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。

一个> typdef允许为数据类型创建更有意义的同义词，从而帮助定义程序的含义和文档化。此外，它们还有助于参数化程序以解决可移植性问题(K&R, pg147, C prog lang)。

B > 结构定义了一种类型。Structs允许方便地将变量集合分组，以便将(K&R, pg127, C prog lang.)作为单个单元处理

C > 结构的类型定义在上面的a中有解释。

对我来说，struct是自定义类型、容器、集合、命名空间或复杂类型，而typdef只是一种创建更多昵称的方法。

令人惊讶的是，很多人都错了。请不要在C中定义结构类型，它不必要地污染全局命名空间，在大型C程序中，全局命名空间通常已经被严重污染。

此外，没有标记名的类型定义结构是头文件之间不必要的排序关系的主要原因。

考虑:

#ifndef FOO_H
#define FOO_H 1

#define FOO_DEF (0xDEADBABE)

struct bar; /* forward declaration, defined in bar.h*/

struct foo {
  struct bar *bar;
};

#endif

使用这样的定义，不使用typedef，编译单元可以包含foo.h来获得FOO_DEF定义。如果它不试图解引用foo结构体的'bar'成员，那么就不需要包含"bar.h"文件。

此外，由于标签名和成员名之间的名称空间是不同的，因此可以编写非常可读的代码，例如:

struct foo *foo;

printf("foo->bar = %p", foo->bar);

由于名称空间是分开的，因此在命名变量时与其struct标记名一致时不存在冲突。

如果我必须维护你的代码，我会删除你的类型定义结构。

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。

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。

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.