This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

C51: Pointer to array type

I have defined a type for objects we use. The details of the type should not be relevant for the users of the type, so I am "hiding" it behind a typedef. As it happens, this type is currently implemented as an array.
This is problematic when we want to pass around pointers to variables of this type.

Example:

#define OBJECT_SIZE 5

typedef char   object_t[OBJECT_SIZE];  // A type that happens to be an array

int main( void )
{
  object_t     my_object;
  object_t   * p_object;

  p_object = my_object;      // Compiler warning - pointer to different objects
                             // (Correct warning - array decays to pointer to char. )

  p_object = &my_object;     // Compiler warning - pointer to different objects
                             // Why this warning?
                             // According to knowledgeable people, this should be
                             // OK with respect to the C spec
  return 0;
}

So, the question is: how can I obtain the address of the variable in a way that will give me a pointer to the given type? That is, I need a pointer to array[OBJECT_SIZE] of char, not a plain pointer to char.

With kind regards
Asbj.S.

Parents

  • I'm convinced the compiler is quite incorrect there.

    Although the language definition doesn't restrict what a compiler may emit diagnostic messages about, this one is pointless and factually wrong.

    Actually, so am I now. I have read up on the spec (well not exactly, the K&R2 appendix). And while an array often is converted into a pointer to its base type, pointing to the first element of the array, this conversion does explicitely not take place when the array is the operand of the & operator. Which means that "&array" should give the correct result.

    I am discussing the issue with Keil.

    Asbj.S.

Reply

  • I'm convinced the compiler is quite incorrect there.

    Although the language definition doesn't restrict what a compiler may emit diagnostic messages about, this one is pointless and factually wrong.

    Actually, so am I now. I have read up on the spec (well not exactly, the K&R2 appendix). And while an array often is converted into a pointer to its base type, pointing to the first element of the array, this conversion does explicitely not take place when the array is the operand of the & operator. Which means that "&array" should give the correct result.

    I am discussing the issue with Keil.

    Asbj.S.

Children
No data