Having some problems working with a struct typedef. In RTX51, one of the system functions takes as an argument a pointer to a struct:
//function prototype signed char os_check_mailboxes (t_rtx_allmbxtab xdata *table); ... /* Type definition for system call os_check_mailboxes */ typedef struct { unsigned char message_cnt; unsigned char read_task_cnt; unsigned char write_task_cnt; } t_rtx_allmbxtab[8];
I've never seen an array-of-structs declared within the typedef before, and couldn't find any literature about it. It's declared like a single struct, and used just like an array of structs:
t_rtx_allmbxtab xdata mytable; if(mytable[x].message.cnt < 2)...
however, I get a warning "C182: pointer to different objects" when trying to use it with the actual system function (exactly as shown in the RTX51 user manual):
os_check_mailboxes(&mytable); //<-- generates warning!
I'm not sure exactly how the array as part of the data type affects this, so i'm stumped. However, that didn't stop me from trying random things to see what DID work. Here's what I came up with; maybe somebody can explain to me why this works:
//declare as an array, effectively making a 2D array //with one dimension being size 1 only t_rtx_allmbxtab xdata mytable[1]; //use as a normal 2D array if(mytable[0][x].message.cnt < 2)... //system function now works fine. no warnings. os_check_mailboxes(&mytable); //using (&mytable[0]) or (&mytable[0][0]) instead will generate 'pointer to different objects' warnings.
All C51 mem-space'isms and RTX51'isms cast aside, a review of basic C could be beneficial.
mytable is an array, the name of which produces its (implicit) address. Specifying the address of an (implicit) address could reasonably generate a warning.
Specifying the address of an (implicit) address could reasonably generate a warning.
No. Such a warning would be quite unreasonable. Taking the address of an array to pass it by reference is unusual, but by no means something to warn about. Just because arrays automagically decay into pointers to their first element when necessary doesn't mean they can't have their address taken and used like any other variable.
"Such a warning would be quite unreasonable."
An error would be unreasonable. A warning is allowed, is justified, is not unreasonable, but is not required.
I should add that I don't necessarily agree with the exact warning the OP claimed to get. Something closer to lint's warning (suspicious use of &) would be more appropriate.
View all questions in Keil forum