You can write the prototypes without the variable names?
int example(examplestruct *var1, examplestruct *var2);
void done(examplestruct *var1,FILE *f);
struct {
int* field1;
int field2;
}examplestruct;
Is it possible to write the prototypes without name variables?
Can anyone tell me if this is acceptable in C language? You can write the prototypes without the variable names?
Yes.
As for the second question:
If you want a function to be inside main(), then take the body of the function, put it in main() and make sure that the arguments that the function had are well handled.
This example will clear things up:
#include <stdio.h>
void print(int);
void inc_p(int);
int main(void) {
int num = 5;
print(num);
inc_p(num);
// to get rid of inc_p(), copy paste it's body inside main
// and you will get this
// a++;
// print(a);
// However, a was an argument, here you need to use
// the variable declared in main(), i.e. 'num'
num++;
print(num);
return 0;
}
void print(int a) {
printf("%d\n", a);
}
void inc_p(int a) {
a++;
print(a);
}
Related
Using C++ 17, I'm looking for a way to store a lambda that captures the this pointer, without using std::function<>. The reason to not using std::function<> is that I need the guaranty that no dynamic memory allocations are used. The purpose of this, is to be able to define some asynchronous program flow. Example:
class foo {
public:
void start() {
timer(1ms, [this](){
set_pin(1,2);
timer(1ms, [this](){
set_pin(2,1);
}
}
}
private:
template < class Timeout, class Callback >
void timer( Timeout to, Callback&& cb ) {
cb_ = cb;
// setup timer and call cb_ one timeout reached
...
}
??? cb_;
};
Edit: Maybe it's not really clear: std::function<void()> would do the job, but I need / like to have the guaranty, that no dynamic allocations happens as the project is in the embedded field. In practice std::function<void()> seems to not require dynamic memory allocation, if the lambda just captures this. I guess this is due to some small object optimizations, but I would like to not rely on that.
You can write your own function_lite to store the lambda, then you can use static_assert to check the size and alignment requirements are satisfied:
#include <cstddef>
#include <new>
#include <type_traits>
class function_lite {
static constexpr unsigned buffer_size = 16;
using trampoline_type = void (function_lite::*)() const;
trampoline_type trampoline;
trampoline_type cleanup;
alignas(std::max_align_t) char buffer[buffer_size];
template <typename T>
void trampoline_func() const {
auto const obj =
std::launder(static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<const void*>(buffer)));
(*obj)();
}
template <typename T>
void cleanup_func() const {
auto const obj =
std::launder(static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<const void*>(buffer)));
obj->~T();
}
public:
template <typename T>
function_lite(T t)
: trampoline(&function_lite::trampoline_func<T>),
cleanup(&function_lite::cleanup_func<T>) {
static_assert(sizeof(T) <= buffer_size);
static_assert(alignof(T) <= alignof(std::max_align_t));
new (static_cast<void*>(buffer)) T(t);
}
~function_lite() { (this->*cleanup)(); }
function_lite(function_lite const&) = delete;
function_lite& operator=(function_lite const&) = delete;
void operator()() const { (this->*trampoline)(); }
};
int main() {
int x = 0;
function_lite f([x] {});
}
Note: this is not copyable; to add copy or move semantics you will need to add new members like trampoline and cleanup which can properly copy the stored object.
There is no drop in replacement in the language or the standard library.
Every lambda is a unique type in the typesystem. Technically you may have a lambda as a member, but then its type is fixed. You may not assign other lambdas to it.
If you really want to have an owning function wrapper like std::function, you need to write your own. Actually you want a std::function with a big enough small-buffer-optimization buffer.
Another approach would be to omit the this capture and pass it to the function when doing the call. So you have a captureless lambda, which is convertible to a function pointer which you can easily store. I would take this route and adapter complexer ways if really nessessary.
it would look like this (i trimmed down the code a bit):
class foo
{
public:
void start()
{
timer(1, [](foo* instance)
{
instance->set_pin(1,2);
});
}
private:
template < class Timeout, class Callback >
void timer( Timeout to, Callback&& cb )
{
cb_ = cb;
cb_(this); // call the callback like this
}
void set_pin(int, int)
{
std::cout << "pin set\n";
}
void(*cb_)(foo*);
};
I have an interface wherein the types of the parameters mostly encode their own meanings. I have a function that takes one of these parameters. I'm trying to make a function that takes a set of these parameters and performs the function on each one in order.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
enum param_type{typeA,typeB};
template <param_type PT> struct Container{
int value;
Container(int v):value(v){}
};
int f(Container<typeA> param){
std::cout<<"Got typeA with value "<<param.value<<std::endl;
return param.value;
}
int f(Container<typeB> param){
std::cout<<"Got typeB with value "<<param.value<<std::endl;
return param.value;
}
My current solution uses a recursive variadic template to delegate the work.
void g(){}
template <typename T,typename...R>
void g(T param,R...rest){
f(param);
g(rest...);
}
I would like to use a packed parameter expansion, but I can't seem to get that to work without also using the return values. (In my particular case the functions are void.)
template <typename...T> // TODO: Use concepts once they exist.
void h(T... params){
// f(params);...
// f(params)...; // Fail to compile.
// {f(params)...};
std::vector<int> v={f(params)...}; // Works
}
Example usage
int main(){
auto a=Container<typeA>(5);
auto b=Container<typeB>(10);
g(a,b);
h(a,b);
return 0;
}
Is there an elegant syntax for this expansion in C++?
In C++17: use a fold expression with the comma operator.
template <typename... Args>
void g(Args... args)
{
((void)f(args), ...);
}
Before C++17: comma with 0 and then expand into the braced initializer list of an int array. The extra 0 is there to ensure that a zero-sized array is not created.
template <typename... Args>
void g(Args... args)
{
int arr[] {0, ((void)f(args), 0)...};
(void)arr; // suppress unused variable warning
}
In both cases, the function call expression is cast to void to avoid accidentally invoking a user-defined operator,.
We know that we call pthread like this:
int pthread_create(pthread_t *thread, const pthread_attr_t *attr,
void *(*start_routine) (void *), void* arg);
Hi guys, i want to know why the return type of third parameter is void*? why not void?
Because there is no way for a start function to know what kind of data a developer wants to return from the function they use a void* that can point to any type. It is up to the developer of the start function to then cast the void* to appropriate type he actually returned before using whatever the void* points to. So now the start function can return a pointer that may in actually point to anything. If the start function is declared to return void, it means this function returns nothing, then what if the developer wants the start function to return a int, a struct? For example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
struct test {
char str[32];
int x;
};
void *func(void*) {
struct test *eg = (struct test *)malloc(sizeof(struct test));
strcpy(eg->str,"hello world");
eg->x = 42;
pthread_exit(eg);
}
int main (void) {
pthread_t id;
struct test *resp;
pthread_create(&id, NULL, func, NULL);
pthread_join(id,(void**)&resp);
printf("%s %d\n",resp->str,resp->x);
free(resp);
return 0;
}
More details on this post: What does void* mean and how to use it?
Usually one would only push 'userdata' when the data isn't any of Lua's standard types (number, string, bool, etc).
But how would you push an actually Function pointer to Lua (not as userdata; since userdata is not executable as function in Lua), assuming the function looks like so:
void nothing(const char* stuff)
{
do_magic_things_with(stuff);
}
The returned value should behave like the returned value from this native Lua function:
function things()
return function(stuff)
do_magic_things_with(stuff)
end
end
Is this possible to do with the C API? If yes, how (Examples would be appreciated)?
EDIT: To add some clarity, The value is supposed to be returned by a function exposed to Lua through the C API.
Use lua_pushcfunction
Examples are included in PiL
Here is an example that follows the form of the currently accepted answer.
#include <lua.h>
#include <lualib.h>
#include <lauxlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
/* this is the C function you want to return */
static void
cfunction(const char *s)
{
puts(s);
}
/* this is the proxy function that acts like cfunction */
static int
proxy(lua_State *L)
{
cfunction(luaL_checkstring(L, 1));
return 0;
}
/* this global function returns "cfunction" to Lua. */
static int
getproxy(lua_State *L)
{
lua_pushcfunction(L, &proxy);
return 1;
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
lua_State *L;
L = luaL_newstate();
/* set the global function that returns the proxy */
lua_pushcfunction(L, getproxy);
lua_setglobal(L, "getproxy");
/* see if it works */
luaL_dostring(L, "p = getproxy() p('Hello, world!')");
lua_close(L);
return 0;
}
You could return a userdata with a metatable that proxies your C function through the __call metamethod. That way the userdata could be called like a function. Below is a full program example.
#include <lua.h>
#include <lualib.h>
#include <lauxlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
/* this is the C function you want to return */
static void
cfunction(const char *s)
{
puts(s);
}
/* this is the proxy function that will be used as the __call metamethod */
static int
proxy(lua_State *L)
{
luaL_checkudata(L, 1, "proxy");
cfunction(luaL_checkstring(L, 2));
return 0;
}
/* this global function returns the C function with a userdata proxy */
static int
getproxy(lua_State *L)
{
lua_newuserdata(L, sizeof (int));
luaL_getmetatable(L, "proxy");
lua_setmetatable(L, -2);
return 1;
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
lua_State *L;
L = luaL_newstate();
/* create the proxy metatable */
luaL_newmetatable(L, "proxy");
lua_pushcfunction(L, proxy);
lua_setfield(L, -2, "__call");
/* set the global function that returns the proxy */
lua_pushcfunction(L, getproxy);
lua_setglobal(L, "getproxy");
/* see if it works */
luaL_dostring(L, "p = getproxy() p('Hello, world!')");
lua_close(L);
return 0;
}
In retrospect, I completely over-thought what you are asking. All you really need to do is to create a function of type lua_CFunction that pulls the parameters from the Lua stack and passes them on to the target C function. The code above answers your question literally, but it is probably overkill for what you really need to accomplish.
For a user-lever thread library, I need to figure out jumping to a function by modifying PC value stored in jmp_buf.
This is what I have written:
jmp_buf env;
void print (void) {
printf("\nHello World!");
}
static int ptr_mangle(int p) {
unsigned int ret;
asm(" movl %1, %%eax;\n"
" xorl %%gs:0x18, %%eax;"
" roll $0x9, %%eax;"
" movl %%eax, %0;"
: "=r"(ret)
: "r"(p)
: "%eax"
);
return ret;
}
int main() {
int i = setjmp(env);
env[0].__jmpbuf[5] = ptr_mangle(print);
longjmp(env, 2);
return 0;
}
I am trying to modify PC in jmp_buf by setting it to the address of the function I am trying to jump to.
I am getting a segmentation fault.
I am unable to figure out what exactly needs to be done. Do I need to modify SP as well?
Any help would be very much appreciated.
What are you trying to do? Are you not checking for the return value of setjmp? I don't think you are doing this correctly. Have a look at the sample code below to see what would be the output be:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void subroutine(jmp_buf);
int main(void)
{
int value;
jmp_buf jumper;
value = setjmp(jumper);
if (value != 0)
{
printf("Longjmp with value %d\n", value);
exit(value);
}
printf("About to call subroutine ... \n");
subroutine(jumper);
return 0;
}
void subroutine(jmp_buf jumper)
{
longjmp(jumper,1);
}
The output would be:
About to call subroutine...
Longjmp with a value of 1.
Which begs the question - why are you trying to modify the IP? It sounds like you overwrote something or the code 'jumped' off into the woods and trampled something and came back with a hard landing i.e. segfault.
The variable env is specifically a struct, do not use an array subscript as you have done. I suspect that is why you got a segfault...
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Tom.