CareerCup

If you do it using this method then it won't give an error ::
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int *p,*q;
p=&(*q);
cout<<"p"<<p<<endl;
q=&(*p);
cout<<"q"<<q<<endl;
return 0;
}

but if you do it like this

#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int *p,*q;
p=&q;
cout<<"p"<<p<<endl;
q=&p;
cout<<"q"<<q<<endl;
return 0;
}

It will give you an error

@P ..
The way you have written it looks incorrect to me. If you write a=&b, as in your case, a has to be a triple pointer as its holding the address of a double pointer b..

@Audrius..
Using void(or generic) pointers was a good idea.I never thought of that.

@Dnyaneshwari
I think even now p & q will hold the same address values.They don't have each other's address values.

no probs ! the only condition is each of the pointers has to be a double pointer.
unsigned long int ** a ;
unsigned long int ** b;
a=&b;
b=&a;
both of the pointers are acting as a self pointer here .
am i wrong somewhere ?
isn't looking right
plz help !

Based on the question , I think so there would be a problem having 2 pointers point to each other as to hold the address of the pointer A , Pointer B should be pointer-to-a-pointer and vice versa.

Correct me if Iam wrong..

{
int *c,*d;
c = &(*d);
d = &(*c);

{
int *c,*d;
c = &(*d);
d = &(*c);

@Anonymous
By writing the above code you have just made 'c' & 'd' point to the same memory location.They don't point to each others addresses.

Probably I have got the question wrong. Correct me if Iam wrong..

// No ptr errors

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
void *A, *B;
A = &B;
B = &A;
printf("*%08x=%08x, *%08x=%08x\n",
(long)A,
*(long*)A,
(long)B,
*(long*)B);

return 0;
}

// No ptr errors

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
	void *A, *B;
	A = &B;
	B = &A;
	printf("*%08x=%08x, *%08x=%08x\n",
		(long)A,
		*(long*)A,
		(long)B,
		*(long*)B);
	
	return 0;
}

void* a;
	void* b;
	
        b = &a; //b has a's addr
	a = &b; // a has b's addr

no