sizeof(empty struct) = 1 ?!?!?!? why??

**Jubba** · 08-12-2003

I was messing around the other day with the sizeof() function(or is it a macro??..shrug), testing the sizes of various types on my machine when I came across something I did not expect. I executed the following code...

Code:

struct foo {
};

cout << sizeof(foo) << endl;

...and guess what...the answer was 1!!!

Now this was not the answer I was expecting and upon further reflection I could think of no obvious reason for this response. Could anyone out there help me out with an explanation?

Thanks in advance

If it helps I was using .NET on a P4 machine running XP

**FillYourBrain** · 08-12-2003

just discussed here:
http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showt...threadid=43272

**Jubba** · 08-12-2003

I read the thread you suggested and still don't have a firm grasp on why the compiler thinks an empty struct will take up one byte of memory. Be patient with me I can be slow on the uptake

The fact that the byte of data is probably bogus is interesting but does not really get us anywhere. First I'd like to know why its there in the first place. Hopefully the answer to that question would shed some light on what it contains.

Also of note, I tried to make an empty struct in a C file and interestingly enough it wouldn't compile. So this is a C++ only phenomena(sp?).

**FillYourBrain** · 08-12-2003

it is C++ only. Not sure exactly why they did it, but the one byte is to ensure that there is an actual memory location for the object. Of course there isn't much of a reason to do this.

**Zach L.** · 08-12-2003

If its size was 0, then no memory would be allocated for it, and consequently, it would have no address. The following for example, would not work (be undefined, probably):

Code:

struct empty { };

int main()
{
  empty a; // Create an instance of the empty structure.
  empty *b = &a; // ... but a has no address...
  return 0;
}

So, if you ever needed an empty structure (placeholder or something to that effect), then you'd be required to do the following (or something similar):

Code:

struct empty { char random_useless_data; };

Which of course has a size of 1. It seems that C++ saves you from the poor programming practice of putting it in because "you have to for it to compile", and for no other reason.

I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine that the actual amount of space it does take up is implementation defined, and not explicitly defined in the standard (if anyone knows otherwise, I'd be interested to hear).

**Cat** · 08-12-2003

The standard says that sizeof() any instantiable type must be >= 1. There's very little else it says.

**golfinguy4** · 08-12-2003

Check out here.

Thread: sizeof(empty struct) = 1 ?!?!?!? why??

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

sizeof(empty struct) = 1 ?!?!?!? why??

Similar Threads

Segfault with Linked List Program

Global Variables

What's wrong with my search program?

Function validation.

Search Engine - Binary Search Tree