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

Standard Struct?

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.

Parents Reply Children
  • can justifiably produce a warning about the unnecessary use of '&'.

    ... except that the use of & is necessary in the case at hand. The code as posted(!) would be incorrect if that '&' was left out. It's correct and doesn't deserve any kind of warning, as-is.

    Generally speaking, mytable and &mytable are both perfectly correct arguments to pass to a called function. Only one of them has the correct type, though. Which that is depends on whether the called function's argument type is "pointer to element", "array", or "pointer to array".

    As per the declarations actually posted by the OP, &mytable is correct, and mytable is not. The warning is unreasonable for the posted code, so either the posted code is not what the OP actually compiled to get the warning, or the compiler is emitting an unjustifiable warning.