what is this syntax for double x[]?
Is it a C way to declare an array?
If I have a function like
void evaluate(double x[], double *f)
{
// evaluate
}
Can I pass a parameter x with any length?
A parameter of array type behaves exactly like it is a pointer. You can not truly pass an array as a function argument. However, this syntax gives the illusion that you can for the sake of readability. So your function is equivalent to:
void evaluate(double *x, double *f)
{
// evaluate
}
From §8.3.5/5 of ISO/IEC 14882:2011:
After determining the type of each parameter, any parameter of type “array of T” or “function returning T” is adjusted to be “pointer to T” or “pointer to function returning T,” respectively.
An expression that denotes an array will decay to a pointer to its first element, so you can still do this:
void evaluate(double x[]);
int array[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
evaluate(array); // The array decays to a pointer to its first element
From §4.2:
An lvalue or rvalue of type “array of N T” or “array of unknown bound of T” can be converted to a prvalue of type “pointer to T”. The result is a pointer to the first element of the array.
So yes, you can indeed pass an array of any length. In reality, you are just passing a pointer to the first element. You will, however, need to pass the length of the array as well, if you need it.
Arrays can be confusing, because in most contexts the name of an array decays into a pointer to its first element. So:
double x[3]; // x is an array of 3 doubles
void f(double x[3]); // f takes a pointer to double
f(x); // calls f with the address of x[0]
The reason for having the array type decay into a pointer for f is so that you don't have to have a separate function for every array size:
double x[3];
double y[4];
void f(double x[3], int size) {
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
std::cout << x[i] << ' ';
std::cout << '\n';
}
f(x, 3);
f(y, 4);
It works the same way if the argument is double*x, double x[], double x[3], double x[17], double x[]; in all of these cases, x is treated as double*.
Inside the parameter list of a function, double x[] is same as double *x.
can I pass a parameter x with any length?
Yes, you can pass. But there's no way to know the length of the array x in the function evaluate. So you probably want to pass the length as well.
C FAQ, Section 6.4
Since arrays decay immediately into pointers, an array is never actually passed to a function. You can pretend that a function receives an array as a parameter, and illustrate it by declaring the corresponding parameter as an array:
void f(char a[])
{ ... }
Interpreted literally, this declaration would have no use, so the compiler turns around and pretends that you'd written a pointer declaration, since that's what the function will in fact receive:
void f(char *a)
{ ... }
There's nothing particularly wrong with talking about a function as if it ``receives'' an array, if the function is traditionally used to operate on arrays, or if the parameter is naturally treated within the function as an array.
This conversion of array-like declarators into pointers holds only within function formal parameter declarations, nowhere else. If the conversion bothers you, you're under no compulsion to make use of it; many programmers have concluded that the confusion it causes outweighs the small advantage of having the declaration ``look like'' the call or the uses within the function. (Note that the conversion happens only once; something like char a2[][] won't work. See questions 6.18 and 6.19.)
In other words, in a function parameter declaration, an array with unspecified length is the same as a pointer.
void evaluate(double x[], double *f)
{
// evaluate
}
is actually equivalent to:
void evaluate(double *x, double *f)
{
// evaluate
}
in C and C++.
It means the type of the x parameter is double * in both cases.
The argument x to your function is an array of unspecified length. That means that you can pass any array of type double to it, no matter the size. You can also pass a pointer to a double as argument.
There is one caveats though: You can't use the sizeof operator on the array x, as it doesn't have a size.
yes in c the array is declared like that
good read
Char array declaration and initialization in C
Simple C array declaration / assignment question
Related
This question already has answers here:
Array changed in a void function, is still changed outside! why? (scope)
(4 answers)
Passing an array as a parameter in C
(3 answers)
Passing Arrays to Function in C++
(5 answers)
Passing an array as an argument to a function in C
(11 answers)
Closed 11 months ago.
I don't get it why you can alter the values inside the array, without using a reference or a pointer (&, *), I'm a freshmen student, and I don't know the reason behind, I hope someone can provide a logical answer, please refer to the code below, Thank You in Advance.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void a(int x[]){
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
x[i] += 2;
}
}
int main(){
int x[5] = {1,2,3,4,5};
a(x);
for(auto b : x){
cout << b << " ";
}
return 0;
}
A function parameter is never an array in C++. When you declare a function parameter as an array, it is automatically adjusted to be a pointer to element of such array. These declarations are effectively identical:
void a(int x[]); // looks like an array of int of unknown bound
void a(int* x); // declaration above is adjusted to this
void a(int x[1234]); // the size is ignored completely
An array implicitly converts to a pointer to the first element of the array (such conversion is called decay). Hence, you can call the function that doesn't accept an array parameter by passing an array argument:
int* ptr1 = x; // implicit conversion
int* ptr2 = &x[0]; // same conversion explicitly
a(x); // same conversion happens here
These two rules (function parameter adjustment and array to pointer decay) make it so that what syntactically looks like passing arrays by value, is actually done using indirection. Within the function, you modify the elements by indirecting through the pointer parameter that points to the array that exists outside of the function.
Important note: The adjustment of array to pointer in function parameter does not apply in other contexts. Arrays and pointers are distinct types with different properties.
Another note: The adjustment does not apply to parts of compound types. For example, a function parameter of type "pointer to array" will not be adjusted to be "pointer to pointer" and "reference to array" will not be adjusted to be "reference to pointer".
The parameter having the array type in this function declaration
void a(int x[]){
is adjusted by the compiler to pointer type to array elements type. That is the above declaration is equivalent to
void a(int *x){
In this call of the function
a(x);
the array designator is implicitly converted to pointer to its first element. That is the call is equivalent to
a( &x[0]);
So within the function you have a pointer to the first element of the array declared in main.
Using the pointer arithmetic you can access elements of the array. That is the elements of the array are passed to the function by reference in the C meaning indirectly through a pointer to them.
Within the function the variable x has the type int *. And this expression statement
x[i] += 2;
is equivalent to
*( x + i ) += 2;
Beacuse
void a(int x[]){
is the same as
void a(int *x){
and so you are using a pointer
Why?
Because an array like
int x[10];
'decays' to a pointer when passed to a function (and in other places). This can be very confusing but at the same time is very flexible
It mens that I can have a function like strlen that can accpet a 'real' array, or a pointer. These 'strings'
char *s1 = malloc(10);
strcpy(s1, "hello");
char s2[] = "hello";
char *s3 = "hello";
store their data in different ways but all can be handled by
size_t strlen(const char *s);
note that this is exactly the same as
size_t strlen(const char s[]);
they are 2 different ways of writing the same thing. Personal preference is for the second type if its really is an 'array' vs a pointer to maybe an array.
One issue with this 'decay' is that inside strlen (or any pointer/array accepting function) it is impossible to 'know' the length just from the parameter. The compiler knows that the size of s2 is 6 but this information is not carried forward to the function.
Regularly SO sees this
void my_func(int *arr){
int len = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]);
....
}
int a[10];
my_func(a);
This will give len = 1 or 2 (depending on 32 or 64 bit machine), never 10
The flexibility costs a litle power
I am playing around with pointers, arrays of pointers, and arrays.
I created a struct called Fraction and tried passing an array of Fraction into a function that takes an array of Fraction pointers. I get the error:
Error 1 error C2664: 'void display(Fraction *[],int)' : cannot convert
argument 1 from 'Fraction (*)[10]' to 'Fraction *[]'
I understand that this does not work, but what you you call each of these? Fraction(*)[] and Fraction*[]. for example: int[] is an array of integers, and an int* is an integer pointer. The above code, looks identical to me aside from the parenthesis around the *.
I do not need to fix this error I just simply want to understand the differences between the two, seemingly similar structures.
Cause of the error
The parameter Fraction *fracArr[] expects an array of pointers to fractions.
You have defined Fraction farry[max_size]; meaning that farry is an array of fractions.
When you call the function providing &farry as first argument, you are trying to take a pointer to an array (Fraction (*)[10]) instead of an array of pointers (Fraction *[]). Therefore the mismatch error.
Solution
If your goal is to work with an array of fractions, just change your function as follows:
void display(Fraction fracArr[], int fracCounter){
for (int i = 0; i < fracCounter; i++){
cout << fracArr[i].num << "/" << fracArr[i].den << endl;
}
}
and call it with display(farry, fracCounter);.
Additional remarks:
More generally, an argument of type array of unknown size T arg[] is passed as a pointer T *arg pointing to the first element.
Defining your argument Fraction *arg[] or Fraction **arg would result in the same code. The [] just hides this technical detail and make the intent clearer (i.e. working with an array of pointers vs. working with a pointer to pointer)
Fraction*[] is an array of Fraction* (an array of pointers). Fraction(*)[] is a pointer to Fraction[] (pointer to an array). The difference is that parentheses isolate the "pointer" from the Fraction, because otherwise the two would bind to each other and give you a different type than intended.
Mechanically, a * or a & would much rather bind to a type name than be isolated and represent the entire thing, so you have to use parentheses to isolate it from the element type. This is also true when declaring function pointers: int*(int, int) is a function that takes two ints and returns an int*, while int(*)(int, int) is a pointer to a function that takes two ints and returns an int.
Consider this simple program:
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
struct Type {};
// 1: Array of Type*.
void func(Type *arr [3]) {
std::cout << "Type* array.\n"
<< typeid(arr).name() << "\n\n";
}
// 2: Array of Type&.
// Illegal.
// void func(Type &arr [3]) {
// std::cout << "Type& array.\n"
// << typeid(arr).name() << "\n\n";
// }
// 3: Pointer to array of Type.
void func(Type (*arr) [3]) {
std::cout << "Pointer to Type array.\n"
<< typeid(arr).name() << "\n\n";
}
// 4: Reference to array of Type.
void func(Type (&arr) [3]) {
std::cout << "Reference to Type array.\n"
<< typeid(arr).name() << "\n\n";
}
int main() {
// Array of Type.
Type t_arr[3] = {};
// Array of Type*.
Type* tp_arr[3] = { &t_arr[0], &t_arr[1], &t_arr[2] };
// Array of Type&.
// Illegal.
// Type& tr_arr[3] = { t_arr[0], t_arr[1], t_arr[2] };
std::cout << "Type[3]: " << typeid(t_arr).name() << "\n\n";
func(t_arr); // Calls #4.
func(&t_arr); // Calls #3.
func(tp_arr); // Calls #1.
}
Depending on the compiler used, it'll output either mangled or unmangled types for arr, and the output shows that all three are different types:
// MSVC:
Type[3]: struct Type [3]
Reference to Type array.
struct Type [3]
Pointer to Type array.
struct Type (*)[3]
Type* array.
struct Type * *
// GCC:
Type[3]: A3_4Type
Reference to Type array.
A3_4Type
Pointer to Type array.
PA3_4Type
Type* array.
PP4Type
This syntax is a bit wonky if you're not used to it, and can be somewhat easy to mistype, so it may be a good idea to make a type alias if you need to use it.
// Array.
typedef Type Type_arr_t[3];
// Pointer.
typedef Type (*Type_arr_ptr_t)[3];
// Reference.
typedef Type (&Type_arr_ref_t)[3];
// ...
// Without typedefs.
Type arr [3];
Type (*arr_p)[3] = &arr;
Type (&arr_r)[3] = arr;
// With typedefs.
Type_arr_t arr2;
Type_arr_ptr_t arr2_p = &arr2;
Type_arr_ref_t arr2_r = arr2;
This is extremely useful when declaring functions that return pointers or references to arrays, because they look silly without typedefs, and are really easy to get wrong and/or forget the syntax for.
typedef Type (*Type_arr_ptr_t)[3];
typedef Type (&Type_arr_ref_t)[3];
// Without typedefs.
Type (*return_ptr())[3];
Type (&return_ref())[3];
// With typedefs.
Type_arr_ptr_t return_ptr_2();
Type_arr_ref_t return_ref_2();
For more information regarding how to parse something like this, see the clockwise spiral rule.
Note: When an array is passed by value as a function parameter, and in many other situations (specifically, in any situation where an array isn't expected, but a pointer is), type and dimension information is lost, and it is implicitly converted to a pointer to the first element of the array; this is known as the array decaying into a pointer. This is demonstrated in func(Type*[3]) above, where the compiler takes a parameter type of Type*[3], an array of Type*, and replaces it with Type**, a pointer to Type*; the [3] is lost, and replaced with a simple *, because functions can take pointers but not arrays. When func() is called, the array will decay due to this. Due to this, the following signatures are treated as identical, with the parameter being Type** in all three.
void func(Type*[3]);
void func(Type*[] ); // Dimension isn't needed, since it'll be replaced anyways.
void func(Type** );
This is done because it's more efficient than trying to pass the entire array by value (it only needs to pass a pointer, which easily fits inside a single register, instead of trying to load the entire thing into memory), and because encoding the array type into the function's parameter list would remove any flexibility from the function regarding the size of the array it can take (if a function were to take Type[3], then you couldn't pass it a Type[4] or a Type[2]). Due to this, the compiler will silently replace a Type[N] or Type[] with a Type*, causing the array to decay when passed. This can be avoided by specifically taking a pointer or reference to the array; while this is as efficient as letting the array decay (the former because it still just passes a pointer, the latter because most compilers implement references with pointers), it loses out on flexibility (which is why it's usually paired with templates, which restore the flexibility, without removing any of the strictness).
// Will take any pointer to a Type array, and replace N with the number of elements.
// Compiler will generate a distinct version of `func()` for each unique N.
template<size_t N>
void func(Type (*)[N]);
// Will take any reference to a Type array, and replace N with the number of elements.
// Compiler will generate a distinct version of `func()` for each unique N.
template<size_t N>
void func(Type (&)[N]);
Note, however, that C doesn't have the luxury of templates, and thus any code that is intended to work with both languages should either use the C idiom of passing a "size" parameter along with the array, or be written specifically for a certain size of array; the former is more flexible, while the latter is useful if you will never need to take an array of any other size.
void func1(Type *arr, size_t sz);
void func2(Type (*arr)[3]);
Also note that there are situations where an array won't decay into a pointer.
// Example array.
Type arr[3];
// Function parameter.
void func(Type arr[3]);
void func(Type (*arr)[3]);
void func(Type (&arr)[3]);
// Function template parameter.
template<typename T>
void temp(T t);
// Class template parameter.
template<typename T>
struct S { typedef T type; };
// Specialised class template parameter.
template<typename T> struct S2;
template<typename T, size_t Sz>
struct S2<T[Sz]> { typedef T type[Sz]; };
func(arr); // C: arr decays into Type*.
// C++: arr either binds to a Type(&)[3], or decays into Type*.
// If both are available, causes error due to ambiguous function call.
func(&arr); // C/C++: No decay, &arr is Type(*)[3].
sizeof(arr); // C/C++: No decay, evaluates to (sizeof(Type) * 3).
alignof(arr); // C/C++: No decay, evaluates to alignof(Type).
decltype(arr); // C++: No decay, evaluates to Type[3].
typeid(arr); // C++: No decay, evaluates to a std::type_info for Type[3].
for (Type& t : arr); // C++: No decay, ranged-based for accepts arrays.
temp(arr); // C++: arr decays to Type* during function template deduction.
temp<Type[3]>(arr); // C++: No decay, deduction isn't required.
// For class templates, deduction isn't performed, so array types used as template parameters
// don't decay.
S<Type[3]>::type; // C++: No decay, type is Type[3].
S2<Type[3]>::type; // C++: No decay, type is Type[3].
// String literals are arrays, too.
decltype("Hello."); // C++: No decay, evaluates to const char[7].
char c_arr[] = "Hello."; // C/C++: No decay, c_arr is a local array, of type char[7],
// containing copy of "Hello."
const char* c_ptr = "Hello."; // C/C++: const char[7] "Hello." is stored in read-only
// memory, and ptr points to it.
// There may be other cases in which arrays don't decay, which I'm currently not aware of.
So, in short, while, say, Type[3] is an array type, and Fraction*[5] is an array type, there are cases where a declaration of the two will be silently replaced with a Type* or Fraction**, respectively, by the compiler, and where type and dimension information will be lost due to this; this loss is known as array decay or array-to-pointer decay.
Thanks go to juanchopanza for reminding me to mention array-to-pointer decay.
This is one of these places where the compiler outputting a raw type versus a parameter declaration causes a little confusion. If you re-insert the variable names, the comparison is now between:
Fraction (*farray)[10]
and:
Fraction *farray[]
At this point the error becomes obvious if you are willing to accept that declarations have a precedence just like regular expressions.
According to C/C++'s precedence table, [] as the array index operator binds more tightly than unary * the pointer de-reference operator.
If you apply this same rule to the declarations, the second becomes an array of pointers, while the first one has the "pointer" bound more tightly due to the parentheses, therefore it is a pointer to an array.
In our legacy C/C++ code I encounter two versions of signatures
void foo1(double *vec, int n)
and
void foo2(double vec[], int n)
But there is no difference in the handling of the parameter vec inside of the methods e.g.:
void foo2(double vec[], int n){
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
do_something(vec[i]);
}
Is there any difference between the first version (double *) and the second (double ..[])? In which situations should a version be preferred over the other?
Edit: After the hint of #Khaled.K I tried to compile:
void foo(double *d, int n){}
void foo(double d[], int n){}
and got a compile error due to redefinition of void foo(double *d, int n). So double *vec and double vec[] mean the same.
The still open question is which version should be used when.
It's the same. From the standard:
After determining the type of each parameter, any parameter of type “array of T” or of function type T is adjusted to be “pointer to T”
So there is no difference. I would use * instead of [] to avoid confusion, unless it's something like char* argv[], then it might be passable.
Here is the relevant quote from K&R 2nd (*), starting at the bottom of page 99:
As formal parameters in a function definition,
char s[];
and
char *s;
are equivalent; we prefer the latter because it says more explicity that the parameter is a pointer. When an array name is passed to a function, the function can at its convenience believe that it has been haded either an array or a pointer, and manipulate it accordingly. It can even use both notations if it seems appropriate and clear.
(*) Kernighan & Ritchie: "The C Programming Language" (second edition)
There is no bound check in c. As you know that the array name itself act as a pointer(with special properties). Whenever you pass an array as an argument to a function, it will internally passed as a pointer of the corresponding type. That is why you need to pass the length of the array as well if you want to do some operation on bound check. Compiler generates the same signature(object code) for both pointer and array as a formal argument. You can use both invariable as per your choice.
Below is a simple example:
#include <iostream>
void arrayParamTest(int arr[])
{
}
int main()
{
int arr[] = {10, 20};
arrayParamTest(arr);
}
Now compile this and lets see the symbols:
techie#gateway2:myExperiments$ nm a.out | grep "arrayParamTest"
00000000004006e7 t _GLOBAL__I__Z14arrayParamTestPi
0000000000400674 T _Z14arrayParamTestPi
See compiler generates symbol with "Pi" as argument. Pi means pointer of type int.
Hope this will help. :-)
Array and pointers are different but some properties of array and pointers are look similar.
In this case there is no difference between double *vec and double vec[].
But whenever you taken array and initialized with some values and then you passed that array as function argument.
In function signature if you use double *vec then unexpectedly u would try to free that memory dynamically in function definition then it will throw an exception at runtime i.e this may due to a corruption of the heap.
example:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
void foo1(int *arr);
int main()
{
int arr[] = {10, 20};
foo1(arr);
return 0;
}
void foo1(int *arr)
{
printf("in array\n");
free(arr);
}
Why means
--> Arrays are static in nature once you allocated memory you cannot free and resize dynamically.
--> This is the one case which confuses using double *vec.
--> Except like this situations both signatures are similar.
double *vec implies that there is only one double value that is pointed to by vec. And double []vec implies that there is an array of doubles. From the code you show it appears that the array of doubles is what you want. Using double *vec for array operations is bound to lead to trouble.
I would like to be able to pass a const array argument to a method in C++.
I know that when you pass an array to method it is the same than passing a pointer to the first item of the array so an easy way is to use the pointer.
void myMethod(int * const inTab)
But having an array is sometimes better, you can write the size of the array for instance.
You can use a template taking the array size: http://ideone.com/0Qhra
template <size_t N>
void myMethod ( const int (& intArray) [N] )
{
std::cout << "Array of " << N << " ints\n";
return;
}
EDIT:
A possible way to avoid code bloat would be to have a function that takes a pointer and a size that does the actual work:
void myMethodImpl ( const int * intArray, size_t n );
and a trivial template that calls it, that will easily be inlined.
template <size_t N>
void myMethod ( const int (& intArray) [N] )
{ myMethodImpl ( intArray, N ); }
Of course, you'ld have to find a way to test that this is always inlined away, but you do get the safety and ease of use. Even in the cases it is not, you get the benefits for relatively small cost.
Per 3.9.3:2
Any cv-qualifiers applied to an array type affect the array element type, not the array type (8.3.4).
and 8.3.4:1
Any
type of the form “cv-qualifier-seq array of N T” is adjusted to “array of N cv-qualifier-seq T”, and similarly for
“array of unknown bound of T”.
Also, per 8.3.5:5
After
determining the type of each parameter, any parameter of type “array of T” or “function returning T” is
adjusted to be “pointer to T” or “pointer to function returning T,” respectively.
That means that within a function taking an array parameter, the parameter type is actually a pointer, and because of 3.9.3:2 the pointer is non-cv-qualified:
void foo(const int parameter[10]) {
parameter = nullptr; // this compiles!
}
This does not affect the type of the function itself, because of another clause in 8.3.5:5
After producing the list
of parameter types, any top-level cv-qualifiers modifying a parameter type are deleted when forming the
function type.
Thus if you want to be able to pass an array with cv qualifiers, it must be by reference:
void foo(const int (¶meter)[10]);
Not sure if it's what you asked about, but maybe it's what you were looking for
void func (const int array[10])
{
//array[0] = 12345; // this wouldn't compile, so 'const' works
}
int main ()
{
int array[10];
func(array);
}
If you need the size of the array:
template < std::size_t Size >
void myMethod( const int ( &inTab )[ Size ] );
Try std::vector
void myMethod(const std::vector<int> &inTab);
Consider the code:
void foo(char a[]){
a++; // works fine, gets compiled
//...
}
Now, consider this:
void foo(){
char a[50];
a++; // Compiler error
//...
}
I heard an array is equivalent to a constant pointer and can't be incremented as it is not a lvalue...
Then why does first code gets compiled, is it so because array arguments to functions are passed as a pointer, i.e. T[] is converted to T* for passing..
So, foo(a) passes a as a pointer.
But is it not back converted to T[] again because is declared as:
void foo(char a[]);
When you pass an array as an argument to a function, it decays to a pointer.
So the thing you increment inside the function body is a pointer, not an array.
This is a rather unfortunate feature inherited from the C language, with the rather yucky name of "decay." Since C once did not allow passing compound types by value, they decided to allow programmers to specify arrays as function parameter types, but only cosmetically. The array type decays to a pointer type, implementing a sort of pass-by-reference semantic different from the rest of the language. Ugly.
To recap (and others have already said this), the signature
void foo(char a[]); // asking for trouble
is unceremoniously mangled into
void foo(char *a);
… all for the sake of compatibility with ancient C code. Since you aren't writing ancient C code, you should not make use of this "feature."
However, you can cleanly pass a reference to an array. C++ requires that the size of the array be known:
void foo( char (&a)[ 50 ] );
Now a cannot be modified within the function (edit: its contents can, of course — you know what I mean), and only arrays of the right size may be passed. For everything else, pass a pointer or a higher-level type.
I heard an array is equivalent to a constant pointer
You can think of it that way, but they're not equivalent.
An array decays to a pointer when passed to a function, that's why inside the function it's valid.
Just because the signature is void foo(char a[]) doesn't make a an array.
Outside the function, it's just an array, and you can't do pointer arithmetics on it.
In C++, any function parameter of type "array of T" is adjusted to be "pointer to T". Try this code:
void foo(char a[]) {}
void foo(char* a) {} //error: redefinition
They are indeed the same function.
So, why can we pass an array argument to a function as a pointer parameter? Not because an array is equivalent to a constant pointer, but because an array type can be implicitly converted to an rvalue of pointer type. Also note the result of the conversion is an rvalue, that's why you can't apply the operator ++ to an array, you can only apply this operator to an lvalue.
I heard an array is equivalent to a constant pointer and can't be incremented as it is not a lvalue...
Almost.
An array expression is a non-modifiable lvalue; it may not be an operand to operators such as ++ or --, and it may not be the target of an assignment expression. This is not the same thing as a constant pointer (that is, a pointer declared as T * const).
An array expression will be replaced with a pointer expression whose value is the address of the first element of the array except when the array expression is an operand of the sizeof or unary & operators, or when the array expression is a string literal being used to initialize another array in a declaration.
When you call a function with an array argument, such as
int a[N];
...
foo(a);
the expression a is converted from type "N-element array of int" to "pointer to int" and this pointer value is what gets passed to foo; thus, the corresponding function prototype should be
void foo (int *arr) {...}
Note that in the context of a function parameter declaration, T a[] and T a[N] are identical to T *a; in all three cases, a is declared as a pointer to T. Within the function foo, the parameter arr is a pointer expression, which is a modifiable lvalue, and as such it may be assigned to and may be the operand of the ++ and -- operators.
Remember that all these conversions are on the array expression; that is, the array identifier or other expression that refers to the array object in memory. The array object (the chunk of memory holding the array values) is not converted.
When you pass an array a[] to a function, it passes the value of 'a', an address, into the function. so you can use it as a pointer in the function. If you declare an array in the function, 'a' is constant because you can't change its address in memory.