C union containing only one struct












7















I have started today to program on a PIC16f88, and found that the header for its registers contains a union that only contains a struct:



extern volatile unsigned char ANSEL __at(0x09B);

typedef union {

    struct {

        unsigned ANS0       :1;

        unsigned ANS1       :1;

        unsigned ANS2       :1;

        unsigned ANS3       :1;

        unsigned ANS4       :1;

        unsigned ANS5       :1;

        unsigned ANS6       :1;

    };

} ANSELbits_t;

extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


Does it provide any benefits to enclose the struct inside a union that only contains that struct?



Its access I guess is going to be exactly the same as if it were a simple struct (because the struct is anonymous):



ANSELbits.ANS4 = 0;






c struct unions







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Would you mind confirming that you have or haven't omitted another member of the union?

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago











  • I copied exactly the code from the header. Nothing omitted.

    – Cacahuete Frito
    3 hours ago
















7















I have started today to program on a PIC16f88, and found that the header for its registers contains a union that only contains a struct:



extern volatile unsigned char ANSEL __at(0x09B);

typedef union {

    struct {

        unsigned ANS0       :1;

        unsigned ANS1       :1;

        unsigned ANS2       :1;

        unsigned ANS3       :1;

        unsigned ANS4       :1;

        unsigned ANS5       :1;

        unsigned ANS6       :1;

    };

} ANSELbits_t;

extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


Does it provide any benefits to enclose the struct inside a union that only contains that struct?



Its access I guess is going to be exactly the same as if it were a simple struct (because the struct is anonymous):



ANSELbits.ANS4 = 0;






c struct unions







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Would you mind confirming that you have or haven't omitted another member of the union?

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago











  • I copied exactly the code from the header. Nothing omitted.

    – Cacahuete Frito
    3 hours ago














7












7








7


1






I have started today to program on a PIC16f88, and found that the header for its registers contains a union that only contains a struct:



extern volatile unsigned char ANSEL __at(0x09B);

typedef union {

    struct {

        unsigned ANS0       :1;

        unsigned ANS1       :1;

        unsigned ANS2       :1;

        unsigned ANS3       :1;

        unsigned ANS4       :1;

        unsigned ANS5       :1;

        unsigned ANS6       :1;

    };

} ANSELbits_t;

extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


Does it provide any benefits to enclose the struct inside a union that only contains that struct?



Its access I guess is going to be exactly the same as if it were a simple struct (because the struct is anonymous):



ANSELbits.ANS4 = 0;






c struct unions







share|improve this question
















I have started today to program on a PIC16f88, and found that the header for its registers contains a union that only contains a struct:



extern volatile unsigned char ANSEL __at(0x09B);

typedef union {

    struct {

        unsigned ANS0       :1;

        unsigned ANS1       :1;

        unsigned ANS2       :1;

        unsigned ANS3       :1;

        unsigned ANS4       :1;

        unsigned ANS5       :1;

        unsigned ANS6       :1;

    };

} ANSELbits_t;

extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


Does it provide any benefits to enclose the struct inside a union that only contains that struct?



Its access I guess is going to be exactly the same as if it were a simple struct (because the struct is anonymous):



ANSELbits.ANS4 = 0;






c struct unions




c struct unions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago







Cacahuete Frito

















asked 3 hours ago









Cacahuete FritoCacahuete Frito

1097




1097








  • 1





    Would you mind confirming that you have or haven't omitted another member of the union?

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago











  • I copied exactly the code from the header. Nothing omitted.

    – Cacahuete Frito
    3 hours ago














  • 1





    Would you mind confirming that you have or haven't omitted another member of the union?

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago











  • I copied exactly the code from the header. Nothing omitted.

    – Cacahuete Frito
    3 hours ago








1




1





Would you mind confirming that you have or haven't omitted another member of the union?

– Bathsheba
3 hours ago





Would you mind confirming that you have or haven't omitted another member of the union?

– Bathsheba
3 hours ago













I copied exactly the code from the header. Nothing omitted.

– Cacahuete Frito
3 hours ago





I copied exactly the code from the header. Nothing omitted.

– Cacahuete Frito
3 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














There is no benefit in standard portable C.



But code like this is used to circumvent (in a non-portable way) all the type checking that your C compiler will make.



You are then empowered to set all the members of the underlying struct in one go, which is useful in this case as it contains a lot of bit fields.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

    – P__J__
    3 hours ago








  • 1





    @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

    – P__J__
    3 hours ago






  • 3





    Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

    – Jonathan Leffler
    3 hours ago



















3














It does not make any difference if you wrap and I suppose that someone has forgoten to add another member (or did not copy-paste everything) as in the declaration below. No warnings will be suppressed. 



typedef union {

    struct {

        unsigned ANS0       :1;

        unsigned ANS1       :1;

        unsigned ANS2       :1;

        unsigned ANS3       :1;

        unsigned ANS4       :1;

        unsigned ANS5       :1;

        unsigned ANS6       :1;

    };

    uint8_t d8;

} ANSELbits_t;

extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


BTW if the struct has to fit in 1 byte (8 bits) this declaration is wrong and uint_t type should be used instead.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54390039%2fc-union-containing-only-one-struct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    There is no benefit in standard portable C.



    But code like this is used to circumvent (in a non-portable way) all the type checking that your C compiler will make.



    You are then empowered to set all the members of the underlying struct in one go, which is useful in this case as it contains a lot of bit fields.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago








    • 1





      @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 1





      @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 2





      @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago






    • 3





      Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

      – Jonathan Leffler
      3 hours ago
















    3














    There is no benefit in standard portable C.



    But code like this is used to circumvent (in a non-portable way) all the type checking that your C compiler will make.



    You are then empowered to set all the members of the underlying struct in one go, which is useful in this case as it contains a lot of bit fields.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago








    • 1





      @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 1





      @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 2





      @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago






    • 3





      Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

      – Jonathan Leffler
      3 hours ago














    3












    3








    3







    There is no benefit in standard portable C.



    But code like this is used to circumvent (in a non-portable way) all the type checking that your C compiler will make.



    You are then empowered to set all the members of the underlying struct in one go, which is useful in this case as it contains a lot of bit fields.






    share|improve this answer













    There is no benefit in standard portable C.



    But code like this is used to circumvent (in a non-portable way) all the type checking that your C compiler will make.



    You are then empowered to set all the members of the underlying struct in one go, which is useful in this case as it contains a lot of bit fields.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 3 hours ago









    BathshebaBathsheba

    177k27253376




    177k27253376








    • 2





      any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago








    • 1





      @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 1





      @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 2





      @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago






    • 3





      Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

      – Jonathan Leffler
      3 hours ago














    • 2





      any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago








    • 1





      @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 1





      @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

      – Bathsheba
      3 hours ago






    • 2





      @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

      – P__J__
      3 hours ago






    • 3





      Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

      – Jonathan Leffler
      3 hours ago








    2




    2





    any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

    – P__J__
    3 hours ago







    any porability considerations are voided when I see extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B); which is specific to Keil compiler used by some programmers in the uC programming (expensive and IMO not very good), but supported directly by ARM

    – P__J__
    3 hours ago






    1




    1





    @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago





    @CacahueteFrito: in which case I'm pretty convinced I'm correct. Remove the union and see what happens. Compiler warnings galore I'd expect.

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago




    1




    1





    @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago





    @P__J__: Trust me, this is an old-fashioned idiom. Not much more I can say really!

    – Bathsheba
    3 hours ago




    2




    2





    @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

    – P__J__
    3 hours ago





    @CacahueteFrito PIC uC? - my condolences :). LOL - the original programmer did not know how to use unions and has found this "workaround" :)

    – P__J__
    3 hours ago




    3




    3





    Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

    – Jonathan Leffler
    3 hours ago





    Using bit-fields means the code is not portable, period. Almost everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined.

    – Jonathan Leffler
    3 hours ago













    3














    It does not make any difference if you wrap and I suppose that someone has forgoten to add another member (or did not copy-paste everything) as in the declaration below. No warnings will be suppressed. 



    typedef union {
    
    struct {
    
        unsigned ANS0       :1;
    
        unsigned ANS1       :1;
    
        unsigned ANS2       :1;
    
        unsigned ANS3       :1;
    
        unsigned ANS4       :1;
    
        unsigned ANS5       :1;
    
        unsigned ANS6       :1;
    
    };
    
    uint8_t d8;
    
} ANSELbits_t;
    
extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


    BTW if the struct has to fit in 1 byte (8 bits) this declaration is wrong and uint_t type should be used instead.






    share|improve this answer




























      3














      It does not make any difference if you wrap and I suppose that someone has forgoten to add another member (or did not copy-paste everything) as in the declaration below. No warnings will be suppressed. 



      typedef union {
      
    struct {
      
        unsigned ANS0       :1;
      
        unsigned ANS1       :1;
      
        unsigned ANS2       :1;
      
        unsigned ANS3       :1;
      
        unsigned ANS4       :1;
      
        unsigned ANS5       :1;
      
        unsigned ANS6       :1;
      
    };
      
    uint8_t d8;
      
} ANSELbits_t;
      
extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


      BTW if the struct has to fit in 1 byte (8 bits) this declaration is wrong and uint_t type should be used instead.






      share|improve this answer


























        3












        3








        3







        It does not make any difference if you wrap and I suppose that someone has forgoten to add another member (or did not copy-paste everything) as in the declaration below. No warnings will be suppressed. 



        typedef union {
        
    struct {
        
        unsigned ANS0       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS1       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS2       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS3       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS4       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS5       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS6       :1;
        
    };
        
    uint8_t d8;
        
} ANSELbits_t;
        
extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


        BTW if the struct has to fit in 1 byte (8 bits) this declaration is wrong and uint_t type should be used instead.






        share|improve this answer













        It does not make any difference if you wrap and I suppose that someone has forgoten to add another member (or did not copy-paste everything) as in the declaration below. No warnings will be suppressed. 



        typedef union {
        
    struct {
        
        unsigned ANS0       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS1       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS2       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS3       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS4       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS5       :1;
        
        unsigned ANS6       :1;
        
    };
        
    uint8_t d8;
        
} ANSELbits_t;
        
extern volatile ANSELbits_t ANSELbits __at(0x09B);


        BTW if the struct has to fit in 1 byte (8 bits) this declaration is wrong and uint_t type should be used instead.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 3 hours ago









        P__J__P__J__

        10.1k2723




        10.1k2723






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54390039%2fc-union-containing-only-one-struct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Olav Thon

            Image
            Olav Thon Fødd 29. juni 1923 Ål Yrke forretningsdrivande Olav Thon på Commons Olav Thon (fødd 29. juni 1923) er ein norsk, stort sett sjølvlært forretningsmann, fødd i Ål i Hallingdal, som har gjort store pengar på særleg kjøp, bygging og utvikling av fast eigedom, mellom anna kjøpesentre, hotell og restaurantar, i både Noreg og somme andre land. Han vart Ridder av 1. klasse av St. Olavs Orden i 2003, og er som ivrig friluftsmann æresmedlem i Den Norske Turistforening etter å ha ytt store økonomiske bidrag til foreininga sine hytter og ruter i fjellet. Han er kjend for alltid å gå med ei karakteristisk strikkelue. Olav Thon i samtale med Trond Helleland på sentralbanksjefens årstale i februar 2016 I ung alder reiste Olav Thon til Newcastle for å lære seg engelsk, og han var seinare ei tid i Sveits, der han gjorde forretningar i import og eksport. Deretter tok han til å kjøpe faste eigedomar i Noreg med stor økonomisk suksess, verksemda voks snøgt og v...
            Read more

            Waikiki

            Image
            Denne artikkelen kan ha godt av ein språkvask , som reinskar opp målføringa og/eller innfører same språkstilen overalt. Denne artikkelen kan ha godt av ei opprydding for å nå ein høgare standard og/eller for å verta i tråd med standardoppsettet. Sjå korleis du redigerer ei side og stilmanualen for hjelp. Waikiki Land   USA Stat Hawaii Stad Honolulu Wikimedia Commons: Waikiki Utsyn over Waikiki Waikīkī er ein bydel i Honolulu, sør på øya Oahu, som er ei av Hawaii-øyane. Waikīkīstranda er ein av dei meste berømte strendene i verda. Waikīkī strekkjer seg langs stillehavskysten og har ei rekkje velrenommerte hotell. Bydelen er Hawaii-turismens høyborg. På Waikīkī Beach står ei statue av den lokale sportsstjerna Duka Kahanamoku. Kjelder | Denne artikkelen bygger på «Waikiki» frå Wikipedia på bokmål, den 4. november 2018. Denne artikkelen manglar kjelder eller referansar . Hjelp Wikipedia med å finna truverdige kjelder...
            Read more

            Tårekanal

            Image
            Tåreapparatet ( a ) Tårekjertel ( b ) Øvre tårepunkt ( c ) Øvre tårekanalikkel ( d ) Tåresekk ( e ) Nedre tårepunkt ( f ) Nedre tårekanalikkel ( g ) Tårekanal Tårekanalen eller nase-tårekanalen (av latin ductus nasolacrimalis ) er ein ductus som frakter overflødige tårer frå tåresekken til nasehola. Opninga inn mot nedre nasegang er delvis tildekt av ei ufullstendig slimhinnefold kalla Hasners ventil. Overflødige tårer strøymer gjennom tårekanalen og trekker inn i nedre nasegang. Dette er grunnen til at ein kan få rennande nase når ein gret, og at ein somme gonger kan kjenne saltsmaken av tårer i munnen. Både tårekanalen og tåresekken er tekt med fleirlaga sylinderepitel som inneheld slimproduserande begerceller, og er begge omgjevne av bindevev. Dakryostenose (tårekanalstenose) er ei innsnevring av tårekanalen som fører til epifora, ei overflod av tårer. Medfødd dakryostenose kan føra til cystisk utviding av tårekanalen ved at det dannast ein dakryocystocele. Personar m...
            Read more