But it is interesting to see that g++ does compile this sample of code
So I am confused now as there are inconsistencies between gcc and g++
David Brown-4 wrote:
>
> On 09/12/2011 08:26, Divyesh wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please refer to the following code snippet.
>>
>> struct strArr;
>>
>> typedef struct strArr myStAr[17];
>>
>> typedef struct
>> {
>> unsigned short DISPLAY_:1;
>> } structDisp;
>>
>> typedef structDisp disp;
>>
>> struct strArr
>> {
>> disp dispBit;
>> } ;
>>
>> int f()
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> In the code we have a typedef to an array of struct.
>>
>> Now since the definition of that struct is given after the use, gcc
>> cribs.
>>
>> The error reported by gcc is : array type has incomplete element type.
>>
>> Interesting thing is gcc 3.4.4 compiles the code where as gcc 4.3.4 and
>> 4.6
>> doesn't.
>>
>> I think this is a gcc bug.
>>
>> Request assistance for the same.
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Divyesh
>
> It is not a bug. It is interesting that gcc 3.4.4 accepted the code, as
> it is (AFAIK) invalid C.
>
> It is easy to see what is going on when you think about how the compiler
> will interpret this - starting from the top and moving down. The usual
> use of forward struct declarations is so that you can make pointers to
> them in a circular type definition - that works fine, because the
> compiler can conceive of a "pointer to struct" without knowing the
> details of the struct. But the compiler cannot work with an instance of
> the forward-declared struct, or an array of them, or use it as an
> element in another struct (only pointers are allowed) - all these things
> require a knowledge of the size of the struct.
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Forward-referencing-with-typedef-tp32939060p32945133.html
Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
