Reputation: 7951
As described in the answer to this question Copying one structure to another, We can copy the contents of a structure element to another by simple assignment. e1=e2;
But this simple assignment does not work when copying array elements. Can someone offer an explanation?
Thanks.
Upvotes: 3
Views: 1165
Reputation: 863
The name of an array is an alias of the address of the first element of the array*:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int foo[5] = {2, 3, 4, 5, 6};
int *bar = foo;
// now bar == foo, i.e. bar == &foo[0], so changing bar[2] changes foo[2]
// bar[2] works because of pointer arithmetic
printf(" foo is: %p\n",foo); // prints the address of the first element of foo
printf("&foo[0] is: %p\n", &foo[0]); // also prints the address of the first element of foo
printf(" bar is: %p\n", bar);
printf("&bar[0] is: %p\n", &bar[0]);
printf(" foo[2] is: %d\n", foo[3]);
printf(" bar[2] is: %d\n", bar[3]);
return 0;
}
*with some exceptions. Namely sizeof foo != &foo[0]
. See How come an array's address is equal to its value in C?
So when you wrote arr1 = arr2
the compiler thinks you are just referring to the address of the array not the whole array. When you write the name of a struct, the compiler knows you are referring to the struct as a whole, not just the first member.
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 106022
Array is not a modifiable lvalue ("something that has a location (in memory)"). This means that although it is a lvalue, it can't be a left operand of assignment operator =
.
In case of structure, other than assignment*, C provides no operations on entire structures. One can't use ==
, !=
operators to test whether two structures are equal or not.
You can create dummy structures to enclose arrays that will be copied later:
struct
{
int arr[5];
} arr1, arr2;
Latter you can assign
arr1 = arr2;
*The =
operator can be used only with compatible structure types.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 145839
Arrays are second-class citizens in C: you cannot assign an array to an array and you cannot return an array from a function.
Chris Torek offers this explanation in comp.lang.c:
"Note that V6 C also did not support struct-valued arguments and struct-valued return values. One might, then, imagine that Dennis figured that any return value that did not fit in a register was too much work to put into the compiler at that point."
Upvotes: 1