CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++pointers
Rojee
Rojee

Reputation: 43

Is this a valid approach for numerical order of two variables by their memory addresses?

I am a newbie in C++ and I'm reading this ebook called Jumping into C++ by Alex Allain which is extremely helpful.

I have recently finished the pointers chapter. There is a practice problem at the end of the chapter where it asks you to write a program that compares the memory addresses of two different variables on the stack and print out the order of the variables by numerical order of their addresses.

So far I got the program running but I am not satisfied if I implemented it the right way and I want an expert opinion about my solution to figure out if I am heading the right direction. Below is my own solution to the problem (comments and tips will be helpful):

// pointersEx05.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>


int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
    int x,y; // two integer type variables
    int *firstVal, *secondVal; // two pointers will point out to an int type variable


    std::cout << "enter first value: ";
    std::cin >> x; // prompt user for the first value
    std::cout << std::endl << "enter second value: ";
    std::cin >> y; // prompt user for the second value
    std::cout << std::endl;

    firstVal = &x; // point to the memory address of x
    secondVal = &y; // point to the memory address of y

    std::cout << firstVal << " = " << *firstVal; // print out the memory address of the first value and also the value in that address by dereferencing it
    std::cout << "\n" << secondVal << " = " << *secondVal;  // print out the memory address of the second value and also the value in that address by dereferencing it

    std::cout << std::endl;


    if(firstVal > secondVal){ // check if the memory address of the first value is greater than the memory address of the second value
        std::cout << *secondVal << ", "; // if true print out second value first  then the first value
        std::cout << *firstVal;
    }else if(secondVal > firstVal){ // check if the memory address of the second value is greater than the memory address of the first value
        std::cout << *firstVal << ", "; // if true print out first value first then the second value
        std::cout << *secondVal << ", ";
    }
    return 0;
}

Upvotes: 1

Views: 256

Answers (3)

Jan Herrmann
Jan Herrmann

Reputation: 2767

As others noted comparisson of pointers not pointing to objects in the same aggregate is undefined behavior. But you can use std::less for total ordering of pointer types (see: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/less)

Upvotes: 0

Oliver Charlesworth
Oliver Charlesworth

Reputation: 272667

This is "correct", but it's not well-defined behaviour. You can only compare addresses of elements in the same array, or members of the same instance of a struct. From C99 (6.5.8):*

When two pointers are compared, the result depends on the relative locations in the address space of the objects pointed to. If two pointers to object or incomplete types both point to the same object, or both point one past the last element of the same array object, they compare equal. If the objects pointed to are members of the same aggregate object, pointers to structure members declared later compare greater than pointers to members declared earlier in the structure, and pointers to array elements with larger subscript values compare greater than pointers to elements of the same array with lower subscript values. All pointers to members of the same union object compare equal. If the expression P points to an element of an array object and the expression Q points to the last element of the same array object, the pointer expression Q+1 compares greater than P. In all other cases, the behavior is undefined.

(empahsis mine)

So this is probably what your supervisor was looking for, and it will probably "work", but it's still not valid as far as the language standard is concerned.

* Section [expr.rel] of the C++ standard(s) say something similar, but it's more verbose, due to caveats for class members and so on. And it also states that anything else is "unspecified" rather than "undefined".

Upvotes: 3

Daij-Djan
Daij-Djan

Reputation: 50119

as an academic task this is totally fine.. you fulfill the book's 'requirements'

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions