Unions in structures

[blockstack]

I recently noticed (I'm new to the language) that when using a union
type as a component of a structure, you don't need a union-tag.

struct foo
{
char *ptr;
union
{
int i;
float f;
char c;
};
};

I have never read that a union type reference is optional in any
case.
Is this specific to the compiler, or part of the standard?

[Eric Sosman]

Re: Unions in structures

blockstack wrote:

I recently noticed (I'm new to the language) that when using a union
type as a component of a structure, you don't need a union-tag.
>
struct foo
{
char *ptr;
union
{
int i;
float f;
char c;
};
};
>
I have never read that a union type reference is optional in any
case.
Is this specific to the compiler, or part of the standard?

A union does not need to have a union tag, and a struct
does not need to have a struct tag. But I think you may be
mixing up the terminology!

- A "struct tag" is an identifier that can be combined
with the keyword `struct' to form a name for a specific
struct type. In your example, `foo' is a struct tag
and `struct foo' is the name of the type. If the `foo'
were absent, the struct would have no tag and there
would be no way to write a name for its type elsewhere
in the program.

- Similarly, a "union tag" is an identifier that can be
combined with the keyword `union' to form a name for a
specific union type. In your example, the union has no
tag and there is no way to write the name of the union's
type. If the identifier `bar' appeared right after the
`union' keyword, `bar' would be the union tag and
`union bar' would be the name of the type.

- Almost every element contained in a struct or union (the
lone exception is not important here) must have an element
name. In your example, `i', `f', and `c' are the names
of the elements of the union. `ptr' is the name of one
element of the struct, but the other element (the union)
has no name. This is a compile-time error for which the
compiler is required to produce a diagnostic message.

So, why do you get no error message? Probably because you
are not using a C compiler, but a C-with-extras compiler that
accepts a C-like language that isn't really C. The gcc compiler
is like that in its default mode of operation; command-line flags
like `-ansi -pedantic' can make it conform more strictly to the
actual definition of C.

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Morris Dovey]

Re: Unions in structures

blockstack wrote:

>
I recently noticed (I'm new to the language) that when using a union
type as a component of a structure, you don't need a union-tag.
>
struct foo
{
char *ptr;
union
{
int i;
float f;
char c;
};
};
>
I have never read that a union type reference is optional in any
case.
Is this specific to the compiler, or part of the standard?

A footnote to Eric's response:

This convention produces headaches when/if struct foo is expanded
to:

struct foo
{ char *ptr;
unsigned i;
union
{ int i;
float f;
char c;
};
};

struct foo x;
x.i = 7; /* Which i in x? */

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[blockstack]

Re: Unions in structures

On Mar 16, 12:58 pm, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

blockstack wrote:

I recently noticed (I'm new to the language) that when using a union
type as a component of a structure, you don't need a union-tag.

>

struct foo
{
char *ptr;
union
{
int i;
float f;
char c;
};
};

>

I have never read that a union type reference is optional in any
case.
Is this specific to the compiler, or part of the standard?

>
A union does not need to have a union tag, and a struct
does not need to have a struct tag. But I think you may be
mixing up the terminology!
>
- A "struct tag" is an identifier that can be combined
with the keyword `struct' to form a name for a specific
struct type. In your example, `foo' is a struct tag
and `struct foo' is the name of the type. If the `foo'
were absent, the struct would have no tag and there
would be no way to write a name for its type elsewhere
in the program.
>
- Similarly, a "union tag" is an identifier that can be
combined with the keyword `union' to form a name for a
specific union type. In your example, the union has no
tag and there is no way to write the name of the union's
type. If the identifier `bar' appeared right after the
`union' keyword, `bar' would be the union tag and
`union bar' would be the name of the type.
>
- Almost every element contained in a struct or union (the
lone exception is not important here) must have an element
name. In your example, `i', `f', and `c' are the names
of the elements of the union. `ptr' is the name of one
element of the struct, but the other element (the union)
has no name. This is a compile-time error for which the
compiler is required to produce a diagnostic message.
>
So, why do you get no error message? Probably because you
are not using a C compiler, but a C-with-extras compiler that
accepts a C-like language that isn't really C. The gcc compiler
is like that in its default mode of operation; command-line flags
like `-ansi -pedantic' can make it conform more strictly to the
actual definition of C.
>
--
Eric Sosman
esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalid

Thanks,
Using the option --ansi=pedantic did cause an error. I used union-tag
and union-type-reference synonymously as I thought both were
identifiers, but I see how I needed to make the distinction.
The reason I was asking was because I was reading an old K&R C book
from the 80s in which they were describing the previous code as a
union variation rather than a structure. And then I received no error,
so I wondered if this was part of the standard.
But it is not standard C. It does seem to make things easier though.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: Unions in structures

blockstack <blockstack@gma il.comwrites:

I recently noticed (I'm new to the language) that when using a union
type as a component of a structure, you don't need a union-tag.
>
struct foo
{
char *ptr;
union
{
int i;
float f;
char c;
};
};
>
I have never read that a union type reference is optional in any
case.
Is this specific to the compiler, or part of the standard?

It's specific to the compiler. As far as the standard is concerned,
the above is an error requiring a diagnostic. Some compilers allow
anonymous unions as an extension.

In particular, gcc supports this. gcc's "-pedantic" option will cause
it to issue a warning.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <kst-u@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Ben Pfaff]

Re: Unions in structures

Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrit es:

The uses I've seen, though, have
all been of a somewhat dubious nature, along the lines of
>
struct thing {
struct {
unsigned int readyFlag : 1;
unsigned int willingFlag : 1;
unsigned int ableFlag : 1;
}; /* no name */
unsigned int flags;
#define READY_FLAG 0x1
#define WILLING_FLAG 0x2
#define ABLE_FLAG 0x4
};

I think that "struct thing" should be "union thing".
--
"When I have to rely on inadequacy, I prefer it to be my own."
--Richard Heathfield

[Eric Sosman]

Re: Unions in structures

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrit es:
>

>The uses I've seen, though, have
>all been of a somewhat dubious nature, along the lines of
>>
> struct thing {
> struct {
> unsigned int readyFlag : 1;
> unsigned int willingFlag : 1;
> unsigned int ableFlag : 1;
> }; /* no name */
> unsigned int flags;
> #define READY_FLAG 0x1
> #define WILLING_FLAG 0x2
> #define ABLE_FLAG 0x4
> };

>
I think that "struct thing" should be "union thing".

Age has not withered nor custom staled the correctness
of your thought. Thanks.

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Serve Laurijssen]

Re: Unions in structures


"Eric Sosman" <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidschr eef in bericht
news:2LmdnVLdlK 3oC0DanZ2dnUVZ_ gmdnZ2d@comcast .com...

Age has not withered nor custom staled the correctness
of your thought. Thanks.

I somehow get the urge to print this out in big letters and hang it on the
wall. But eh what does it mean?

(literally)