[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107281211120.20737@axis700.grange>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:16:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Q] compiler no longer warning about undeclared struct?
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mit, 2011-07-27 at 19:57 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> [....]
> > I just ran across a driver in the kernel (drivers/media/video/ov2640.c,
> > struct ov2640_priv::info), that does something like
> >
> > struct xx {
> > struct yy *y;
> > };
> >
> > static void z(void)
> > {
> > struct xx *x;
> > void *p;
> >
> > x = ...;
> > p = ...;
> > x->y = p;
> > }
> >
> > where "struct yy" is nowhere declared, and the compiler happily swallows
> > this... Shouldn't it complain? Didn't it complain before?
>
> It's normal C behaviour: As long as the compiler doesn't need the size
> or fields of struct yy, it doesn't complain that it doesn't know the
> details.
I always thought you need forward declarations for those, as in
struct yy;
before declaring struct xx above.
> Otherwise you could not define recursive structures as in
> ---- snip ----
> struct a {
> struct *b;
> };
> struct b {
> struct *a;
> };
> ---- snip ----
I would add a "struct b;" forward declaration before "struct a".
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists