For an embedded application, I am trying to implement a first-in, first-out (FIFO) queue of structs using ANSI C. The most straightforward way to do this seems to be by implementing a linked-list, so that each structure contains a pointer to the next in the queue. Hence I define the struct itself as:
typedef enum { LED_on, LED_off, etc } Action;
typedef struct Queued_Action QueuedAction;
struct Queued_Action
{
Action action;
int value;
QueuedAction *nextAction;
};
So far so good. If I define pointers to the first and last items in the queue as:
QueuedAction *firstAction;
QueuedAction *lastAction;
...then I'd like to be able to add a new action to the queue by stating (for example):
if (!add_action_to_queue(LED_on, 100, &lastAction))
printf("Error!\n);
...so on return, lastAction would be a pointer to the newly-created last action in the queue. Hence the routine for adding the action to the queue would look like:
int add_action_to_queue(Action newAction, int newValue, QueuedAction **lastAction)
{
QueuedAction *newQueuedAction;
// Create a new action in memory
if ((newQueuedAction = (QueuedAction *)malloc(sizeof(QueuedAction))) == NULL)
return 0;
// Make the old 'lastAction' point to the new Action,
// and the new Action to point to NULL:
*lastAction -> nextAction = newQueuedAction;
newQueuedAction -> nextAction = NULL;
newQueuedAction -> action = newAction;
newQueuedAction -> value = newValue;
// Designate the new Action as the new lastAction:
*lastAction = newQueuedAction;
return 1;
}
All would be fine and dandy, except this code won't compile. The error is at the line saying
*lastAction -> nextAction = newQueuedAction;
...where the compiler claims the item to the left of the '->' is not a valid struct. Surely, however, it must be. If in fact I do what ought to be a wholly redundant cast:
fakeAction = (QueuedAction *)(*lastAction);
fakeAction -> nextAction = newQueuedAction;
...then the compiler is quite happy. However, I'm worried that the error message is hinting at something subtle that I may be doing wrong here. So (to come to the point), can anyone tell me why the compiler isn't happy, and whether there is a better way to do what I'm trying to do here.
Many thanks,
Stephen.