(&vec)== &vec[0]?

[Ioannis Vranos]

C++03:


Is it always guaranteed that in vector:


vector<int> vec(10);

&vec always points to the first element of the array, for vec.size()> 0?

 

[shaun roe]

C++03:


Is it always guaranteed that in vector:


vector<int> vec(10);

&vec always points to the first element of the array, for vec.size()> 0?

no

 

[puzzlecracker]

no

Why not? standard guarantees that.

 

[Ian Collins]

Why not? standard guarantees that.

&vec is not the same as &vec[0].

 

[puzzlecracker]

Why not? standard guarantees that.

&vec is not the same as &vec[0].

Opps, I misread Pet's comment.

 

[Juha Nieminen]

C++03:


Is it always guaranteed that in vector:


vector<int> vec(10);

&vec always points to the first element of the array, for vec.size()> 0?

No. In fact, it's almost certainly not true. vector dynamically
allocates memory for its stored objects, so &vec[0] has no inherent
relationship to &vec.

Since we don't know what "vector" he is talking about (since he didn't
say he is talking specifically about std::vector), it could
theoretically be possible for this to be some kind of user-defined
vector class for which &vec and &vec[0] are the same thing.

(Yes, just nitpicking.)