Is the following code ok? It compiled without any warnings from GCC, but it looks a bit strange.
Since I'm using tnode as both the name of the struct, and for the typedef, there shouldn't be any difference between these two declarations? Shouldn't the typedef conflict with the struct declaration?Code:typedef struct tnode { int data; struct tnode *left; struct tnode *right; }tnode;
Code:tnode *node1; struct tnode *node2;
>it looks a bit strange
It does, doesn't it?But it's well defined and perfectly legal. Tag names and typedef names are in different name spaces, so they won't conflict. However, that doesn't say anything about the advisability of this trick. It can confuse people (as you've discovered), so it should probably be avoided in favor of unique names, or a typedef'd unnamed struct.
My best code is written with the delete key.
How do you create a typedef'd unnamed struct when you need to use pointers to the struct within the struct itself? This works, but again, it looks a bit crazy:
I don't under stand how "struct tnode *left" can work, when there's no struct with the name tnode, only a typedef. Likewise, this works, but I don't understand why (outside the struct):Code:typedef struct { int data; struct tnode *left; struct tnode *right; }tnode;
This does not work:Code:struct tnode *node1
Code:typedef struct { int data; tnode *left; tnode *right; }tnode;
It might compile, but your left/right are not the right type.
> I don't under stand how "struct tnode *left" can workCode:typedef struct { int data; struct tnode *left; struct tnode *right; } tnode; int main() { tnode foo, bar; foo.left = &bar; /* warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type */ return 0; }
For a pointer to a struct, the compiler only needs to know the name of the struct. It doesn't need to know anything about it's contents.
If you did
struct tnode node; /* not a pointer */
Then you'd see whether you had a properly defined struct in place or not.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
> For a pointer to a struct, the compiler only needs to know the name of the struct. It doesn't need to know anything about it's contents.
But in my example, the compiler doesn't have the name of the struct. It only has a typedef of the struct. Is that the same thing?
No, the struct tnode is not the same thing as the typedef name tnode.
The struct which you're typedef'ing is anonymous - it certainly doesn't have an implicit name of tnode.
Code:typedef struct /* anonymous_tag_name here */ { int data; struct bargle *left; struct bargle *right; } tnode;
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
So how can you assign a compatible pointer to foo.left/right, when there's no way to create a pointer of the correct type? My mind is running circles right now, because I've seen some code that used this kind of stuff with binary search trees.Code:typedef struct /* anonymous_tag_name here */ { int data; struct bargle *left; struct bargle *right; } tnode; int main() { tnode foo, bar; foo.left = &bar; /* warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type */ return 0; }
Like so
You can unroll it a little, like soCode:typedef struct tnode_tag { int data; struct tnode_tag *left; struct tnode_tag *right; } tnode; int main() { tnode foo, bar; foo.left = &bar; return 0; }
But unless you specifically want the struct tagname to create a self-referential structure, there seems little point in mentioning it, if you're typedef'ing it at the same time.Code:struct tnode_tag { int data; struct tnode_tag *left; struct tnode_tag *right; }; typedef struct tnode_tag tnode;
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
> But unless you specifically want the struct tagname to create a self-referential structure, there seems little point in mentioning it, if you're typedef'ing it at the same time.
That's what I was trying to understand. Everything makes sense now. Thanks a lot!
