I had been writing things like
char *x=NULL;
on the assumption that
char *x=2;
would create a char
pointer to address 2.
But, in The GNU C Programming Tutorial it says that int *my_int_ptr = 2;
stores the integer value 2
to whatever random address is in my_int_ptr
when it is allocated.
This would seem to imply that my own char *x=NULL
is assigning whatever the value of NULL
cast to a char
is to some random address in memory.
While
#include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> int main() { char *x=NULL; if (x==NULL) printf("is NULL\n"); return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
does, in fact, print
is NULL
when I compile and run it, I am concerned that I am relying on undefined behavior, or at least under-specified behavior, and that I should write
char *x; x=NULL;
instead.
Is it possible to initialize a C pointer to NULL?
TL;DR Yes, very much.
The actual claim made on the guide reads like
On the other hand, if you use just the single initial assignment,
int *my_int_ptr = 2;
, the program will try to fill the contents of the memory location pointed to bymy_int_ptr
with the value 2. Sincemy_int_ptr
is filled with garbage, it can be any address. [...]
Well, they are wrong, you are right.
For the statement, (ignoring, for now, the fact that pointer to integer conversion is an implementation-defined behaviour)
int * my_int_ptr = 2;
my_int_ptr
is a variable (of type pointer to int
), it has an address of its own (type: address of pointer to integer), you are storing a value of 2
into that address.
Now, my_int_ptr
, being a pointer type, we can say, it points to the value of "type" at the memory location pointed by the value held in my_int_ptr
. So, you are essentially assigning the value of the pointer variable, not the value of the memory location pointed to by the pointer.
So, for conclusion
char *x=NULL;
initializes the pointer variable x
to NULL
, not the value at the memory address pointed to by the pointer.
This is the same as
char *x; x = NULL;
Now, being strictly conforming, a statement like
int * my_int_ptr = 2;
is illegal, as it involves constraint violation. To be clear,
my_int_ptr
is a pointer variable, type int *
2
has type int
, by definition.and they are not "compatible" types, so this initialization is invalid because it's violating the rules of simple assignment, mentioned in chapter §6.5.16.1/P1, described in Lundin's answer.
In case anyone's interested how initialization is linked to simple assignment constraints, quoting C11
, chapter §6.7.9, P11
The initializer for a scalar shall be a single expression, optionally enclosed in braces. The initial value of the object is that of the expression (after conversion); the same type constraints and conversions as for simple assignment apply, taking the type of the scalar to be the unqualified version of its declared type.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With