Compilation error while passing double pointer in cpp - c++

#include<cstdio>
#include<iostream>
#include<cstring>
using namespace std;
void f(char **x)
{
(*x)++;
**x = 'a';
}
int main()
{
char str[]="hello";
f(&str);
cout << str << endl;
return 0;
}
Please tell me why this program is giving compilation Error.I am using the g++ compiler
Error :temp1.cpp:16:8: error: cannot convert ‘char (*)[6]’ to ‘char**’ for
argument ‘1’ to ‘void f(char**)’

Arrays can be implicitly converted to pointers, but that doesn't mean that the implicit "pointer equivalent" already exists.
You are hoping that f(&str); will implicitly create both a pointer to str and a pointer to that pointer.
This small (working) change illustrates this point:
int main()
{
char str[]="hello";
char *pstr = str; // Now the pointer extists...
f(&pstr); // ...and can have an address
cout << str << endl;
return 0;
}

You are passing pointer of constant char to the function but in function you are taking it as pointer of pointers. That is the problem. I commented out below where the problem lies.
[Off topic but N. B. : Arrays and pointers are different concept.]
#include<cstdio>
#include<iostream>
#include<cstring>
using namespace std;
void f(char **x) //**x is pointer of pointer
{
(*x)++;
**x = 'a';
}
int main()
{
char str[]="hello";
f(&str); //You are passing pointer of constant char.
cout << str << endl;
return 0;
}

You're going to run into a serious problem with your function f since &str and &str[0] both evaluate to the same value ... as other posters have pointed out, these operations point to different types, but the actual pointer r-value will be the same. Thus in f when you attempt to double-dereference the char** pointer x, you're going to get a segfault even if you attempted something like a cast to massage the type differences and allow compilation to happen with errors. This is because you are never getting a pointer-to-pointer ... the fact that &str and &str[0] evaluate to the same pointer value means that a double-dereference acually attempts to use the char value in str[0] as a pointer value, which won't work.

Your problem is that you're treating arrays as pointers, when they're not. Arrays decay into pointers, and in this case, it doesn't. What you're passing in is a char (*)[6] when it expects a char **. Those are obviously not the same.
Change your parameter to char (*x)[6] (or use a template with a size parameter):
template <std::size_t N>
void f(char (*x)[N])
Once inside, you try to increment what x is pointing to. You can't increment an array, so use an actual pointer instead:
char *p = *x;
p++;
*p = 'a';
All put together, (sample)
template <std::size_t N>
void f(char(*x)[N])
{
if (N < 2) //so we don't run out of bounds
return;
char *p = *x;
p++;
*p = 'a';
}

Related

Confusion about return type of a function when it is a pointer

I wrote the following code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const int * myFunction()
{
int * p = new int(5);
return p;
}
int main()
{
int * q = myFunction();
cout << "*q=" << *q;
cout << endl;
return 0;
}
I purposely wrote the above code to receive an error. The mistake I made is that I stated the return type of function myFunction() as const int * but when I called myFunction() in main(), the pointer variable q was not declared const. The return type of myFunction() must match exactly to the type of variable which is going to receive its return value (am I correct here? This is what I have understood).
So, I fixed the error by correcting line 11 as const int * q = myFunction();. Now the type of the (pointer)variable q, which is const int *, matched exactly to the return type of myFunction() and the code compiled without error, producing output as *q=5 (is my understanding up to this point correct?).
Then, I wrote the following code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const int * const myFunction()
{
int * p = new int(5);
cout << "p: " << p;
return p;
}
int main()
{
int a;
const int * q = myFunction();
cout << "\nq=" << q;
cout << "\n*q=" << *q;
delete q;
q = &a;
cout << "\nq: " << q;
cout << endl;
return 0;
}
I was expecting an error here, too. Because now the return type of myFunction() is const int * const but the (pointer)variable q had type const int *. q was not declared as a constant pointer. But the program compiled and I got output as follows:
p: 0x36cb8
q=0x36cb8
*q=5
q: 0x61ff08
I am confused why the second code compiles and runs. What I thought is whoever is going to receive the return value from myFunction() should always take care of it (i.e. it cannot be allowed to take a different memory address), but the pointer variable q took a different memory location.
The return type of myFunction must match exactly to the type of variable which is going the receive it's return value. (Am I correct here? This is what I have understood.)
No, the return type must not match exactly to the type of the variable. But it must be possible to implicitly convert the return type to the type of the variable.
For example something like this will compile:
int someInt = getMeAFloat();
If getMeAFloat returns a float, this will compile because a float can be implicitly converted to an int. (Note that this gives you a warning and is bad because you lose the extra information of the float, but I am just trying to bring my point across)
Your first example does not compile because normally a const int* can not be converted to a int*.
As pointed out by user4581301 the second const in your second example does not matter, because only the value of the pointer, which is returned, gets assigned to the pointer in the main function. The second const makes the pointer itself constant, which has no effect on the value.
That means that const int * const myFunction() is equal to const int * myFunction()
In the 2nd code, q is a const int * - a non-const "pointer to a const int". Since q itself is not const, it can be re-assigned to point at a new address.
The compiler allows q = &a; because an int* (ie, what &a returns since a is an int) can be assigned to a const int*. In other words, a "pointer to non-const data" can be assigned to a "pointer to const data", effectively making read-only access to otherwise-writable data.
The reverse is not true - a "pointer to const data" cannot be assigned to a "pointer to non-const data", as that would allow writable access to read-only data - which is why the 1st code fails to compile.

Modifying pointer to string literal in separate function

I have what is hopefully a trivial question that someone can explain to me in simpler terms than what I have already come across. While working through
A Tour of C++ (Second Edition)
I've been trying a few examples.
I'm currently trying to modify a pointer to a string literal in a separate function (I thought it would be easy.....).
using namespace std;
void test(char *ptr)
{
ptr = "test";
}
int main()
{
char *p = "abc";
test(p);
cout << p << "\n";
return 0;
}
When using g++ to compile, I get a
Warning: ISO C++ forbids converting a string constant to char*
Apparently g++ is auto-converting *p to a const? Surely I'm missing something basic, but my previous SO and google searches have gotten me no closer to the answer. Thank you for your responses!
EDIT:
Both great examples below. Thank you everyone for your responses, very helpful!
Apparently g++ is auto-converting *p to a const?
Quite the opposite. The string "abc" will be in your binary, and that is supposed to be readonly for your program. Therefore, that string should only be read, and the value you get when assigning the string literal in this situation is of type const char*. You get the error because you're assigning it to a non-const char*. Try this instead:
const char *p = "abc";
Also, you'll have to change the function, too:
void test(const char *ptr)
{
ptr = "test";
}
It's still going to print abc, however. That's because you're only modifying a copy of the value that you're passing. But C++ lets you pass a reference instead, which you can do like this:
void test(const char *&ptr)
{
ptr = "test";
}
Now that's a reference to a pointer pointing to a const char... whew! Both the "abc" and "test" will be in the program's binary when it is compiled. When the program is run, the address of "abc" is assigned to char *p, and then the function to change it to have the address of "test" instead is called. The & tells it to work with the actual char *p and not just a copy of it that gets lost when the function finishes.
There are two things that can be const; the pointer (char * const), or the object (const char *).
The string literal is const, that's what the compiler is complaining about. You should use
const char *p = "abc";
The function would still not modify the pointer p from main() though, because it is passed by value to the function.
This should modify the pointer:
using namespace std;
const char * str2 = "test";
void test(const char *& ptr)
{
ptr = str2;
}
int main()
{
const char *p = "abc";
test(p);
cout << p << "\n";
return 0;
}
live demo

What does the following C++statement mean

There is a statement I saw in an C++ interview test today:
int (*(*fb)(int, char*))[2];
I have no idea what this declaration could mean. It looks much like function pointer but first star and square braces spoil everything.
Visual Studio decodes fb's type as following int[2] * (int, char *) *, which still looks like a bit cryptic.
If we simplify declaration than everything looks clear
int(*(*fa)(int, char*));
int* func(int, char*)
{
return 0;
}
// now we can assign func to fa
fa = func;
Any ideas?
fb is a function pointer of the following signature:
The function takes two parameters: int and char*
The function returns a pointer to an array of two int, which has the type int(*)[2]
Usually, because of the cryptic syntax of function pointers, array pointers and such stuff, you should use typedefs or type aliases (the new using-syntax) to make it clearer step by step:
using int2 = int[2];
using int2ptr = int2*;
using fb = int2ptr(int, char*);
Proof
Also, instead of returning arrays, you could consider returning a std::vector or std::array; instead of passing char pointers you could consider std::string, and instead of using function pointers you could consider std::function. All these are "coulds", since every "raw type" has its reason to exist, but the reasons are very limited.
It is a definition of pointer to function that has two parameters, one of type int and other of type char *, and returns pointer to array of type int[2].
Here is a simplified demonstrative program. I have only changed the second parameter to type const char *
#include <iostream>
int(*f( int x, const char *s ))[2]
{
static int a[2] = { x, *s };
return &a;
}
int main()
{
int (*(*fb)(int, const char*))[2] = f;
auto p = fb( 10, "A" );
std::cout << ( *p )[0] << '\t' << ( char )( *p )[1] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The output is
10 A
Colleague of mine have just sent an answer:
int (*(*fb)(int, char*))[2];
int(*(returnArray(int, char*)))[2]
{
static int tab[2];
return &tab;
}
// finally we have it
fb = returnArray;
I have no idea who can use this and for what purpose

c++ pointers:-why is this code not running

int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char a[2][5]={"hell","worl"};
char **p;
p=a; // error here
cout<<*(*(a+1)+1);
cout<<endl;
cout<<(*a)[2];
return 0;
}
error:
C:\Dev-Cpp\main.cpp [Error] initializer-string for array of chars is too long [-fpermissive]
Why would you expect it to work? You declare p as char**,
and you try to assign a char[2][5] to it. The char[2][5]
will convert implicitly to a char (*)[5], but afterwards, you
have a pointer, and no further implicit conversions. (EDIT: except to void*.)
If you think about it, it should be obvious. If you dereference
a char**, you get a char*. And this char* must reside
somewhere in memory, since you have a pointer to it. So where
is it?
If you want to iterate over the outer array in your example:
char (*p)[5] = a;
std::cout << *p[0] << sdt::endl;
std::cout << *p[1] << sdt::endl;
Note that your expression *(*(a+1)+1) also supposes that you
have an array of pointers somewhere.
Or you can use the usual solution when working with C style
strings:
char const* const a[] = { "hell", "worl" };
and
char const* const* p = a;
In this case, you do have an array of pointers, which does
implicitly convert to a pointer to a pointer (the first element
of the array).
(Of course, the only time you'll really want to use C style
strings is with const variables with static lifetimes. In
most other cases, std::string is preferable.)
Other way to access the a[2][5] is,
char **p=(char**)a;
to get a[0]
printf("\n a[0] is [%s]", ((char*)p));
to get a[1]
printf("\n a[1] is [%s]", (((char*)p) + strlen(a[0])+1));
hope this helps.

In the following implementation of static_strlen, why are the & and parentheses around str necessary?

If I change the type to const char str[Len], I get the following error:
error: no matching function for call to ‘static_strlen(const char [5])’
Am I correct that static_strlen expects an array of const char references? My understanding is that arrays are passed as pointers anyway, so what need is there for the elements to be references? Or is that interpretation completely off-the-mark?
#include <iostream>
template <size_t Len>
size_t
static_strlen(const char (&str)[Len])
{
return Len - 1;
}
int main() {
std::cout << static_strlen("oyez") << std::endl;
return 0;
}
No, the function parameter is a reference to an array of Len const chars. That's how the function knows the length (assuming the last byte is a NUL terminator, hence the -1). The parentheses are there precisely to stop it being what you think it is.
Actually there's no such thing in C++ as an array of references, so it couldn't be what you think it is even without the parens. I guess (but am not sure) that the need for the parens is just for consistency with other similar type definitions, such as pointers to arrays:
void fn(const char *a[3]); // parameter a is of type const char**, the 3 is ignored.
void fn(const char (*a)[3]; // parameter a is a pointer to an array of 3 const chars.
That example also illustrates why an array is not a pointer. Predict the output of the following program, and then run it:
#include <iostream>
void fn(const char (*a)[3]) {
std::cout << sizeof(a) << "\n" << sizeof(*a) << "\n";
}
void fn2(const char *a[3]) {
std::cout << sizeof(a) << "\n" << sizeof(*a) << "\n";
}
int main() {
const char a[3] = {};
const char **b = 0;
fn(&a);
fn2(b);
}
#if 0
// error: declaration of `a' as array of references
void fn3(const char & a[3]) {
std::cout << sizeof(a) << "\n" << sizeof(*a) << "\n";
}
#endif
This is one of the way that a function can be made such that the size of the array is passed into the function automatically.
static_strlen(const char (&str)[Len])
is a function that takes in an array of const char of exactly Len elements. The array size must be known at compile time. I.e. the array wasn't allocated via new or malloc.
To be more specific, the parameter is a reference to an array of Len elements, rather than an actual array, which is why it doesn't get converted into a pointer when passed.