Can a pointer point to a value and the pointer value point to the address?

Question

Normal pointer usage as I have been reading in a book is the following:

int *pointer;
int number = 5;
pointer = &number; 

Then *pointer has a value of 5. But does this work the other way around? I mean:

int *pointer;
int number = 5;
*pointer = &number;

Here does pointer contain the value 5 and *pointer holds the address of number?

Thanks.

Answer 1

For you to write an assignment x = y, both x and y must be, or be implicitly convertible to, the same type (or x must have a user-defined assignment operator taking an argument matching the type of y, or ... OK, there are a few possibilities, but you get the idea).

Now, let's look at the statement

*pointer = &number;

Here, *pointer has type int& - you followed the pointer to get a (reference to) the integer stored at that location. Let's ignore, for now, the fact that your pointer was uninitialized and following it results in undefined behaviour.

The right hand side, &number, is taking a pointer to an integer variable, so the type is int*.

So, the expression doesn't make sense at all, just in terms of the type system: there is no way to assign int* to int&. It doesn't mean anything.

Let's relate it back to the English language of your question

Here does pointer contain the value 5 and *pointer holds the address of number?

That translates directly to the type system, and hence also doesn't mean anything. Again, we can break it down

• does pointer contain the value 5

  a pointer contains a location. The only time it would make sense to talk about a pointer having a literal value (other than nullptr) would be on a platform where there were well-known addresses - this is rare, and '5' is very unlikely to be a well-formed address anyway

• *pointer holds the address

  well, there is a case where *pointer could hold an address - it's where *pointer is itself is a pointer, meaning the variable pointer is a pointer-to-pointer such as int **. That isn't the case here: we know the type of *pointer in your code, and it is int&, not int*.

Answer 2

When you create a pointer variable, initially it will have garbage value (let say 300 address location). Hence when you dereference pointer(*300), it would give another garbage value(value at 300 address location) or error (strictly speaking anything may happen depending on your computer).

In the third step, &number:- which is also another number and your are trying to assign a number to *pointer(may be another number) which not possible. (It is like this:- 5=6). Hence it will be an error.

Answer 3

Analogy from the department of far-fetched analogies:

You use pointers many times every day without even thinking about it.

A pointer is an indirection - it tells you where something is, or how it can be reached, but not what that thing is.
(In a typed language, you can know what kind of thing it is, but that's another matter.)

Consider, for example, telephone numbers.

These tell you how to reach the person that the phone number belongs to.
Over time, that person may change - perhaps somebody didn't pay their bills and the number was reassigned - but as long as the number is valid, you can use it to reach a person.

Using this analogy, we can define the following operations:

• &person gives you a person's phone number, and
• *number gives you the person that the number belongs to.

Some rules:

• There are only two types in this language - persons and phone numbers.
• Only persons can have phone numbers; &number is an error, as is *person.
• An unspecified phone number reaches the General Manager of Customer Services at Acme, Inc.

Now, your first example would translate to

PhoneNumber n;
Person Bob;
n = &Bob;

which makes sense; n now holds Bob's phone number.

Your second example would translate to

PhoneNumber n;
Person Bob;
*n = &Bob;

which would say "replace the General Manager of Acme Inc's Customer Services with Bob's phone number", which makes no sense at all.

And your final question,

Here does pointer contain the value 5 and *pointer holds the address of number?

would translate to

Is this phone number the same thing as Bob, and if you call it, will Bob's phone number answer?

which I am sure you can see is a rather strange question.

Answer 4

*pointer = &number; is not valid C.

*pointer is of type int and &number is of type int*. This isn't a valid form of assignment and will not compile on a standard C compiler.

You can store numbers inside pointer variables, but then you must use an explicit cast to force a type conversion. Some compilers allow it without an explicit cast, but note that doing so is a non-standard extension.

And of course, note that you haven't set pointer to point at an allocated memory address, so you can't store anything inside where it points.

If you do an explicit cast such as

pointer = &something;
*pointer = (int)&number;

then it is allowed in C, but if you try to de-reference that pointer, the behavior is implementation-defined. It could possibly also be undefined behavior in case of misalignment etc. See C11 6.3.2.3:

An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might be a trap representation.

Answer 5

Your second case will not compile, because the assignment *pointer = &number involves incompatible types (int on the left, a pointer to int on the right) which makes the assignment invalid.

If you somehow coerce the assignment into compiling, then pointer is not initialised. Accessing its value, let alone dereferencing it (e.g. evaluating *pointer or assigning to it as in *pointer = number or *pointer = 5) gives undefined behaviour. Anything can happen then .... depending on circumstances, a common result of undefined behaviour is an abnormal program termination.

Answer 6

In

int *pointer;
int number = 5;
*pointer = &number;

you never assign a valid address to pointer, so dereferencing that pointer (as is done by the expression *pointer) is not valid.