple of generations of C++ programmers who followed thought it was more important to emphasize the pointer-ness of p rather than the int-ness of *p, so they introduced the
int* p;
convention. However, this convention falls down for anything but a simple pointer (or pointer to pointer). It doesn't work for pointers to arrays:
int (*a)[N];
or pointers to functions
int (*f)(void);
or arrays of pointers to functions
int (*p[N])(void);
etc. Declaring an array of pointers as
int* a[N];
just indicates confused thinking. Since [] and () are postfix, you cannot associate the array-ness or function-ness with the declaration specifiers by writing
int[N] a;
int(void) f;
like you can with the unary * operator, but the unary * operator is bound to the declarator in exactly the same way as the [] and () operators are.2
C++ references break the rule about "declaration mimics use" hard. In a non-declaration statement, an expression &x always yields a pointer type. If x has type int, &x has type int *. So & has a completely different meaning in a declaration than in an expression.
So that's syntax, let's talk about pointers vs. references.
A pointer is just an address value (although with additional type information). You can do (some) arithmetic on pointers, you can initialize them to arbitrary values (or NULL), you can apply the [] subscript operator to them as though they were an array (indeed, the array subscript operation is defined in terms of pointer operations). A pointer is not required to be valid (that is, contain the address of an object during that object's lifetime) when it's first created.
A reference is another name for an object or function, not just that object's or function's address (this is why you don't use the * operator when working with references). You can't do pointer arithmetic on references, you can't assign arbitrary values to a reference, etc. When instantiated, a reference must refer to a valid object or function. How exactly references are represented internally isn't specified.
This is the C terminology - the C++ terminology is a little different.
In case it isn't clear by now I consider the T* p; idiom to be poor practice and responsible for no small amount of confusion about pointer declaration syntax; however, since that's how the C++ community has decided to do things, that's how I write my C++ code. I don't like it and it makes me itch, but it's not worth the heartburn to argue over it or to have inconsistently formatted code.
Simple answer:
Reference variables are an alias to the data passed to them, another label.
int var = 0;
int& refVar = var;
In practical terms, var and refVar are the same object.
Its worth noting that references to heap pointer data cannot deallocate (delete) the data, as its an alias of the data;
int* var = new int{0};
int& refVar = *var;
delete refVar // error
and references to the pointer itself can deallocate (delete) the data, as its an alias of the pointer.
int* var = new int{0};
int*& refVar = var;
delete refVar // good
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.
For example, if F is a reference to an integer, where the reference is not permitted to be pointed to a new object once it is initially pointed to one.
Can I write to declaration like: const int & F?
I am confused about reference and pointer, because they both represent the address of something, but we always write parameter use reference as: const & F, I understand that this is to reduce the copy and does not allow others to change it, but are there any other meanings? and why do we need "const" after a function declaration like: int F(int z) const; this const makes the return type const or everything in the function const?
One more example,
void F(int* p)
{
p+=3;
}
int z=8;
F(&z);
std::cout<<z<<std::endl;
What is the output for z since z is a reference, and I pass it as a pointer who points to an integer.Increasing p by 3 just makes the address different and does not change its value?
Just a first pass at some answers - if anything is unclear please comment and I'll try to elaborate.
int a = 3;
declares an integer, a, with the initial value 3, but you are allowed to change it. For example, later you can do
a = 5; // (*)
and a will have the value 5. If you want to prevent this, you can instead write
const int a = 3;
which will make the assignment (*) illegal - the compiler will issue an error.
If you create a reference to an integer, you are basically creating an alias:
int& b = a;
, despite appearances, does not create a new integer b. Instead, it declares b as an alias for a. If a had the value 3 before, so will b, if you write b = 6 and print the value of a, you will get 6 as well. Just as for a, you can make the assignment b = 6 illegal by declaring it as const:
const int& b = a;
means that b is still an alias for a, but it will not be used to assign a different value to a. It will only be used to read the value of a. Note that a itself still may or may not be constant - if you declared it as non-const you can still write a = 6 and b will also be 6.
As for the question about the pointers: the snippet
void F(int* p) {
p += 3;
}
int z = 8;
F(&z);
does not do what you expected. You pass the address of z into the function F, so inside F, the pointer p will point to z. However, what you are doing then, is adding 3 to the value of p, i.e. to the address that p points to. So you will change to pointer to point at some (semi)random memory address. Luckily, it's just a copy, and it will be discarded. What you probably wanted to do, is increment the value of the integer that p points to, which would be *p += 3. You could have prevented this mistake by making the argument a int* const, meaning: the value of p (i.e. address pointed to) cannot be changed, but the value it points to (i.e. the value of z, in this case) can. This would have made *p += 3 legal but not the "erroneous" (unintended) p += 3. Other versions would be const int* p which would make p += 3 legal but not *p += 3, and const int* const` which would have allowed neither.
Actually, the way you have written F is dangerous: suppose that you expand the function and later you write (correctly) *p += 3. You think that you are updating the value of z whose address you passed in, while actually you are updating the value of a more-or-less random memory address. In fact, when I tried compiling the following:
// WARNING WARNING WARNING
// DANGEROUS CODE - This will probably produce a segfault - don't run it!
void F(int* p) {
p += 3; // I thought I wrote *p += 3
// ... Lots of other code in between, I forgot I accidentally changed p
*p += 3; // NOOOOOOOOOOO!
}
int main()
{
int z=8;
F(&z);
std::cout << z;
return 0;
}
I got a segmentation fault, because I'm writing at an address where I haven't allocated a variable (for all I know I could have just screwed up my boot sector).
Finally, about const after a function declaration: it makes the this pointer a const pointer - basically the compiler emits const A* this instead of just A* this. Conceptually, it states your intention that the function will not change the state of the class, which usually means it won't change any of the (internal) variables. For example, it would make the following code illegal:
class A {
int a;
void f() const {
a = 3; // f is const, so it cannot change a!
}
};
A a;
a.f();
Of course, if the function returns something, this value can have its own type, for example
void f();
int f();
int& f();
const int f();
const int& f();
are functions that return nothing, a (copy of) an integer, a (reference to) an integer, a constant (copy of) an integer, and a constant reference of an integer. If in addition f is guaranteed not to change any class fields, you can also add const after the brackets:
void f() const;
int f() const;
int& f() const;
const int f() const;
const int& f() const;
The way I remember the difference between references and pointers is that a reference must exist and the reference cannot change.
A pointer can be changed, and usually needs to be checked against NULL or tested to verify it points to a valid object.
Also, an object passed by reference can be treated syntactically like it was declared in the function. Pointers must use deferencing syntax.
Hope that helps.
You are confusing things.
First of all int z=8; F(&z); here z IS NOT a reference.
So let me start with the basics:
when found in a type declaration the symbol & denotes a reference, but in any other context, the symbol & means address of.
Similar, in a type declaration * has the meaning of declaring a pointer, anywhere else it it the dereferencing operator, denoting you use the value at an address.
For instance:
int *p : p is a pointer of type int.
x = *p : x is assigned the value found at address p.
int &r = a : r is reference of type int, and r refers the variable a.
p = &a : p is assigned the address of variable a.
Another question you have: the const at the end of a function, like int f(int x) const. This can be used only on non-static class methods and specifies that the function does not modify the object. It has nothing to do with the return value.
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.