Pass by Reference and Value with Pointers

Is passing pointer by value or by reference the same

What is the difference between passing a pointer by reference and passing a pointer by value in C?

There is no such thing as passing a pointer by reference in C, all variables are passed by value, even pointers.

My understanding is when you pass arguments to methods a new stack frame is created and those values are copied to different memory addresses unless passed by reference. If passed by reference the memory addresses are passed.

Again, the pointers are not passed by reference, a copy of the value stored in the pointer is passed, i.e. the address where it points to, you can test this by changing the value of the pointer inside the function, and check how that reflects on the original pointer, spoiler, it doesn't.

When working with pointers I noticed that if I pass a char by value and modify it in a different stack frame when I return back to the main stack frame the value of the ptr has been modified.*

What you are passing is an address, a memory location where some data is stored, when you change the data stored in that memory address it will be permanent, no matter where you do it, in fact that is one of the advantages of using pointers, for you to change the contents of some variable outside the scope where it's declared.

Is passing pointer argument, pass by value in C++?

Yes to both.

Pointers are passed by value as anything else. That means the contents of the pointer variable (the address of the object pointed to) is copied. That means that if you change the value of the pointer in the function body, that change will not be reflected in the external pointer that will still point to the old object. But you can change the value of the object pointed to.

If you want to reflect changes made to the pointer to the external pointer (make it point to something else), you need two levels of indirection (pointer to pointer). When calling functions it's done by putting a & before the name of the pointer. It is the standard C way of doing things.

When using C++, using references is preferred to pointer (henceforth also to pointer to pointer).

For the why references should be preferred to pointers, there is several reasons:

• references introduce less syntaxic noise than pointers in function body
• references keep more informations than pointers, than can be useful for compiler

Drawbacks of references are mostly:

• they break the simple pass-by-value rule of C, what makes understanding the behavior of a function regarding of parameters (will they be changed ?) less obvious. You also need function prototype to be sure. But that is not really worse than the multiple pointer levels necessary when using C.
• they are not supported by C, that can be a problem when you write code that should work with both C and C++ programs (but that's not the most usual case).

In the specific case of pointer to pointer, the difference is mostly simplicity, but using reference it may also be easy to remove both levels of pointers and pass only one reference instead of a pointer to pointer.

pass by reference and value with pointers

Whilst something like this does what you expect:

void func(int *p)
{
    *p = 1;
}

int a = 2;
func(&a);
// a is now 1

this does not

void func(int *p)
{
    p = new int;
}

int *p = NULL;
func(p);
// p is still NULL

In both cases, the function works with a copy of the original pointer. The difference is that in the first example, you're trying to manipulate the underlying integer, which works because you have its address. In the second example, you're manipulating the pointer directly, and these changes only apply to the copy.

There are various solutions to this; it depends on what you want to do.

Passing by reference and value in Go to functions

First, Go technically has only pass-by-value. When passing a pointer to an object, you're passing a pointer by value, not passing an object by reference. The difference is subtle but occasionally relevant. For example, you can overwrite the pointer value which has no impact on the caller, as opposed to dereferencing it and overwriting the memory it points to.

// *int means you *must* pass a *int (pointer to int), NOT just an int!
func someFunc(x *int) {
    *x = 2 // Whatever variable caller passed in will now be 2
    y := 7
    x = &y // has no impact on the caller because we overwrote the pointer value!
}

As to your question "Why do we need to have the asterisk in front of the type?": The asterisk indicates that the value is of type pointer to sql.DB, rather than a value of type sql.DB. These are not interchangeable!

Why would you want to send a pointer address? So that you can share the value between the caller of a function and the function body, with changes made inside the function reflected in the caller (for example, a pointer is the only way that a "setter" method can work on an object). While Java passes objects by reference always, Go passes by value always (i.e. it creates a copy of the value in the function); if you pass something to a function, and that function modifies that value, the caller won't see those changes. If you want changes to propogate outside the function, you must pass a pointer.

See also: the Go tour section on Pointers, the Go spec section on pointers, the Go spec section on the address operators

Performance cost of passing by value vs. by reference or by pointer?

It depends on what you mean by "cost", and properties of the host system (hardware, operating system) with respect to operations.

If your cost measure is memory usage, then the calculation of cost is obvious - add up the sizes of whatever is being copied.

If your measure is execution speed (or "efficiency") then the game is different. Hardware (and operating systems and compiler) tend to be optimised for performance of operations on copying things of particular sizes, by virtue of dedicated circuits (machine registers, and how they are used).

It is common, for example, for a machine to have an architecture (machine registers, memory architecture, etc) which result in a "sweet spot" - copying variables of some size is most "efficient", but copying larger OR SMALLER variables is less so. Larger variables will cost more to copy, because there may be a need to do multiple copies of smaller chunks. Smaller ones may also cost more, because the compiler needs to copy the smaller value into a larger variable (or register), do the operations on it, then copy the value back.

Examples with floating point include some cray supercomputers, which natively support double precision floating point (aka double in C++), and all operations on single precision (aka float in C++) are emulated in software. Some older 32-bit x86 CPUs also worked internally with 32-bit integers, and operations on 16-bit integers required more clock cycles due to translation to/from 32-bit (this is not true with more modern 32-bit or 64-bit x86 processors, as they allow copying 16-bit integers to/from 32-bit registers, and operating on them, with fewer such penalties).

It is a bit of a no-brainer that copying a very large structure by value will be less efficient than creating and copying its address. But, because of factors like the above, the cross-over point between "best to copy something of that size by value" and "best to pass its address" is less clear.

Pointers and references tend to be implemented in a similar manner (e.g. pass by reference can be implemented in the same way as passing a pointer) but that is not guaranteed.

The only way to be sure is to measure it. And realise that the measurements will vary between systems.

When pass-by-pointer is preferred to pass-by-reference in C++?

Some like pass-by-pointer better in cases where the object being passed is actually going to be modified. They use pass-by-const-reference when the object is being passed by reference in order to avoid a copy of the object, but will not be changed in the function.

In illustration, take the following functions:

int foo(int x);
int foo1(int &x);
int foo2(int *x);

Now in the code, I do the following:

int testInt = 0;

foo(testInt);   // can't modify testInt
foo1(testInt);  // can modify testInt

foo2(&testInt); // can modify testInt

In calling foo vs foo1, it's not apparent from the callers perspective (or a programmer reading the code) that the function can modify testInt without having to look at the signature of the function. Looking at foo2, a reader can easily see that the function may in fact modify the value of testInt because the function is receiving the address of the parameter. Note that this doesn't guarantee the object is actually modified, but that's where being consistent in the use of references vs. pointers helps. In general, if you want to follow this guideline consistently you should always pass const references when you want to avoid copies, and pass by pointer when you want to be able to modify the object.

---

Related Topics