Through using IntelliSense and looking at other people's code, I have come across this IntPtr type; every time it has needed to be used I have simply put null or IntPtr.Zero and found most functions to work. What exactly is it and when/why is it used?
It's a "native (platform-specific) size integer." It's internally represented as void* but exposed as an integer. You can use it whenever you need to store an unmanaged pointer and don't want to use unsafe code. IntPtr.Zero is effectively NULL (a null pointer).
It's a value type large enough to store a memory address as used in native or unsafe code, but not directly usable as a memory address in safe managed code.
You can use IntPtr.Size to find out whether you're running in a 32-bit or 64-bit process, as it will be 4 or 8 bytes respectively.
Here's an example:
I'm writing a C# program that interfaces with a high-speed camera. The camera has its own driver that acquires images and loads them into the computer's memory for me automatically.
So when I'm ready to bring the latest image into my program to work with, the camera driver provides me with an IntPtr to where the image is ALREADY stored in physical memory, so I don't have to waste time/resources creating another block of memory to store an image that's in memory already. The IntPtr just shows me where the image already is.
A direct interpretation
An IntPtr is an integer which is the same size as a pointer.
You can use IntPtr to store a pointer value in a non-pointer type. This feature is important in .NET since using pointers is highly error prone and therefore illegal in most contexts. By allowing the pointer value to be stored in a "safe" data type, plumbing between unsafe code segments may be implemented in safer high-level code -- or even in a .NET language that doesn't directly support pointers.
The size of IntPtr is platform-specific, but this detail rarely needs to be considered, since the system will automatically use the correct size.
The name "IntPtr" is confusing -- something like Handle might have been more appropriate. My initial guess was that "IntPtr" was a pointer to an integer. The MSDN documentation of IntPtr goes into somewhat cryptic detail without ever providing much insight about the meaning of the name.
An alternative perspective
An IntPtr is a pointer with two limitations:
It cannot be directly dereferenced
It doesn't know the type of the data that it points to.
In other words, an IntPtr is just like a void* -- but with the extra feature that it can (but shouldn't) be used for basic pointer arithmetic.
In order to dereference an IntPtr, you can either cast it to a true pointer (an operation which can only be performed in "unsafe" contexts) or you can pass it to a helper routine such as those provided by the InteropServices.Marshal class. Using the Marshal class gives the illusion of safety since it doesn't require you to be in an explicit "unsafe" context. However, it doesn't remove the risk of crashing which is inherent in using pointers.
What is a Pointer?
In all languages, a pointer is a type of variable that stores a memory address, and you can either ask them to tell you the address they are pointing at or the value at the address they are pointing at.
A pointer can be thought of as a sort-of book mark. Except, instead of being used to jump quickly to a page in a book, a pointer is used to keep track of or map blocks of memory.
Imagine your program's memory precisely like one big array of 65535 bytes.
Pointers point obediently
Pointers remember one memory address each, and therefore they each point to a single address in memory.
As a group, pointers remember and recall memory addresses, obeying your every command ad nauseum.
You are their king.
Pointers in C#
Specifically in C#, a pointer is an integer variable that stores a memory address between 0 and 65534.
Also specific to C#, pointers are of type int and therefore signed.
You can't use negatively numbered addresses though, neither can you access an address above 65534. Any attempt to do so will throw a System.AccessViolationException.
A pointer called MyPointer is declared like so:
int *MyPointer;
A pointer in C# is an int, but memory addresses in C# begin at 0 and extend as far as 65534.
Pointy things should be handled with extra special care
The word unsafe is intended to scare you, and for a very good reason: Pointers are pointy things, and pointy things e.g. swords, axes, pointers, etc. should be handled with extra special care.
Pointers give the programmer tight control of a system. Therefore mistakes made are likely to have more serious consequences.
In order to use pointers, unsafe code has to be enabled in your program's properties, and pointers have to be used exclusively in methods or blocks marked as unsafe.
Example of an unsafe block
unsafe
{
// Place code carefully and responsibly here.
}
How to use Pointers
When variables or objects are declared or instantiated, they are stored in memory.
Declare a pointer by using the * symbol prefix.
int *MyPointer;
To get the address of a variable, you use the & symbol prefix.
MyPointer = &MyVariable;
Once an address is assigned to a pointer, the following applies:
Without * prefix to refer to the memory address being pointed to as an int.
MyPointer = &MyVariable; // Set MyPointer to point at MyVariable
With * prefix to get the value stored at the memory address being pointed to.
"MyPointer is pointing at " + *MyPointer;
Since a pointer is a variable that holds a memory address, this memory address can be stored in a pointer variable.
Example of pointers being used carefully and responsibly
public unsafe void PointerTest()
{
int x = 100; // Create a variable named x
int *MyPointer = &x; // Store the address of variable named x into the pointer named MyPointer
textBox1.Text = ((int)MyPointer).ToString(); // Displays the memory address stored in pointer named MyPointer
textBox2.Text = (*MyPointer).ToString(); // Displays the value of the variable named x via the pointer named MyPointer.
}
Notice the type of the pointer is an int. This is because C# interprets memory addresses as integer numbers (int).
Why is it int instead of uint?
There is no good reason.
Why use pointers?
Pointers are a lot of fun. With so much of the computer being controlled by memory, pointers empower a programmer with more control of their program's memory.
Memory monitoring.
Use pointers to read blocks of memory and monitor how the values being pointed at change over time.
Change these values responsibly and keep track of how your changes affect your computer.
MSDN tells us:
The IntPtr type is designed to be an
integer whose size is
platform-specific. That is, an
instance of this type is expected to
be 32-bits on 32-bit hardware and
operating systems, and 64-bits on
64-bit hardware and operating systems.
The IntPtr type can be used by
languages that support pointers, and
as a common means of referring to data
between languages that do and do not
support pointers.
IntPtr objects can also be used to
hold handles. For example, instances
of IntPtr are used extensively in the
System.IO.FileStream class to hold
file handles.
The IntPtr type is CLS-compliant,
while the UIntPtr type is not. Only
the IntPtr type is used in the common
language runtime. The UIntPtr type is
provided mostly to maintain
architectural symmetry with the IntPtr
type.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.intptr(VS.71).aspx
Well this is the MSDN page that deals with IntPtr.
The first line reads:
A platform-specific type that is used to represent a pointer or a handle.
As to what a pointer or handle is the page goes on to state:
The IntPtr type can be used by
languages that support pointers, and
as a common means of referring to data
between languages that do and do not
support pointers.
IntPtr objects can also be used to
hold handles. For example, instances
of IntPtr are used extensively in the
System.IO.FileStream class to hold
file handles.
A pointer is a reference to an area of memory that holds some data you are interested in.
A handle can be an identifier for an object and is passed between methods/classes when both sides need to access that object.
An IntPtr is a value type that is primarily used to hold memory addresses or handles. A pointer is a memory address. A pointer can be typed (e.g. int*) or untyped (e.g. void*). A Windows handle is a value that is usually the same size (or smaller) than a memory address and represents a system resource (like a file or window).
Related
I encountered an odd behaviour when marshalling a struct with auto layout kind.
For example: let's take a simple code:
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)]
public struct StructAutoLayout
{
byte B1;
long Long1;
byte B2;
long Long2;
byte B3;
}
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Sizeof struct is {0}", Marshal.SizeOf<StructAutoLayout>());
}
it throws an exception:
Unhandled Exception: System.ArgumentException: Type
'StructAutoLayout' cannot be marshaled as an unmanaged
structure; no meaningful size or offset can be computed.
So it means that compiler doesn't know struct size at compile time? I was sure that this attribute reorders struct fields and then compiles it, but it doesn't.
It doesn't make any sense. Marshalling is used for interop - and when doing interop, the two sides have to agree exactly on the structure of the struct.
When you use auto layout, you defer the decision about the structure layout to the compiler. Even different versions of the same compiler can result in different layouts - that's a problem. For example, one compiler might use this:
public struct StructAutoLayout
{
byte B1;
long Long1;
byte B2;
long Long2;
byte B3;
}
while another might do something like this:
public struct StructAutoLayout
{
byte B1;
byte B2;
byte B3;
byte _padding;
long Long1;
long Long2;
}
When dealing with native/unmanaged code, there's pretty much no meta-data involved - just pointers and values. The other side has no way of knowing how the structure is actually laid out, it expects a fixed layout you both agreed upon in advance.
.NET has a tendency to make you spoiled - almost everything just works. This is not the case when interoping with something like C++ - if you just guess your way around, you'll most likely end up with a solution that usually works, but once in a while crashes your whole application. When doing anything with unmanaged / native code, make sure you understand perfectly what you're doing - unmanaged interop is just fragile that way.
Now, the Marshal class is designed specifically for unmanaged interop. If you read the documentation for Marshal.SizeOf, it specifically says
Returns the size of an unmanaged type in bytes.
And of course,
You can use this method when you do not have a structure. The layout must be sequential or explicit.
The size returned is the size of the unmanaged type. The unmanaged and managed sizes of an object can differ. For character types, the size is affected by the CharSet value applied to that class.
If the type can't possibly be marshalled, what should Marshal.SizeOf return? That doesn't even make sense :)
Asking for the size of a type or an instance doesn't make any sense in a managed environment. "Real size in memory" is an implementation detail as far as you are concerned - it's not a part of the contract, and it's not something to rely on. If the runtime / compiler wanted, it could make every byte 77 bytes long, and it wouldn't break any contract whatsoever as long as it only stores values from 0 to 255 exactly.
If you used a struct with an explicit (or sequential) layout instead, you would have a definite contract for how the unmanaged type is laid out, and Marshal.SizeOf would work. However, even then, it will only return the size of the unmanaged type, not of the managed one - that can still differ. And again, both can be different on different systems (for example, IntPtr will be four bytes on a 32-bit system and eight bytes on a 64-bit system when running as a 64-bit application).
Another important point is that there's multiple levels of "compilation" in a .NET application. The first level, using a C# compiler, is only the tip of the iceberg - and it's not the part that handles reordering fields in the auto-layout structs. It simply marks the struct as "auto-layouted", and it's done. The actual layouting is handled when you run the application by the CLI (the specification is not clear on whether the JIT compiler handles that, but I would assume so). But that has nothing to do with Marshal.SizeOf or even sizeof - both of those are still handled at runtime. Forget everything you know from C++ - C# (and even C++/CLI) is an entirely different beast.
If you need to profile managed memory, use a memory profiler (like CLRProfiler). But do understand that you're still profiling memory in a very specific environment - different systems or .NET versions can give you different results. And in fact, there's nothing saying two instances of the same structure must be the same size.
Well, there are some obvious differences:
fixed buffer:
they must be declared in unsafe block (implying that the whole project must be compiled with -unsafe switch).
for using the fixed buffer, the containing object must be fixed,
using MarshalAs attribute:
although the size is given to the marshaller, there is no guaranty that the actual array would have sufficient element count, nor that it's not null.
the array could be used simply and intuitively as any other array.
But what I cannot find answer for, is why fixed buffer are needed in the first place?
When one must use them?
Why one would want to use it, assuming one can validate the size of regular managed array?
I can think of performance constraints, that might make one choose fixed buffer over regular arrays...
Is that all?
Thanks in advance.
Yes, efficiency is certainly the primary reason. When you apply UnmanagedType.ByValArray then the struct must always be marshaled. In other words, the CLR is forced to create a new copy of the struct and initialize it with the values from the managed struct since the unmanaged layout of the struct is different. That can be avoided when you use a fixed buffer, provided the other members of the struct are blittable as well. In which case the CLR can simply pass a pointer to the struct. Much faster of course.
There are a few interop scenarios where you must use a fixed size buffer. Typically when the array member is misaligned, that violates the atomicity guarantee of the .NET memory model. Or you declare a union (fields overlap each other) and the CLR objects against overlapping a field of a reference type with a field of a value type. That's incompatible with the garbage collector, it cannot reliably detect the object pointer. You'll get a TypeLoadException at runtime when that's the case.
Both scenarios are fundamentally unverifiable. It is always unsafe if the native code writes back to the struct, memory corruption occurs when it writes past the end of the array. Extremely hard to diagnose. The need to explicitly use the unsafe keyword when you use a fixed size buffer only applies to the lack of index checking when you access the fixed size buffer in your C# code.
I'm currently working on some C#/C++ code which makes use of invoke. In the C++ side there is a std::vector full of pointers each identified by index from the C# code, for example a function declaration would look like this:
void SetName(char* name, int idx)
But now I'm thinking, since I'm working with pointers couldn't I sent to C# the pointer address itself then in code I could do something like this:
void SetName(char*name, int ptr)
{
((TypeName*)ptr)->name = name;
}
Obviously that's a quick version of what I'm getting at (and probably won't compile).
Would the pointer address be guaranteed to stay constant in C++ such that I can safely store its address in C# or would this be too unstable or dangerous for some reason?
In C#, you don't need to use a pointer here, you can just use a plain C# string.
[DllImport(...)]
extern void SetName(string name, int id);
This works because the default behavior of strings in p/invoke is to use MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.LPStr), which converts to a C-style char*. You can mark each argument in the C# declaration explicitly if it requires some other way of being marshalled, eg, [MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.LPWStr)], for an arg that uses a 2-byte per character string.
The only reason to use pointers is if you need to retain access to the data pointed to after you've called the function. Even then, you can use out parameters most of the time.
You can p/invoke basically anything without requiring pointers at all (and thus without requiring unsafe code, which requires privileged execution in some environments).
Yes, no problem. Native memory allocations never move so storing the pointer in an IntPtr on the C# side is fine. You need some kind of pinvoked function that returns this pointer, then
[DllImport("something.dll", CharSet = CharSet.Ansi)]
void SetName(IntPtr vector, string name, int index);
Which intentionally lies about this C++ function:
void SetName(std::vector<std::string>* vect, const char* name, int index) {
std::string copy = name;
(*vect)[index] = copy;
}
Note the usage of new in the C++ code, you have to copy the string. The passed name argument points to a buffer allocated by the pinvoke marshaller and is only valid for the duration of the function body. Your original code cannot work. If you intend to return pointers to vector<> elements then be very careful. A vector re-allocates its internal array when you add elements. Such a returned pointer will then become invalid and you'll corrupt the heap when you use it later. The exact same thing happens with a C# List<> but without the risk of dangling pointers.
I think it's stable till you command C++ code and perfectly aware what he does, and other developers that work on the same code know about that danger too.
So by my opinion, it's not very secure way of architecture, and I would avoid it as much as I can.
Regards.
The C# GC moves things, but the C++ heap does not move anything- a pointer to an allocated object is guaranteed to remain valid until you delete it. The best architecture for this situation is just to send the pointer to C# as an IntPtr and then take it back in C++.
It's certainly a vastly, incredibly better idea than the incredibly BAD, HORRIFIC integer cast you've got going there.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a C#/Java developer trying to learn C++. As I try to learn the concept of pointers, I am struck with the thought that I must have dealt with this concept before. How can pointers be explained using only concepts that are familiar to a .NET or Java developer? Have I really never dealt with this, is it just hidden to me, or do I use it all the time without calling it that?
Java objects in C++
A Java object is the equivalent of a C++ shared pointer.
A C++ pointer is like a Java object without the garbage collection built in.
C++ objects.
C++ has three ways of allocating objects:
Static Storage Duration objects.
These are created at startup (before main) and die after main exits.
There are some technical caveats to that but that is the basics.
Automatic Storage Duration objects.
These are created when declared and destroyed when they go out of scope.
I believe these are like C# structs
Dynamic Storage Duration objects
These are created via new and the closest to a C#/Java object (AKA pointers)
Technically pointers need to be destroyed manually via delete. But this is considered bad practice and under normal situations they are put inside Automatic Storage Duration Objects (usually called smart pointers) that control their lifespan. When the smart pointer goes out of scope it is destroyed and its destructor can call delete on the pointer. Smart pointers can be though of as fine grain garbage collectors.
The closest to Java is the shared_ptr, this is a smart pointer that keeps a count of the number of users of the pointer and deletes it when nobody is using it.
You are "using pointers" all the time in C#, it's just hidden from you.
The best way I reckon to approach the problem is to think about the way a computer works. Forget all of the fancy stuff of .NET: you have the memory, which just holds byte values, and the processor, which just does things to these byte values.
The value of a given variable is stored in memory, so is associated with a memory address. Rather than having to use the memory address all the time, the compiler lets you read from it and write to it using a name.
Furthermore, you can choose to interpret a value as a memory address at which you wish to find another value. This is a pointer.
For example, lets say our memory contains the following values:
Address [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Data 5 3 1 8 2 7 9 4
Let's define a variable, x, which the compiler has chosen to put at address 2. It can be seen that the value of x is 1.
Let's now define a pointer, p which the compiler has chosen to put at address 7. The value of p is 4. The value pointed to by p is the value at address 4, which is the value 2. Getting at the value is called dereferencing.
An important concept to note is that there is no such thing as a type as far as memory is concerned: there are just byte values. You can choose to interpret these byte values however you like. For example, dereferencing a char pointer will just get 1 byte representing an ASCII code, but dereferencing an int pointer may get 4 bytes making up a 32 bit value.
Looking at another example, you can create a string in C with the following code:
char *str = "hello, world!";
What that does is says the following:
Put aside some bytes in our stack frame for a variable, which we'll call str.
This variable will hold a memory address, which we wish to interpret as a character.
Copy the address of the first character of the string into the variable.
(The string "hello, world!" will be stored in the executable file and hence will be loaded into memory when the program loads)
If you were to look at the value of str you'd get an integer value which represents an address of the first character of the string. However, if we dereference the pointer (that is, look at what it's pointing to) we'll get the letter 'h'.
If you increment the pointer, str++;, it will now point to the next character. Note that pointer arithmetic is scaled. That means that when you do arithmetic on a pointer, the effect is multiplied by the size of the type it thinks it's pointing at. So assuming int is 4 bytes wide on your system, the following code will actually add 4 to the pointer:
int *ptr = get_me_an_int_ptr();
ptr++;
If you end up going past the end of the string, there's no telling what you'll be pointing at; but your program will still dutifully attempt to interpret it as a character, even if the value was actually supposed to represent an integer for example. You may well be trying to access memory which is not allocated to your program however, and your program will be killed by the operating system.
A final useful tip: arrays and pointer arithmetic are the same thing, it's just syntactic sugar. If you have a variable, char *array, then
array[5]
is completely equivalent to
*(array + 5)
A pointer is the address of an object.
Well, technically a pointer value is the address of an object. A pointer object is an object (variable, call it what you prefer) capable of storing a pointer value, just as an int object is an object capable of storing an integer value.
["Object" in C++ includes instances of class types, and also of built-in types (and arrays, etc). An int variable is an object in C++, if you don't like that then tough luck, because you have to live with it ;-)]
Pointers also have static type, telling the programmer and the compiler what type of object it's the address of.
What's an address? It's one of those 0x-things with numbers and letters it it that you might sometimes have seen in a debugger. For most architectures we can consider memory (RAM, to over-simplify) as a big sequence of bytes. An object is stored in a region of memory. The address of an object is the index of the first byte occupied by that object. So if you have the address, the hardware can get at whatever's stored in the object.
The consequences of using pointers are in some ways the same as the consequences of using references in Java and C# - you're referring to an object indirectly. So you can copy a pointer value around between function calls without having to copy the whole object. You can change an object via one pointer, and other bits of code with pointers to the same object will see the changes. Sharing immutable objects can save memory compared with lots of different objects all having their own copy of the same data that they all need.
C++ also has something it calls "references", which share these properties to do with indirection but are not the same as references in Java. Nor are they the same as pointers in C++ (that's another question).
"I am struck with the thought that I must have dealt with this concept before"
Not necessarily. Languages may be functionally equivalent, in the sense that they all compute the same functions as a Turing machine can compute, but that doesn't mean that every worthwhile concept in programming is explicitly present in every language.
If you wanted to simulate the C memory model in Java or C#, though, I suppose you'd create a very large array of bytes. Pointers would be indexes in the array. Loading an int from a pointer would involve taking 4 bytes starting at that index, and multiplying them by successive powers of 256 to get the total (as happens when you deserialize an int from a bytestream in Java). If that sounds like a ridiculous thing to do, then it's because you haven't dealt with the concept before, but nevertheless it's what your hardware has been doing all along in response to your Java and C# code[*]. If you didn't notice it, then it's because those languages did a good job of creating other abstractions for you to use instead.
Literally the closest the Java language comes to the "address of an object" is that the default hashCode in java.lang.Object is, according to the docs, "typically implemented by converting the internal address of the object into an integer". But in Java, you can't use an object's hashcode to access the object. You certainly can't add or subtract a small number to a hashcode in order to access memory within or in the vicinity of the original object. You can't make mistakes in which you think that your pointer refers to the object you intend it to, but actually it refers to some completely unrelated memory location whose value you're about to scribble all over. In C++ you can do all those things.
[*] well, not multiplying and adding 4 bytes to get an int, not even shifting and ORing, but "loading" an int from 4 bytes of memory.
References in C# act the same way as pointers in C++, without all the messy syntax.
Consider the following C# code:
public class A
{
public int x;
}
public void AnotherFunc(A a)
{
a.x = 2;
}
public void SomeFunc()
{
A a = new A();
a.x = 1;
AnotherFunc(a);
// a.x is now 2
}
Since classes are references types, we know that we are passing an existing instance of A to AnotherFunc (unlike value types, which are copied).
In C++, we use pointers to make this explicit:
class A
{
public:
int x;
};
void AnotherFunc(A* a) // notice we are pointing to an existing instance of A
{
a->x = 2;
}
void SomeFunc()
{
A a;
a.x = 1;
AnotherFunc(&a);
// a.x is now 2
}
"How can pointers be explained using only concepts that are familiar to a .NET or Java developer? "
I'd suggest that there are really two distinct things that need to be learnt.
The first is how to use pointers, and heap allocated memory, to solve specific problems. With an appropriate style, using shared_ptr<> for example, this can be done in a manner analogous to that of Java. A shared_ptr<> has a lot in common with a Java object handle.
Secondly, however, I would suggest that pointers in general are a fundamentally lower level concept that Java, and to a lesser extent C#, deliberately hides. To program in C++ without moving to that level will guarantee a host of problems. You need to think in terms of the underlying memory layout and think of pointers as literally pointers to specific pieces of storage.
To attempt to understand this lower level in terms of higher concepts would be an odd path to take.
Get two sheets of large format graph paper, some scissors and a friend to help you.
Each square on the sheets of paper represents one byte.
One sheet is the stack.
The other sheet is the heap. Give the heap to your friend - he is the memory manager.
You are going to pretend to be a C program and you'll need some memory. When running your program, cut out chunks from the stack and the heap to represent memory allocation.
Ready?
void main() {
int a; /* Take four bytes from the stack. */
int *b = malloc(sizeof(int)); /* Take four bytes from the heap. */
a = 1; /* Write on your first little bit of graph paper, WRITE IT! */
*b = 2; /* Get writing (on the other bit of paper) */
b = malloc(sizeof(int)); /* Take another four bytes from the heap.
Throw the first 'b' away. Do NOT give it
back to your friend */
free(b); /* Give the four bytes back to your friend */
*b = 3; /* Your friend must now kill you and bury the body */
} /* Give back the four bytes that were 'a' */
Try with some more complex programs.
Explain the difference between the stack and the heap and where objects go.
Value types such as structs (both C++ and C#) go on the stack. Reference types (class instances) get put on the heap. A pointer (or reference) points to the memory location on the heap for that specific instance.
Reference type is the key word. Using a pointer in C++ is like using ref keyword in C#.
Managed apps make working with this stuff easy so .NET devs are spared the hassle and confusion. Glad I don't do C anymore.
The key for me was to understand the way memory works. Variables are stored in memory. The places in which you can put variables in memory are numbered. A pointer is a variable that holds this number.
Any C# programmer that understands the semantic differences between classes and structs should be able to understand pointers. I.e., explaining in terms of value vs. reference semantics (in .NET terms) should get the point across; I wouldn't complicate things by trying to explain in terms of ref (or out).
In C#, all references to classes are roughly the equivalent to pointers in the C++ world. For value types (structs, ints, etc..) this is not the case.
C#:
void func1(string parameter)
void func2(int parameter)
C++:
void func1(string* parameter)
void func2(int parameter)
Passing a parameter using the ref keyword in C# is equivalent to passing a parameter by reference in C++.
C#:
void func1(ref string parameter)
void func2(ref int parameter)
C++:
void func1((string*)& parameter)
void func2(int& parameter)
If the parameter is a class, it would be like passing a pointer by reference.
I just made a Swap routine in C# like this:
static void Swap(ref int x, ref int y)
{
int temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
It does the same thing that this C++ code does:
void swap(int *d1, int *d2)
{
int temp=*d1;
*d1=*d2;
*d2=temp;
}
So are the ref and out keywords like pointers for C# without using unsafe code?
They're more limited. You can say ++ on a pointer, but not on a ref or out.
EDIT Some confusion in the comments, so to be absolutely clear: the point here is to compare with the capabilities of pointers. You can't perform the same operation as ptr++ on a ref/out, i.e. make it address an adjacent location in memory. It's true (but irrelevant here) that you can perform the equivalent of (*ptr)++, but that would be to compare it with the capabilities of values, not pointers.
It's a safe bet that they are internally just pointers, because the stack doesn't get moved and C# is carefully organised so that ref and out always refer to an active region of the stack.
EDIT To be absolutely clear again (if it wasn't already clear from the example below), the point here is not that ref/out can only point to the stack. It's that when it points to the stack, it is guaranteed by the language rules not to become a dangling pointer. This guarantee is necessary (and relevant/interesting here) because the stack just discards information in accordance with method call exits, with no checks to ensure that any referrers still exist.
Conversely when ref/out refers to objects in the GC heap it's no surprise that those objects are able to be kept alive as long as necessary: the GC heap is designed precisely for the purpose of retaining objects for any length of time required by their referrers, and provides pinning (see example below) to support situations where the object must not be moved by GC compacting.
If you ever play with interop in unsafe code, you will find that ref is very closely related to pointers. For example, if a COM interface is declared like this:
HRESULT Write(BYTE *pBuffer, UINT size);
The interop assembly will turn it into this:
void Write(ref byte pBuffer, uint size);
And you can do this to call it (I believe the COM interop stuff takes care of pinning the array):
byte[] b = new byte[1000];
obj.Write(ref b[0], b.Length);
In other words, ref to the first byte gets you access to all of it; it's apparently a pointer to the first byte.
Reference parameters in C# can be used to replace one use of pointers, yes. But not all.
Another common use for pointers is as a means for iterating over an array. Out/ref parameters can not do that, so no, they are not "the same as pointers".
ref and out are only used with function arguments to signify that the argument is to be passed by reference instead of value. In this sense, yes, they are somewhat like pointers in C++ (more like references actually). Read more about it in this article.
The nice thing about using out is that you're guaranteed that the item will be assigned a value -- you will get a compile error if not.
Actually, I'd compare them to C++ references rather than pointers. Pointers, in C++ and C, are a more general concept, and references will do what you want.
All of these are undoubtedly pointers under the covers, of course.
While comparisons are in the eye of the beholder...I say no. 'ref' changes the calling convention but not the type of the parameters. In your C++ example, d1 and d2 are of type int*. In C# they are still Int32's, they just happen to be passed by reference instead of by value.
By the way, your C++ code doesn't really swap its inputs in the traditional sense. Generalizing it like so:
template<typename T>
void swap(T *d1, T *d2)
{
T temp = *d1;
*d1 = *d2;
*d2 = temp;
}
...won't work unless all types T have copy constructors, and even then will be much more inefficient than swapping pointers.
The short answer is Yes (similar functionality, but not exactly the same mechanism).
As a side note, if you use FxCop to analyse your code, using out and ref will result in a "Microsoft.Design" error of "CA1045:DoNotPassTypesByReference."