On 2006-05-30, Jack <> wrote:
>
> Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>> On 2006-05-29, Jack <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>> >> On 2006-05-29, Jack <> wrote:
>> >> > Thanks a lot. I tested your code. It works well!
>> >> > Do you mean that the pointers stored in p1, (p1+1) and (p1+2) must be
>> >> > contiguous in memory?
>> >> > My thought is that p1, (p1+1) and (p1+2) are contiguous in memory. So
>> >> > even if b1, b2 and b3 in my code are not contiguous in memory, I can
>> >> > still access it through p1, (p1+1) and (p1+2). I must be wrong. Why?
>> >> >
>> >> p1+1 points to the memory location immediately after the original p1.
>> >> Here's a small diagram to help:
>> >>
>> >> --------------------
>> >> | p1 | p1+1 | p1+2 |
>> >> --------------------
>> >> | | |
>> >> --------------------------------
>> >> | b1 | ? | ? | b2 | b3 |
>> >> --------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> That is a very artificial example, as b1, b2, and b3 could be
>> >> millions of bytes away from each other! However, p1+1 will always
>> >> point to the place after p1.
>> >
>> > Do you mean that the memory that p1, (p1+1) and (p1+2) point to must be
>> > contiguous?
>> > p1, (p1+1) and (p1+2) are contiguous. b1's address is stored in p1,
>> > b2's address is stored in (p1+1), and b3's address is stored in (p1+2).
>> > Why b1, b2, and b3 must be contiguous? Thanks.
>> >
>> If b1's address is stored in p1, you have double indirection. I'm not
>> sure that that is what you mean or want, but here's an expaination:
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> | p1 | p1+1 | p1+2 |
>> ---------------------------
>> | | |
>> ---------------------------
>> | *p1 | *(p1+1) | *(p1+2) |
>> ---------------------------
>> | | \-----\
>> | | |
>> | \-----------\ |
>> --------------------------------
>> | b1 | ? | ? | b2 | b3 |
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> In this case, *p1, *(p1+1), and *(p1+2) are all pointers in themselves.
>> I recommend you avoid double indirection until you have a firm grasp
>> on other aspects of pointers.
>
> Thank you for your creative figure using text format.
> The figure below expresses what I mean. Why it does not work?
>
No problem. Note: I fixed minor spacing issues above.
> p1 = &b1;
> p1++;
> p1 = &b2;
> p1++;
> p1 = &b3;
>
> p1 = p1-2;
>
> Does p1 point to b1 now? I can not figure out what the problem is.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
Let's say that &b1 is 1000, &b2 is 1500, and &b3 is 2000.
Here is your code:
p1 = &b1; /* p1 = 1000 */
p1++; /* p1 = 1001 */
p1 = &b2; /* p1 = 1500 */
p1++; /* p1 = 1501 */
p1 = &b3; /* p1 = 2000 */
p1 = p1-2; /* p1 = 1999 */
As you can see, 1999 is not defined in this example, and therefore
when you attempt to dereference it, it is undefined. I'm not sure
what exactly you want the ++'s to do, but that isn't how they work.
--
Andrew Poelstra <
http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog >
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
You can lead a blind man to water but you can't make him chug it.
Similar Threads
