What is the difference between int* i and int** i?
Pointer to an integer value
int* i
Pointer to a pointer to an integer value
int** i
(Ie, in the second case you will require two dereferrences to access the integer's value)
int* i : i is a pointer to a object of type int
int** i : i is a pointer to a pointer to a object of type int
int*** i : i is a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to object of type int
int**** i : i is a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to object of type int
...
int* pi
pi is a pointer to an integer
int **ppi
ppi is a pointer to a pointer to an integer.
EDIT :
You need to read a good book on pointers. I recommend Pointers on C by Kenneth Reek.
Let's say you're a teacher and have to give notes to one of your students.
int note;
Well ... I meant the whole class
int *class_note; /* class_note[0]: note for Adam; class_note[1]: note for Brian; ... */
Well ... don't forget you have several classes
int **classes_notes; /* classes_notes[0][2]: note for Charles in class 0; ... */
And, you also teach at several institutions
int ***intitute_note; /* institute_note[1][1][1]: note for David in class 1 of institute 1 */
etc, etc ...
I don't think this is specific to opencv.
int *i is declaring a pointer to an int. So i stores a memory address, and C is expecting the contents of that memory address to contain an int.
int **i is declaring a pointer to... a pointer. To an int. So i contains an address, and at that memory address, C is expecting to see another pointer. That second memory address, then, is expected to hold an int.
Do note that, while you are declaring a pointer to an int, the actual int is not allocated. So it is valid to say int *i = 23, which is saying "I have a variable and I want it to point to memory address 23 which will contain an int." But if you tried to actually read or write to memory address 23, you would probably segfault, since your program doesn't "own" that chunk of RAM. *i = 100 would segfault. (The solution is to use malloc(). Or you can make it point to an existing variable, as in int j = 5; int *i = &j)
Imagine you have a few friends, one of them has to give you something (a treasure... :-)
Say john has the treasure
int treasure = 10000; // in USD, EUR or even better, in SO rep points
If you ask directly john
int john = treasure;
int you = john;
If you cannot join john, but gill knows how to contact him,
int john = treasure;
int *gill = &john;
int you = *gill;
If you cannot even join gill, but have to contact first jake who can contact gill
int john = treasure;
int *gill = &john;
int **jake = &gill;
int you = **jake;
Etc... Pointers are only indirections.
That was my last story for today before going to bed :-)
I deeply believe that a picture is worth a thousand words. Take the following example
// Finds the first integer "I" in the sequence of N integers pointed to by "A" .
// If an integer is found, the pointer pointed to by P is set to point to
// that integer.
void f(int N, int *A, int I, int **P) {
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++)
if(A[i] == I) {
// Set the pointer pointed to by P to point to the ith integer.
*P = &A[i];
return;
}
}
So in the above, A points to the first integer in the sequence of N integers. And P points to a pointer that the caller will have the pointer to the found integer stored in.
int Is[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
int *P;
f(3, &Is[0], 2, &P);
assert(*P == 2);
&P is used to pass the address of P to the function. This address has type int **, because it's the address of a pointer to int.
int* i is the address of a memory location of an integer
int** is the address of a memory location of an address of a memory location of an integer
int* i; // i is a pointer to integer. It can hold the address of a integer variable.
int** i; // i is a pointer to pointer to integer. It can hold address of a integer pointer variable.
Neither is a declaration. Declaration syntax does not allow () around the entire declaration. What are these () doing there? If this is supposed to be a part of function declaration, include the whole function declaration thing in your question, since in general case the actual meaning of a declaration might depend on that. (Not in this one though.)
As for the difference... There is one * in the first and there are two *s in the second. Does it help? Probably not. The first one declares ias a pointer to int. The second one declares i as a pointer to int *. Does this help? Probably not much either. Without a more specific question, it is hard to provide a more meaningful answer.
Provide more context, please. Or, if this is actually as specific as it can get, read your favorite C or C++ book about pointers. Such broad generic questions is not something you ask on the net.
Note that
int *i
is not fully interchangeable with
int i[]
This can be seen in that the following will compile:
int *i = new int[5];
while this will not:
int i[] = new int[5];
For the second, you have to give it a constructor list:
int i[] = {5,2,1,6,3};
You also get some checking with the [] form:
int *i = new int[5];
int *j = &(i[1]);
delete j;
compiles warning free, while:
int i[] = {0,1,2,3,4};
int j[] = {i[1]};
delete j;
will give the warnings:
warning C4156: deletion of an array expression without using the array form of 'delete'; array form substituted
warning C4154: deletion of an array expression; conversion to pointer supplied
Both of these last two examples will crash the application, but the second version (using the [] declaration type) will give a warning that you're shooting yourself in the foot.
(Win32 console C++ project, Visual studio 2010)
Textual substitution is useful here, but beware of using it blindly as it can mislead you (as in the advanced example below).
T var; // var has type T
T* var; // var has type "pointer to T"
This works no matter what T is:
int* var; // pointer to int
char* var; // pointer to char
double* var; // pointer to double
// advanced (and not pure textual substitution):
typedef int int3[3]; // confusing: int3 has type "array (of size 3) of ints"
// also known as "int[3]"
int3* var; // pointer to "array (of size 3) of ints"
// aka "pointer to int[3]"
int (*var)[3]; // same as above, note how the array type from the typedef
// gets "unwrapped" around the declaration, using parens
// because [] has higher precedence than *
// ("int* var[3];" is an array (size 3) of pointers to int)
This works when T is itself a pointer type:
typedef int* T; // T is a synonym for "pointer to int"
T* var; // pointer to T
// which means pointer to pointer to int
// same as:
int** var;
Related
I am learning C++ using C++ Primer 5th edition. In particular, i read about void*. There it is written that:
We cannot use a void* to operate on the object it addresses—we don’t know that object’s type, and the type determines what operations we can perform on that object.
void*: Pointer type that can point to any nonconst type. Such pointers may not
be dereferenced.
My question is that if we're not allowed to use a void* to operate on the object it addressess then why do we need a void*. Also, i am not sure if the above quoted statement from C++ Primer is technically correct because i am not able to understand what it is conveying. Maybe some examples can help me understand what the author meant when he said that "we cannot use a void* to operate on the object it addresses". So can someone please provide some example to clarify what the author meant and whether he is correct or incorrect in saying the above statement.
My question is that if we're not allowed to use a void* to operate on the object it addressess then why do we need a void*
It's indeed quite rare to need void* in C++. It's more common in C.
But where it's useful is type-erasure. For example, try to store an object of any type in a variable, determining the type at runtime. You'll find that hiding the type becomes essential to achieve that task.
What you may be missing is that it is possible to convert the void* back to the typed pointer afterwards (or in special cases, you can reinterpret as another pointer type), which allows you to operate on the object.
Maybe some examples can help me understand what the author meant when he said that "we cannot use a void* to operate on the object it addresses"
Example:
int i;
int* int_ptr = &i;
void* void_ptr = &i;
*int_ptr = 42; // OK
*void_ptr = 42; // ill-formed
As the example demonstrates, we cannot modify the pointed int object through the pointer to void.
so since a void* has no size(as written in the answer by PMF)
Their answer is misleading or you've misunderstood. The pointer has a size. But since there is no information about the type of the pointed object, the size of the pointed object is unknown. In a way, that's part of why it can point to an object of any size.
so how can a int* on the right hand side be implicitly converted to a void*
All pointers to objects can implicitly be converted to void* because the language rules say so.
Yes, the author is right.
A pointer of type void* cannot be dereferenced, because it has no size1. The compiler would not know how much data he needs to get from that address if you try to access it:
void* myData = std::malloc(1000); // Allocate some memory (note that the return type of malloc() is void*)
int value = *myData; // Error, can't dereference
int field = myData->myField; // Error, a void pointer obviously has no fields
The first example fails because the compiler doesn't know how much data to get. We need to tell it the size of the data to get:
int value = *(int*)myData; // Now fine, we have casted the pointer to int*
int value = *(char*)myData; // Fine too, but NOT the same as above!
or, to be more in the C++-world:
int value = *static_cast<int*>(myData);
int value = *static_cast<char*>(myData);
The two examples return a different result, because the first gets an integer (32 bit on most systems) from the target address, while the second only gets a single byte and then moves that to a larger variable.
The reason why the use of void* is sometimes still useful is when the type of data doesn't matter much, like when just copying stuff around. Methods such as memset or memcpy take void* parameters, since they don't care about the actual structure of the data (but they need to be given the size explicitly). When working in C++ (as opposed to C) you'll not use these very often, though.
1 "No size" applies to the size of the destination object, not the size of the variable containing the pointer. sizeof(void*) is perfectly valid and returns, the size of a pointer variable. This is always equal to any other pointer size, so sizeof(void*)==sizeof(int*)==sizeof(MyClass*) is always true (for 99% of today's compilers at least). The type of the pointer however defines the size of the element it points to. And that is required for the compiler so he knows how much data he needs to get, or, when used with + or -, how much to add or subtract to get the address of the next or previous elements.
void * is basically a catch-all type. Any pointer type can be implicitly cast to void * without getting any errors. As such, it is mostly used in low level data manipulations, where all that matters is the data that some memory block contains, rather than what the data represents. On the flip side, when you have a void * pointer, it is impossible to determine directly which type it was originally. That's why you can't operate on the object it addresses.
if we try something like
typedef struct foo {
int key;
int value;
} t_foo;
void try_fill_with_zero(void *destination) {
destination->key = 0;
destination->value = 0;
}
int main() {
t_foo *foo_instance = malloc(sizeof(t_foo));
try_fill_with_zero(foo_instance, sizeof(t_foo));
}
we will get a compilation error because it is impossible to determine what type void *destination was, as soon as the address gets into try_fill_with_zero. That's an example of being unable to "use a void* to operate on the object it addresses"
Typically you will see something like this:
typedef struct foo {
int key;
int value;
} t_foo;
void init_with_zero(void *destination, size_t bytes) {
unsigned char *to_fill = (unsigned char *)destination;
for (int i = 0; i < bytes; i++) {
to_fill[i] = 0;
}
}
int main() {
t_foo *foo_instance = malloc(sizeof(t_foo));
int test_int;
init_with_zero(foo_instance, sizeof(t_foo));
init_with_zero(&test_int, sizeof(int));
}
Here we can operate on the memory that we pass to init_with_zero represented as bytes.
You can think of void * as representing missing knowledge about the associated type of the data at this address. You may still cast it to something else and then dereference it, if you know what is behind it. Example:
int n = 5;
void * p = (void *) &n;
At this point, p we have lost the type information for p and thus, the compiler does not know what to do with it. But if you know this p is an address to an integer, then you can use that information:
int * q = (int *) p;
int m = *q;
And m will be equal to n.
void is not a type like any other. There is no object of type void. Hence, there exists no way of operating on such pointers.
This is one of my favourite kind of questions because at first I was also so confused about void pointers.
Like the rest of the Answers above void * refers to a generic type of data.
Being a void pointer you must understand that it only holds the address of some kind of data or object.
No other information about the object itself, at first you are asking yourself why do you even need this if it's only able to hold an address. That's because you can still cast your pointer to a more specific kind of data, and that's the real power.
Making generic functions that works with all kind of data.
And to be more clear let's say you want to implement generic sorting algorithm.
The sorting algorithm has basically 2 steps:
The algorithm itself.
The comparation between the objects.
Here we will also talk about pointer functions.
Let's take for example qsort built in function
void qsort(void *base, size_t nitems, size_t size, int (*compar)(const void *, const void*))
We see that it takes the next parameters:
base − This is the pointer to the first element of the array to be sorted.
nitems − This is the number of elements in the array pointed by base.
size − This is the size in bytes of each element in the array.
compar − This is the function that compares two elements.
And based on the article that I referenced above we can do something like this:
int values[] = { 88, 56, 100, 2, 25 };
int cmpfunc (const void * a, const void * b) {
return ( *(int*)a - *(int*)b );
}
int main () {
int n;
printf("Before sorting the list is: \n");
for( n = 0 ; n < 5; n++ ) {
printf("%d ", values[n]);
}
qsort(values, 5, sizeof(int), cmpfunc);
printf("\nAfter sorting the list is: \n");
for( n = 0 ; n < 5; n++ ) {
printf("%d ", values[n]);
}
return(0);
}
Where you can define your own custom compare function that can match any kind of data, there can be even a more complex data structure like a class instance of some kind of object you just define. Let's say a Person class, that has a field age and you want to sort all Persons by age.
And that's one example where you can use void * , you can abstract this and create other use cases based on this example.
It is true that is a C example, but I think, being something that appeared in C can make more sense of the real usage of void *. If you can understand what you can do with void * you are good to go.
For C++ you can also check templates, templates can let you achieve a generic type for your functions / objects.
What is the difference between int* i and int** i?
Pointer to an integer value
int* i
Pointer to a pointer to an integer value
int** i
(Ie, in the second case you will require two dereferrences to access the integer's value)
int* i : i is a pointer to a object of type int
int** i : i is a pointer to a pointer to a object of type int
int*** i : i is a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to object of type int
int**** i : i is a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to object of type int
...
int* pi
pi is a pointer to an integer
int **ppi
ppi is a pointer to a pointer to an integer.
EDIT :
You need to read a good book on pointers. I recommend Pointers on C by Kenneth Reek.
Let's say you're a teacher and have to give notes to one of your students.
int note;
Well ... I meant the whole class
int *class_note; /* class_note[0]: note for Adam; class_note[1]: note for Brian; ... */
Well ... don't forget you have several classes
int **classes_notes; /* classes_notes[0][2]: note for Charles in class 0; ... */
And, you also teach at several institutions
int ***intitute_note; /* institute_note[1][1][1]: note for David in class 1 of institute 1 */
etc, etc ...
I don't think this is specific to opencv.
int *i is declaring a pointer to an int. So i stores a memory address, and C is expecting the contents of that memory address to contain an int.
int **i is declaring a pointer to... a pointer. To an int. So i contains an address, and at that memory address, C is expecting to see another pointer. That second memory address, then, is expected to hold an int.
Do note that, while you are declaring a pointer to an int, the actual int is not allocated. So it is valid to say int *i = 23, which is saying "I have a variable and I want it to point to memory address 23 which will contain an int." But if you tried to actually read or write to memory address 23, you would probably segfault, since your program doesn't "own" that chunk of RAM. *i = 100 would segfault. (The solution is to use malloc(). Or you can make it point to an existing variable, as in int j = 5; int *i = &j)
Imagine you have a few friends, one of them has to give you something (a treasure... :-)
Say john has the treasure
int treasure = 10000; // in USD, EUR or even better, in SO rep points
If you ask directly john
int john = treasure;
int you = john;
If you cannot join john, but gill knows how to contact him,
int john = treasure;
int *gill = &john;
int you = *gill;
If you cannot even join gill, but have to contact first jake who can contact gill
int john = treasure;
int *gill = &john;
int **jake = &gill;
int you = **jake;
Etc... Pointers are only indirections.
That was my last story for today before going to bed :-)
I deeply believe that a picture is worth a thousand words. Take the following example
// Finds the first integer "I" in the sequence of N integers pointed to by "A" .
// If an integer is found, the pointer pointed to by P is set to point to
// that integer.
void f(int N, int *A, int I, int **P) {
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++)
if(A[i] == I) {
// Set the pointer pointed to by P to point to the ith integer.
*P = &A[i];
return;
}
}
So in the above, A points to the first integer in the sequence of N integers. And P points to a pointer that the caller will have the pointer to the found integer stored in.
int Is[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
int *P;
f(3, &Is[0], 2, &P);
assert(*P == 2);
&P is used to pass the address of P to the function. This address has type int **, because it's the address of a pointer to int.
int* i is the address of a memory location of an integer
int** is the address of a memory location of an address of a memory location of an integer
int* i; // i is a pointer to integer. It can hold the address of a integer variable.
int** i; // i is a pointer to pointer to integer. It can hold address of a integer pointer variable.
Neither is a declaration. Declaration syntax does not allow () around the entire declaration. What are these () doing there? If this is supposed to be a part of function declaration, include the whole function declaration thing in your question, since in general case the actual meaning of a declaration might depend on that. (Not in this one though.)
As for the difference... There is one * in the first and there are two *s in the second. Does it help? Probably not. The first one declares ias a pointer to int. The second one declares i as a pointer to int *. Does this help? Probably not much either. Without a more specific question, it is hard to provide a more meaningful answer.
Provide more context, please. Or, if this is actually as specific as it can get, read your favorite C or C++ book about pointers. Such broad generic questions is not something you ask on the net.
Note that
int *i
is not fully interchangeable with
int i[]
This can be seen in that the following will compile:
int *i = new int[5];
while this will not:
int i[] = new int[5];
For the second, you have to give it a constructor list:
int i[] = {5,2,1,6,3};
You also get some checking with the [] form:
int *i = new int[5];
int *j = &(i[1]);
delete j;
compiles warning free, while:
int i[] = {0,1,2,3,4};
int j[] = {i[1]};
delete j;
will give the warnings:
warning C4156: deletion of an array expression without using the array form of 'delete'; array form substituted
warning C4154: deletion of an array expression; conversion to pointer supplied
Both of these last two examples will crash the application, but the second version (using the [] declaration type) will give a warning that you're shooting yourself in the foot.
(Win32 console C++ project, Visual studio 2010)
Textual substitution is useful here, but beware of using it blindly as it can mislead you (as in the advanced example below).
T var; // var has type T
T* var; // var has type "pointer to T"
This works no matter what T is:
int* var; // pointer to int
char* var; // pointer to char
double* var; // pointer to double
// advanced (and not pure textual substitution):
typedef int int3[3]; // confusing: int3 has type "array (of size 3) of ints"
// also known as "int[3]"
int3* var; // pointer to "array (of size 3) of ints"
// aka "pointer to int[3]"
int (*var)[3]; // same as above, note how the array type from the typedef
// gets "unwrapped" around the declaration, using parens
// because [] has higher precedence than *
// ("int* var[3];" is an array (size 3) of pointers to int)
This works when T is itself a pointer type:
typedef int* T; // T is a synonym for "pointer to int"
T* var; // pointer to T
// which means pointer to pointer to int
// same as:
int** var;
Here are two lines of code:
int (*parry)[10] = &arr // Line # 1
int *(&arrRef)[10] = ptrs // Line # 2
Line # 1:
parry is a pointer that points to an int array of size 10.
So does it mean:
parray[1] points to the address of arr,
parray[2] points to address of arr
...
parray[10] points to address or arr?
When would I use Line # 1?
Solution:
#include <iostream>
int main(
{
int arr[10] = { 3, 54 };
int (*parry)[10] = &arr;
std::cout << (*parry)[0] << " " << (*parry)[1] << " " << (*parry)[3] << " " << parry[4] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
3, 54, 0, hex address of arr at index 4.
It seems like what inside parry[0] is a pointer that points to arr associated with the index. So, parry[0] ---> arr[0].
Line # 2:
arrRef is a reference to an int array of size ten pointers. arrRef is referred to by ptrs.
So does it mean:
arry[1] is an int pointer? ...
arry[10] is an int pointer?
What example can this been used in?
When in doubt, see the Clockwise/Spiral Rule.
int (*parry)[10] = &arr;
parry is a pointer to an array of 10 ints.
int *(&arrRef)[10] = ptrs;
arrRef is a reference to an array of 10 pointers to int.
Example:
int main()
{
int arr[10];
int* ptrs[10];
int (*parry)[10] = &arr;
int *(&arrRef)[10] = ptrs;
}
Now I've cleaned up your question, I can see it wasn't what I originally thought. You say:
parray is a pointer that points to an int array of size 10
so clearly you figured out the clockwise/spiral/cdecl stuff already.
So does it mean: ... parray[10] points to address of arr
Firstly, arrays in C++ are indexed starting from zero, so you can access arr[0] .. arr[9] if there are 10 elements; arr[10] would be the eleventh, so is out of bounds.
Now, let's take your sentence apart:
parray is a pointer
right, it isn't an array, it's a pointer. Now, let's consider what it is a pointer to:
an int array of size 10
ok, if it points to that, then *parray must be (a reference to) the original array.
So, (*parray)[0] is the first element of the array, etc.
Note that you can easily test your intuition about all this by just printing things out, and seeing what you get. You'll either see pointers, and be able to compare the addresses, or you'll see integer values, or you'll get (hopefully informative) compile errors. Try it out!
Oh, and:
When would I use line 1?
Only if you need to re-seat it, in general. For example, if you want to choose one of two different arrays based on some logic, and then ... perform further logic on whichever was selected.
Next, you said
arrRef is a reference to an int array of size ten pointers.
Correct!
arrRef is refer to by ptrs
No, arrRef refers to an array, the array has size 10, and its 10 elements are pointers-to-int. Note this is not the same type as the first array!
Since references can be used with the same syntax as the thing they refer to, we can use arrRef as an array.
So, arrRef[0] is the first element of the array, and it is a pointer-to-int.
What example can this been used in?
The only common reason for using reference-to-array is to avoid pointer decay, allowing templates to deduce the number of elements.
I think that in this statement
//line1// int (*parry)[10] = $arr
^^^ ^^
there is a typo
There must be
//line1// int (*parry)[10] = &arr;
^^^ ^^
It is assumed that arr is an array of type int[10]. For example
int arr[10];
And this declaration
int (*parry)[10] = &arr;
declares a pointer to this entire array.
As for this declaration
//line2// int *(&arrRef)[10] = ptrs;
^^^
then it is assumed that ptrs is an array of type int *[10] That is elements of the array have type int *. They are pointers.
And this declaration
int * (&arrRef)[10] = ptrs;
declares a reference to this array. A reference is in fact is an alias of an array.
In C++ 2014 you could define a reference to an array simpler.
For example
decltype( auto )arrRef = ( ptrs );
Here is a demonstrative program
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int a[10];
decltype( auto )ra = ( a );
std::cout << sizeof( a ) << std::endl;
std::cout << sizeof( ra ) << std::endl;
ra[0] = 10;
std::cout << a[0] << std::endl;
std::cout << ra[0] << std::endl;
}
The program output is
40
40
10
10
For parsing C declarations it is valuable to remember, in the words of Kernighan and Ritchie, that "the syntax is an attempt to make the declaration and the use agree" (K&R, TCPL, 5.12). In other words, you can treat a declaration as an expression and simply apply the operators in the proper order. That will show you what type the declared identifier must have.
For example, in int (*parry)[10] you first apply the * operator, because it is in parentheses. This indicates that parray is a pointer. Then you apply the [] operator, indicating that the result of the dereferencing was an array; the 10 indicates the number of elements. The obtained element is of type int. Summing up: parray was a pointer to an array of int.
Declarations of references in C++ can not be solved that way because there is actually no operator which would create a reference, or dereference one; both operations are implicit in C++. The & symbol is used to signify references in declarations only (perhaps somewhat confusingly, because in expressions it's used to take an address). But if you think of the & in declarations as a * substitute to signify a reference instead of a pointer you should still be able to parse any declaration.
I have a method which fills the array with integers:
void fill(int* a[], int dim1, int dim2)
{
int intinArray = 0;
for(int i=0;i<dim1;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<dim2;j++)
{
cin >> intinArray;
a[i][j] = intinArray;
}
}
}
If I declare array in method main() like this:
int** tab;
fill(tab,3,3);
It crashes when I put the first integer in cin. Why? If there's a problem with this line:
a[i][j] = intinArray;
how should I change it?
The fundamental thing wrong with your code is that you declared pointers, but nowhere do you initialize the pointers to point somewhere. You treat the pointer as if it is a regular old 2 dimensional array of integer. So if it's as easy as that, why use pointers?
Given that this is a fundamental in pointer usage and you plainly aren't doing that, the solution is to review working code that uses pointer.
int main()
{
int *p; // uninitialized -- points to who-knows-where
*p = 10; // this is undefined behavior and may crash
}
Take that code and understand why it also may crash. That pointer points to "we don't know", and then you're assigning 10 to a location that is unknown to you, me, and everyone else reading this answer. See the problem? To fix it, you have to initialize the pointer to point somewhere valid, then you can dereference it and assign to it without error.
int main()
{
int *p; // uninitialized -- points to who-knows-where
int x = 20;
p = &x; // this is now ok, since p points to x
*p = 20; // now x changes to 20
}
Your problem is in this code
int** tab; // <- this one
fill(tab,3,3);
You declared a pointer, and are using it under the assumption that it is pointing to allocated memory. (I guess a source of confusion is that with C++ objects this isn't really the case)
A pointer is a pointer - it points to a location in memory. There's no guarantee that the value it points to is valid unless you explicitly make sure it is yourself.
Read PaulMcKenzie's answer for more about pointers.
Try
int tab[x][y] = {{0}};
fill(tab,3,3);
where x and y define your 2D array's width and height. You're going to have to handle bounds checking for your application.
Note that changing {{0}} to a non zero number will not initialize everything to that number.
A very general question: I was wondering why we use pointer to pointer?
A pointer to pointer will hold the address of a pointer which in turn will point to another pointer. But, this could be achieved even by using a single pointer.
Consider the following example:
{
int number = 10;
int *a = NULL;
a = &number;
int *b = a;
int *pointer1 = NULL;
pointer1 = b; //pointer1 points to the address of number which has value 10
int **pointer2 = NULL;
pointer2 = &b; //pointer2 points to the address of b which in turn points to the address of number which has value 10. Why **pointer2??
return 0;
}
I think you answered your own question, the code is correct, what you commented isn't.
int number = 10; is the value
int *pointer1 = b; points to the address where int number is kept
int **pointer2 = &b; points to the address where address of int number is kept
Do you see the pattern here??
address = * (single indirection)
address of address = ** (double indirection)
The following expressions are true:
*pointer2 == b
**pointer2 == 10
The following is not!
*pointer2 == 10
Pointer to pointer can be useful when you want to change to what a pointer points to outside of a function. For example
void func(int** ptr)
{
*ptr = new int;
**ptr = 1337;
}
int main()
{
int* p = NULL;
func(&p);
std::cout << *p << std::endl; // writes 1337 to console
delete p;
}
A stupid example to show what can be achieved :) With just a pointer this can not be done.
First of all, a pointer doesn't point to a value. It point to a memory location (that is it contains a memory address) which in turn contains a value. So when you write
pointer1 = b;
pointer1 points to the same memory location as b which is the variable number. Now after that is you execute
pointer2 = &b;
Then pointer2 point to the memory location of b which doesn't contains 10 but the address of the variable number
Your assumption is incorrect. pointer2 does not point to the value 10, but to the (address of the) pointer b. Dereferencing pointer2 with the * operator produces an int *, not an int.
You need pointers to pointers for the same reasons you need pointers in the first place: to implement pass-by-reference parameters in function calls, to effect sharing of data between data structures, and so on.
In c such construction made sense, with bigger data structures. The OOP in C, because of lack of possibility to implement methods withing structures, the methods had c++ this parameter passed explicitly. Also some structures were defined by a pointer to one specially selected element, which was held in the scope global to the methods.
So when you wanted to pass whole stucture, E.g. a tree, and needed to change the root, or 1st element of a list, you passes a pointer-to-a-pointer to this special root/head element, so you could change it.
Note: This is c-style implementation using c++ syntax for convienience.
void add_element_to_list(List** list, Data element){
Data new_el = new Data(element); // this would be malloc and struct copy
*list = new_el; //move the address of list, so it begins at new element
}
In c++ there is reference mechanismm and you generally you can implement nearly anything with it. It basically makes usage of pointers at all obsolete it c++, at least in many, many cases. You also design objects and work on them, and everything is hidden under the hood those two.
There was also a nice question lately "Why do we use pointers in c++?" or something like that.
A simple example is an implementation of a matrix (it's an example, it's not the best way to implement matrices in C++).
int nrows = 10;
int ncols = 15;
double** M = new double*[nrows];
for(unsigned long int i = 0; i < nrows; ++i)
M[i] = new double[ncols];
M[3][7] = 3.1416;
You'll rarely see this construct in normal C++ code, since C++ has references. It's useful in C for "passing by reference:"
int allocate_something(void **p)
{
*p = malloc(whatever);
if (*p)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
The equivalent C++ code would use void *&p for the parameter.
Still, you could imagine e.g. a resource monitor like this:
struct Resource;
struct Holder
{
Resource *res;
};
struct Monitor
{
Resource **res;
void monitor(const Holder &h) { res = &h.res; }
Resource& getResource() const { return **res; }
}
Yes, it's contrived, but the idea's there - it will keep a pointer to the pointer stored in a holder, and correctly return that resource even when the holder's res pointer changes.
Of course, it's a dangling dereference waiting to happen - normally, you'd avoid code like this.