On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:13:08PM +0930, Tom Cook wrote: > On 0, Perceval Anichini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > > > Moreover, argv + sizeof (argv[1]) is equal to argv[4] (as sizeof (char*) = > > 4) ... > > > > > No. If that were so then you could not access the list of arguments > > > to a main function as argv[0], argv[1], argv[2] etc. The compiler > > > knows that the type of argv is char**, or char*[], an array of > > > pointers to chars, and it knows that sizeof( char* ) is 4 (on the > > > platforms we're talking about). It is almost an axiom that > > > argv[1] == argv[0] + sizeof( argv[0] ), since this is the address of > > > the next element in the array. So argv[4] = argv + 4*sizeof( argv[1]). > > > > Wrong. We are talking about pointers, not about integers nor unsigned. > > When you write > > argv + 1, the compiler will understand : compute the address > > of argv, and add one time the size of the type which is pointed by argv. > > I remember to you that argv[1] = argv + 1. Brackets are only syntactic > > sugar, which allows us not seeing we are dealing with pointer arithmetic. > > Is that so? I didn't know that. My understanding of the situation > was that > > argv + 4 > > was equivalent to > > ((int)argv) + 4, > > not > > argv + (char*)4. > > But I think that I learnt that A long long time ago, on a compiler far > far away...
All this reminds me why I try to avoid pointer arithmetic except in its
simplest forms. I would just use
&(argv[<whatever>])
so that later on, I can understand what I meant, and why it says what I
meant.
--
Note that I use Debian version 3.0
Linux mus 2.4.17mvz4 #1 Fri Mar 15 23:30:15 CET 2002 i686 unknown
Matijs van Zuijlen
... designed to fill holes or cracks of not more than two cubic vims.
-- Robert Sheckley, Untouched by Human Hands
pgpfJWERj3cST.pgp
Description: PGP signature
