R – How to find the size of the memory referenced by a pointer

1. A pointer can be re-assigned:

   int x = 5;
   int y = 6;
   int *p;
   p = &x;
   p = &y;
   *p = 10;
   assert(x == 5);
   assert(y == 10);
   

   A reference cannot be re-bound, and must be bound at initialization:

   int x = 5;
   int y = 6;
   int &q; // error
   int &r = x;
   

2. A pointer variable has its own identity: a distinct, visible memory address that can be taken with the unary & operator and a certain amount of space that can be measured with the sizeof operator. Using those operators on a reference returns a value corresponding to whatever the reference is bound to; the reference’s own address and size are invisible. Since the reference assumes the identity of the original variable in this way, it is convenient to think of a reference as another name for the same variable.

   int x = 0;
   int &r = x;
   int *p = &x;
   int *p2 = &r;
   
   assert(p == p2); // &x == &r
   assert(&p != &p2);
   

3. You can have arbitrarily nested pointers to pointers offering extra levels of indirection. References only offer one level of indirection.

   int x = 0;
   int y = 0;
   int *p = &x;
   int *q = &y;
   int **pp = &p;
   
   **pp = 2;
   pp = &q; // *pp is now q
   **pp = 4;
   
   assert(y == 4);
   assert(x == 2);
   

4. A pointer can be assigned nullptr, whereas a reference must be bound to an existing object. If you try hard enough, you can bind a reference to nullptr, but this is undefined and will not behave consistently.

   /* the code below is undefined; your compiler may optimise it
    * differently, emit warnings, or outright refuse to compile it */
   
   int &r = *static_cast<int *>(nullptr);
   
   // prints "null" under GCC 10
   std::cout
       << (&r != nullptr
           ? "not null" : "null")
       << std::endl;
   
   bool f(int &r) { return &r != nullptr; }
   
   // prints "not null" under GCC 10
   std::cout
       << (f(*static_cast<int *>(nullptr))
           ? "not null" : "null")
       << std::endl;
   

   You can, however, have a reference to a pointer whose value is nullptr.

5. Pointers can iterate over an array; you can use ++ to go to the next item that a pointer is pointing to, and + 4 to go to the 5th element. This is no matter what size the object is that the pointer points to.

6. A pointer needs to be dereferenced with * to access the memory location it points to, whereas a reference can be used directly. A pointer to a class/struct uses -> to access its members whereas a reference uses a ..

7. References cannot be put into an array, whereas pointers can be (Mentioned by user @litb)

8. Const references can be bound to temporaries. Pointers cannot (not without some indirection):

   const int &x = int(12); // legal C++
   int *y = &int(12); // illegal to take the address of a temporary.
   

   This makes const & more convenient to use in argument lists and so forth.

No, there is no way to get this information without depending strongly on the implementation details of malloc. In particular, malloc may allocate more bytes than you request (e.g. for efficiency in a particular memory architecture). It would be much better to redesign your code so that you keep track of n explicitly. The alternative is at least as much redesign and a much more dangerous approach (given that it's non-standard, abuses the semantics of pointers, and will be a maintenance nightmare for those that come after you): store the lengthn at the malloc'd address, followed by the array. Allocation would then be:

void *p = calloc(sizeof(struct mystruct) * n + sizeof(unsigned long int),1));
*((unsigned long int*)p) = n;

n is now stored at *((unsigned long int*)p) and the start of your array is now

void *arr = p+sizeof(unsigned long int);

Edit: Just to play devil's advocate... I know that these "solutions" all require redesigns, but let's play it out. Of course, the solution presented above is just a hacky implementation of a (well-packed) struct. You might as well define:

typedef struct { 
  unsigned int n;
  void *arr;
} arrInfo;

and pass around arrInfos rather than raw pointers.

Now we're cooking. But as long as you're redesigning, why stop here? What you really want is an abstract data type (ADT). Any introductory text for an algorithms and data structures class would do it. An ADT defines the public interface of a data type but hides the implementation of that data type. Thus, publicly an ADT for an array might look like

typedef void* arrayInfo;
(arrayInfo)newArrayInfo(unsignd int n, unsigned int itemSize);
(void)deleteArrayInfo(arrayInfo);
(unsigned int)arrayLength(arrayInfo);
(void*)arrayPtr(arrayInfo);
...

In other words, an ADT is a form of data and behavior encapsulation... in other words, it's about as close as you can get to Object-Oriented Programming using straight C. Unless you're stuck on a platform that doesn't have a C++ compiler, you might as well go whole hog and just use an STL std::vector.

There, we've taken a simple question about C and ended up at C++. God help us all.