Difference between int* array[] and int (*array)[] [duplicate] - c++

What is the difference between the following declarations:
int* arr1[8];
int (*arr2)[8];
int *(arr3[8]);
What is the general rule for understanding more complex declarations?

int* arr[8]; // An array of int pointers.
int (*arr)[8]; // A pointer to an array of integers
The third one is same as the first.
The general rule is operator precedence. It can get even much more complex as function pointers come into the picture.

Use the cdecl program, as suggested by K&R.
$ cdecl
Type `help' or `?' for help
cdecl> explain int* arr1[8];
declare arr1 as array 8 of pointer to int
cdecl> explain int (*arr2)[8]
declare arr2 as pointer to array 8 of int
cdecl> explain int *(arr3[8])
declare arr3 as array 8 of pointer to int
cdecl>
It works the other way too.
cdecl> declare x as pointer to function(void) returning pointer to float
float *(*x)(void )

I don't know if it has an official name, but I call it the Right-Left Thingy(TM).
Start at the variable, then go right, and left, and right...and so on.
int* arr1[8];
arr1 is an array of 8 pointers to integers.
int (*arr2)[8];
arr2 is a pointer (the parenthesis block the right-left) to an array of 8 integers.
int *(arr3[8]);
arr3 is an array of 8 pointers to integers.
This should help you out with complex declarations.

int *a[4]; // Array of 4 pointers to int
int (*a)[4]; //a is a pointer to an integer array of size 4
int (*a[8])[5]; //a is an array of pointers to integer array of size 5

The answer for the last two can also be deducted from the golden rule in C:
Declaration follows use.
int (*arr2)[8];
What happens if you dereference arr2? You get an array of 8 integers.
int *(arr3[8]);
What happens if you take an element from arr3? You get a pointer to an integer.
This also helps when dealing with pointers to functions. To take sigjuice's example:
float *(*x)(void )
What happens when you dereference x? You get a function that you can call with no arguments. What happens when you call it? It will return a pointer to a float.
Operator precedence is always tricky, though. However, using parentheses can actually also be confusing because declaration follows use. At least, to me, intuitively arr2 looks like an array of 8 pointers to ints, but it is actually the other way around. Just takes some getting used to. Reason enough to always add a comment to these declarations, if you ask me :)
edit: example
By the way, I just stumbled across the following situation: a function that has a static matrix and that uses pointer arithmetic to see if the row pointer is out of bounds. Example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define NUM_ELEM(ar) (sizeof(ar) / sizeof((ar)[0]))
int *
put_off(const int newrow[2])
{
static int mymatrix[3][2];
static int (*rowp)[2] = mymatrix;
int (* const border)[] = mymatrix + NUM_ELEM(mymatrix);
memcpy(rowp, newrow, sizeof(*rowp));
rowp += 1;
if (rowp == border) {
rowp = mymatrix;
}
return *rowp;
}
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i = 0;
int row[2] = {0, 1};
int *rout;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
row[0] = i;
row[1] += i;
rout = put_off(row);
printf("%d (%p): [%d, %d]\n", i, (void *) rout, rout[0], rout[1]);
}
return 0;
}
Output:
0 (0x804a02c): [0, 0]
1 (0x804a034): [0, 0]
2 (0x804a024): [0, 1]
3 (0x804a02c): [1, 2]
4 (0x804a034): [2, 4]
5 (0x804a024): [3, 7]
Note that the value of border never changes, so the compiler can optimize that away. This is different from what you might initially want to use: const int (*border)[3]: that declares border as a pointer to an array of 3 integers that will not change value as long as the variable exists. However, that pointer may be pointed to any other such array at any time. We want that kind of behaviour for the argument, instead (because this function does not change any of those integers). Declaration follows use.
(p.s.: feel free to improve this sample!)

typedef int (*PointerToIntArray)[];
typedef int *ArrayOfIntPointers[];

As a rule of thumb, right unary operators (like [], (), etc) take preference over left ones. So, int *(*ptr)()[]; would be a pointer that points to a function that returns an array of pointers to int (get the right operators as soon as you can as you get out of the parenthesis)

I think we can use the simple rule ..
example int * (*ptr)()[];
start from ptr
" ptr is a pointer to "
go towards right ..its ")" now go left its a "("
come out go right "()" so
" to a function which takes no arguments " go left "and returns a pointer " go right "to
an array" go left " of integers "

Here's an interesting website that explains how to read complex types in C:
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/reading-cdecl.html

Here's how I interpret it:
int *something[n];
Note on precedence: array subscript operator ([]) has higher priority than
dereference operator (*).
So, here we will apply the [] before *, making the statement equivalent to:
int *(something[i]);
Note on how a declaration makes sense: int num means num is an int, int *ptr or int (*ptr) means, (value at ptr) is
an int, which makes ptr a pointer to int.
This can be read as, (value of the (value at ith index of the something)) is an integer. So, (value at the ith index of something) is an (integer pointer), which makes the something an array of integer pointers.
In the second one,
int (*something)[n];
To make sense out of this statement, you must be familiar with this fact:
Note on pointer representation of array: somethingElse[i] is equivalent to *(somethingElse + i)
So, replacing somethingElse with (*something), we get *(*something + i), which is an integer as per declaration. So, (*something) given us an array, which makes something equivalent to (pointer to an array).

I guess the second declaration is confusing to many. Here's an easy way to understand it.
Lets have an array of integers, i.e. int B[8].
Let's also have a variable A which points to B. Now, value at A is B, i.e. (*A) == B. Hence A points to an array of integers. In your question, arr is similar to A.
Similarly, in int* (*C) [8], C is a pointer to an array of pointers to integer.

int *arr1[5]
In this declaration, arr1 is an array of 5 pointers to integers.
Reason: Square brackets have higher precedence over * (dereferncing operator).
And in this type, number of rows are fixed (5 here), but number of columns is variable.
int (*arr2)[5]
In this declaration, arr2 is a pointer to an integer array of 5 elements.
Reason: Here, () brackets have higher precedence than [].
And in this type, number of rows is variable, but the number of columns is fixed (5 here).

In pointer to an integer if pointer is incremented then it goes next integer.
in array of pointer if pointer is incremented it jumps to next array

Related

What adding type_t to array means in C++ [duplicate]

Consider:
int sum(const int numbers[], const int size){
if (size == 0)
return 0;
else
return numbers[0] + sum(numbers+1, size-1);
}
This is a simple recursive function from MIT 6.096 for adding an arbitrary number of integers, and it works.
The thing I cannot understand is in the last line:
How does numbers+1 work, given numbers[] is an int array and you shouldn't be able to add an integer to an int[] constant?
how does "numbers+1" work, given numbers[] is an int array and you shouldn't be able to add an integer to an int[] constant?
There's no int[] constant. numbers is decayed to a pointer and numbers+1 is simple pointer arithmetic applied to the parameter passed to the recursive call.
As a side note to #πάντα ῥεῖ's answer, here are a few clarifications on the terminology:
The following is another way to depict array notation:
The phrase numbers[1] can also be expressed as *(numbers + 1)
Where the * operator is said to dereference the pointer address numbers + 1.
dereference can be thought of in this case as read the value pointed to by.
So, the code in your example is using pointer arithmetic. The phrase numbers + 1 is pointer notation, pointing to the second int location of the pointer numbers. size - 1 is a count of bytes from the memory location starting at numbers to the end of the array.
As to the meaning of decayed:
Generally, within the context of C array arguments, decay conveys the idea that the array argument experiences loss of type and dimension information. Your const int numbers[] is said (arguably) to decay into an int *, therefore no longer able to provide array size information. (Using the sizeof() macro for example does not provide length of array, but size of the pointer.) This also is the reason a second argument is provided, to convey size information.
However, in the context of this question, the meaning of decay is academic, as pointed out by #Ben Voigt: The token sequence const int numbers[], when it appears in a formal parameter list, declares a pointer and not an array. (It never decayed into a pointer because it was a pointer to begin with.)
As πάντα ῥεῖ says int[] decays to int*.
But this sum function is the poor man's solution, you should prefer accumulate:
cout << accumulate(numbers, next(numbers, size), decay_t<decltype(numbers[0])>{});
Live Example
If you have C++17 and a statically allocated array, such as int numbers[size], you can take advantage of cbegin and cend:
cout << accumulate(cbegin(numbers), cend(numbers), decay_t<decltype(numbers[0])>{});
I've attempted to benchmark the recursive sum against accumulate, however sum runs out of stack space before I am able to reach a vector size with a meaningful difference, making accumulate the clear winner.
I associate the type of accumulate's init agument with the type of numbers' elements: decay_t<decltype(numbers[0])>{}. The reason for this is if someone was to come back and change the type of numbers, and not change the type of accumulate's init argument the accumulation would be assigned to the wrong type.
For example if we use the accumulation line: cout << accumulate(cbegin(numbers), cend(numbers), 0), this is fine for int numbers[]. The problem would arise if we switched to define: double numbers[] = {1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.3}; but we failed to change the init argument we would sum doubles into an int. This would result in 10 rather than 11.2: http://ideone.com/A12xin
int sum(int *num,int size)
{
int total=0;
/* function to sum integer array */
if (size <= 0) return(ERROR);
while(size--) total+= *num++;
return total;
}
Is faster, more compact, and error tolerant.
numbers is a pointer ; on each iteration the function sum() advances through the array (this is what numbers+1 does), at the same time decreasing size by 1 (--size would work just as well).
When size reaches 0 this is the exit condition, and the recursion ends.

Adding integers to arrays in C++?

Consider:
int sum(const int numbers[], const int size){
if (size == 0)
return 0;
else
return numbers[0] + sum(numbers+1, size-1);
}
This is a simple recursive function from MIT 6.096 for adding an arbitrary number of integers, and it works.
The thing I cannot understand is in the last line:
How does numbers+1 work, given numbers[] is an int array and you shouldn't be able to add an integer to an int[] constant?
how does "numbers+1" work, given numbers[] is an int array and you shouldn't be able to add an integer to an int[] constant?
There's no int[] constant. numbers is decayed to a pointer and numbers+1 is simple pointer arithmetic applied to the parameter passed to the recursive call.
As a side note to #πάντα ῥεῖ's answer, here are a few clarifications on the terminology:
The following is another way to depict array notation:
The phrase numbers[1] can also be expressed as *(numbers + 1)
Where the * operator is said to dereference the pointer address numbers + 1.
dereference can be thought of in this case as read the value pointed to by.
So, the code in your example is using pointer arithmetic. The phrase numbers + 1 is pointer notation, pointing to the second int location of the pointer numbers. size - 1 is a count of bytes from the memory location starting at numbers to the end of the array.
As to the meaning of decayed:
Generally, within the context of C array arguments, decay conveys the idea that the array argument experiences loss of type and dimension information. Your const int numbers[] is said (arguably) to decay into an int *, therefore no longer able to provide array size information. (Using the sizeof() macro for example does not provide length of array, but size of the pointer.) This also is the reason a second argument is provided, to convey size information.
However, in the context of this question, the meaning of decay is academic, as pointed out by #Ben Voigt: The token sequence const int numbers[], when it appears in a formal parameter list, declares a pointer and not an array. (It never decayed into a pointer because it was a pointer to begin with.)
As πάντα ῥεῖ says int[] decays to int*.
But this sum function is the poor man's solution, you should prefer accumulate:
cout << accumulate(numbers, next(numbers, size), decay_t<decltype(numbers[0])>{});
Live Example
If you have C++17 and a statically allocated array, such as int numbers[size], you can take advantage of cbegin and cend:
cout << accumulate(cbegin(numbers), cend(numbers), decay_t<decltype(numbers[0])>{});
I've attempted to benchmark the recursive sum against accumulate, however sum runs out of stack space before I am able to reach a vector size with a meaningful difference, making accumulate the clear winner.
I associate the type of accumulate's init agument with the type of numbers' elements: decay_t<decltype(numbers[0])>{}. The reason for this is if someone was to come back and change the type of numbers, and not change the type of accumulate's init argument the accumulation would be assigned to the wrong type.
For example if we use the accumulation line: cout << accumulate(cbegin(numbers), cend(numbers), 0), this is fine for int numbers[]. The problem would arise if we switched to define: double numbers[] = {1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.3}; but we failed to change the init argument we would sum doubles into an int. This would result in 10 rather than 11.2: http://ideone.com/A12xin
int sum(int *num,int size)
{
int total=0;
/* function to sum integer array */
if (size <= 0) return(ERROR);
while(size--) total+= *num++;
return total;
}
Is faster, more compact, and error tolerant.
numbers is a pointer ; on each iteration the function sum() advances through the array (this is what numbers+1 does), at the same time decreasing size by 1 (--size would work just as well).
When size reaches 0 this is the exit condition, and the recursion ends.

How does array declaration work in C++? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How do I use arrays in C++?
(5 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm trying to understand the different ways of declaring an array (of one or two dimensions) in C++ and what exactly they return (pointers, pointers to pointers, etc.)
Here are some examples:
int A[2][2] = {0,1,2,3};
int A[2][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
int **A = new int*[2];
int *A = new int[2][2];
In each case, what exactly is A? Is it a pointer, double pointer? What happens when I do A+1? Are these all valid ways of declaring matrices?
Also, why does the first option not need the second set of curly braces to define "columns"?
Looks like you got a plethora of answers while I was writing mine, but I might as well post my answer anyway so I don't feel like it was all for nothing...
(all sizeof results taken from VC2012 - 32 bit build, pointer sizes would, of course, double with a 64 bit build)
size_t f0(int* I);
size_t f1(int I[]);
size_t f2(int I[2]);
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
// A0, A1, and A2 are local (on the stack) two-by-two integer arrays
// (they are technically not pointers)
// nested braces not needed because the array dimensions are explicit [2][2]
int A0[2][2] = {0,1,2,3};
// nested braces needed because the array dimensions are not explicit,
//so the braces let the compiler deduce that the missing dimension is 2
int A1[][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
// this still works, of course. Very explicit.
int A2[2][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
// A3 is a pointer to an integer pointer. New constructs an array of two
// integer pointers (on the heap) and returns a pointer to the first one.
int **A3 = new int*[2];
// if you wanted to access A3 with a double subscript, you would have to
// make the 2 int pointers in the array point to something valid as well
A3[0] = new int[2];
A3[1] = new int[2];
A3[0][0] = 7;
// this one doesn't compile because new doesn't return "pointer to int"
// when it is called like this
int *A4_1 = new int[2][2];
// this edit of the above works but can be confusing
int (*A4_2)[2] = new int[2][2];
// it allocates a two-by-two array of integers and returns a pointer to
// where the first integer is, however the type of the pointer that it
// returns is "pointer to integer array"
// now it works like the 2by2 arrays from earlier,
// but A4_2 is a pointer to the **heap**
A4_2[0][0] = 6;
A4_2[0][1] = 7;
A4_2[1][0] = 8;
A4_2[1][1] = 9;
// looking at the sizes can shed some light on subtle differences here
// between pointers and arrays
A0[0][0] = sizeof(A0); // 16 // typeof(A0) is int[2][2] (2by2 int array, 4 ints total, 16 bytes)
A0[0][1] = sizeof(A0[0]); // 8 // typeof(A0[0]) is int[2] (array of 2 ints)
A1[0][0] = sizeof(A1); // 16 // typeof(A1) is int[2][2]
A1[0][1] = sizeof(A1[0]); // 8 // typeof(A1[0]) is int[2]
A2[0][0] = sizeof(A2); // 16 // typeof(A2) is int[2][2]
A2[0][1] = sizeof(A2[0]); // 8 // typeof(A1[0]) is int[2]
A3[0][0] = sizeof(A3); // 4 // typeof(A3) is int**
A3[0][1] = sizeof(A3[0]); // 4 // typeof(A3[0]) is int*
A4_2[0][0] = sizeof(A4_2); // 4 // typeof(A4_2) is int(*)[2] (pointer to array of 2 ints)
A4_2[0][1] = sizeof(A4_2[0]); // 8 // typeof(A4_2[0]) is int[2] (the first array of 2 ints)
A4_2[1][0] = sizeof(A4_2[1]); // 8 // typeof(A4_2[1]) is int[2] (the second array of 2 ints)
A4_2[1][1] = sizeof(*A4_2); // 8 // typeof(*A4_2) is int[2] (different way to reference the first array of 2 ints)
// confusion between pointers and arrays often arises from the common practice of
// allowing arrays to transparently decay (implicitly convert) to pointers
A0[1][0] = f0(A0[0]); // f0 returns 4.
// Not surprising because declaration of f0 demands int*
A0[1][1] = f1(A0[0]); // f1 returns 4.
// Still not too surprising because declaration of f1 doesn't
// explicitly specify array size
A2[1][0] = f2(A2[0]); // f2 returns 4.
// Much more surprising because declaration of f2 explicitly says
// it takes "int I[2]"
int B0[25];
B0[0] = sizeof(B0); // 100 == (sizeof(int)*25)
B0[1] = f2(B0); // also compiles and returns 4.
// Don't do this! just be aware that this kind of thing can
// happen when arrays decay.
return 0;
}
// these are always returning 4 above because, when compiled,
// all of these functions actually take int* as an argument
size_t f0(int* I)
{
return sizeof(I);
}
size_t f1(int I[])
{
return sizeof(I);
}
size_t f2(int I[2])
{
return sizeof(I);
}
// indeed, if I try to overload f0 like this, it will not compile.
// it will complain that, "function 'size_t f0(int *)' already has a body"
size_t f0(int I[2])
{
return sizeof(I);
}
yes, this sample has tons of signed/unsigned int mismatch, but that part isn't relevant to the question. Also, don't forget to delete everything created with new and delete[] everything created with new[]
EDIT:
"What happens when I do A+1?" -- I missed this earlier.
Operations like this would be called "pointer arithmetic" (even though I called out toward the top of my answer that some of these are not pointers, but they can turn into pointers).
If I have a pointer P to an array of someType, then subscript access P[n] is exactly the same as using this syntax *(P + n). The compiler will take into account the size of the type being pointed to in both cases. So, the resulting opcode will actually do something like this for you *(P + n*sizeof(someType)) or equivalently *(P + n*sizeof(*P)) because the physical cpu doesn't know or care about all our made up "types". In the end, all pointer offsets have to be a byte count. For consistency, using array names like pointers works the same here.
Turning back to the samples above: A0, A1, A2, and A4_2 all behave the same with pointer arithmetic.
A0[0] is the same as *(A0+0), which references the first int[2] of A0
similarly:
A0[1] is the same as *(A0+1) which offsets the "pointer" by sizeof(A0[0]) (i.e. 8, see above) and it ends up referencing the second int[2] of A0
A3 acts slightly differently. This is because A3 is the only one that doesn't store all 4 ints of the 2 by 2 array contiguously. In my example, A3 points to an array of 2 int pointers, each of these point to completely separate arrays of two ints. Using A3[1] or *(A3+1) would still end up directing you to the second of the two int arrays, but it would do it by offsetting only 4bytes from the beginning of A3 (using 32 bit pointers for my purposes) which gives you a pointer that tells you where to find the second two-int array. I hope that makes sense.
For the array declaration, the first specified dimension is the outermost one, an array that contains other arrays.
For the pointer declarations, each * adds another level of indirection.
The syntax was designed, for C, to let declarations mimic the use. Both the C creators and the C++ creator (Bjarne Stroustrup) have described the syntax as a failed experiment. The main problem is that it doesn't follow the usual rules of substitution in mathematics.
In C++11 you can use std::array instead of the square brackets declaration.
Also you can define a similar ptr type builder e.g.
template< class T >
using ptr = T*;
and then write
ptr<int> p;
ptr<ptr<int>> q;
int A[2][2] = {0,1,2,3};
int A[2][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
These declare A as array of size 2 of array of size 2 of int. The declarations are absolutely identical.
int **A = new int*[2];
This declares a pointer to pointer to int initialized with an array of two pointers. You should allocate memory for these two pointers as well if you want to use it as two-dimensional array.
int *A = new int[2][2];
And this doesn't compile because the type of right part is pointer to array of size 2 of int which cannot be converted to pointer to int.
In all valid cases A + 1 is the same as &A[1], that means it points to the second element of the array, that is, in case of int A[2][2] to the second array of two ints, and in case of int **A to the second pointer in the array.
The other answers have covered the other declarations but I will explain why you don't need the braces in the first two initializations. The reason why these two initializations are identical:
int A[2][2] = {0,1,2,3};
int A[2][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
is because it's covered by aggregate initialization. Braces are allowed to be "elided" (omitted) in this instance.
The C++ standard provides an example in § 8.5.1:
[...]
float y[4][3] = {
{ 1, 3, 5 },
{ 2, 4, 6 },
{ 3, 5, 7 },
};
[...]
In the following example, braces in the initializer-list are elided;
however the initializer-list has the same effect as the
completely-braced initializer-list of the above example,
float y[4][3] = {
1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 5, 7
};
The initializer for y begins with a left brace, but the one for y[0]
does not, therefore three elements from the list are used. Likewise
the next three are taken successively for y[1] and y[2].
Ok I will try it to explain it to you:
This is a initialization. You create a two dimensional array with the values:
A[0][0] -> 0
A[0][1] -> 1
A[1][0] -> 2
A[1][1] -> 3
This is the exactly the same like above, but here you use braces. Do it always like this its better for reading.
int **A means you have a pointer to a pointer of ints. When you do new int*[2] you will reserve memory for 2 Pointer of integer.
This doesn't will be compiled.
int A[2][2] = {0,1,2,3};
int A[2][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
These two are equivalent.
Both mean: "I declare a two dimentional array of integers. The array is of size 2 by 2".
Memory however is not two dimensional, it is not laid out in grids, but (conceptionaly) in one long line. In a multi-dimensional array, each row is just allocated in memory right after the previous one.
Because of this, we can go to the memory address pointed to by A and either store two lines of length 2, or one line of length 4, and the end result in memory will be the same.
int **A = new int*[2];
Declares a pointer to a pointer called A.
A stores the address of a pointer to an array of size 2 containing ints. This array is allocated on the heap.
int *A = new int[2][2];
A is a pointer to an int.
That int is the beginning of a 2x2 int array allocated in the heap.
Aparrently this is invalid:
prog.cpp:5:23: error: cannot convert ‘int (*)[2]’ to ‘int*’ in initialization
int *A = new int[2][2];
But due to what we saw with the first two, this will work (and is 100% equivalent):
int *A new int[4];
int A[2][2] = {0,1,2,3};
A is an array of 4 ints. For the coder's convenience, he has decided to declare it as a 2 dimensional array so compiler will allow coder to access it as a two dimensional array. Coder has initialized all elements linearly as they are laid in memory. As usual, since A is an array, A is itself the address of the array so A + 1 (after application of pointer math) offset A by the size of 2 int pointers. Since the address of an array points to the first element of that array, A will point to first element of the second row of the array, value 2.
Edit: Accessing a two dimensional array using a single array operator will operate along the first dimension treating the second as 0. So A[1] is equivalent to A[1][0]. A + 1 results in equivalent pointer addition.
int A[2][2] = {{0,1},{2,3}};
A is an array of 4 ints. For the coder's convenience, he has decided to declare it as a 2 dimensional array so compiler will allow coder to access it as a two dimensional array. Coder has initialized elements by rows. For the same reasons above, A + 1 points to value 2.
int **A = new int*[2];
A is pointer to int pointer that has been initialized to point to an array of 2 pointers to int pointers. Since A is a pointer, A + 1 takes the value of A, which is the address of the pointer array (and thus, first element of the array) and adds 1 (pointer math), where it will now point to the second element of the array. As the array was not initialized, actually doing something with A + 1 (like reading it or writing to it) will be dangerous (who knows what value is there and what that would actually point to, if it's even a valid address).
int *A = new int[2][2];
Edit: as Jarod42 has pointed out, this is invalid. I think this may be closer to what you meant. If not, we can clarify in the comments.
int *A = new int[4];
A is a pointer to int that has been initialized to point to an anonymous array of 4 ints. Since A is a pointer, A + 1 takes the value of A, which is the address of the pointer array (and thus, first element of the array) and adds 1 (pointer math), where it will now point to the second element of the array.
Some takeaways:
In the first two cases, A is the address of an array while in the last two, A is the value of the pointer which happened to be initialized to the address of an array.
In the first two, A cannot be changed once initialized. In the latter two, A can be changed after initialization and point to some other memory.
That said, you need to be careful with how you might use pointers with an array element. Consider the following:
int *a = new int(5);
int *b = new int(6);
int c[2] = {*a, *b};
int *d = a;
c+1 is not the same as d+1. In fact, accessing d+1 is very dangerous. Why? Because c is an array of int that has been initialized by dereferencing a and b. that means that c, is the address of a chunk of memory, where at that memory location is value which has been set to the value pointed to by tovariable a, and at the next memory location that is a value pinned to by variable b. On the other hand d is just the address of a. So you can see, c != d therefore, there is no reason that c + 1 == d + 1.

typedef of char pointers in c++ [duplicate]

What is the difference between the following declarations:
int* arr1[8];
int (*arr2)[8];
int *(arr3[8]);
What is the general rule for understanding more complex declarations?
int* arr[8]; // An array of int pointers.
int (*arr)[8]; // A pointer to an array of integers
The third one is same as the first.
The general rule is operator precedence. It can get even much more complex as function pointers come into the picture.
Use the cdecl program, as suggested by K&R.
$ cdecl
Type `help' or `?' for help
cdecl> explain int* arr1[8];
declare arr1 as array 8 of pointer to int
cdecl> explain int (*arr2)[8]
declare arr2 as pointer to array 8 of int
cdecl> explain int *(arr3[8])
declare arr3 as array 8 of pointer to int
cdecl>
It works the other way too.
cdecl> declare x as pointer to function(void) returning pointer to float
float *(*x)(void )
I don't know if it has an official name, but I call it the Right-Left Thingy(TM).
Start at the variable, then go right, and left, and right...and so on.
int* arr1[8];
arr1 is an array of 8 pointers to integers.
int (*arr2)[8];
arr2 is a pointer (the parenthesis block the right-left) to an array of 8 integers.
int *(arr3[8]);
arr3 is an array of 8 pointers to integers.
This should help you out with complex declarations.
int *a[4]; // Array of 4 pointers to int
int (*a)[4]; //a is a pointer to an integer array of size 4
int (*a[8])[5]; //a is an array of pointers to integer array of size 5
The answer for the last two can also be deducted from the golden rule in C:
Declaration follows use.
int (*arr2)[8];
What happens if you dereference arr2? You get an array of 8 integers.
int *(arr3[8]);
What happens if you take an element from arr3? You get a pointer to an integer.
This also helps when dealing with pointers to functions. To take sigjuice's example:
float *(*x)(void )
What happens when you dereference x? You get a function that you can call with no arguments. What happens when you call it? It will return a pointer to a float.
Operator precedence is always tricky, though. However, using parentheses can actually also be confusing because declaration follows use. At least, to me, intuitively arr2 looks like an array of 8 pointers to ints, but it is actually the other way around. Just takes some getting used to. Reason enough to always add a comment to these declarations, if you ask me :)
edit: example
By the way, I just stumbled across the following situation: a function that has a static matrix and that uses pointer arithmetic to see if the row pointer is out of bounds. Example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define NUM_ELEM(ar) (sizeof(ar) / sizeof((ar)[0]))
int *
put_off(const int newrow[2])
{
static int mymatrix[3][2];
static int (*rowp)[2] = mymatrix;
int (* const border)[] = mymatrix + NUM_ELEM(mymatrix);
memcpy(rowp, newrow, sizeof(*rowp));
rowp += 1;
if (rowp == border) {
rowp = mymatrix;
}
return *rowp;
}
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i = 0;
int row[2] = {0, 1};
int *rout;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
row[0] = i;
row[1] += i;
rout = put_off(row);
printf("%d (%p): [%d, %d]\n", i, (void *) rout, rout[0], rout[1]);
}
return 0;
}
Output:
0 (0x804a02c): [0, 0]
1 (0x804a034): [0, 0]
2 (0x804a024): [0, 1]
3 (0x804a02c): [1, 2]
4 (0x804a034): [2, 4]
5 (0x804a024): [3, 7]
Note that the value of border never changes, so the compiler can optimize that away. This is different from what you might initially want to use: const int (*border)[3]: that declares border as a pointer to an array of 3 integers that will not change value as long as the variable exists. However, that pointer may be pointed to any other such array at any time. We want that kind of behaviour for the argument, instead (because this function does not change any of those integers). Declaration follows use.
(p.s.: feel free to improve this sample!)
typedef int (*PointerToIntArray)[];
typedef int *ArrayOfIntPointers[];
As a rule of thumb, right unary operators (like [], (), etc) take preference over left ones. So, int *(*ptr)()[]; would be a pointer that points to a function that returns an array of pointers to int (get the right operators as soon as you can as you get out of the parenthesis)
I think we can use the simple rule ..
example int * (*ptr)()[];
start from ptr
" ptr is a pointer to "
go towards right ..its ")" now go left its a "("
come out go right "()" so
" to a function which takes no arguments " go left "and returns a pointer " go right "to
an array" go left " of integers "
Here's an interesting website that explains how to read complex types in C:
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/reading-cdecl.html
Here's how I interpret it:
int *something[n];
Note on precedence: array subscript operator ([]) has higher priority than
dereference operator (*).
So, here we will apply the [] before *, making the statement equivalent to:
int *(something[i]);
Note on how a declaration makes sense: int num means num is an int, int *ptr or int (*ptr) means, (value at ptr) is
an int, which makes ptr a pointer to int.
This can be read as, (value of the (value at ith index of the something)) is an integer. So, (value at the ith index of something) is an (integer pointer), which makes the something an array of integer pointers.
In the second one,
int (*something)[n];
To make sense out of this statement, you must be familiar with this fact:
Note on pointer representation of array: somethingElse[i] is equivalent to *(somethingElse + i)
So, replacing somethingElse with (*something), we get *(*something + i), which is an integer as per declaration. So, (*something) given us an array, which makes something equivalent to (pointer to an array).
I guess the second declaration is confusing to many. Here's an easy way to understand it.
Lets have an array of integers, i.e. int B[8].
Let's also have a variable A which points to B. Now, value at A is B, i.e. (*A) == B. Hence A points to an array of integers. In your question, arr is similar to A.
Similarly, in int* (*C) [8], C is a pointer to an array of pointers to integer.
int *arr1[5]
In this declaration, arr1 is an array of 5 pointers to integers.
Reason: Square brackets have higher precedence over * (dereferncing operator).
And in this type, number of rows are fixed (5 here), but number of columns is variable.
int (*arr2)[5]
In this declaration, arr2 is a pointer to an integer array of 5 elements.
Reason: Here, () brackets have higher precedence than [].
And in this type, number of rows is variable, but the number of columns is fixed (5 here).
In pointer to an integer if pointer is incremented then it goes next integer.
in array of pointer if pointer is incremented it jumps to next array

Pointer to array dilemma

I have a rather simple question about arrays and pointer to arrays.
consider this code fragment..
int (*ptr)[3]; //A pointer to an array of 3 ints
int arr1[3] = {2,4,6,};
ptr = &arr1; //ptr now points to arr1
//3 different ways to express the same address
cout << &arr1 << "\t" << arr1 << "\t" << &arr1[0] << endl;
Now if:
&arr1 == arr1 == &arr1[0]..
why is this code not correct:
ptr = arr1;
or
ptr = &arr1[0];
This has been driving me crazy...so please any explanation would be appreciated. Also please not that this is not an homework question, just something I'm trying to get a grips on.
In
ptr = arr1;
arr1 is converted to an int*, so you're trying to assign from an incompatible pointer type. &arr1[0] is directly an int*, without conversion, so again incompatible.
&arr1 == arr1 == &arr1[0]
is wrong, since the entities have different types. They only point to the same address, so when printing out, they give the same result.
In most contexts, an expression with an array type is implicitly converted to a pointer to the first element of such array, as explained by 6.3.2.1p3:
Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator, the _Alignof operator, or the
unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has
type array of type is converted to an expression with type pointer to type that points
to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue.
Thus the right-hand side of your assignment
ptr = arr1;
is implicitly converted to an incompatible pointer type (int* vs. int (*)[3]), and can't be stored to the pointer variable without a cast.
This isn't really an exception to any rule, as you need to use the unary & operator with other types, too:
T val, *ptr;
ptr = &val;
Below programme will help you to better understand difference between
pointer_to_first_member_of_array, pointer_to_1D_array, pointer_to_2D_array.
Please carefully look at the programme, execute it and see output.
#include<stdio.h>
int priv_element = 88;
int array[2][5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
int next_element = 99;
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int *ptr_to_first_element = &array[0][0];
int (*ptr_to_1d_arry)[5] = &array[0];
int (*ptr_to_2d_arry)[2][5] = &array;
printf ("Print first num of first array of 2-Dim array: %d\n",
*ptr_to_first_element);
ptr_to_first_element += 5;
printf ("Print first num of second array of 2-Dim array: %d\n",
*ptr_to_first_element);
printf ("Print first num of first array of 2-Dim array: %d\n",
(*ptr_to_1d_arry)[0]);
ptr_to_1d_arry++;
printf ("Print first num of second array of 2-Dim array: %d\n",
(*ptr_to_1d_arry)[0]);
printf ("Print first num of first array of 2-Dim array: %d\n",
(*ptr_to_2d_arry)[0][0]);
ptr_to_2d_arry++;
printf
("Now you increased to point end of 2d-array space. So next to it is next_element on data-seg: %d\n",
(*ptr_to_2d_arry)[0][0]);
}
When you printed the various expressions, it showed you that their values were the same. However, they do not have the same types.
C and C++ include type features to reduce human mistakes and to make it easier to write complicated code. Suppose you had an address in some pointer p and C/C++ allowed you to do either:
float *f = p;
or:
int *i = p;
This would be a mistake, because, generally, whatever bits are in the memory at p do not represent both a useful int and a useful float. By enforcing rules about types, the language prevents a programmer from making a mistake here; the pointer p can only be assigned to another pointer of a compatible type, unless the programmer explicitly overrides the rules with a cast.
Similarly, your ptr is a pointer to an array of three int. At first, it might seem like your arr1 is also an array of three int, so you should be able to assign ptr = arr1;. This is wrong because ptr is merely a pointer, but arr1 is an entire array object. You cannot put an entire array into a pointer; you need to put a pointer to the array into the pointer. To get a pointer to the array, you use the & operator: ptr = &arr1;.
Another thing that is confusing here is that C/C++ includes an automatic shortcut: It converts an array to a pointer to the first element of the array. When arr1 appears in most contexts, it is changed automatically to &arr1[0]. There is not a huge philosophical reason for this; it is just a convenience for the ways we often use arrays. So ptr = arr1; would be equivalent to ptr = &arr1[0];, which is also not allowed. In this form, you can see that arr1 has become a pointer to an int, so you cannot assign it to a pointer to an array of int. Even though the pointer has the value you want, it is the wrong type.
When an array appears as the operand of & or sizeof or _Alignof, this automatic conversion does not occur. So &arr1 results in the address of the array.
A string literal that is used in an initialization such as char a[] = "abc"; is treated specially and is not automatically converted as described above.