copying pointers

I am practicing with pointers presently, trying to get my knowledge on the matter more robust.

I created one program that just uses 2 points and another that uses on string and one array.

Both compile and work, but I get a warning with the program that uses just pointers. Can someone explain why this is the case. It would be much appreciated.

program with pointer and array:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

char *pcopy(const char *s, char t[]);


int main(void){

    char *stringp = "String";
    char stringp2[8];

    pcopy(stringp, stringp2);
    printf("\n%s", stringp2);

    return 0;

}

char *pcopy(const char *s, char t[] ){

    char *p = t;

        while(*s  != '\0' )
       {
         *p++ = *s++;
        }

    *p = '\0';

    return t;

}

The above works.

But the following program compiles and runs but there is an error...

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

char *pcopy(const char *s, char *t);


int main(void){

    char *stringp = "String";
    char *stringp2[8];

    pcopy(stringp, stringp2);
    printf("\n%s", stringp2);

    return 0;

}

char *pcopy(const char *s, char *t ){

    char *p = t;

        while(*s  != '\0' )
        {
         *p++ = *s++;
        }

    *p = '\0';

    return t;

}

The error is :
ecl.c: In function ‘main’:
ecl.c:12: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘pcopy’ from incompatible pointer type

Where exactly am I going wrong here?

Also my is it that if I change:

Code:

char *stringp2[8];

to 

char *stringp2;

I get a segmentation fault...Is it wrong when using pointer to define a pointer as:

Code:

char *stringp2[8];

Sorry if this post is a little confused I am still hazy in regards to pointers.

The line

Code:

char *stringp2[8];

doesn't give you a pointer. It gives you an array of 8 pointers, none of which point anywhere.

char *string2[8] is an array of 8 pointers. You should NOT add a star to string2 when you change the copy function.

--
Mats

tabstop why can I not define it as:

Code:

char *stringp2;

For an empty string or something...

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

tabstop why can I not define it as:

Code:

char *stringp2;

For an empty string or something...

What makes you think you can't?

(Although hopefully by "empty string" you mean "a pointer that points nowhere in particular".)

It compiles but gives me a segmentation fault.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

It compiles but gives me a segmentation fault.

Right. See again, as always, the "doesn't point anywhere" bit. You have to make a pointer point somewhere before you can use it.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

It compiles but gives me a segmentation fault.

Yes, because the value the pointer has is undefined, and it happens that the value is not somewhere you can copy to.

Pointers are variables that hold the location of some other memory.

If we think of memory as the safety-deposit boxes in a bank, then a pointer is a box that contains the number of the box where you ACTUALLY stored your valuables. Of course, if you don't put the number of the valuables in the first box, it's of no use to find the valuables.

Right now, you have A box to store the number of the other box, but you haven't actually stored anything there.

If you enable more warnings (and perhaps compile with -O2), the compiler may say "you haven't given string2 a value yet").

--
Mats

So this is the correct way?:

Code:

    char *stringp = "String";
    char *stringp2;

    char ch[7];

    stringp2 = &ch;

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

So this is the correct way?:

Code:

    char *stringp = "String";
    char *stringp2;

    char ch[7];

    stringp2 = &ch;

Almost, drop the &, or make it &ch[0]. ch on it's own here will be the address of the first character in the array. As you have written it, you have the address of the address of the first character in the array, which is a pointer to the pointer to a char. [It probably will actually work, because there is no such thing as the address of the address of ch - so the compiler generates the address of ch[0] either way - but it's not right to do it this way].

--
Mats

Understood,

thanks, much appreciate matsp.