另一个总是对枚举和结构进行类型定义的原因是:

enum EnumDef
{
  FIRST_ITEM,
  SECOND_ITEM
};

struct StructDef
{
  enum EnuumDef MyEnum;
  unsigned int MyVar;
} MyStruct;

注意到结构(EnumDef)中的EnumDef中的错别字吗?这个编译没有错误(或警告)，并且(取决于C标准的字面解释)是正确的。问题是我刚刚在我的结构中创建了一个新的(空的)枚举定义。我没有(如预期)使用前面的定义EnumDef。

对于typdef，类似类型的打字错误将导致使用未知类型的编译器错误:

typedef 
{
  FIRST_ITEM,
  SECOND_ITEM
} EnumDef;

typedef struct
{
  EnuumDef MyEnum; /* compiler error (unknown type) */
  unsigned int MyVar;
} StructDef;
StrructDef MyStruct; /* compiler error (unknown type) */

我主张ALWAYS类型定义结构和枚举。

不仅是为了节省一些输入(没有双关语;))，而且因为它更安全。

Linux内核编码风格第5章给出了使用typedef的优点和缺点(主要是缺点)。

Please don't use things like "vps_t". It's a mistake to use typedef for structures and pointers. When you see a vps_t a; in the source, what does it mean? In contrast, if it says struct virtual_container *a; you can actually tell what "a" is. Lots of people think that typedefs "help readability". Not so. They are useful only for: (a) totally opaque objects (where the typedef is actively used to hide what the object is). Example: "pte_t" etc. opaque objects that you can only access using the proper accessor functions. NOTE! Opaqueness and "accessor functions" are not good in themselves. The reason we have them for things like pte_t etc. is that there really is absolutely zero portably accessible information there. (b) Clear integer types, where the abstraction helps avoid confusion whether it is "int" or "long". u8/u16/u32 are perfectly fine typedefs, although they fit into category (d) better than here. NOTE! Again - there needs to be a reason for this. If something is "unsigned long", then there's no reason to do typedef unsigned long myflags_t; but if there is a clear reason for why it under certain circumstances might be an "unsigned int" and under other configurations might be "unsigned long", then by all means go ahead and use a typedef. (c) when you use sparse to literally create a new type for type-checking. (d) New types which are identical to standard C99 types, in certain exceptional circumstances. Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and brain to become accustomed to the standard types like 'uint32_t', some people object to their use anyway. Therefore, the Linux-specific 'u8/u16/u32/u64' types and their signed equivalents which are identical to standard types are permitted -- although they are not mandatory in new code of your own. When editing existing code which already uses one or the other set of types, you should conform to the existing choices in that code. (e) Types safe for use in userspace. In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot require C99 types and cannot use the 'u32' form above. Thus, we use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared with userspace. Maybe there are other cases too, but the rule should basically be to NEVER EVER use a typedef unless you can clearly match one of those rules. In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably be directly accessed should never be a typedef.

摘自Dan Saks的一篇旧文章(http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184403396?pgno=3):)

The C language rules for naming structs are a little eccentric, but they're pretty harmless. However, when extended to classes in C++, those same rules open little cracks for bugs to crawl through. In C, the name s appearing in struct s { ... }; is a tag. A tag name is not a type name. Given the definition above, declarations such as s x; /* error in C */ s *p; /* error in C */ are errors in C. You must write them as struct s x; /* OK */ struct s *p; /* OK */ The names of unions and enumerations are also tags rather than types. In C, tags are distinct from all other names (for functions, types, variables, and enumeration constants). C compilers maintain tags in a symbol table that's conceptually if not physically separate from the table that holds all other names. Thus, it is possible for a C program to have both a tag and an another name with the same spelling in the same scope. For example, struct s s; is a valid declaration which declares variable s of type struct s. It may not be good practice, but C compilers must accept it. I have never seen a rationale for why C was designed this way. I have always thought it was a mistake, but there it is. Many programmers (including yours truly) prefer to think of struct names as type names, so they define an alias for the tag using a typedef. For example, defining struct s { ... }; typedef struct s S; lets you use S in place of struct s, as in S x; S *p; A program cannot use S as the name of both a type and a variable (or function or enumeration constant): S S; // error This is good. The tag name in a struct, union, or enum definition is optional. Many programmers fold the struct definition into the typedef and dispense with the tag altogether, as in: typedef struct { ... } S;

这篇链接的文章还讨论了不需要类型定义的c++行为是如何导致微妙的名称隐藏问题的。为了防止这些问题，在c++中对类和结构进行类型定义也是一个好主意，尽管乍一看似乎没有必要。在c++中，有了类型定义，隐藏的名称就变成了编译器告诉你的错误，而不是潜在问题的隐藏来源。

使用typedef可以避免每次声明该类型的变量时都要写struct:

struct elem
{
 int i;
 char k;
};
elem user; // compile error!
struct elem user; // this is correct

在C语言中，struct/union/enum是由C语言预处理器处理的宏指令(不要与处理“#include”和other的预处理器混淆)

so :

struct a
{
   int i;
};

struct b
{
   struct a;
   int i;
   int j;
};

结构b是这样展开的:

struct b
{
    struct a
    {
        int i;
    };
    int i;
    int j;
}

因此，在编译时，它在堆栈上的演变是这样的: b: int人工智能 int我 int j

这也是为什么在不能终止的déclaration循环中很难有自不同的结构，C预处理器循环。

typedef是类型说明符，这意味着只有C编译器处理它，它可以像他想要的那样优化汇编代码实现。它也不会像préprocessor那样愚蠢地使用par类型的成员，而是使用更复杂的引用构造算法，因此构造如下:

typedef struct a A; //anticipated declaration for member declaration

typedef struct a //Implemented declaration
{
    A* b; // member declaration
}A;

是允许的，功能齐全。当执行线程离开初始化函数的应用程序字段时，这个实现还允许访问编译器类型转换，并删除一些bug影响。

这意味着在C中，typedef比单独的结构体更接近c++类。

我认为typedef甚至不可能实现前向声明。使用struct, enum和union允许在依赖关系(知道)是双向的情况下转发声明。

风格: 在c++中使用typedef是很有意义的。在处理需要多个和/或变量参数的模板时，它几乎是必要的。typedef有助于保持命名的直直性。

在C编程语言中并非如此。typedef的使用通常没有任何目的，只会混淆数据结构的使用。由于只有{struct (6)， enum (4)， union(5)}个按键被用于声明一个数据类型，因此结构的别名几乎没有任何用处。数据类型是联合还是结构?使用简单的非类型定义声明可以让您立即知道它是什么类型。

请注意Linux是如何在编写时严格避免typedef带来的这种无意义的别名的。结果是一个极简主义和干净的风格。