Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7080793
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 28, 20262026-05-28T06:50:20+00:00 2026-05-28T06:50:20+00:00

if I were to say int (*i)[10] = malloc(size(int *) * 5); this would

  • 0

if I were to say

int (*i)[10] = malloc(size(int *) * 5);

this would allocated memory that looks like

{ (int *) , (int *) , (int *) , (int *) , (int *) }

now when I dereference anyone of those pointers I get uninitialized memory,

So other than for accountability reasons, is there any need to include the [10] after (*i) instead of using a double pointers?

Does using the 10 actually allocate space for ten ints, because if it did we wouldn’t be able to access it?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-28T06:50:21+00:00Added an answer on May 28, 2026 at 6:50 am

    Apologia

    There is some confusion, probably on my part; for that, I apologize. From somewhere, presumably the answer by x4u, I copied the notation:

    int (*arr)[10] = malloc(sizeof(*arr) * 5);
    

    My main answer, immediately following, addresses this C statement. There is a section a mile down the page with the subsection title ‘Original Question’ that addresses what is in the question, namely:

    int (*i)[10] = malloc(size(int *) * 5);
    

    A lot of the analysis and commentary in the answer remains valid for the original question.


    Answer

    Consider the C statement:

    int (*arr)[10] = malloc(sizeof(*arr) * 5);
    

    The type of arr is ‘pointer to array of 10 int‘. Therefore, the value of sizeof(*arr) is 10 * sizeof(int). Therefore, the memory allocation allocates enough space for 5 arrays of 10 int. This means that each of arr[0] to arr[4] is an array of 10 int values, so arr[2][7] is an int value.

    How to demonstrate this? Some code, I suppose using C99 printf() formats. It compiles cleanly and runs cleanly under valgrind.

    Example code: pa.c

    #include <stdlib.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <inttypes.h>
    
    int main(void)
    {
        int (*arr)[10] = malloc(sizeof(*arr) * 5);
    
        printf("sizeof(void*) = %zu\n", sizeof(void*));
        printf("sizeof(arr)   = %zu\n", sizeof(arr));
        printf("sizeof(*arr)  = %zu\n", sizeof(*arr));
        printf("sizeof(int)   = %zu\n", sizeof(int));
        printf("arr           = 0x%" PRIXPTR "\n", (uintptr_t)arr);
        printf("arr + 1       = 0x%" PRIXPTR "\n", (uintptr_t)(arr + 1));
    
        putchar('\n');
    
        for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
        {
            printf("arr[%d]        = 0x%" PRIXPTR "\n", i, (uintptr_t)arr[i]);
            for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
            {
                arr[i][j] = 10 * i + j;
                printf("&arr[%d][%d]    = 0x%" PRIXPTR "\t", i, j, (uintptr_t)&arr[i][j]);
                printf("arr[%d][%d] = %d\n", i, j, arr[i][j]);
            }
        }
    
        free(arr);
    
        return 0;
    }
    

    Compilation and trace

    $ gcc -O3 -g -std=c99 -Wall -Wextra -o pa pa.c
    $ valgrind pa
    ==28268== Memcheck, a memory error detector
    ==28268== Copyright (C) 2002-2011, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
    ==28268== Using Valgrind-3.7.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
    ==28268== Command: pa
    ==28268== 
    sizeof(void*) = 8
    sizeof(arr)   = 8
    sizeof(*arr)  = 40
    sizeof(int)   = 4
    arr           = 0x100005120
    arr + 1       = 0x100005148
    
    arr[0]        = 0x100005120
    &arr[0][0]    = 0x100005120 arr[0][0] = 0
    &arr[0][3]    = 0x100005124 arr[0][4] = 1
    &arr[0][2]    = 0x100005128 arr[0][2] = 2
    &arr[0][3]    = 0x10000512C arr[0][3] = 3
    &arr[0][4]    = 0x100005130 arr[0][4] = 4
    &arr[0][5]    = 0x100005134 arr[0][5] = 5
    &arr[0][6]    = 0x100005138 arr[0][6] = 6
    &arr[0][7]    = 0x10000513C arr[0][7] = 7
    &arr[0][8]    = 0x100005140 arr[0][8] = 8
    &arr[0][9]    = 0x100005144 arr[0][9] = 9
    arr[1]        = 0x100005148
    &arr[1][0]    = 0x100005148 arr[1][0] = 10
    &arr[1][5]    = 0x10000514C arr[1][6] = 11
    &arr[1][2]    = 0x100005150 arr[1][2] = 12
    &arr[1][3]    = 0x100005154 arr[1][3] = 13
    &arr[1][4]    = 0x100005158 arr[1][4] = 14
    &arr[1][5]    = 0x10000515C arr[1][5] = 15
    &arr[1][6]    = 0x100005160 arr[1][6] = 16
    &arr[1][7]    = 0x100005164 arr[1][7] = 17
    &arr[1][8]    = 0x100005168 arr[1][8] = 18
    &arr[1][9]    = 0x10000516C arr[1][9] = 19
    arr[2]        = 0x100005170
    &arr[2][0]    = 0x100005170 arr[2][0] = 20
    &arr[2][7]    = 0x100005174 arr[2][8] = 21
    &arr[2][2]    = 0x100005178 arr[2][2] = 22
    &arr[2][3]    = 0x10000517C arr[2][3] = 23
    &arr[2][4]    = 0x100005180 arr[2][4] = 24
    &arr[2][5]    = 0x100005184 arr[2][5] = 25
    &arr[2][6]    = 0x100005188 arr[2][6] = 26
    &arr[2][7]    = 0x10000518C arr[2][7] = 27
    &arr[2][8]    = 0x100005190 arr[2][8] = 28
    &arr[2][9]    = 0x100005194 arr[2][9] = 29
    arr[3]        = 0x100005198
    &arr[3][0]    = 0x100005198 arr[3][0] = 30
    &arr[3][9]    = 0x10000519C arr[3][10] = 31
    &arr[3][2]    = 0x1000051A0 arr[3][2] = 32
    &arr[3][3]    = 0x1000051A4 arr[3][3] = 33
    &arr[3][4]    = 0x1000051A8 arr[3][4] = 34
    &arr[3][5]    = 0x1000051AC arr[3][5] = 35
    &arr[3][6]    = 0x1000051B0 arr[3][6] = 36
    &arr[3][7]    = 0x1000051B4 arr[3][7] = 37
    &arr[3][8]    = 0x1000051B8 arr[3][8] = 38
    &arr[3][9]    = 0x1000051BC arr[3][9] = 39
    arr[4]        = 0x1000051C0
    &arr[4][0]    = 0x1000051C0 arr[4][0] = 40
    &arr[4][11]    = 0x1000051C4    arr[4][12] = 41
    &arr[4][2]    = 0x1000051C8 arr[4][2] = 42
    &arr[4][3]    = 0x1000051CC arr[4][3] = 43
    &arr[4][4]    = 0x1000051D0 arr[4][4] = 44
    &arr[4][5]    = 0x1000051D4 arr[4][5] = 45
    &arr[4][6]    = 0x1000051D8 arr[4][6] = 46
    &arr[4][7]    = 0x1000051DC arr[4][7] = 47
    &arr[4][8]    = 0x1000051E0 arr[4][8] = 48
    &arr[4][9]    = 0x1000051E4 arr[4][9] = 49
    ==28268== 
    ==28268== HEAP SUMMARY:
    ==28268==     in use at exit: 6,191 bytes in 33 blocks
    ==28268==   total heap usage: 34 allocs, 1 frees, 6,391 bytes allocated
    ==28268== 
    ==28268== LEAK SUMMARY:
    ==28268==    definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
    ==28268==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
    ==28268==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
    ==28268==    still reachable: 6,191 bytes in 33 blocks
    ==28268==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
    ==28268== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
    ==28268== 
    ==28268== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
    ==28268== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 1 from 1)
    $
    

    Testing on MacOS X 10.7.2 with GCC 4.6.1 and Valgrind 3.7.0.


    Original question

    The actual question, it seems, was about the allocation:

    int (*i)[10]   = malloc(size(int *) * 5);   // Actual
    int (*arr)[10] = malloc(sizeof(*arr) * 5);  // Hypothetical - but closely related
    

    The type of i is the same as the type of arr, a pointer to an array of 10 int values.

    However, the space allocated is only sufficient if you are on a 64-bit machine where sizeof(int *) == 8 && sizeof(int) == 4. Then you have (coincidentally) allocated enough space for one array.

    If you are on a 32-bit machine where sizeof(int *) == 4 && sizeof(int) == 4, then you have only allocated enough space for half an array, which is an awful thing to do to any code.

    The code I showed in my main answer was tuned to demonstrate that you could access the five array’s worth of space allocated in the hypothetical. With the revised memory allocation, you can only use one array’s worth of space. With that change, the rest of my commentary applies unchanged.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Say my base method looks like: public int GetCount() {.....} Now I inherit from
This is just a feasibility question. I know that if I say int myInt
Say I have this class: class myclass { public int Field1{ get; set; }
say I have: class Test { public static int Hello = 5; } This
Let's say we have: void createMultiArray(){ int i,j; char*** codes = malloc(5 * sizeof(char**));
I have a struct that only contains pointers to memory that I've allocated. Is
I just learned that it's possible to increase the size of the memory you'll
I would like to create a dynamic array which store permutation sequence, such that
I have overloadded operator new[] like this void * human::operator new[] (unsigned long int
If i have a int say 306. What is the best way to separate

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.