I have a struct that declared as follow:
struct a {
struct b {
int d;
} c;
};
How to declare a variable of b outside a? In C++ I can use a::b x;. But, in C it required to specifies struct keyword before struct name.
C has a flat layout; when you declare a struct within another struct, the former is just being put into the global namespace.
So, in your example, it is just struct b.
C does not have nested types. You can't write a::x b or anything that ressembles it. If you want to get rid of the struct keyword, that's another problem. Use typedefs. but it won't allow to nest types.
typedef struct b_t {
int d;
} b;
typedef struct {
b c;
} a;
b some_b;
a some_a;
int f() {
some_b.d=42;
some_a.c=some_b;
return 0;
}
.
Related
I have a struct declaration in C that looks something like this:
static struct {
int a;
int b;
} myStruct[10];
I want to declare a struct member variable inside myStruct, so I try to add this:
static struct {
int c;
int d;
struct myStruct[10] s;
} myNestedStruct[100];
I'm getting a bunch of errors i.e. syntax error before or at: [ and
syntax requires ";" after last struct/union member. What would the better way to implement the nested structs be?
EDIT: My code now looks like this:
static struct {
int a;
int b;
} myStruct[10];
static struct {
int c;
int d;
struct myStruct s[10];
} myNestedStruct[100];
However I'm getting an error: incomplete struct/union/enum myStruct: s
You need to declare myStruct first before using it as a struct type.
struct myStruct {
int a;
int b;
};
static struct {
int c;
int d;
struct myStruct s[10];
} myNestedStruct[100];
This creates a variable called myNestedStruct which is an array of 100 structs, each containing two ints and an array of 10 mystructs.
When you write code like
struct { ... } Foo;, it's not declaring a type named Foo but a variable. Its type is an anonymous struct corresponding to what you put in the curly braces. If you want to declare a type, write struct Foo { ... };.
That's where your error is coming from -- myStruct is not a type name, so when you write struct myStruct in the definition of myNestedStruct the compiler thinks you're about to define a struct by that name. But then it encounters an [ which shouldn't be the next token in a struct declaration ever so it tells you can't make sense of the code.
If I have these two structs:
struct
{
int x;
} A;
struct
{
int x;
} B;
then making A = B; results in a compilation error because the two anonymous structs are not compatible.
However if I do:
typedef struct
{
int x;
} S;
S A;
S B;
A = B; is a legal assignment because they are compatible.
But why? With typedef I understand that the compiler makes this when meet S A and S B:
struct { int x; } A;
struct { int x; } B;
so A and B should not be compatible...
Each anonymous struct declaration is a distinct type; this is why you get a type mismatch when trying to assign one to the other.
A typedef, however, declares an alias (i.e. a new name for something that already exists) for a type (it does not create a new type).
A typedef is also not a simple text replacement, like a preprocessor macro. Your statement
I understand that the compiler make this when meet S A and S B:
struct { int x; } A;
struct { int x; } B;
is where your understanding is wrong.
When you use the type alias S, as in
S A;
S B;
the types of both objects A and B are the same by definition and assigning one to the other is possible.
This is because C treats every untagged struct as a new kind of struct, regardless of the memory layout. However, typedef struct { } name; cannot be used if you want to use the struct in a linked list. You'll need to stick with defining a structure tag in this case, and typedef the tagged struct instead.
struct DistanceInMeter /* Anonymous 1 */
{
int x; /* distance */
};
struct VolumeInCC /* Anonymous 2 */
{
int x; /* volume */
};
struct DistanceInMeter A;
struct VolumeInCC B;
...
A = B; /* Something is wrong here */
Equating different type doesn't always make sense and thus is not allowed.
typedef struct DistanceInMeter /* Anonymous 1 */
{
int x; /* distance */
} Dist_t;
Dist_t C, D;
...
C = D; /* Alright, makes sense */
I would like to define the following structure and typedef:
typedef struct Atype
{
int A;
struct
{
int VERBOS;
}
IO;
}
Atype;
In main I then can define variables as:
Atype In1,In2;
In1.A=3;
In1.IO.VERBOS=4;
In2.IO=In1.IO;
etc.
The code compiles and runs (c - gcc-clang) but I have to write for different environments. My questions:
1) Are these nested structs without name valid c?
2) valid c++?
3) what is the scope of IO?
This is a valid struct in C / C++ and it's called an unnamed struct. Here is a page from GCC that contains references to it
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html
The scope of IO is no different than any other field in the struct
Yes.
Yes.
The same scope as A.
To avoid confusion, why not just this?
struct IO {
int VERBOS;
};
typedef struct Atype {
int A;
struct IO;
} Atype;
I have a struct with some properties:
struct a {
char* id;
int a;
int b;
int c;
}
I also have a struct with the same properties, but without the id.
struct b {
int a;
int b;
int c;
}
I know that C11 supports anonymous structs, so I could do something like this:
struct a {
char* id;
struct {
int a;
int b;
int c;
}
}
However, if I give the inner struct a tag, it fails. Is it possible to create nested structs like this without using a non-standard compiler option like -fms-extensions?
You can give the inner structure a name or a tag or both in C11 (i.e., without the use of any extension).
Without a tag and without a name, your inner structure is a C11 anonymous structure:
struct a {
char* id;
struct {
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
};
If you give the inner anonymous structure a name, it is no longer an anonymous structure. It is a regular C89/C99/C11 structure member and you cannot access the inner structure members directly as with anonymous structures.
If you give the inner anonymous structure a tag (but still no name), it is just a C89/C99/C11 structure declaration. There is no member added and the declaration of struct a is the same as:
struct a {
char* id;
};
I've seen C structs declared several different ways before. Why is that and what, if anything, does each do different?
For example:
struct foo {
short a;
int b;
float c;
};
typedef struct {
short d;
int e;
float f;
} bar;
typedef struct _baz {
short a;
int b;
float c;
} baz;
int main (int argc, char const *argv[])
{
struct foo a;
bar b;
baz c;
return 0;
}
Well, the obvious difference is demonstrated in your main:
struct foo a;
bar b;
baz c;
The first declaration is of an un-typedefed struct and needs the struct keyword to use. The second is of a typedefed anonymous struct, and so we use the typedef name. The third combines both the first and the second: your example uses baz (which is conveniently short) but could just as easily use struct _baz to the same effect.
Update: larsmans' answer mentions a more common case where you have to use at least struct x { } to make a linked list. The second case wouldn't be possible here (unless you abandon sanity and use a void * instead) because the struct is anonymous, and the typedef doesn't happen until the struct is defined, giving you no way to make a (type-safe) pointer to the struct type itself. The first version works fine for this use, but the third is generally preferred in my experience. Give him some rep for that.
A more subtle difference is in namespace placement. In C, struct tags are placed in a separate namespace from other names, but typedef names aren't. So the following is legal:
struct test {
// contents
};
struct test *test() {
// contents
}
But the following is not, because it would be ambiguous what the name test is:
typedef struct {
// contents
} test;
test *test() {
// contents
}
typedef makes the name shorter (always a plus), but it puts it in the same namespace as your variables and functions. Usually this isn't an issue, but it is a subtle difference beyond the simple shortening.
It's largely a matter of personal preference. I like to give new types a name starting with a capital letter and omit the struct, so I usually write typedef struct { ... } Foo. That means I cannot then write struct Foo.
The exception is when a struct contains a pointer to its own type, e.g.
typedef struct Node {
// ...
struct Node *next;
} Node;
In this case you need to also declare the struct Node type, since the typedef is not in scope within the struct definition. Note that both names may be the same (I'm not sure where the underscore convention originated, but I guess older C compilers couldn't handle typedef struct X X;).
All your uses are syntactically correct. I prefer the following usage
/* forward declare all structs and typedefs */
typedef struct foo foo;
.
.
/* declare the struct itself */
struct foo {
short a;
int b;
foo* next;
};
Observe that this easily allows to use the typedef already inside the declaration of the struct itself, and that even for struct that reference each other mutually.
The confusion comes about because some of the declarations are in fact declaring up to three C constructs. You need to keep in mind the difference between:
A typedef declaration,
A struct definition, and
A struct declaration.
They are all very different C constructs. They all do different things; but you can combine them into the one compound construct, if you want to.
Let's look at each declaration in turn.
struct foo {
short a;
int b;
float c;
};
Here we are using the most basic struct definition syntax. We are defining a C type and give it the name foo in the tag namespace. It can later be used to declare variables of that type using the following syntax:
struct foo myFoo; // Declare a struct variable of type foo.
This next declaration gives the type another name (alias) in the global namespace. Let's break it down into its components using the previous basic declaration.
typedef foo bar; // Declare bar as a variable type, the alias of foo.
bar myBar; // No need for the "struct" keyword
Now just replace "foo" with the the struct's definition and voila!
typedef struct {
short d;
int e;
float f;
} bar;
typedef struct _baz {
short a;
int b;
float c;
} baz;
The above syntax is equivalent to the following sequence of declarations.
struct _baz {
short a;
int b;
float c;
}
typedef _baz baz; // Declare baz as an alias for _baz.
baz myBaz; // Is the same as: struct _baz myBaz;