From: Andrea Glorioso <sama AT intercity DOT it>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: char **argv vs. char *argv[]
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 13:26:27 +0200
Organization: GloriaSoft
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <339A96E3.775FA388@intercity.it>
References: <5ndap9$mgd AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: asy8.intercity.shiny.it
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> 
> I've seen char **argv and char *argv[] and am curious which is correct. Or
> are either correct?
> 
> --
>     .*.  Where feelings are concerned, answers are rarely simple [GeneDeWeese]
>  -()  <  When I go to the theater, I always go straight to the "bag and mix"
>     `*'  bulk candy section...because variety is the spice of life... [me]
> Paul Derbyshire ao950 AT freenet DOT carleton DOT ca, http://chat.carleton.ca/~pderbysh

I guess they mean exactly the same, because declaring a variable int a[]
is pretty equal to declaring int ** a. I've seen char * argv[] and
char** argv being used many times without problems. I think they are
also compiled in the same way, but maybe you should try to compile to
assembly code to figure it out.
-- 

 Andrea Glorioso Pelliccioni 
   sama AT intercity DOT shiny DOT it   
 glorioso AT intercity DOT shiny DOT it