Thread: The difference between declaration and definition of structs. Need explanation please

Hello,

Lastly I started to work with structs (still learning this topic).
Mainly, my knowledge sources are based upon three things:

1. "C How to Program" by Deitel.

2. "Advanced C" by Hipson.

3. Google ))))

While reading Hipson's chapter on structs, I've found some part that I can't entirely understand.
Suppose we're talking about general repr. of a struct:

Code:

struct tag_name{

    type member_name;

    type member_name;

    type member_name;

}structure_name;

So the book says:

1. If a structure_name is specified and a tag_name is not specified, the structure is being declared but not defined.

2. If a structure_name is not specified and a tag_name is specified, the structure is being defined but not declared.

3. If a structure_name and a tag_name are provided, the structure is being both defined and declared.

4. If neither a structure_name nor a tag_name is provided, a compile-time error will result.

Now assume I have a following code (just to get some example):

Code:

#include<stdio.h>

int main(void){
    
// case 1

    struct {
        int x;
        int y;
    }my_test;


    my_test.x = 4;
    my_test.y = 5;

    //despite being "not defined", I get an output.

    printf("x = %d, y = %d\n", my_test.x, my_test.y);

    //case 2
     
    // I define struct here:

    struct my_test_2{
        int a;
        int b;
    };

    // and declare it here, by creating an instance of it named "my_var"?
    
    struct my_test_2 my_var;


    my_var.a = 15;
    my_var.b = 37;


    printf("a = %d, b = %d\n", my_var.a, my_var.b);


    return 0;
}

I have a problem with case # 1, where my structure is declared but not defined.

When talking about functions definitions and declarations it looks pretty clear to me (hope this analogy is applicable to structs):

1. function prototype (declaration) something like:

Code:

int foo(int, int);

2.

Code:

main(void){. . . }

3. function definition:

Code:

int foo(int num_1, int num_2){. . . }

But what does it mean: struct that being declared but not defined?

The same question goes when "typedef" is used:
In case I write this:

Code:

typedef struct{
int x;
int y;
}my_test;

I know that typedef creates just alias names for struct this alias name is "my_test", and then in order to create an instance of it I must do the following:

Code:

my_test my_var_1;

//and only after, write the these assignment statements:

my_var_1.x = 4;
my_var_2.y = 5;

But what about struct itself, is been declared or defined such way?

Finally what is going here:

Code:

typedef struct my_test{
int x;
int y;
}my_alias; 

//(is it declared/defined or both?)

I can write it in two ways:

1. my_alias my_num; (declaring variable of type struct my_test)

OR doing the same thing direct way:

2. struct my_test my_num;


Sorry for being verbose, just wanted to describe the problem.

Thanks in advance for help.

P.S. For those asking:" why didn't you use google?" The answer is simple: while googling I've found couple of sites where a explanations were exactly opposite. So I don't know where "the truth is".

To: laserlight

OMG thanks for the answer. I must admit that this is one of those rare cases which made me to execute additional googling ^_^. What a wonderful Pandora box I've opened here
Yep, it took me some time to read and actually try to understand your answer.

Still, if you don't I would like to clarify some nuances.

On the other hand, this is a definition of an object of the struct type:

Code:

struct X x_object;

So in this case I have an object that is fully defined. But in case where previous line of code was:

Code:

struct X;

My struct is not defined at all. Am I right?

The second question is about this "anonymous" struct type.

Now, this is a definition of an object of an anonymous struct type:

Code:

struct
{
    int n;
} x_object;

It's like to create a struct looking object ... so... may it "hurt" somewhere? I mean, while using this anonymous struct I'm still able to read/write or to determine its length or even pass to a function. Where is a pitfall then?

Again, thanks for your answer.


To: Salem

A definition causes some amount of memory to be used

I'm not sure that this is what's going on, with structs. Every place that I've googled and every book I've read on this topic say that that there is no memory allocation occurs. Still I have only "2 min" of experience with C, so I may be mistaken.