incrementing a pointer to an array

[subramanian100in]

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}};
int *ip; /* pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;
printf("%d\n", **ap);
ap++; /* WRONG */

Here why is incrementing ap ie 'ap++' mentioned as WRONG ? Isn't it
similar to
int i_int = 100;
int *p = &i_int;
p++;

Here we cannot dereference 'p' but incrementing 'p' only once, is
allowed. Similarly,

ap is assigned '&a1'. Then we increment ap only once. Why is this
WRONG ?

Kindly clarify.

Thanks
V.Subramanian

[Richard Heathfield]

su**************@yahoo.com, India said:

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}};
int *ip; /* pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;
printf("%d\n", **ap);
ap++; /* WRONG */

Here why is incrementing ap ie 'ap++' mentioned as WRONG ?

I'm not sure. I don't know of any reason why it's illegal. Maybe Steve just
means it's a lousy idea.

Isn't it
similar to
int i_int = 100;
int *p = &i_int;
p++;

Yes.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[utab]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:29:22 -0700, su**************@yahoo.com, India
wrote:

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}}; int *ip; /*

pointer to int */

int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;

The trick is here because you are getting the address of the pointer to
the first element, If I am not mistaken...

if you use sizeof on ap you will see that it is associated to the whole
array...8 bytes. Incrementing this address is undefined.

for intel compiler, the fist program prints
0 1
0
40896 <<<

printf("%d\n", **ap);
ap++; /* WRONG */

Here why is incrementing ap ie 'ap++' mentioned as WRONG ? Isn't it
similar to
int i_int = 100;
int *p = &i_int;
p++;

Here we cannot dereference 'p' but incrementing 'p' only once, is
allowed. Similarly,

ap is assigned '&a1'. Then we increment ap only once. Why is this WRONG
?

Kindly clarify.

Thanks
V.Subramanian

[Richard Heathfield]

utab said:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:29:22 -0700, su**************@yahoo.com, India
wrote:

>The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}}; int *ip; /*

pointer to int */

>int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;

The trick is here because you are getting the address of the pointer to
the first element, If I am not mistaken...

if you use sizeof on ap you will see that it is associated to the whole
array...8 bytes.

Wrong. ap is a pointer to the first element of the array, but using sizeof
on ap is by no means required to result in 8, and indeed on my system it
does not. Nor need it result in 3*sizeof(int) - and again, on my system it
does not.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */
ap = &a1;
printf("**ap = %d\n", **ap);
printf("sizeof ap = %d\n", (int)sizeof ap);
ap++;
return 0;
}

**ap = 0
sizeof ap = 4

Incrementing this address is undefined.

Why?

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[utab]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:58:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

utab said:

>On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:29:22 -0700, su**************@yahoo.com, India
wrote:

>>The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}}; int *ip; /*

pointer to int */

>>int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;

The trick is here because you are getting the address of the pointer to
the first element, If I am not mistaken...

if you use sizeof on ap you will see that it is associated to the whole
array...8 bytes.

Wrong. ap is a pointer to the first element of the array, but using
sizeof on ap is by no means required to result in 8, and indeed on my
system it does not. Nor need it result in 3*sizeof(int) - and again, on
my system it does not.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */

Hi,

ap = &a1;

Could you clarify this statement for me? is not ap pointer to whole array
of 3?

printf("**ap = %d\n", **ap);
printf("sizeof ap = %d\n", (int)sizeof ap); ap++;
return 0;
}

**ap = 0
sizeof ap = 4

>Incrementing this address is undefined.

Why?

not incrementing, dereferencing, sorry

>
<snip>

[Richard Heathfield]

utab said:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:58:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>utab said:

>>On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:29:22 -0700, su**************@yahoo.com, India
wrote:

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}}; int *ip; /*
pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;
The trick is here because you are getting the address of the pointer to
the first element, If I am not mistaken...

if you use sizeof on ap you will see that it is associated to the whole
array...8 bytes.

Wrong. ap is a pointer to the first element of the array, but using
sizeof on ap is by no means required to result in 8, and indeed on my
system it does not. Nor need it result in 3*sizeof(int) - and again, on
my system it does not.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */

Hi,

ap = &a1;

Could you clarify this statement for me? is not ap pointer to whole array
of 3?

Yes, ap is a pointer to an array of three ints, and a1 is an array of three
ints, so it's perfectly legal to point ap at a1.

> printf("**ap = %d\n", **ap);
printf("sizeof ap = %d\n", (int)sizeof ap); ap++;
return 0;
}

**ap = 0
sizeof ap = 4

>>Incrementing this address is undefined.

Why?

not incrementing, dereferencing, sorry

Right - but the OP has made it clear that he already knows dereferencing
such a pointer would be illegal. What he's unclear on is why the FAQ says
that incrementing it (just *one* place) is illegal.

Now that I've looked at the FAQ question in question, it seems to me that
this is simply a misunderstanding, and that the FAQ is at fault, but only
mildly so. What Steve is saying is that if your intent is to walk through
the array's objects, getting a pointer to the array isn't the way to do
it. Rather, you get a pointer to the first element in the array, and
increment /that/, in a loop - which is quite right, of course. His WRONG
applies to the error of treating a pointer-to-array as if it were a
pointer-to-first-element-of-array.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[utab]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:19:07 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

utab said:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:58:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>utab said:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:29:22 -0700, su**************@yahoo.com, India
wrote:

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13
>
int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}}; int *ip; /*
pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\
>
ap = &a1;
The trick is here because you are getting the address of the pointer
to the first element, If I am not mistaken...

if you use sizeof on ap you will see that it is associated to the
whole array...8 bytes.

Wrong. ap is a pointer to the first element of the array, but using
sizeof on ap is by no means required to result in 8, and indeed on my
system it does not. Nor need it result in 3*sizeof(int) - and again,
on my system it does not.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */

Hi,

ap = &a1;

Could you clarify this statement for me? is not ap pointer to whole
array of 3?

Yes, ap is a pointer to an array of three ints, and a1 is an array of
three ints, so it's perfectly legal to point ap at a1.

>> printf("**ap = %d\n", **ap);
printf("sizeof ap = %d\n", (int)sizeof ap); ap++; return 0;
}

**ap = 0
sizeof ap = 4
Incrementing this address is undefined.

Why?

not incrementing, dereferencing, sorry

Right - but the OP has made it clear that he already knows dereferencing
such a pointer would be illegal. What he's unclear on is why the FAQ
says that incrementing it (just *one* place) is illegal.

Now that I've looked at the FAQ question in question, it seems to me
that this is simply a misunderstanding, and that the FAQ is at fault,
but only mildly so. What Steve is saying is that if your intent is to
walk through the array's objects, getting a pointer to the array isn't
the way to do it. Rather, you get a pointer to the first element in the
array, and increment /that/, in a loop - which is quite right, of
course. His WRONG applies to the error of treating a pointer-to-array as
if it were a pointer-to-first-element-of-array.

Right, my English ;) and fast read

[Richard Tobin]

In article <2e**********************************@z6g2000pre.g ooglegroups.com>,
su**************@yahoo.com, India <su**************@yahoo.comwrote:

>int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}};
int *ip; /* pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;
printf("%d\n", **ap);
ap++; /* WRONG */

>Here why is incrementing ap ie 'ap++' mentioned as WRONG ?

Because the next line, which you have omitted, is

printf("%d\n", **ap); /* undefined */

The increment in isolation is not wrong, but if you're intending to
dereference the pointer, it is.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

[Martin Ambuhl]

su**************@yahoo.com, India wrote:

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}};
int *ip; /* pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;
printf("%d\n", **ap);
ap++; /* WRONG */

Here why is incrementing ap ie 'ap++' mentioned as WRONG ?

compile and run the following. Your implementation will certainly give
different values and perhaps a different format for the addresses. What
will none the less be true is that when ap = &a, ++ap is not the address
of any element of a. Why? Because ap is not a pointer to int, bur a
pointer to an array[3] of int, and the value of ++ap is the address of
the next array[3] of int.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
int a[3] = { 0, 1, 2 };
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */
size_t i, n = sizeof a / sizeof *a;
ap = &a;
printf("sizeof a = %zu, sizeof *a = %zu\n", sizeof a, sizeof *a);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
printf("&a[%zu] = %p\n", i, (void *) &a[i]);
putchar('\n');
printf("sizeof ap = %zu, sizeof *ap = %zu\n", sizeof ap,
sizeof *ap);
printf("ap = %p, ", (void *) ap);
printf("++ap = %p\n", (void *) ++ap);
return 0;
}
sizeof a = 12, sizeof *a = 4
&a[0] = dff9c
&a[1] = dffa0
&a[2] = dffa4

sizeof ap = 4, sizeof *ap = 12
ap = dff9c, ++ap = dffa8

[Eric Sosman]

su**************@yahoo.com, India wrote:

The following portion is from c-faq.com - comp.lang.c FAQ list ·
Question 6.13

int a1[3] = {0, 1, 2};
int a2[2][3] = {{3, 4, 5}, {6, 7, 8}};
int *ip; /* pointer to int */
int (*ap)[3]; /* pointer to array [3] of int */\

ap = &a1;
printf("%d\n", **ap);
ap++; /* WRONG */

Here why is incrementing ap ie 'ap++' mentioned as WRONG ?

It isn't WRONG taken by itself: It increments `ap'
to point one position past the thing it formerly pointed
at, which was the array `a1'. But it is WRONG when used
in combination with the next line in the FAQ's code, which
you snipped but which I now recommend to you for re-study.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid