Nesting Structs

jlangholzj (5)
Did some looking and i found some great resources here for doing this but I'm having issues.

my predicament:


I made a program that parses through several files gathering information and storing them in respective structures that look like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
 
struct HardwareInfoStruct {
	string DeviceName;
	string HardwareType;
	string FrameType;
	string Timeout[MAX_TIMEOUT];
	string HardwareID[MAX_HID];
	unsigned short HardwareIDCount;
	unsigned short TimeoutCount;
	unsigned short ItterationIndex;
} ;//end of hardware information at the start of file

struct PidStruct {
	string KeywordValues[NUM_OF_KEYWORD - 1];
	string BootFileNames[MAX_BOOTLOADER_FILES];
	unsigned short BootFileNamesCount;
	string BootFileUsedOn[MAX_BOOTLOADER_FILES];
}; //end of struct for the program identifier


where PidStruct gets defined later as an array of structures.

This whole program is base on the concept of my information for one device being wrapped in tags like so:
1
2
 
///</DeviceInfo>
///<DeviceInfo>


well so now i need to expand it onto multiple devices and I've been trying to nest the original two structures to not much avail like this:

1
2
3
4
 
struct DevStruct {
	HardwareInfoStruct HardwareInfo;
	PidStruct PIDS[MAX_PIDS];
}; //end of device structure


I've got about 5-6 thousand lines of code into this thing and I'm trying to come up with a way to keep those same structures but then have multiple copies of them.

this is what i have now:
PIDS[PIDSIndex].KeywordValues[PID_STRUCT_INDEX_AUTHOR]

and this is something like what I'm going for:

DevInfo[DevIndex].PIDS[PIDSIndex].KeywordValues[PID_STRUCT_INDEX_AUTHOR]


to elaborate on this a little further, I've got a set of values like this in a text file:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
 
///</DeviceInfo2>
///    <ProgramIdentifier2>
///      <Author>Joe shmo</Author>
///      <ProgTypeIndex>FIRMWARE_TYPE_MICRO</ProgTypeIndex>
///      <UpdateTypeKeyword>MICRO_FIRMWARE_TYPE</UpdateTypeKeyword>
///      <ProgType>0xXXX0</ProgType>
///      <RevIndex>FIRMWARE_REV_MICRO</RevIndex>
///      <UpdateRevKeyword>MICRO_FIRMWARE_REVISION</UpdateRevKeyword>
///      <Revision>0xFFFF</Revision>
///  </ProgIdentifier2>
///</DeviceInfo2>


that has multiple program identifiers in it.I'm trying to put another set of the <DeviceInfo> tabs on there below it with more information while trying to keep somewhat of my original nomenclature. the idea would look like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
 
///</DeviceInfo2>
///    <ProgramIdentifier2>
///      <Author>Joe shmo</Author>
///      <ProgTypeIndex>FIRMWARE_TYPE_MICRO</ProgTypeIndex>
///      <UpdateTypeKeyword>MICRO_FIRMWARE_TYPE</UpdateTypeKeyword>
///      <ProgType>0xXXX0</ProgType>
///      <RevIndex>FIRMWARE_REV_MICRO</RevIndex>
///      <UpdateRevKeyword>MICRO_FIRMWARE_REVISION</UpdateRevKeyword>
///      <Revision>0xFFFF</Revision>
///  </ProgIdentifier2>
///</DeviceInfo2>
///
///</DeviceInfo3>
///    <ProgramIdentifier2>
///      <Author>bob james</Author>
///      <ProgTypeIndex>FIRMWARE_TYPE_MICRO</ProgTypeIndex>
///      <UpdateTypeKeyword>MICRO_FIRMWARE_TYPE</UpdateTypeKeyword>
///      <ProgType>0x111X</ProgType>
///      <RevIndex>FIRMWARE_REV_MICRO</RevIndex>
///      <UpdateRevKeyword>MICRO_FIRMWARE_REVISION</UpdateRevKeyword>
///      <Revision>0xXX22</Revision>
///  </ProgIdentifier2>
///</DeviceInfo3>




it doesn't necisarily have to be pretty but it does need to work...lol

any ideas guys? do i jsut need to bite the bullet and re-organise my code?
firedraco (6247)
I'm not really sure what the problem is. :X

If DevInfo is an array of DevStructs, then your requested calling system works fine...am I missing something?
bartoli (271)
Maybe with a global variable PIDS of type Pidstruct*, that you would assign the address of the PIDS table of the currrent Device?
This way you would juste have to change this pointer when you change the current Device, and the rest of the code could then access the Device's PIDS without change of the code.
I don't think it's very safe however
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.