0
A pointer holds a memory address, from 0 to the upper limit of your memory (in 32 bit addressing this is up to 2^32, 64 bit is up to 2^64 bytes). So in math terms, a pointer could be considered a non-negative integer.
However this is not the same as the integer type used in C and other languages, which refers to how the data at that memory address (the raw bits) is interpreted by the system.
So the expression "int *x;" declares a pointer to an integer, but x is a memory address, not a literal C-style integer. The value pointed to by x, however, will be interpreted as a literal C-style integer.
It may be easier to see using a pointer to a char:
char character = 'C';
char *pointerToCharacter = character;
In this case, character is a standard char variable, and pointerToCharacter is a pointer (which is a memory address) that points to the location in memory of a character.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Vivi
Fran
SteveAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why Two pointers cannot be added in c language?
Because no-one knows what the sum of two pointers should be...of course you can convert them to integers and then sum them, but why on earth would you do that?
What is the difference between handles and pointers?
They exist in different contexts. Handles are like... well handles (or keys, tickets, references etc), to access objects (like files, sockets, resources) you have opened (created, allocated, etc); in the program they can be integers or pointers.
Why array is a implicit pointer?
An array of pointers is exactly what it sounds like - one or more pointers arranged in order in memory, accessible through a common base name and indexed as needed. Philosophically, there is no difference between an array of pointers and an array of objects...int a[10]; // 10 integers, named a[0], a[1], a[2], ..., a[9]int *b[10]; // 10 pointers to int, named b[0], b[1], b[2], ..., b[9]If you initialize the array of pointers...int i;for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) b[i] = &a[i];... then *b[0] would be the same as a[0], etc.
Sort integer numbers in ascending order using pointers?
It's hardly the most efficient way to sort integers. Integers are primitive data types, so it's actually quicker to sort the integers directly rather than point at them. Pointers just add an unnecessary level of indirection. Pointers should only be used for complex data types for which copying/moving would result in greater inefficiency than would otherwise be incurred through pointer manipulation. #include<iostream> #include<vector> int main() { // instantiate a vector of unsorted integers std::vector<int> v = {7,3,5,2,9,4,1,6,8}; // instantiate a vector of pointers to the integers in the vector std::vector<int*> p; for (size_t i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) p.push_back (&v[i]); // sort the pointers (uses insertion sort algorithm): for (size_t i=1; i<p.size(); ++i) { int* x=p[i]; size_t gap = i; size_t pre = i-1; while (gap && *x<*p[pre]) { p[gap--] = p[pre--]; } p[gap]=x; } // print to prove the sorting worked: std::cout << "Original order:\t\t\t"; for (size_t i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) std::cout << v[i] << '\t'; std::cout<<std::endl; std::cout << "Sorted order (by pointer):\t"; for (size_t i=0; i<p.size(); ++i) std::cout << *p[i] << '\t'; std::cout<<std::endl; }
What is the minimum number of additional pointers will be needed to reverse a singly linked list?
3 pointers...
