hello everyone
somebody plz help me out with this problem.
when i run the above code,why does arr and &arr come out to be same whereas arr+1 and &arr+1 differ.i know that arr refers to the base address but what does &arr means.Code:#include<stdio.h> int main() { int arr[]={12,14,78,90}; printf("%u %u \n%u %u",arr,&arr,arr+1,&arr+1); return 0; }
waiting for reply.thanks in advance.
In this case, 'arr' and '&arr' mean the same thing. However, + has higher precendence than &. Thus arr + 1 is (arr + 1) and &arr + 1 is actually &(arr + 1).
Have a look at the table: http://www.difranco.net/cop2220/op-prec.htm
Last edited by zacs7; 07-13-2008 at 06:30 AM.
&arr is the address of the array. arr is viewed as the address of the first element in the array.
There isn't a difference at the hardware level in terms of the addresses, but in C, in terms of types, there is a significant difference in cases like this, as you discovered.
I altered your program to make my compiler happy about those assignments and got these values:
When you add a value to a pointer, C does some special additions for you to make it all work out in memory.Code:0022FF60 0022FF60 0022FF64 0022FF70
For example, the array, and the array's first element, is located at address 0022FF60 when I ran this. The second element is located at 0022FF64. This is because adding 1, really adds 4, because on my current system an int is 4 bytes. This is automatically done by the compiler, because it takes the size of what arr points to.
Thus (arr + 1) is really interpreted like this:
On the other hand, ((&arr) + 1) results in 022FF70. Why? Because of the same concept. Remember, &arr is really a pointer to the array, not to the first element. In C, this is very important.Code:arr + (1 * sizeof(*arr))
((&arr) + 1) is really interpreted like this:
The size of what arr points to is going to be equal to the size of the array. sizeof(arr) and sizeof(*&arr) both result in 16 on my system, hence the 16-byte jump from 0022FF60 to 0022FF70.Code:&arr + (1 * sizeof(*(&arr)))
Thus you see, to C, arr and &arr are NOT the same thing at all times. To the hardware, it's just an address to the same location, but once you start letting C make decisions based upon the type, you have to play by C rules.
