I have a struct that looks something like this:
typedef struct
{
uint32_t a;
uint32_t b;
uint32_t c[5];
uint32_t d;
} MY_STRUCT_T;
I want to initialize c, by name, to a non-zero value. I want everything else to be 0.
If c were not an array, I could do:
static MY_STRUCT_T my_struct = {.b = 1};
And I know I can do this:
static MY_STRUCT_T my_struct = {.c[0]=5,
.c[1]=5,
.c[2]=5,
.c[3]=5,
.c[4]=5};
but I was wondering if there was a more elegant syntax of which I am unaware:
Something like:
static MY_STRUCT_T my_struct = {.c[] = {5,5,5,5,5}};
I have read the following, but they don't answer this question:
Initializing a struct to 0
Initialize/reset struct to zero/null
A better way to initialize a static array member of a class in C++ ( const would be preferred though )
How to initialize all members of an array to the same value?
So I wrote this question and then experimented for a while and found that the following would work:
static MY_STRUCT_T my_struct = {.c={5,5,5,5,5}};
OP has 3 goals: 1) field array size is fixed width, 2) initialization like {7,7,7,7,7} is fixed width, 3) c to a non-zero value. As #1 and #2 have their sizes independent coded, 2 of the 3 goals can be met, but not all 3 - that is tricky.
What is to prevent/warn about MY_STRUCT_T my_struct = {.c = {5,5,5,5,5}}; not meeting goals should uint32_t c[5]; later become uint32_t c[6];? Nothing really.
Lacking a maintainable coding paradigm, consider this - copy one by one
Related
I'm writing a C program in which I define two types:
typedef struct {
uint8_t array[32];
/* struct A's members */
...
} A;
typedef struct {
uint8_t array[32];
/* struct B's members, different from A's */
...
} B;
Now I would like to build a data structure which is capable of managing both types without having to write one for type A and one for type B, assuming that both have a uint8_t [32] as their first member.
I read how to implement a sort of polymorphism in C here and I also read here that the order of struct members is guaranteed to be kept by the compiler as written by the programmer.
I came up with the following idea, what if I define the following structure:
typedef struct {
uint8_t array[32];
} Element;
and define a data structure which only deals with data that have type Element? Would it be safe to do something like:
void f(Element * e){
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 32; i++) do_something(e->array[i]);
}
...
A a;
B b;
...
f(((Element *)&a));
...
f(((Element *)&b));
At a first glance it looks unclean, but I was wondering whether there are any guarantees that it will not break?
If array is always the first in your struct, you can simply access it by casting pointers. There is no need for a struct Element. You data structure can store void pointers.
typedef struct {
char array[32];
} A;
typedef struct {
void* elements;
size_t elementSize;
size_t num;
} Vector;
char* getArrayPtr(Vector* v, int i) {
return (char*)(v->elements) + v->elementSize*i;
}
int main()
{
A* pa = malloc(10*sizeof(A));
pa[3].array[0] = 's';
Vector v;
v.elements = pa;
v.num = 10;
v.elementSize = sizeof(A);
printf("%s\n", getArrayPtr(&v, 3));
}
but why not have a function that works with the array directly
void f(uint8_t array[32]){
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 32; i++) do_something(array[i]);
}
and call it like this
f(a.array)
f(b.array)
polymorphism makes sense when you want to kepp
a and b in a container of some sorts
and you want to iterate over them but you dont want to care that they are different types.
This should work fine if you, you know, don't make any mistakes. A pointer to the A struct can be cast to a pointer to the element struct, and so long as they have a common prefix, access to the common members will work just fine.
A pointer to the A struct, which is then cast to a pointer to the element struct can also be cast back to a pointer to the A struct without any problems. If element struct was not originally an A struct, then casting the pointer back to A will be undefined behavior. And this you will need to manage manually.
One gotcha (that I've run into) is, gcc will also allow you to cast the struct back and forth (not just pointer to struct) and this is not supported by the C standard. It will appear to work fine until your (my) friend tries to port the code to a different compiler (suncc) at which point it will break. Or rather, it won't even compile.
It is possible to do something like this How can I initialize an array of pointers to structs?
but with different structs?
E.g.
static struct structA_t a = {"ads", "as"};
static struct structB_t b = {"zzds", "dfr", "shywsd"};
static struct structC_t c = {"ssa", "ad", "dhksdhs"};
struct some_type *array[] = { &a, &b, &c};
How some_type will look like?
You could define some_type as a union:
typedef union{
struct structA_t;
struct structB_t;
struct structC_t;
}some_type;
This will lead you to the problem that you don't know what's actually contained in which element in the array.
To overcome this, add another field specifying the content that is used:
/* numbers to identify the type of the valid some_type element */
typedef enum my_e_dataId{
dataid_invalid = 0,
dataid_a,
dataid_b,
dataid_c
} my_dataId;
typedef union u_data {
struct structA_t* a;
struct structB_t* b;
struct structC_t* c;
}mydata;
typedef struct s_some_type{
my_dataId dataId;
mydata myData;
}some_type;
Then you could initialize your array as follows:
some_type sta[] = {
{dataid_a, (struct structA_t*) &a},
{dataid_b, (struct structA_t*) &b},
{dataid_c, (struct structA_t*) &c}
};
When you loop over the elements of array, first evaluate dataId so that you know what's contained in myData. Then, for example, access the data of the first element using
sta[0].myData.a->FIELDNAME_OF_A_TO_ACCESS
or the third element with
sta[2].myData.c->FIELDNAME_OF_C_TO_ACCESS
See this ideone for a working example: http://ideone.com/fcjuR
In C this is possible with void pointers (Replace "struct some_type" with "void"), but you really shouldn't be doing this. Arrays are for programming with homogeneous data.
C11 adds, among other things, 'Anonymous Structs and Unions'.
I poked around but could not find a clear explanation of when anonymous structs and unions would be useful. I ask because I don't completely understand what they are. I get that they are structs or unions without the name afterwards, but I have always (had to?) treat that as an error so I can only conceive a use for named structs.
Anonymous union inside structures are very useful in practice. Consider that you want to implement a discriminated sum type (or tagged union), an aggregate with a boolean and either a float or a char* (i.e. a string), depending upon the boolean flag. With C11 you should be able to code
typedef struct {
bool is_float;
union {
float f;
char* s;
};
} mychoice_t;
double as_float(mychoice_t* ch)
{
if (ch->is_float) return ch->f;
else return atof(ch->s);
}
With C99, you'll have to name the union, and code ch->u.f and ch->u.s which is less readable and more verbose.
Another way to implement some tagged union type is to use casts. The Ocaml runtime gives a lot of examples.
The SBCL implementation of Common Lisp does use some union to implement tagged union types. And GNU make also uses them.
A typical and real world use of anonymous structs and unions are to provide an alternative view to data. For example when implementing a 3D point type:
typedef struct {
union{
struct{
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
double raw[3];
};
}vec3d_t;
vec3d_t v;
v.x = 4.0;
v.raw[1] = 3.0; // Equivalent to v.y = 3.0
v.z = 2.0;
This is useful if you interface to code that expects a 3D vector as a pointer to three doubles. Instead of doing f(&v.x) which is ugly, you can do f(v.raw) which makes your intent clear.
struct bla {
struct { int a; int b; };
int c;
};
the type struct bla has a member of a C11 anonymous structure type.
struct { int a; int b; } has no tag and the object has no name: it is an anonymous structure type.
You can access the members of the anonymous structure this way:
struct bla myobject;
myobject.a = 1; // a is a member of the anonymous structure inside struct bla
myobject.b = 2; // same for b
myobject.c = 3; // c is a member of the structure struct bla
Another useful implementation is when you are dealing with rgba colors, since you might want access each color on its own or as a single int.
typedef struct {
union{
struct {uint8_t a, b, g, r;};
uint32_t val;
};
}Color;
Now you can access the individual rgba values or the entire value, with its highest byte being r. i.e:
int main(void)
{
Color x;
x.r = 0x11;
x.g = 0xAA;
x.b = 0xCC;
x.a = 0xFF;
printf("%X\n", x.val);
return 0;
}
Prints 11AACCFF
I'm not sure why C11 allows anonymous structures inside structures. But Linux uses it with a certain language extension:
/**
* struct blk_mq_ctx - State for a software queue facing the submitting CPUs
*/
struct blk_mq_ctx {
struct {
spinlock_t lock;
struct list_head rq_lists[HCTX_MAX_TYPES];
} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
/* ... other fields without explicit alignment annotations ... */
} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
I'm not sure if that example strictly necessary, except to make the intent clear.
EDIT: I found another similar pattern which is more clear-cut. The anonymous struct feature is used with this attribute:
#if defined(RANDSTRUCT_PLUGIN) && !defined(__CHECKER__)
#define __randomize_layout __attribute__((randomize_layout))
#define __no_randomize_layout __attribute__((no_randomize_layout))
/* This anon struct can add padding, so only enable it under randstruct. */
#define randomized_struct_fields_start struct {
#define randomized_struct_fields_end } __randomize_layout;
#endif
I.e. a language extension / compiler plugin to randomize field order (ASLR-style exploit "hardening"):
struct kiocb {
struct file *ki_filp;
/* The 'ki_filp' pointer is shared in a union for aio */
randomized_struct_fields_start
loff_t ki_pos;
void (*ki_complete)(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret, long ret2);
void *private;
int ki_flags;
u16 ki_hint;
u16 ki_ioprio; /* See linux/ioprio.h */
unsigned int ki_cookie; /* for ->iopoll */
randomized_struct_fields_end
};
Well, if you declare variables from that struct only once in your code, why does it need a name?
struct {
int a;
struct {
int b;
int c;
} d;
} e,f;
And you can now write things like e.a,f.d.b,etc.
(I added the inner struct, because I think that this is one of the most usages of anonymous structs)
I'm trying to create structs with default values. I don't know how to accomplish this because every code that I see, is about initialising, and I would it for the natural way like...
struct stuff {
int stuff_a = 1;
int stuff_b = 2...
...and so on...
};
and looking about, I found this (C++) code:
struct a{ a() : i(0), j(0) {}; INT i; INT j;}
I never saw anything like this for C. Please, help me to understand it; I think that it is very nice!
UPDATE: Wait, I'm asking about C!!!! Why changed my question? If that is not possible in C just say... I don't know C++, I didn't know that was about C++...
If you want to set a struct object in one go and you have a C99 compiler, try this:
struct stuff {
int stuff_a;
int stuff_b;
// and so on...
};
struct stuff foo;
/* ... code ... */
foo = (struct stuff){.stuff_b = 42, .stuff_a = -1000};
Otherwise, with a C89 compiler, you have to set each member one by one:
foo.stuff_b = 42;
foo.stuff_a = -1000;
Running example # ideone : http://ideone.com/1QqCB
The original line
struct a{ a() : i(0), j(0) {} INT i; INT j;}
is a syntax error in C.
As you have probably learned from the other answers, in C you can't declare a structure and initialize it's members at the same time. These are different tasks and must be done separately.
There are a few options for initializing member variables of a struct. I'll show a couple of ways below. Right now, let's assume the following struct is defined in the beginning of the file:
struct stuff {
int stuff_a;
int stuff_b;
};
Then on your main() code, imagine that you want to declare a new variable of this type:
struct stuff custom_var;
This is the moment where you must initialize the structure. Seriously, I mean you really really must! Even if you don't want to assign specific values to them, you must at least initialize them to zero. This is mandatory because the OS doesn't guarantee that it will give you a clean memory space to run your application on. Therefore, always initialize your variables to some value (usually 0), including the other default types, such as char, int, float, double, etc...
One way to initialize our struct to zero is through memset():
memset(&custom_var, 0, sizeof(struct stuff));
Another is accessing each member individually:
custom_var.stuff_a = 0;
custom_var.stuff_b = 0;
A third option, which might confuse beginners is when they see the initialization of struct members being done at the moment of the declaration:
struct stuff custom_var = { 1, 2 };
The code above is equivalent to:
struct stuff custom_var;
custom_var.stuff_a = 1;
custom_var.stuff_b = 2;
... create structs with default values ...
That is impossible in C. A type cannot have default values. Objects of any type cannot have a default value other than 0, though they can be initialized to whatever is wanted.
The definition of a struct is a definition of a type, not of an object.
What you asking is about the same thing as a way to have ints default to, say, 42.
/* WRONG CODE -- THIS DOES NOT WORK */
typedef int int42 = 42;
int42 a;
printf("%d\n", a); /* print 42 */
Or, adapting to your example
/* WRONG CODE -- THIS DOES NOT WORK */
struct stuff {
int42 stuff_a;
int65536 stuff_b;
}
struct stuff a;
printf("%d\n", a.stuff_b); /* print 65536 */
Update: This answer assumes we 're talking about C++ because the code posted in the answer is not legal C.
struct a {
a() : i(0), j(0) {} // constructor with initialization list
int i;
int j;
}
The line marked with the comment is simply the constructor for instances of struct a (reminder: structs are just like classes, except that the default member visibility is public instead of private).
The part after the : is called an initialization list: it allows you to initialize the members of the struct with values (either constants or passed as constructor parameters). Initialization of members in this list happens before the body of the constructor is entered. It is preferable to initialize members of classes and structs this way, if at all possible.
See also C++: Constructor versus initializer list in struct/class.
in C (pre C99) the following also works:
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
} HELLO;
int main()
{
HELLO a = {1,2,3};
printf("here: %d %d %d\n",a.a,a.b,a.c);
exit(1);
}
See codepad
I'm not sure quite sure what your problem is. The standard way of initialising structures in c is like this:
struct a_struct my_struct = {1, 2};
Or the more recent and safer:
struct a_struct my_struct = {.i1 = 1, .i2 = 2};
If there is more than one instance of a structure, or it needs to be re-initialised, it is useful to define a constant structure with default values then assign that.
typedef struct a_struct {
int i1;
int i2;
} sa;
static const sa default_sa = {.i1 = 1, .i2 = 2};
static sa sa1 = default_sa;
static sa sa2 = default_sa;
// obviously you can do it dynamically as well
void use_temp_sa(void)
{
sa temp_sa = default_sa;
temp_sa.i2 = 3;
do_something_with(&temp_sa);
}
// And re-initialise
void reset_sa(sa *my_sa)
{
*my_sa = default_sa;
}
Type initializer is not possible in C.
A value must be stored in the memory.
A type does not occupy memory, what occupies memory is a variable of that type.
struct stuff; is a type; it does not occupy memory
struct stuff aStuff; is a variable of that type; aStuff occupies memory
Because a type does not occupy memory, it is not possible to save values into a type.
If there is syntactic sugar to support store/initialize values into a type then there must be additional code that is inserted to assign values to every instant variables of that type (e.g: in constructor in C++). This will result in a less efficient C if this feature is available.
How often do you need to retain this default values? I think it is unlikely. You can create a function to initialize variable with the default values or just initialize every fields with the values you want. So type initializer is not fundamental thing. C is about simplicity.
Can't initialize values within a structure definition.
I'd suggest:
typedef struct {
int stuff_a;
int stuff_b;
} stuff ;
int stuffInit(int a, int b, stuff *this){
this->stuff_a = a;
this->stuff_b = b;
return 0; /*or an error code, or sometimes '*this', per taste.*/
}
int main(void){
stuff myStuff;
stuffInit(1, 2, &myStuff);
/* dynamic is more commonly seen */
stuff *dynamicStuff;
dynamicStuff = malloc(sizeof(stuff)); /* 'new' stuff */
stuffInit(0, 0, dynamicStuff);
free(dynamicStuff); /* 'delete' stuff */
return 0;
}
Before the days of Object Oriented Programming (C++), we were taught "Abstract Data Types".
The discipline said 'never access your data structures directly, always create a function for it' But this was only enforced by the programmer, instructor, or senior developer, not the language.
Eventually, the structure definition(s) and corresponding functions end up in their own file & header, linked in later, further encapsulating the design.
But those days are gone and replaced with 'Class' and 'Constructor' OOP terminology.
"It's all the same, only the names have changed" - Bon Jovi.
I'm beginning to learn about the use of structs in C. It's challenging and enjoyable. Needless to say I've encountered a problem I can't seem to figure out. I'm trying to make a flexible struct array as a member of another struct but I'm getting an error:
invalid use of flexible array
What am I doing wrong?
#define NUM_CHANNELS 4
struct channelStruct {
float volume;
uint mute;
};
struct enginestruct
{
float bpm;
int synctimeinbeats;
int synctimeinsamples;
int currentbeat;
int oneBeatInSamples;
int samplerate;
struct channelStruct channels[];
};
struct enginestruct engine, *engineptr;
struct channelStruct channel, *channelptr;
-(void) setupengine
{
engineptr = &engine;
engineptr->oneBeatInSamples = 22050;
engineptr->samplerate = 44100;
struct channelStruct *ch = (struct channelStruct *) malloc (
NUM_CHANNELS*sizeof(struct channelStruct) );
//error occurs here
engineptr->channels = ch;
}
EDIT 1
It's something like this I am trying to achieve
flexible length struct array inside another struct using C
EDIT 2*
O.K so I seem to be approaching the creation of a variable sized array of struct the wrong way. I have 2 things that I'm trying. The first I know works for sure. The second I would just like if somebody could sanity check it for me. I'm still learning about pointers and would like to know if A is the same as B. B would be my preferred method but I don't know if its correct. I'm confident about a because when I debug channels i see channel[0],channel[1]channel[2] etc. But I'm not so confident about B because when I debug it I only see an address to memory and the variables of channel struct listed.
A
// pretty sure this is o.k to do but I would prefer
// not to have to set the size at compile time.
struct enginestruct
{
float bpm;
int synctimeinbeats;
int synctimeinsamples;
int currentbeat;
int oneBeatInSamples;
int samplerate;
channel channels[NUM_CHANNELS]; //is this technically a pointer?
};
B
//I'm not sure if this is valid. Could somebody confirm for me if
//it is allocating the same amount of space as in A.
struct enginestruct
{
float bpm;
int synctimeinbeats;
int synctimeinsamples;
int currentbeat;
int oneBeatInSamples;
int samplerate;
channel *channels;
};
//This only works if channel in the engine struct is defined as a pointer.
channel * ar = malloc(sizeof(*ar) * NUM_CHANNELS);
engineptr->channels = ar;
**EDIT 3****
Yep they are the same. Not sure when you would use one over the other tho
channel channels[NUM_CHANNELS];
Is Equal To :)
struct enginestruct
{
float bpm;
int synctimeinbeats;
int synctimeinsamples;
int currentbeat;
int oneBeatInSamples;
int samplerate;
channel *channels;
};
channel * ar = malloc(sizeof(*ar) * NUM_CHANNELS);
engineptr->channels = ar;
Edit
I think I remember now what the problem is. When you declare a struct with a flexible array as it's last member it's doing something completely different than what you think.
struct channelStruct channels[];
is NOT a pointer, it is an in place array which is contiguous with the struct.
The way this is intended to be used is to lay the struct over an existing block memory. For instance, this is useful in networking when you have a packet with variable length data. So you might do something like:
struct mydata {
// various other data fields
int varDataSize;
char data[];
}
When you receive a packet you cast a pointer to the data to a mydata pointer and then the varDataSize field tells you how much you've got. Like I said, the thing to remember is that it's all one contiguous block of memory and data is NOT a pointer.
Old Answer:
I think that's only allow in the C99 standard. Try compiling with the -std=c99 flag.
Also, see this thread, Variable array in struct
Also see this SO post: Flexible array members in C - bad?
I am not an expert in this C feature but my common sense tells me that you cannot define objects of the type struct enginestruct, only pointers. This regards the engine variable in the following line:
struct enginestruct engine,*engineptr;