Array of pointer to characters

[Stack Overflow]

Hello,

As a first note, I have done a lot of board searching on topics such as: "array of functions" and so forth, but can't find a definite solution.

My question is this: is it possible to store 'pointer to characater's' inside an array of characters?

For an example:

typedef void (*fnptr)(void);
fnptr myFunc[3] = {func1, func2, func3};

This allows someone to store an array of functions. Though, I wanted something similar for character arrays:

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

typedef char* (char_set);
    

int main() {
	int i;
	char *ptr, *pch, *p;
	
	char_set data[3] = {ptr, pch, p};

	for (i = 0; i < sizeof(data)/sizeof(data[0]); i++) {
		data[i] = malloc(10 * sizeof *data[i]);
		if (data[i] == NULL)
			return 0;
		free(data[i]);
		data[i] = NULL;
	}
	
	return 0;
}

Even though it works with gcc, some other compilers I've tested it with seems to think otherwise. One compiler says:

'initializer must be constant'

GCC itself even says this if I turn -Wall and -pedantic on: 'warning: initializer element is not computable at load time'

Is there any standard way I can accomplish this?


- Stack Overflow

[Quantum1024]

If you want 3 string each of 10 chars then maybe this would work for what you want.

char Pointer[3][10]

[Stack Overflow]

Alright,

I do see what you mean. And I just realized that what I was trying to do was a bit pointless.

Here I wanted data[0] to point to ptr, data[1] to pch, and so forth. Thus I could allocate all of my seperate pointers a bit easier. I failed to see that I could just create a standard pointer to pointer to char and just use those instead.

Ah, well I need to take a Vitamin C.

Thanks for the help.


- Stack Overflow

[nonpuz]

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
  void *types[5];
  int a = 5;
  char c = 'a';
  float f = 1.5f;

  types[0] = &a;
  types[1] = &c;
  types[2] = &f;

  printf("%d\n\n", a);

  *((int *)types[0]) = 10;

  printf("%d, %c, %f\n",*((int *)types[0]),*((char *)types[1]),*((float *)types[2]));

  return 0;
}

I'm sure theres a reason not to do this. Plus it hardly seems useful.