array of ptrs vs constant ptr to an first element of array

I'm unsure why both the array of ptrs and the 'regular' arr both work, shouldn't the former array, it should be 'dereferenced' twice, once to pt the actual first address of first element and the second to access the actual content @ the first index?

Code:

---

int main()
{
    int* arr_1[] = {1,22,3,55,6};
       
    printf("%d\n", *(arr_1 + 1));//output: 22 (shouldn't it be dereferenced twice?)

  /**VS*/
 
  int arr_2[] = {1,22,3,55,6};
  printf("%d\n", *(arr_2 + 1) );//same as arr_2[1]
       
  return 0;
}

---

EDIT: I think I see it now. arr_1 holds ptr elems (so addresses of the literals) versus arr_2 stores the literals in the array and we have just ONE ptr (as oppose to multiple ptrs in arr_1) that pts to first elem, so it's like glass half full, half empty. We have individual ptrs to pt to where each literal is stored in arr_1 w/ a ptr that defaults to first elem that we can move to traverse arr_2. Of course this is trivial use of arr of ptrs, it be more useful to store an array of ptrs to objects (so structs or even arrays).

EDIT EDIT: I didn't notice that C is error prone unlike C++, I tried:

Code:

---

int* arr[] = {1,2,3}

---

in C++ and it didn't compile. Srry for all the trouble.

O_o

This is like the tenth question you've asked lately about pointers and array.

Have you considered, you know, getting a book and reading about how C works as opposed to guessing and then asking for clarification for a self-inflicted misunderstanding?

This is exactly like some of your last posts. You are seeing a behavior you don't expect precisely because you've lied to the compiler and environment.

The thing at `arr_1[1]' is an `int *' with the value 22; you've lied to the environment and told `printf' that what you've passed it is an `int'; the environment, `printf', treats the value as an `int' because you told it to treat the value as an `int'.

Seriously now, what did you really expect to happen under those circumstances?

Soma

Code:

---

    printf("%d\n", *(arr_1 + 1));//output: 22 (shouldn't it be dereferenced twice?)

---

I don't know, why are you asking me? It's pretty much like phantomotap said. In addition though, if you did dereference twice you would have gotten a nice segmentation fault, which is what normally happens when you treat a number you pulled out of your butt like a pointer.

Quote:

---

I didn't notice that C is error prone unlike C++, I tried:

---

C isn't error prone. C++ isn't error prone.

C++ does have a safer type system, but those are your errors; the compiler just didn't complain that you made them.

Soma

Correct me if I'm wrong here

But I'd read this as:

Code:

---

int* arr_1[] = {1,22,3,55,6};
//Declare arr_1 as an array of pointers to integers at addresses 1, 22, 3, 55 and 6 in each element

---

Therefore,

Code:

---

*(arr_1 + 1)

---

Returns the value you forced arr_1 to be - i.e. 22

Is what you were trying to achieve?

Code:

---


    int arr1[] = {1,2,3,4};


    int *arr2[sizeof(arr1)];


    arr2[0] = &arr1[0];
    arr2[1] = &arr1[1];
    arr2[2] = &arr1[2];
    arr2[3] = &arr1[3];


    printf("%d, %d\n", *(arr1+1), **(arr2+1));

---