Why is it valid to define a type as pointer to an undefined struct in C?

问题

I was digging into a 3rd party code base and found that it is apparently valid to declare a type as a pointer to an undefined struct. As a minimum working example, consider a C file test.c containing nothing but:

typedef struct foo *bar;

What surprises me is that this file compiles without any problems using the command

gcc test.c -shared

Why does the compiler not complain about the struct foo not being declared anywhere?

My environment is Ubuntu 16.04 with gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.5) 5.4.0 20160609.

回答1:

The declaration above creates a forward declaration of struct foo. Although you can't access its members, you can operate on a pointer to it.

This is commonly referred to as an opaque type, and is used to hide implementation details of a library from users of the library.

For example a library implementation may contain the following:

lib.c:

struct foo {
  int f1;
};

struct foo *init()
{
    return malloc(sizeof(struct foo));
}

void set1(struct foo *p, int val)
{
    p->f1 = val;
}

int get1(struct foo *p)
{
    return p->f1;
}

void cleanup(struct foo *p)
{
    free(p);
}

The header file for this library might look like this:

lib.h:

struct foo;

struct foo *init(void);
void set1(struct foo *p, int val);
int get1(struct foo *p);
void cleanup(struct foo *p);

The user of this library would use the init function to create an instance of the struct and the set1 and get1 functions to read / update the member. The user can't however create an instance of struct foo or access the members without going through one of the interface functions.

回答2:

Because pointer to structs have same size (for any structs). The size of a structure pointer doesn't depend on it's definition. Because no matter what, the pointer to it would be behaved the same way as any other structures pointer.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47229612/why-is-it-valid-to-define-a-type-as-pointer-to-an-undefined-struct-in-c

标签

pointers

struct