C / C++ / MFC

int main(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
	
	char a[]="hello world";

	char * p = a;
	char * q = &a[0];
	char * r = &a;

	printf("%x %x %x\n", p, q, r);
	getchar();
}

	char * p = a;
00413392  lea         eax,[ebp-14h] 
00413395  mov         dword ptr [ebp-20h],eax 
	char * q = &a[0];
00413398  lea         eax,[ebp-14h] 
0041339B  mov         dword ptr [ebp-2Ch],eax 
	char * r = &a;
0041339E  lea         eax,[ebp-14h] 
004133A1  mov         dword ptr [ebp-38h],eax 

char a[5];
char *p;
p = a;
printf("p=%x, &p=%x\n); 
printf("a=%x, &a=%x\n");

p=12ff58 &p=12ff4c
a=12ff58 &a=12ff58

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
 
using namespace std;
 
void print_myself(wchar_t* myself)
{
	wcout << myself << endl;
}
 
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
	wchar_t myself[] = L"George Jackson";
 
	print_myself(myself);
	print_myself(&myself[0]);
	 
	// wchar_t (*myself_ptr)[15] = &myself;
	print_myself(&myself); // Won't compile in C++ as is.
 
	return 0;
}

George L. Jackson wrote:

Was I being dogmatic?

My point is that &array seems to work okay with formatted output but may not work in other situations. &array in C++ is a different type than arrar and &array[0], and behaves differently. Yes, they all return the same address; but, remember, C is no longer a true subset of C++ since there are now too many gotchas.

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

using namespace std;

void print_myself(wchar_t* myself)
{
wcout << myself << endl;
}

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
wchar_t myself[] = L"George Jackson";

print_myself(myself);
print_myself(&myself[0]);

// wchar_t (*myself_ptr)[15] = &myself;
print_myself(&myself); // Won't compile in C++ as is.

return 0;
}

Thus, it should not even be an alternative to array and &array[0].

George L. Jackson wrote:

Thanks for the discussion.

CPallini wrote:

...this has nothing to do with the core of the original note...

CPallini wrote:

But who cares?

DavidCrow wrote:

Do you have a bee in your bonnet?

DavidCrow wrote:

'cause you've accused me of being both offensive and arrogant, both of which couldn't be further from reality.

DavidCrow wrote:

Italians must have some strange translation issues

DavidCrow wrote:

I certainly don't. I was just curious as to why you and George insisted on beating a dead horse.

George_George wrote:

3. I doubt whether it is useful to define a function pointer with empty parameter list -- too restricted.

George_George wrote:

I am sorry to make you mad, CPallini. Maybe my question is too hard?