Reputation:
I am wondering why the following two types
struct {
double re[2];
};
and
double re[2];
have the same size in C? Doesn't struct add a bit of size overhead?
Upvotes: 8
Views: 2697
Reputation: 247999
Nope, the struct doesn't have to add anything. Unlike in Java or .NET, where classes (and structs) have a bunch of other responsibilities, in C and C++, they are simply containers used to hold a number of data members. In C++, they may have to store a vtable to resolve virtual function calls if any exist, but in general, no, a struct itself has no overhead.
The one exception is this:
typedef struct {} empty;
assert(sizeof(empty) > 0);
The size of an empty struct will not be zero. A struct has to have some nonzero size since every object has to have a unique address. (Otherwise you wouldn't be able to create an array of these structs)
Upvotes: 6
Reputation: 2376
no the struct type in C just sequentially layout the members in memory
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 46833
No it doesnt.
That's one of the good points of structs (why they were so helpful in old school TCP/IP programming).
It's a good way to represent the memory/buffer layout.
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 64682
No. Struct does not add any size, or have any overhead in the compiled C.
It is a layer of syntax that requires additional work by the compiler, but has no overhead at runtime.
C is an extremely "naked" language, meaning that nothing is there unless required. So ask yourself, "What overhead does a struct REQUIRE?", and you won't find any.
Upvotes: 3
Reputation: 754050
Not if it can help it - no. C avoids overhead like the plague. And specifically, it avoids overhead in this context.
If you used a different structure, you might see a difference:
struct space_filled
{
char part0;
double part1;
};
If your machine requires double
to be aligned on an 8-byte boundary (and sizeof(double) == 8
, which is normal but not mandated by the standard), then you will find that the structure occupies 16 bytes.
Upvotes: 12
Reputation: 20726
No, it just merely composes all the elements into one higher-level element whose size is merely the individual elements' sizes added up (plus some padding depending on alignment rules, but that's out of the scope of this question).
Upvotes: 26