24

Are arrays and pointers implemented differently in C and C++? I have come across this question because, in both the cases we access elements from the starting address of an element. So, there should be close relation between them. Please explain the exact relation between them. Thanks.

2
  • From a low level assembly point of view an array is nothing more than an allocation of memory where commonly the first spot defines how much space follows. At that point accessing an element is merely an offset from the starting address. A pointer on the other hand is a memory location holding another memory location. So when you access the pointer what you are getting is the value of that memory address which is merely another memory address to the actual data. If you have a pointer to an array than the memory address for the point stores the start of the array (mentioned above). Commented Oct 18, 2010 at 13:44
  • You might find this question interesting: So you think you know pointers (and arrays)?. Commented Oct 18, 2010 at 13:50

7 Answers 7

77

Let's get the important stuff out of the way first: arrays are not pointers. Array types and pointer types are completely different things and are treated differently by the compiler.

Where the confusion arises is from how C treats array expressions. N1570:

6.3.2.1 Lvalues, arrays, and function designators

...
3 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. If the array object has register storage class, the behavior is undefined.

Let's look at the following declarations:

int arr[10] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}; int *parr = arr; 

arr is a 10-element array of int; it refers to a contiguous block of memory large enough to store 10 int values. The expression arr in the second declaration is of array type, but since it is not the operand of & or sizeof and it isn't a string literal, the type of the expression becomes "pointer to int", and the value is the address of the first element, or &arr[0].

parr is a pointer to int; it refers to a block of memory large enough to hold the address of a single int object. It is initialized to point to the first element in arr as explained above.

Here's a hypothetical memory map showing the relationship between the two (assuming 16-bit ints and 32-bit addresses):

 Object Address 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x03 ------ ------- ---------------------- arr 0x10008000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x10008004 0x00 0x02 0x00 0x03 0x10008008 0x00 0x04 0x00 0x05 0x1000800c 0x00 0x06 0x00 0x07 0x10008010 0x00 0x08 0x00 0x09 parr 0x10008014 0x10 0x00 0x80 0x00 

The types matter for things like sizeof and &; sizeof arr == 10 * sizeof (int), which in this case is 20, whereas sizeof parr == sizeof (int *), which in this case is 4. Similarly, the type of the expression &arr is int (*)[10], or a pointer to a 10-element array of int, whereas the type of &parr is int **, or pointer to pointer to int.

Note that the expressions arr and &arr will yield the same value (the address of the first element in arr), but the types of the expressions are different (int * and int (*)[10], respectively). This makes a difference when using pointer arithmetic. For example, given:

int arr[10] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}; int *p = arr; int (*ap)[10] = &arr; printf("before: arr = %p, p = %p, ap = %p\n", (void *) arr, (void *) p, (void *) ap); p++; ap++; printf("after: arr = %p, p = %p, ap = %p\n", (void *) arr, (void *) p, (void *) ap); 

the "before" line should print the same values for all three expressions (in our hypothetical map, 0x10008000). The "after" line should show three different values: 0x10008000, 0x10008002 (base plus sizeof (int)), and 0x10008014 (base plus sizeof (int [10])).

Now let's go back to the second paragraph above: array expressions are converted to pointer types in most circumstances. Let's look at the subscript expression arr[i]. Since the expression arr is not appearing as an operand of either sizeof or &, and since it is not a string literal being used to initialize another array, its type is converted from "10-element array of int" to "pointer to int", and the subscript operation is being applied to this pointer value. Indeed, when you look at the C language definition, you see the following language:

6.5.2.1 Array subscripting
...
2 A postfix expression followed by an expression in square brackets [] is a subscripted designation of an element of an array object. The definition of the subscript operator [] is that E1[E2] is identical to (*((E1)+(E2))). Because of the conversion rules that apply to the binary + operator, if E1 is an array object (equivalently, a pointer to the initial element of an array object) and E2 is an integer, E1[E2] designates the E2-th element of E1 (counting from zero).

In practical terms, this means you can apply the subscript operator to a pointer object as though it were an array. This is why code like

int foo(int *p, size_t size) { int sum = 0; int i; for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { sum += p[i]; } return sum; } int main(void) { int arr[10] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}; int result = foo(arr, sizeof arr / sizeof arr[0]); ... } 

works the way it does. main is dealing with an array of int, whereas foo is dealing with a pointer to int, yet both are able to use the subscript operator as though they were both dealing with an array type.

It also means array subscripting is commutative: assuming a is an array expression and i is an integer expression, a[i] and i[a] are both valid expressions, and both will yield the same value.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

7 Comments

+1 especially for arr and &arr
Purr-fect. Can't upvote more than once, though.
Just curious, why did you use a hypothetical example of sizeof(int)==2, which, while allowed by the standard, has not been seen on any mainstream platform/compiler in ages?
@baruch: mostly to make the example memory map a reasonable size. And because I'm old.
Can you please give example of " or is a string literal used to initialize an array" ?
|
23

Don't know about C++. For C, the c-faq answers much better than I ever could.

Small snippet from c-faq:

6.3 So what is meant by the ``equivalence of pointers and arrays'' in C?

[...]

Specifically, the cornerstone of the equivalence is this key definition:

A reference to an object of type array-of-T which appears in an expression decays (with three exceptions) into a pointer to its first element; the type of the resultant pointer is pointer-to-T.

[...]

6 Comments

I thought arrays were const pointers! was i wrong?
@Green Code: Apparently you were. :)
@Green: Yes. Arrays are not pointers.
what's the snippet that has been purposely maintained out? what are the three exceptions that make the difference?
@LuisColorado: the 3 exceptions are when arrays are used with sizeof, with &, and when it is used as a string literal in an array initialization.
|
8

In C++ according to the C++ Standard 4.2:

An lvalue or rvalue of type “array of N T” or “array of unknown bound of T” can be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to T.” The result is a pointer to the first element of the array.

9 Comments

@Kirill: I wonder what an rvalue of array type is. Can you come up with an example where the expression is of array type but is an rvalue?
@Armen: I think that the ternary operator might do that.
@Ben: Could you provide a specific example please?
@Ben: Yes, a couple of days ago, I'm proud of it :)
|
8

No, they are not implemented differently. Both find elements with the same calculation: a[i] is at address a + i*sizeof(a[0]), also p[i] is at address p + i*sizeof(p[0]).

But, they are treated differently by the type system. C++ has typing information on arrays which can be seen through the sizeof operator (like C), template inference, function overloading, RTTI, and so on. Basically anywhere in the language that type information is used, it is possible for pointers and arrays to behave differently.

There are many many examples in C++ where two different language concepts have the same implementation. Just a few: arrays vs pointers, pointers vs references, virtual functions vs function pointers, iterators vs pointers, for loops vs while loops, exceptions vs longjmp

In every case, there's a different syntax and a different way of thinking about the two concepts, but they result in the same machine code in the end.

Comments

6

In C++ (and in C too I think), an array is not a pointer and that can be proven in the following way.

#include <iostream> int main() { char arr[1000]; std::cout << sizeof arr; } 

if arr were a pointer this program would print sizeof (char*) which is typically 4. But it prints 1000.

another proof:

template <class T> void f(T& obj) { T x = obj; //this will fail to compile if T is an array type } int main() { int a[30] = {}; int* p = 0; f(p); //OK f(a); //results in compile error. Remember f takes by ref therefore needs lvalue and no conversion applies } 

Formally, an array is converted to a pointer to its first element in lvalue-to-rvalue conversions, that is when an lvalue of array type is given in a context when an rvalue is expected, the array is converted to a pointer to its first element.

Also, a function declared to take an array by value is equivant to function taking a pointer, that is

void f(int a[]); void f(int a[10]); void f(int* a); 

are three equivalent declarations. HTH

13 Comments

void f(int a[]);, void f(int a[10]); and void f(int* a); are absolutely equivalent declarations in C too :)
I know they're equivalent in C, but I thought the C++ compiler was smart enough to distinguish them. In fact there's a difference only when the array is passed by reference, so in this case there's no protection whatsoever against passing the wrong size buffer even when the prototype specifies the required buffer.
@Ben: What the prototype (the correct term is declaration) specifies (as size) is completely ignored by the compiler. The parameter is a pointer
@Armen: On the other hand, the so-called inability to pass an array by reference in your second example is complete nonsense. The only compile error you get is from using the wrong initializer syntax for an array. See ideone.com/kAqmX
@Ben: Plese refrain from words like nonsense. It is not nonsense. As is clearly seen from my answer the second example, just like the first one demonstrates that an array is not a pointer. If an array were a pointer the template function would be instantiated for T = int* and would compile successfully. However, since the parameter is passed by reference, the second call to f instantiates f for T = int[30] which results in a compile-time error because of the wrong initialization syntax. If the parameter were passed bu value, the second call to f would use the already inst-ed f for T = int*
|
2

In C++ array type has a "size attribute", so for

T a[10]; T b[20]; 

a and b has different types.

This allows to use code like this

template<typename T, size_t N> void foo(T (&a)[N]) { ... } 

Comments

1

The biggest point of confusion between arrays and pointers comes from K&R's decision to make function parameters which are declared as being array type behave as though they were declared as pointers. The declarations

void foo(int a[]);
and
void foo(int *a);
are equivalent, as is (so far as I can tell)
void foo(int a[5]);
though I'm not positive a compiler would be required to accept a reference to a[6] within the latter function. In other contexts, an array declaration allocates space for the indicated number of elements. Note that given:

 typedef int foo[1]; 

any declaration of a type foo will allocate space for one element, but any attempt to pass foo as a function parameter will instead pass the address. Something of a useful trick I learned in studying a va_list implementation.

3 Comments

the three function declarations are identical: They all take a pointer to int. And any array or reference to array (of type int, naturally) or pointer to int can be passed to that function, because the function takes a pointer by value.
@Armen Tsirunyan: I knew all three were identical in practice on all the compilers I've used; I didn't know whether a compiler would be allowed to check subscripts for validity; it seems goofy to have array bounds specifications that are totally ignored. Is the bound required to be non-negative?
Good question, never thought of it. I cannot find the relevant clauses in the standard right now but both MSVC9.0 and online Comeau mandate that the bound be positive

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.