🔒 Locked
Three-level pointer indirection - any usages?
Advertisement
Original Post
Hi, I've been playing around with this theory that the reason that most coders are accustomed to at max two-level pointer indirection, e.g. void safe_delete( int** p ) { delete *p; *p = 0; } is that the "practical world" doesn't expose us to problems that require more than two-level pointer indirection. But then again, having an intuitive grasp of multi-level pointer indirection, might embetter one as a programmer. So I thought: perhaps one could come up with practical examples of three-level pointer indirection. So basically I'm asking; have you ever seen (or have come up with) code that practically requires something like "int*** p", assuming this is just a pointer-to-pointer-to-pointer-to-integer, and has nothing to do with arrays? Thanks, - Mikko
Most of the time there is a better alternative; I can't really think of a situation where this syntax is useful.
void WorkOnStaticArray(int*** Array){ Array[1][2][3] = 2;}[wink]
The only times I ever used double-indirection with pointers is when I need to pass a pointer into a creation function, and have it point to the created object, and even in that case, I tend to pass a reference to a pointer instead or a pointer to pointer, as it makes things easier to read and understand, I feel. I can't think of an example that would use triple indirection offhand.
A contrived-but-not-unreasonable example:
int * bar[BAR_SIZE]; void GetBar( int *** foo ) { *foo = bar; }
2D array of pointers is one. In fact, if you wanted to pass a the pointer to the 2D array of pointers to a function so that it would be altered to point to a different 2D array of pointers you could have quadruple indirection.
Above double indirection it becomes progressively more irritating to allocate and deallocate with nested loops and so forth though, so this is a further reason (other than the dereferencing confusion) why it is not normally done.
Above double indirection it becomes progressively more irritating to allocate and deallocate with nested loops and so forth though, so this is a further reason (other than the dereferencing confusion) why it is not normally done.
The three star programmers link reminds me of some code I had to deal with once. I'm pretty sure it went like this:
void (* const * volatile * table(void) )(void) ;
It's a function that returns a pointer to a volatile pointer to an array of const pointers to void(void) functions. It was written by a guy who didn't quite grok DLLs.
void (* const * volatile * table(void) )(void) ;
It's a function that returns a pointer to a volatile pointer to an array of const pointers to void(void) functions. It was written by a guy who didn't quite grok DLLs.
I have seen it twice. It was to do with an IUnknown* in COM, with two more levels of indirection for various reasons.
The other time was when I tried writing a pool allocator, though I vastly simplified it shortly after such that it barely used two levels.
In probably shouldn't ever be necessary, but if it is used, then it probably can at least be changed to a reference to a pointer-pointer (**&) instead to make it easier.
The other time was when I tried writing a pool allocator, though I vastly simplified it shortly after such that it barely used two levels.
In probably shouldn't ever be necessary, but if it is used, then it probably can at least be changed to a reference to a pointer-pointer (**&) instead to make it easier.
Yeah, a 3D array would do it.
Or a 2D array of COM objects.
If you were using ASM to look at some C code of structs containing other structs it must happen all the time?
I don't see why n-level indirection is hard to understand, it just gets easy to get lost. But the theory is no different.
Or a 2D array of COM objects.
If you were using ASM to look at some C code of structs containing other structs it must happen all the time?
I don't see why n-level indirection is hard to understand, it just gets easy to get lost. But the theory is no different.
Topic Locked
This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Advertisement