C Pointers – Difference Between Pointer to 0x0 Location and Pointer Set to NULL

cnullpointers

Is a pointer pointing to 0x0000 the same as a pointer set to NULL? If NULL value is defined in the C language, then what location does it physically translate to? Is it the same as 0x0000. Where can I find more details about these concepts?

Best Answer

A point that most of the answers here are not addressing, at least not explicitly, is that a null pointer is a value that exists during execution, and a null pointer constant is a syntactic construct that exists in C source code.

A null pointer constant, as Karlson's answer correctly states, is either an integer constant expression with the value 0 (a simple 0 is the most common example), or such an expression cast to void* (such as (void*)0).

NULL is a macro, defined in <stddef.h> and several other standard headers, that expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant. The expansion is typically either 0 or ((void*)0) (the outer parentheses are needed to satisfy other language rules).

So a literal 0, when used in a context that requires an expression of pointer type, always evaluates to a null pointer, i.e., a unique pointer value that points to no object. That does not imply anything about the representation of a null pointer. Null pointers are very commonly represented as all-bits-zero, but they can be represented as anything. But even if a null pointer is represented as 0xDEADBEEF, 0 or (void*)0 is still a null pointer constant.

This answer to the question on stackoverflow covers this well.

This implies, among other things, that memset() or calloc(), which can set a region of memory to all-bits-zero, will not necessarily set any pointers in that region to null pointers. They're likely to do so on most implementations, perhaps even all existing ones, but the language doesn't guarantee it.

This question is really a duplicate of this one, but Stack Exchange doesn't allow marking duplicates across sites.

Related Solutions

Memory Management – Where Are Null Values Stored?

In your example myApple has the special value null (typically all zero bits), and so is referencing nothing. The object that it originally referred to is now lost on the heap. There is no way to retrieve its location. This is known as a memory leak on systems without garbage collection.

If you originally set 1000 references to null, then you have space for just 1000 references, typically 1000 * 4 bytes (on a 32-bit system, twice that on 64). If those 1000 references originally pointed to real objects, then you allocated 1000 times the size of each object, plus space for the 1000 references.

In some languages (like C and C++), pointers always point to something, even when "uninitialized". The issue is whether the address they hold is legal for your program to access. The special address zero (aka null) is deliberately not mapped into your address space, so a segmentation fault is generated by the memory management unit (MMU) when it is accessed and your program crashes. But since address zero is deliberately not mapped in, it becomes an ideal value to use to indicate that a pointer is not pointing to anything, hence its role as null. To complete the story, as you allocate memory with new or malloc(), the operating system configures the MMU to map pages of RAM into your address space and they become usable. There are still typically vast ranges of address space that are not mapped in, and so lead to segmentation faults, too.

Best Way to Have a Pointer to Several Methods in C++ – Code Critique

what is the best syntax and coding style for generating a pointer to a method?

Don't. Use std::function<void()>.

Now, on to the steps. Step 1 is technically illegal, but your compiler allowed it by implicitly taking the address for you. Step 2 is how it should be done. The name of a static function (in this case, Foo::dummy) is a function lvalue and must have it's address taken to be legal C++ and yield a function pointer.

Step 3 simply doesn't make any sense at all. You're trying to assign ... a run-time function pointer ... to a type? That makes no sense whatsoever. And then you try to access ... a member ... of a function pointer? Does not compute.

There are two parts to the answer "What do I do when I want to X in C++?". The first part, for C veterans only, is "Forget whatever you think you learned in C". The second part is about doing X.

how can i write an array of pointers or a pointer to pointers structure to store methods ( static or non-static from real objects )

std::vector<std::function<void()>> arr;

le done.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Memory Management – Where Are Null Values Stored?

Best Way to Have a Pointer to Several Methods in C++ – Code Critique

Related Topic