Hello i am new to this C programs

[siva]

const struct
{
float a0;
float a1;
float a2;
}A_coeffs[SECTIONS];


i am confused to declare the value for this structure correct me
thanq

i have declared this there is compiler error
A_coeffs[]=
{
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
};

[venkatesh]

This will assign value as
follows
a_coeffs[0].a0=1.254285,
a_coeffs[0].a1=2.508570,
a_coeffs[0].a2=1.254285,
a_coeffs[1].a0=1.254285,
a_coeffs[1].a1=1.508570,
a_coeffs[1].a2=1.254285,
like this it will go on

[Stephen]

In article <11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, siva
<si*********@gmail.com> writes

const struct
{
float a0;
float a1;
float a2;
}A_coeffs[SECTIONS];
A_coeffs[]=
{
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
};

Nearly.

#define SECTIONS 3
const struct
{
float a0;
float a1;
float a2;
}A_coeffs[SECTIONS]=
{
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
};

[siva]

thanq

u have give me good solution

[mohansn]

<snip>

i am confused to declare the value for this structure correct me
thanq

i have declared this there is compiler error
A_coeffs[]= <snip> };

Please quote the compiler error.
It helps in debugging.
Regards,
Frodo

[Flash Gordon]

siva wrote:

const struct
{
float a0;
float a1;
float a2;
}A_coeffs[SECTIONS];
Here you have declared it as being const, which means you are not
allowed to write to it.
i am confused to declare the value for this structure correct me
thanq

i have declared this there is compiler error
A_coeffs[]=
{
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
};

Here you try to write to it (which is not allowed) and you are also
trying to write the hole array, which is not allowed anyway.

Assuming these really are constant coefficients you want something like:

const struct
{
float a0;
float a1;
float a2;
} A_coeffs[] = {
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
{1.254285,2.508570,1.254285},
};

#define SECTIONS ((sizeof A_coeffs) / (sizeof A_coeffs[0]))

and get rid of your current definition of SECTIONS.

This is pretty basic stuff so you probably need to reread the sections
your text book has on arrays, initialisers, const and sizeof.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Stephen]

In article <68************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes

#define SECTIONS ((sizeof A_coeffs) / (sizeof A_coeffs[0]))

and get rid of your current definition of SECTIONS.

Not necessarily.

In many cases #define'ing SECTIONS in advance of the declaration of the
array would be preferable because it might be calculated based upon
something else, sourced from another file, or simply more obvious to the
developer that way, and the point of then using it in the declaration of
the array is to stop the programmer forgetting to then initialise all
the elements.

[Flash Gordon]

Stephen wrote:

In article <68************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes

#define SECTIONS ((sizeof A_coeffs) / (sizeof A_coeffs[0]))

and get rid of your current definition of SECTIONS.

Not necessarily.

In many cases #define'ing SECTIONS in advance of the declaration of the
array would be preferable because it might be calculated based upon
something else, sourced from another file, or simply more obvious to the
developer that way, and the point of then using it in the declaration of
the array is to stop the programmer forgetting to then initialise all
the elements.

It does not necessarily stop the programmer from forgetting to
initialise all the elements, because there is not requirement for the
compiler to complain at you for forgetting to initialise all of the
elements.

I'm not saying that there is never a good reason to define the size in
some other way, but for a const array (which it was in this case) I
believe that what I suggested is generally better.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Mike Wahler]

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:qv************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Stephen wrote:

In article <68************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes

#define SECTIONS ((sizeof A_coeffs) / (sizeof A_coeffs[0]))

and get rid of your current definition of SECTIONS.

Not necessarily.

In many cases #define'ing SECTIONS in advance of the declaration of the
array would be preferable because it might be calculated based upon
something else, sourced from another file, or simply more obvious to the
developer that way, and the point of then using it in the declaration of
the array is to stop the programmer forgetting to then initialise all
the elements.

It does not necessarily stop the programmer from forgetting to initialise
all the elements, because there is not requirement for the compiler to
complain at you for forgetting to initialise all of the elements.

With an array, if you initialize at least one element,
they all get initialized (but perhaps not to the desired values :-))

-Mike

[Flash Gordon]

Mike Wahler wrote:

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:qv************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Stephen wrote:

In article <68************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes
#define SECTIONS ((sizeof A_coeffs) / (sizeof A_coeffs[0]))

and get rid of your current definition of SECTIONS.

Not necessarily.

In many cases #define'ing SECTIONS in advance of the declaration of the
array would be preferable because it might be calculated based upon
something else, sourced from another file, or simply more obvious to the
developer that way, and the point of then using it in the declaration of
the array is to stop the programmer forgetting to then initialise all
the elements.

It does not necessarily stop the programmer from forgetting to initialise
all the elements, because there is not requirement for the compiler to
complain at you for forgetting to initialise all of the elements.

With an array, if you initialize at least one element,
they all get initialized (but perhaps not to the desired values :-))

This, indeed, was what I meant :-)
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Stephen]

In article <de************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes

Mike Wahler wrote:

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:qv************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Stephen wrote:

In article <68************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes
>#define SECTIONS ((sizeof A_coeffs) / (sizeof A_coeffs[0]))
>
>and get rid of your current definition of SECTIONS.

Not necessarily.

In many cases #define'ing SECTIONS in advance of the declaration of the
array would be preferable because it might be calculated based upon
something else, sourced from another file, or simply more obvious to the
developer that way, and the point of then using it in the declaration of
the array is to stop the programmer forgetting to then initialise all
the elements.

It does not necessarily stop the programmer from forgetting to initialise
all the elements, because there is not requirement for the compiler to
complain at you for forgetting to initialise all of the elements.

With an array, if you initialize at least one element,
they all get initialized (but perhaps not to the desired values :-))

This, indeed, was what I meant :-)

I see. I'll need to bear this in mind for the future, but I'm reasonably
sure most of the 5 or so C compilers I make a living from complain if
the number of elements in the aggregate assignment doesn't match the
size of the array. Will do some testing, if I ever get a spare moment...

[Flash Gordon]

Stephen wrote:

In article <de************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes

Mike Wahler wrote:
<snip>

With an array, if you initialize at least one element,
they all get initialized (but perhaps not to the desired values :-))

This, indeed, was what I meant :-)

I see. I'll need to bear this in mind for the future, but I'm reasonably
sure most of the 5 or so C compilers I make a living from complain if
the number of elements in the aggregate assignment doesn't match the
size of the array. Will do some testing, if I ever get a spare moment...

It's actually a very useful feature, since it means if you want to
create an automatic structure initialised to zeros (perhaps it contains
counts, sums, averages and pointers) you can do

complex_type_t somevar = {0};

Far easier than either fully specifying it or looping over it.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.