I have the following code:
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int g[] = {9,8};
int (*j)[2] = &g;
cout << \"*(j):\"
I think that j is a pointer to an array of two integer.
And &g is the address of the whole array.
That is correct.
And so I use the *(j), it will dereference the first element in the array.
This is not. *j
gives you the array itself. When you insert it to cout
, it decays to a pointer again (this time to a pointer to its first element, type int*
) and its value is printed.
It's in effect the same as if you wrote cout << g
.
"I think that j
is a pointer to an array"
Yes, it is. And that's also the reason why *j
output the same address as outputting g
would do. In this case an array decays into the pointer and that's why even outputting j
yields the same result.
The fact that the same address is outputted might make you think that j
and *j
are the same pointers, however they are not. Their type is different (a fact that actually matters):
int g[] = {9,8}; // int[]
int (*j)[2] = &g; // int (*)[2]
so using *j
becomes equivalent to using g
directly, just like *(*j)
becomes equivalent to *g
.
And &(*j)
is nothing but j
, which is initialized with an address of an array (an address taken from decayed g
, i.e. an address of the first element of this array).
So why j
and *j
outputs the same address and *(*j)
outputs the value of first element?
Because of the type of j
being int (*)[2]
. A simple example:
int g[] = {9,8};
int (*j)[2] = &g; // j points to the first element as well
cout << *((int*) j);
outputs 9
.