How can I have a pointer to the next struct in the definition of this struct:
typedef struct A {
int a;
int b;
A* next;
} A;
this is how I first wrote it but it does not work.
You can define the typedef and forward declare the struct first in one statement, and then define the struct in a subsequent definition.
typedef struct A A;
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
A* next;
};
Edit: As others have mentioned, without the forward declaration the struct name is still valid inside the struct definition (i.e. you can used struct A), but the typedef is not available until after the typedef definition is complete (so using just A wouldn't be valid). This may not matter too much with just one pointer member, but if you have a complex data structure with lots of self-type pointers, may be less wieldy.
In addition to the first answer, without a typedef and forward declaration, this should be fine too.
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
struct A *next;
};
You are missing the struct before the A*
typedef struct A {
int a;
int b;
struct A* next;
} A;
You can go without forward declaration:
struct A {
int a;
int b;
struct A *next;
};
Please, you're in C, not C++.
If you really must typedef a struct (and most programmers that I work with would not¹), do this:
typedef struct _A {
int a;
int b;
struct _A *next;
} A;
to clearly differentiate between _A (in the struct namespace) and A (in the type namespace).
¹typedef hides the size and storage of the type it points to ― the argument (and I agree) is that in a low-level language like C, trying to hide anything is harmful and counterproductive. Get used to typing struct A whenever you mean struct A.
typedef struct {
values
} NAME;
This is shorter way to typedef a struct i think its the easiest notation, just don't put the name infront but behind.
you can then call it like
NAME n;
NAME *n; // if you'd like a ptr to it.
Anything wrong with this approach?
Related
Is there any difference between those two:
typedef struct ddwq{
int b;
}ta;
typedef struct {
int b;
}ta;
In the former case, you can reference the type of the struct as either struct ddwq or ta. In the latter case, you can only reference it as ta since the struct has no tag.
The first case is required if the struct will contain a pointer to itself such as:
typedef struct ddwq{
int b;
struct ddwq *p;
}ta;
The type name ta isn't visible inside of the struct, so the struct must have a tag name for it to reference itself.
I am trying to define a typedef struct as follows:
typedef struct node{
int keys[2*MIN_DEGREE-1];
struct node* child[2*MIN_DEGREE];
int numkeys;
int isleaf;
} BNODE,*BNODEPTR;
Instead of using struct node* child[2*MIN_DEGREE] why can't I declare the struct as follows:
typedef struct node{
int keys[2*MIN_DEGREE-1];
BNODEPTR child[2*MIN_DEGREE];
int numkeys;
int isleaf;
} BNODE,*BNODEPTR;
I am little confused as to how the compiler resolves structs that has nested pointers to the same type. It will be great somebody helps me clear this up.
Thanks
You can't use BNODEPTR in the body of the structure like that because it either doesn't exist as a type at all until after the definition after the close brace of the structure body, or (worse) it refers to a different type altogether*.
You could use:
typedef struct node BNODE, *BNODEPTR;
struct node
{
int keys[2*MIN_DEGREE-1];
BNODEPTR child[2*MIN_DEGREE];
int numkeys;
int isleaf;
};
And there's another whole argument that says BNODEPTR is evil and you should only use BNODE and BNODE *, but that's a style issue, not a technical one.
Were it my code, it would probably be more like:
typedef struct Node Node;
struct Node
{
int keys[2*MIN_DEGREE-1];
Node *child[2*MIN_DEGREE];
int numkeys;
int isleaf;
};
In C++, the rules are slightly different and you would not need the typedef line (so Node would be known as a type from the open brace).
* This can only happen if the original BNODEPTR is defined at an outer scope and this one appears inside a function, but when it happens, it is really confusing!
Instead of using struct node* child[2*MIN_DEGREE] why can't I declare
the struct as follows: BNODEPTR child[2*MIN_DEGREE];?
At that point, compiler (yet) does not know what the symbol BNODEPTR is.
I am writing an implementation of graphs in C language. I came across a situation where I am not able to figure out the reason for the way the compiler is behaving with a pointer typecast warning.
Here are the structures;
#define MAXV 10
typedef struct {
int y;
int weight;
struct edgenode *next;
} edgenode;
typedef struct {
edgenode *edge[MAXV+1];
int degree[MAXV+1];
// other info of graph
} graph;
// operation in some other function
p->next = g->edge[x];
I got a pointer typecast warning[enabled by default] when I do this kind of operation.
I was not able to remove this warning even after trying to typecast with every possible cast.
Finally I made a code change in the structure and suddenly the warning was gone.
The structure code change was this:-
typedef struct edgenode { // note that I have added structure name here
// same as above definition
} edgenode;
// operation in some other function
p->next = g->edge[x];
Now the warning is gone and code runs without any warnings.
I do not understand why is this happening; can anybody help me with this problem?
The problem is here:
typedef struct {
int y;
int weight;
struct edgenode *next;
} edgenode;
It is not clear what type struct edgenode *next; is referring to (it doesn't matter; somewhere, presumably, there's a struct edgenode defined), but it is not this structure because it has no tag. You need:
typedef struct edgenode
{
int y;
int weight;
struct edgenode *next;
} edgenode;
Now the pointer refers to another structure of this same type. So, the fix you found was the correct fix for your problem.
Remember: a typedef is an alias (alternative name) for an existing type. You created a type name edgenode, but you had not defined the type struct edgenode. You don't have to fully define a structure type before you create pointers to it; this can be a good way of creating 'opaque types'.
The other way to define things is:
typedef struct edgenode edgenode;
struct edgenode
{
int y;
int weight;
edgenode *next;
};
This says that the type name edgenode is an alias for a struct edgenode; the structure definition then tells the compiler what a struct edgenode looks like.
I am using Kdevelop in Kubuntu.
I have declared a structure in my datasetup.h file:
#ifndef A_H
#define A_H
struct georeg_val {
int p;
double h;
double hfov;
double vfov;
};
#endif
Now when I use it in my main.c file
int main()
{
georeg_val gval;
read_data(gval); //this is in a .cpp file
}
I get the following error:
georeg_chain.c:7:3: error: unknown type name 'georeg_val'
(This is in the georeg_val gval; line)
I would appreciate if anyone could help me resolve this error.
In C one has two possibilities to declare structure:
struct STRUCT_NAME {} ;
or
typedef struct {} STRUCT_ALIAS;
If you use first method (give struct a name) - you must define variable by marking it explicitly being a struct:
struct STRUCT_NAME myStruct;
However if you use second method (give struct an alias) then you can omit struct identifier - compiler can deduce type of variable given only it's alias :
STRUCT_ALIAS myStruct;
Bonus points:
You can declare struct with both it's name and alias:
typedef struct STRUCT_TAG {} STRUCT_TAG;
// here STRUCT_NAME == STRUCT_ALIAS
Then in variable definition you can use either first or second method. Why both of two worlds is good ? Struct alias lets you to make struct variable definitions shorter - which is a good thing sometimes. But struct name let's you to make forward declarations. Which is indispensable tool in some cases - consider you have circular references between structs:
struct A {
struct B * b;
}
struct B {
struct A * a;
}
Besides that this architecture may be flawed - this circular definition will compile when structs are declared in the first way (with names) AND struct pointers are referenced explicitly by marking them as struct.
If you have to define a new type, you have to write:
typedef struct {
int p;
double h;
double hfov;
double vfov;
} georeg_val ;
Then you can use georeg_val as a new type.
Defining a struct type (on this example, a binary search tree struct):
struct tree {
int info;
struct tree *left;
struct tree *right;
}
typedef struct tree treeNode;
Declaring a function eg.:
treeNode *insertElement(treeNode *treeA, int number);
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;