«

Hi all,
What is the difference between these two statements?
int* a = new int[8]
and
int a[8]

The reason I ask is because this
int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
works for the second construct, but not the first.

macawm wrote:
> Hi all,
> What is the difference between these two statements?
> int* a = new int[8]

a is a pointer that is initialized with the address
of a dynamically allocated array of 8 ints.

> and
> int a[8];

a is an ARRAY of 8 ints (allocated wherever this statement
appears).
>
> The reason I ask is because this
> int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
> works for the second construct, but not the first.
>
Pointers are not arrays nor vice versa.

The size of a pointer is the same regardless of what value
you set it to and is unrelated to the size of the thing
it points to.

An array however, has a size that is the number of elements
in the array times the size of each element. Hence your
length test works fine to reverse that.

Pointers only really have the concept of pointing to one
thing. If you dynamically allocate an array, you'll have
to remember the size. Alternatively (and this is almost
certainly a better idea), use the standard vector class.

vector<int> a(;

You can do things like:
a[3]
and you can ask the size by
a.size()

and you can size it with a variable (arrays only work with constant
sizes) and even resize it. You further don't have to remember
to free it or do special things when copying like you would for
dynamic allocations.

Hi,

int a[8] is created on the stack it ceases to exist when the function
returns ( well actually it points to memory that is likely to be
overwritten).

a variable with new is created on the heap (a bunch of memory located
somewhere independent of the function).

in the first case your expression yields:

sizeof integer pointer divided by sizeof where the pointer is pointing to
(i.e. an int)

the second case
the sizeof of the array (8 times sizeof int) divided by sizeof int ( a
becomes pointer to array of int so sizeof *a is sizeof int)

--


Regards, Ron AF Greve

http://moonlit.xs4all.nl

"macawm" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Hi all,
> What is the difference between these two statements?
> int* a = new int[8]
> and
> int a[8]
>
> The reason I ask is because this
> int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
> works for the second construct, but not the first.
>

"macawm" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
| Hi all,
| What is the difference between these two statements?
| int* a = new int[8]
| and
| int a[8]
|
| The reason I ask is because this
| int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
| works for the second construct, but not the first.
|

The first statement allocates the array on the heap and the second is
allocated on the stack. As far as int *a is concerned, consider writing
those 2 statements like so:

int *p = new int[10];
delete [] p;

int a[10];

and keep in mind that p is a pointer to an integer, not an array.

That len statement should be:

int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(int);

which only applies to the stack allocated container.

and since p is not pointing to an array:

const int len(10);
int *p = new int[len];
std::cout << "len = " << len << std::endl;
delete [] p;

___
Vectors to the rescue:

std::vector<int> v(10, 0); // an instant vector of 10 elements preset to
0
std::cout << v.size() << std::endl;

std::vector<int> *p = v;

now p *is really* pointing to a std::vector of integers. Lets go one
step further, the following works regardless of what size the vector is
at runtime. Using classic STL with a reference instead of dumb pointers.

#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
#include <vector>

template< class T >
void display(const std::vector< T >& v) // ref to a std::vector<T>
{
std::cout << "\nstd::vector with " << v.size() << " elements.\n";
for(int i = 0; i < v.size();++i) { std::cout << v[i] << " "; }
std::cout << std::endl;
}

int main()
{
std::vector<int> vn(10, 0);
display<int>(vn); // templated for integers

std::vector<double> vd(5, 1.1);
display<double>(vd); // templated for doubles

vd.push_back(1.2);
vd.push_back(1.3);
display<double>(vd);

return 0;
}

/*

std::vector with 10 elements.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

std::vector with 5 elements.
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

std::vector with 7 elements.
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3

*/

Think about the astronomical amount of work required to duplicate that
project using primitive arrays. Note that i could have used std::strings
or for that matter any user-defined class(with a defined friend
operator<<).

std::vector< std::string > vs(1000, "string");
display(vs);
std::vector< MyClass > my_v(100, MyClass(...));
display(my_v);

And you wouldn't need to modify display() in any way.

> Hi all,
> What is the difference between these two statements?
> int* a = new int[8]
> and
> int a[8]
>
> The reason I ask is because this
> int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
> works for the second construct, but not the first.
>
Here's a link to a C++Course explaining all the stuff around pointers and
references (and more):

http://www.vias.org/cppcourse/chap16_02.html

Just browse through the pages or use the index, there is plenty of
introductory material..

Hope this helps,

Hans


--
=====================================
Hans Lohninger
EPINA GmbH - Software Development Lohninger
www.lohninger.com
mailto
fax: +43-2233-541945
======================================

Peter_Julian wrote:
> "macawm" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
> | Hi all,
> | What is the difference between these two statements?
> | int* a = new int[8]
> | and
> | int a[8]
> |
> | The reason I ask is because this
> | int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
> | works for the second construct, but not the first.

<snip>

> That len statement should be:
>
> int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(int);

No it shouldn't

If you want to use this technique to measure the size of an array, the
OP's code is better. If the array type is changed to, for example

short a[8];

you have to remember to change your len statement to

int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(short);

or you will get the wrong answer (unless short and int happen to be the
same size - but then what about double ...)

The OP's code is more robust. You can change they type of the array and
the len statement will still be correct as written.

Gavin Deane

* Hans Lohninger:
>
> > Hi all,
> > What is the difference between these two statements?
> > int* a = new int[8]
> > and
> > int a[8]
> >
> > The reason I ask is because this
> > int len = sizeof(a) / sizeof(*a)
> > works for the second construct, but not the first.
> >
> Here's a link to a C++Course explaining all the stuff around pointers and
> references (and more):
>
> http://www.vias.org/cppcourse/chap16_02.html
>
> Just browse through the pages or use the index, there is plenty of
> introductory material..

It's not a good idea to post links to garbage.

<quote>
#include <iostream.h>

int main()
{
int someNumber = 12345;
int* ptrSomeNumber = &someNumber;

cout << "someNumber = " << someNumber << endl;
cout << "ptrSomeNumber = " << ptrSomeNumber << endl;

return 0;
}

If you compiled and ran the above code, you would have the variable
someNumber output 12345 while ptrSomeNumber would output some
hexadecimal number (addresses in memory are represented in hex).
</quote>

The first line quoted says: _stay away_.

And the last line quoted says the same.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Thanks to everyone. Your replies were to the point and fully explained
what I was missing. I didn't fully realize the implications of
dynamically allocating arrays. And I do agree with those that suggested
Vector, it seems to be a much nicer beast.

I was under the assumption that arrays are pointers.
int a[8]
*a or *(a+1) or *(a+n) will give the first, second, and nth element
of the array by dereferencing a's address.
Is this just wrong or am I still missing something?

* macawm:
>
> I was under the assumption that arrays are pointers.
> int a[8]
> *a or *(a+1) or *(a+n) will give the first, second, and nth element
> of the array by dereferencing a's address.
> Is this just wrong or am I still missing something?

An array decays to a pointer to its first element in the cases you list.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?