Why do C and C++ compilers allow array lengths in function signatures when they're never enforced?

This is what I found during my learning period:

#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int dis(char a[1])
{
    int length = strlen(a);
    char c = a[2];
    return length;
}
int main()
{
    char b[4] = "abc";
    int c = dis(b);
    cout << c;
    return 0;
}

So in the variable int dis(char a[1]) , the [1] seems to do nothing and doesn't work at
all, because I can use a[2]. Just like int a[] or char *a. I know the array name is a pointer and how to convey an array, so my puzzle is not about this part.

What I want to know is why compilers allow this behavior (int a[1]). Or does it have other meanings that I don't know about?

Solution 1:

It is a quirk of the syntax for passing arrays to functions.

Actually it is not possible to pass an array in C. If you write syntax that looks like it should pass the array, what actually happens is that a pointer to the first element of the array is passed instead.

Since the pointer does not include any length information, the contents of your [] in the function formal parameter list are actually ignored.

The decision to allow this syntax was made in the 1970s and has caused much confusion ever since...

Solution 2:

The length of the first dimension is ignored, but the length of additional dimensions are necessary to allow the compiler to compute offsets correctly. In the following example, the foo function is passed a pointer to a two-dimensional array.

#include <stdio.h>

void foo(int args[10][20])
{
    printf("%zd\n", sizeof(args[0]));
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    int a[2][20];
    foo(a);
    return 0;
}

The size of the first dimension [10] is ignored; the compiler will not prevent you from indexing off the end (notice that the formal wants 10 elements, but the actual provides only 2). However, the size of the second dimension [20] is used to determine the stride of each row, and here, the formal must match the actual. Again, the compiler will not prevent you from indexing off the end of the second dimension either.

The byte offset from the base of the array to an element args[row][col] is determined by:

sizeof(int)*(col + 20*row)

Note that if col >= 20, then you will actually index into a subsequent row (or off the end of the entire array).

sizeof(args[0]), returns 80 on my machine where sizeof(int) == 4. However, if I attempt to take sizeof(args), I get the following compiler warning:

foo.c:5:27: warning: sizeof on array function parameter will return size of 'int (*)[20]' instead of 'int [10][20]' [-Wsizeof-array-argument]
    printf("%zd\n", sizeof(args));
                          ^
foo.c:3:14: note: declared here
void foo(int args[10][20])
             ^
1 warning generated.

Here, the compiler is warning that it is only going to give the size of the pointer into which the array has decayed instead of the size of the array itself.

Solution 3:

The problem and how to overcome it in C++

The problem has been explained extensively by pat and Matt. The compiler is basically ignoring the first dimension of the array's size effectively ignoring the size of the passed argument.

In C++, on the other hand, you can easily overcome this limitation in two ways:

using references
using std::array (since C++11)

References

If your function is only trying to read or modify an existing array (not copying it) you can easily use references.

For example, let's assume you want to have a function that resets an array of ten ints setting every element to 0. You can easily do that by using the following function signature:

void reset(int (&array)[10]) { ... }

Not only this will work just fine, but it will also enforce the dimension of the array.

You can also make use of templates to make the above code generic:

template<class Type, std::size_t N>
void reset(Type (&array)[N]) { ... }

And finally you can take advantage of const correctness. Let's consider a function that prints an array of 10 elements:

void show(const int (&array)[10]) { ... }

By applying the const qualifier we are preventing possible modifications.

The standard library class for arrays

If you consider the above syntax both ugly and unnecessary, as I do, we can throw it in the can and use std::array instead (since C++11).

Here's the refactored code:

void reset(std::array<int, 10>& array) { ... }
void show(std::array<int, 10> const& array) { ... }

Isn't it wonderful? Not to mention that the generic code trick I've taught you earlier, still works:

template<class Type, std::size_t N>
void reset(std::array<Type, N>& array) { ... }

template<class Type, std::size_t N>
void show(const std::array<Type, N>& array) { ... }

Not only that, but you get copy and move semantic for free. :)

void copy(std::array<Type, N> array) {
    // a copy of the original passed array 
    // is made and can be dealt with indipendently
    // from the original
}

So, what are you waiting for? Go use std::array.

Solution 4:

It's a fun feature of C that allows you to effectively shoot yourself in the foot if you're so inclined.

I think the reason is that C is just a step above assembly language. Size checking and similar safety features have been removed to allow for peak performance, which isn't a bad thing if the programmer is being very diligent.

Also, assigning a size to the function argument has the advantage that when the function is used by another programmer, there's a chance they'll notice a size restriction. Just using a pointer doesn't convey that information to the next programmer.