&a v.s. a v.s. &a[0]

[Wenjie]

Hello,


I have an array: unsigned char a[1024];
I want to copy some data into it:
memcpy(a, anotherArray, sizeof(a));

But I saw somebody is using this:
memcpy(&a, anotherArray, sizeof(a));
And it passed the tests (VC++6.0).

Could someone confirm me that the 2nd use of
of &a is not valid? Why?
Also I would think it is OK to do:
memcpy(&a[0], anotherArray, sizeof(a));


Best regards,
Wenjie

[John Harrison]

Re: &a v.s. a v.s. &a[0]


"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@att Abi.com> wrote in message
news:vfgkgtlo7p bca@corp.supern ews.com...[color=blue]
> "Wenjie" <gokkog@yahoo.c om> wrote...[color=green]
> > I have an array: unsigned char a[1024];
> > I want to copy some data into it:
> > memcpy(a, anotherArray, sizeof(a));
> >
> > But I saw somebody is using this:
> > memcpy(&a, anotherArray, sizeof(a));
> > And it passed the tests (VC++6.0).
> >
> > Could someone confirm me that the 2nd use of
> > of &a is not valid? Why?[/color]
>
> I don't think someone would be able to confirm that because
> it's valid. Expressions 'a' and '&a' have different _type_
> but the same _value_. Used with memcpy, they are converted
> to 'void*' of the same value, which then is passed to memcpy
> and gives the same result.[/color]

You would pretty quickly see the difference though if you did this

memcpy(&a + 1, anotherArray, sizeof a - 1);

or this

memcpy(a + 1, anotherArray, sizeof a - 1);

or this

memcpy(&a[1], anotherArray, sizeof a - 1);

The first is a bug, the second and third are OK. Try printing out the
pointer values to see the difference.

john

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: &amp;a v.s. a v.s. &amp;a[0]

"John Harrison" <john_andronicu s@hotmail.com> wrote...[color=blue]
>
> "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@att Abi.com> wrote in message
> news:vfgkgtlo7p bca@corp.supern ews.com...[color=green]
> > "Wenjie" <gokkog@yahoo.c om> wrote...[color=darkred]
> > > I have an array: unsigned char a[1024];
> > > I want to copy some data into it:
> > > memcpy(a, anotherArray, sizeof(a));
> > >
> > > But I saw somebody is using this:
> > > memcpy(&a, anotherArray, sizeof(a));
> > > And it passed the tests (VC++6.0).
> > >
> > > Could someone confirm me that the 2nd use of
> > > of &a is not valid? Why?[/color]
> >
> > I don't think someone would be able to confirm that because
> > it's valid. Expressions 'a' and '&a' have different _type_
> > but the same _value_. Used with memcpy, they are converted
> > to 'void*' of the same value, which then is passed to memcpy
> > and gives the same result.[/color]
>
> You would pretty quickly see the difference though if you did this
>
> memcpy(&a + 1, anotherArray, sizeof a - 1);
>
> or this
>
> memcpy(a + 1, anotherArray, sizeof a - 1);
>
> or this
>
> memcpy(&a[1], anotherArray, sizeof a - 1);
>
> The first is a bug, the second and third are OK. Try printing out the
> pointer values to see the difference.[/color]

The point is that they will still compile. The "bug" is due
to undefined behaviour, not due to "illegal C++ construct".

Victor