I was really impressed with this delphi two liner using the IFThen function from Math.pas. However, it evaluates the DB.ReturnFieldI first, which is unfortunate because I need to call DB.first to get the first record.
DB.RunQuery('select awesomedata1 from awesometable where awesometableid = "great"');
result := IfThen(DB.First = 0, DB.ReturnFieldI('awesomedata1'));
(as a pointless clarification, because I've got so many good answers already. I forgot to mention that 0 is the code that DB.First returns if it's got something in it, might not have made sense otherwise)
Obviously this isn't such a big deal, as I could make it work with five robust liners. But all I need for this to work is for Delphi to evaluate DB.first first and DB.ReturnFieldI second. I don't want to change math.pas and I don't think this warrants me making a overloaded ifthen because there's like 16 ifthen functions.
Just let me know what the compiler directive is, if there is an even better way to do this, or if there is no way to do this and anyone whose procedure is to call db.first and blindly retrieve the first thing he finds is not a real programmer.
The evaluation order of expressions is commonly undefined. (C and C++ are the same way. Java always evaluates left-to-right.) The compiler offers no control over it. If you need two expressions to be evaluated in a specific order, then write your code differently. I wouldn't really worry about the number of lines of code. Lines are cheap; use as many as you need. If you find yourself using this pattern often, write a function that wraps it all up:
function GetFirstIfAvailable(DB: TDatabaseObject; const FieldName: string): Integer;
begin
if DB.First = 0 then
Result := DB.ReturnFieldI(FieldName)
else
Result := 0;
end;
Your original code probably wouldn't have been what you wanted, even if evaluation order were different. Even if DB.First wasn't equal to zero, the call to ReturnFieldI would still be evaluated. All actual parameters are fully evaluated before invoking the function that uses them.
Changing Math.pas wouldn't help you anyway. It doesn't control what order its actual parameters are evaluated in. By the time it sees them, they've already been evaluated down to a Boolean value and an integer; they're not executable expressions anymore.
The calling convention can affect evaluation order, but there's still no guarantee. The order that parameters are pushed onto the stack does not need to match the order in which those values were determined. Indeed, if you find that stdcall or cdecl gives you your desired evaluation order (left-to-right), then they are being evaluated in the reverse order of the one they're passed with.
The pascal calling convention passes arguments left-to-right on the stack. That means the leftmost argument is the one at the bottom of the stack, and the rightmost argument is at the top, just below the return address. If the IfThen function used that calling convention, there are several ways the compiler could achieve that stack layout:
The way you expect, which is that each argument is evaluated and pushed immediately:
push (DB.First = 0)
push DB.ReturnFieldI('awesomedata1')
call IfThen
Evaluate arguments right-to-left and store the results in temporaries until they're pushed:
tmp1 := DB.ReturnFieldI('awesomedata1')
tmp2 := (DB.First = 0)
push tmp2
push tmp1
call IfThen
Allocate stack space first, and evaluate in whatever order is convenient:
sub esp, 8
mov [esp], DB.ReturnFieldI('awesomedata1')
mov [esp + 4], (DB.First = 0)
call IfThen
Notice that IfThen receives the argument values in the same order in all three cases, but the functions aren't necessarily called in that order.
The default register calling convention also passes arguments left-to-right, but the first three arguments that fit are passed in registers. The registers used to pass arguments, though, are also the registers most commonly used for evaluating intermediate expressions. The result of DB.First = 0 needed to be passed in the EAX register, but the compiler also needed that register for calling ReturnFieldI and for calling First. It was probably a little more convenient to evaluate the second function first, like this:
call DB.ReturnFieldI('awesomedata1')
mov [ebp - 4], eax // store result in temporary
call DB.First
test eax, eax
setz eax
mov edx, [ebp - 4]
call IfThen
Another thing to point out is that your first argument is a compound expression. There's a function call and a comparison. There's nothing to guarantee that those two parts are performed consecutively. The compiler might get the function calls out of the way first by calling First and ReturnFieldI, and afterward compare the First return value against zero.
The calling convention affects the way they are evaluated.
There is not a compiler define to control this.
Pascal is the calling convention you would have to use to get this behavior.
Although I would personally never depend on this type of behavior.
The following example program demonstrates how this works.
program Project2;
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
uses SysUtils;
function ParamEvalTest(Param : Integer) : Integer;
begin
writeln('Param' + IntToStr(Param) + ' Evaluated');
result := Param;
end;
procedure TestStdCall(Param1,Param2 : Integer); stdCall;
begin
Writeln('StdCall Complete');
end;
procedure TestPascal(Param1,Param2 : Integer); pascal;
begin
Writeln('Pascal Complete');
end;
procedure TestCDecl(Param1,Param2 : Integer); cdecl;
begin
Writeln('CDecl Complete');
end;
procedure TestSafecall(Param1,Param2 : Integer); safecall;
begin
Writeln('SafeCall Complete');
end;
begin
TestStdCall(ParamEvalTest(1),ParamEvalTest(2));
TestPascal(ParamEvalTest(1),ParamEvalTest(2));
TestCDecl(ParamEvalTest(1),ParamEvalTest(2));
TestSafeCall(ParamEvalTest(1),ParamEvalTest(2));
ReadLn;
end.
This would require you to write your own IfThen Functions.
If you really want this to be a one liner you really can do that in Delphi. I just think it looks ugly.
If (DB.First = 0) then result := DB.ReturnFieldI('awesomedata1') else result := 0;
Can't you change your query to have only one result so avoid to do the 'First' command ?
Just like :
SELECT TOP 1 awesomedata1 from awesometable
In Access...
AFAIK there is no compiler directive to control this. Unless you use the stdcall/cdecl/safecall conventions, parameters are passed left to right on the stack, but because the default register convention can pass parameters in the registers as well, it could happen that a parameter is calculated later an put in a register just before the call. And because only the register order is fixed (EAX, EDX, ECX) for parameters that qualify, registers can be loaded in any order. You could try to force a "pascal" calling convention (you'd need to rewrite the function, anyway) but IMHO is always dangerous to rely on such kind of code, if the compiler can't explicitly guarantee the order of evaluation. And imposing an evaluation order may greatly reduce the number of optimizations available.
Related
When dynamically loading a DLL where DoSomething is a method type variable we can do
DoSomething:= GetProcAddress(MyDLLHandle ,'DoSomething');
or
#DoSomething:= GetProcAddress(MyDLLHandle ,'DoSomething');
Both of these seem to behave identically in modern versions of Delphi. My question is - has the # operator always been optional and, if not, in which version of Delphi did it become optional?
The documentation states that #, when used with routine (function/procedure) types returns the entry point of the function with type Pointer. When using the variable directly it naturally has whatever specific type it was declared with but also returns the entry point to the method. GetProcAddress returns a Pointer so I'm assuming that the habit of including # when loading a DLL comes from a time when these mismatched types were not assignment compatible. Is this the case?
Are there any reasonable arguments to prefer either of these styles?
I don't believe that anything has changed since the original versions of Delphi.
The official header translation for GetProcAddress has a return type of FARPROC which is an alias to the untyped Pointer type. Because of this, you can put pretty much anything pointer-esque on the left hand side of the assignment statement, because type checking is suspended when one of the operands is Pointer.
On the other hand, consider this program:
var
Proc: procedure;
Ptr: Pointer;
begin
Ptr := Proc;
end.
This fails to compile with:
E2010 Incompatible types: 'Pointer' and 'procedure, untyped pointer or untyped parameter'
The simple fix is to use the # operator:
var
Proc: procedure;
Ptr: Pointer;
begin
Ptr := #Proc;
end.
It is certainly the case that many Delphi examples use:
#Proc := GetProcAddress(...);
rather than
Proc := GetProcAddress(...);
I rather suspect that there is nothing deep here. Just a case of a choice made by the author of one of the first online articles on the subject propagating throughout history with no good reason. Which reminds me of the terrible Rosetta code example of dynamic loading that tests whether an HMODULE is greater than 32, an erroneous check that can be seen in Stack Overflow questions on a weekly basis!
Should you use # in these circumstances or not? In my view you should not. It doesn't make much difference, and given that why bother with a needless piece of punctuation?
There is one other scenario that I know where you need to use #, and in that case you actually need ##. Consider the following program:
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
uses
SysUtils;
var
Proc: procedure;
Ptr: Pointer;
begin
Ptr := #Proc;
Writeln(Format('%p', [Ptr]));
Ptr := ##Proc;
Writeln(Format('%p', [Ptr]));
Readln;
end.
Output
00000000
00423EBC
The first assignment gets the value held in the Proc variable, which because it is a default initialised global, is zero. The second assignment gets the address of the Proc variable. And for that you need ##. It's pretty unusual to need this much indirection, but it tends to crop up when writing code related to dynamic linking.
When I call Functions to get a value, I usually initialize varible, in case function fails or doesn't return anything and I want to avoid dealing with uninitialized variable. I do the same for string, integer or any other type.
Example for integer variables:
vPropValue := 0;
vPropValue := GetPropValue(vObject,'Height');
IF vPropValue > 0 Then
...
this it the most common how I use it.
I know I could use:
If GetPropValue(vObject,'Height') > 0 Then
...
but with first example I avoid multiple calls to function, if I need result again later in the code.
Same for string (even though i know local strings are initialized to empty string, while integers are not an can hold any value)
vName := '';
vName := GetObjectName(vObject,'ObjectName');
IF Trim(vPropStrValue) <> '' Then
...
I know I could take steps to avoid duplicate value assignment,like making sure Function returns 0 if everything fails. But I have 100s of functions and I can't rely I never made a mistake how functions handle everything and I'm sure some don't return 0, if everything fails.
I'm trying to understand why this is not desirable practice and how to best avoid it.
EDIT
Here is example where function doesn't return proper value or 0:
function GetValue(vType:integer):integer;
begin
if vType=1 then
Result:=100
else if (vType>2) and (vType<=9) then
Result:=200;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var vValue:integer;
begin
vValue:=GetValue(11);
Button1.Caption:=IntToStr(vValue);
end;
In this case the value returned from function is some random number.
In this case the initialization appears to be valid approach. OR NOT?
EDIT 2:
As David pointed out in his answer, correct, there was a warning
[dcc32 Warning] Unit1.pas(33): W1035 Return value of function 'GetValue' might be undefined
but, I ignored it, for no reason, just didn't look there. As it let me compile it, I thought it was OK. So, I did look for the warning and I 'fixed' quite a few functions that had similar issue, because of all IFs Result might not have been defined.
EDIT 3 & CONCLUSION:
I hope it adds to the scope of question and explanation:
Maybe an example of another twist that I use in most of my Functions, would also explain why I thought my initialization of variable was needed, is that I wasn't sure my Functions would behave correctly all the times, especially in case of nested function. Mots of them still are set like this:
function GetProperty(vType:integer):integer;
begin
Try
if vType = 99 then
Result:=GetDifferentProperty(vType)// <-- Call to another Function, that could return whatever...
else
begin
if vType=1 then
Result:=100
else if (vType>2) and (vType<=9) then
Result:=200;
end;
except
end;
end;
Now I'm addressing these Try Except End; but some functions are 10 years old and to expect them to work 100%, based on my experience back then, is not something to rely on.
As the only developer on this project, I assume I should trust my functions (and he rest of my code), but I can't imagine in multiple developers environment that all function are set up properly.
So my conclusion: since I didn't take care of the basics - properly designed Functions, I need to have all these checks (variable initialization, Try Except lines..) and probably some other unneccessary stuff.
Assuming that vPropValue is a local variable then this code
vPropValue := 0;
vPropValue := GetPropValue(vObject,'Height');
is indistinguishable from
vPropValue := GetPropValue(vObject,'Height');
A simpler example might be like so:
i := 0;
i := 1;
What is the point of assigning 0 to i and then immediately assigning 1 to i? So, you would surely never write that. You would write:
i := 1;
In your code, at the top of this answer, you assign twice to the same variable. The value assigned in the first assignment is immediately replaced by the value assigned in the second assignment. Therefore, the first assignment is pointless and should be removed.
The second example is a little more complex. Assuming that your functions are written correctly, and always assign to their return value, and that vName is a local variable, then
vName := '';
vName := GetObjectName(vObject,'ObjectName');
is indistinguishable from
vName := GetObjectName(vObject,'ObjectName');
The reason why I have added an extra proviso relates to a quirk of the implementation of function return values, discussed below. The difference between this case and the case above is the return value type. Here it is a managed type, string, whereas in the first example the type is a simple Integer.
Again, given the proviso about the function always assigning to the return value, the first assignment is pointless because the value is immediately replaced. Remove that first assignment.
Regarding the function in your edit, the compiler will warn you of its erroneous implementation if you enable hints and warnings. The compiler will tell you that not all code paths return a value.
function GetValue(vType:integer):integer;
begin
if vType=1 then
Result:=100
else if (vType>2) and (vType<=9) then
Result:=200;
end;
If neither condition is met, then no value is assigned to the result variable. This function should be:
function GetValue(vType:integer):integer;
begin
if vType=1 then
Result:=100
else if (vType>2) and (vType<=9) then
Result:=200
else
Result:=0;
end;
I cannot stress how important it is that you always return a value from a function. In fact it is a terrible weakness that Delphi even allows your function to be compiled.
The reason that your double assignment sometimes appears useful to you is due to a quirk of of the implementation of function return values in Delphi. Unlike almost all other languages a Delphi function return value for certain more complex types is actually a var parameter. So this function
function foo: string;
is actually, semantically, the same as this:
procedure foo(var result: string);
This is a really odd decision made by the Delphi designers. In most other languages, like C, C++, C#, Java etc., a function return value is like a by-value parameter passed from callee to caller.
This means that you can, if you wish to be perverse, pass values into a function via its return value. For instance, consider this code:
// Note: this code is an example of very bad practice, do not write code like this
function foo: string;
begin
Writeln(Result);
end;
procedure main;
var
s: string;
begin
s := 'bar';
s := foo;
end;
When you call main, it will output bar. This is a rather strange implementation detail. You should not rely on it. Let me repeat myself. You should not rely on it. Do not get in the habit of initializing return values at the call site. That leads to unmaintainable code.
Instead follow the simple rule of ensuring that the function return value is always assigned by the function, and never read before it has been assigned.
More detail on the implementation of function return values is provided by the documentation, with my emphasis:
The following conventions are used for returning function result
values.
Ordinal results are returned, when possible, in a CPU register. Bytes are returned in AL, words are returned in AX, and double-words
are returned in EAX.
Real results are returned in the floating-point coprocessor's top-of-stack register (ST(0)). For function results of type Currency,
the value in ST(0) is scaled by 10000. For example, the Currency value
1.234 is returned in ST(0) as 12340.
For a string, dynamic array, method pointer, or variant result, the effects are the same as if the function result were declared as an
additional var parameter following the declared parameters. In other
words, the caller passes an additional 32-bit pointer that points to a
variable in which to return the function result.
Int64 is returned in EDX:EAX.
Pointer, class, class-reference, and procedure-pointer results are returned in EAX.
For static-array, record, and set results, if the value occupies one byte it is returned in AL; if the value occupies two bytes it is
returned in AX; and if the value occupies four bytes it is returned in
EAX. Otherwise, the result is returned in an additional var parameter
that is passed to the function after the declared parameters.
The following code (A)
vPropValue := 0;
vPropValue := GetPropValue(vObject,'Height');
is indistinguishable from (B)
vPropValue := GetPropValue(vObject,'Height');
The question of whether GetPropValue is "written correctly" is totally irrelevant.
Let's consider what happens even if you did write GetPropValue incorrectly E.g.
function GetPropValue(AObject: TObject; AStr: String): Integer;
begin
if AStr = 'Hello' then Result := 5;
end;
As you know when the input AStr is anything other than "Hello" the result of the function will be pretty much random. (For the sake of the discussion, lets assume it will return -42.)
Code block (A) will do the following:
Set vPropValue to 0
Then set vPropValue to - 42
Code block (B) will simply set vPropValue to - 42 immediately.
TIP: There is no point in writing a wasteful line of code just because you're worried you might have made a mistake in a function you call.
First, As David points out, you can avoid many mistakes simply by paying attention to your compiler hints and warnings.
Second, that sort of "paranoid" coding simply leads to more wasteful code because now you have to start considering invalid values as possible results.
This becomes worse when one day your "safe-value" is actually a valid value. E.g. how would you tell the difference between "default 0" and "correctly returned 0"?
Don't make programming artificially difficult by bloating code with unnecessary redundancies.
Side Note
There are a couple of special situations where the code can behave differently. But you should in any case avoid the designs that lead to those situations because they make it much more difficult to maintain the code.
I mention them purely for the sake of completeness, the advice above still stands.
1) if vPropValue is implemented as a property, the setter could have side-effects that cause different behaviour. While there's nothing wrong with properties, when they do unexpected things you have a serious problem on your hands.
2) if vPropValue is a field on the class (or worse a global variable), then (A) and (B) could behave differently but only if GetPropValue raises an exception. This is because the exception would prevent the result from being assigned. Note this is something to avoid except in special cases because it does make it more difficult to reason about what your code is doing.
And in fact, this is something that makes it so much more important to avoid the redundant initialisations. You want your special case code to look stand out from the rest.
Scavenging my advices from top-level comments in case Pastebin fails
function GetValueUpdate3(vType:integer):integer;
begin
// with SOME types like Integer you can use Pascal case-block instead of error-prone many-ifs-ladder
case vType of
99: Result:=GetDifferentProperty(vType);// <-- Call to another Function, that could return whatever...
1: Result:=100;
3..9: Result:=200;
else Result := 12345; // initialization with safe default value for illegal input like vType=2
end; // case-block
end;
function GetValueUpdate3e(vType:integer):integer;
begin
case vType of
99: Result:=GetDifferentProperty(vType);// <-- Call to another Function, that could return whatever...
1: Result:=100;
3..9: Result:=200;
else raise EInvalidArgument.Create('prohibited value - GetValue( ' + IntToStr(vType) +' )' );
// runtime eror when vType = 2 or any other illegal input
end;
end;
function GetValueUpdate1(vType:integer):integer;
begin
Result := 12345; // initialization with safe default value;
if vType=1 then Exit(100); // special value for special case #1
if (vType>2) and (vType<=9) then Exit(200); // special value for special case #2
// exit with default value
end;
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var vValue:integer;
begin
vValue:=GetValue(11);
Button1.Caption:=IntToStr(vValue);
end;
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/33927750
You can use Assertions to validate if your input is correct.
Assertions help a lot in finding logical errors in your code.
Using assertions forces you to think about valid and invalid input data and helps writing better code.
Enabling and disabling assertions at compile time is done via the \$C or \$ASSERTIONS compiler (global switch)
In your example the function GetValue could use an assertion as follows:
function GetValue(vType:integer):integer;
begin
Assert((vType >= 1) and (vType <=9), 'Invalid input value in function GetValue');
if vType=1 then
Result:=100
else if (vType>2) and (vType<=9) then
Result:=200
else Result := 0; // always catch the last else!
end;
In addition every if-statement should catch the final else! (In my opinion ALWAYS!)
I'm writing custom variant PhysUnit which is something like VarConv but more advanced, allowing not only adding and subtracting, but also multiplying and dividing units, with real or complex quantities, it works fine, but extremely slow.
Problem is, this custom variant wraps around some other variant (simple types like integer or double, or another custom like VarComplex), so when performing DoAdd, DoSubtract, it firstly checks if both operands have same family (length for example), and then adds quantities converting one of them if neccesary:
Left:=Left + Right*multiplier;
something like that, here Left and Right are variants.
Compiler turns this line into series of calls:
_varCopy(tmp,Left);
_varAdd(tmp,Right*multiplier);
_varClear(Left);
_varCopy(Left,tmp);
_varClear(tmp);
while in fact, it would be enough of _varAdd, without allocating/deallocating memory for temporary variant and all these workarounds.
The sad part is: I can't just write _varAdd(Left,Right), it's not linked in VCL.
So the question is: is it possible to call it anyway and make it as "clean" as possible, without nasty calls to direct memory address which might change when compiled with different options or other libraries added?
You can't call the underscored functions because the compiler turns the underscore into # making it impossible to use it as an identifier.
But assembler functions are allowed to call them. You can use the original declaration and change the TVarData into Variant so you don't have to cast the Variants all the time.
procedure _VarAdd(var Left: Variant; const Right: Variant);
asm
jmp System.Variants.#VarAdd
end;
procedure _VarSub(var Left: Variant; const Right: Variant);
asm
jmp System.Variants.#VarSub
end;
begin
_VarAdd(Left, Right);
end;
But using Variants if you want to be fast, isn't the right way. They are very slow and don't have that much help from the compiler's optimizer like integer arithmetic, where i := i + 1; is compiled without the need for a temporary variable/cpu-register.
You can make Variants faster by using special handing for common cases:
if TVarData(Left).VType = TVarData(Right).VType then
begin
case TVarData(Left).VType of
varSingle:
begin
TVarData(Left).VSingle := TVarData(Left).VSingle + TVarData(Right).VSingle * M;
Exit;
end;
varDouble:
begin
TVarData(Left).VDouble := TVarData(Left).VDouble + TVarData(Right).VDouble * M;
Exit;
end;
end;
end;
// use the slow function for all other cases
_VarAdd(Left, Right * M);
If you want to use clean syntax like:
Left := Left + Right*multiplier;
then you have to let the compiler generate the code. And since you are using variants, the generated code will perform appallingly badly.
If you want to call a function directly to perform the operation, then there's no point in using variants. You can create a type, presumably a record, add some methods to the type, and call those methods directly.
However, if you want to make a type that supports mathematical operators, and you care about performance, then you should use operator overloading on records.
I am getting this error will debugging a project, which used to be in Delphi 7 and I have been upgrading to Delphi XE2, the same error happens in several methods.
First chance exception at $006DC660. Exception class $C0000005 with message 'access violation at 0x006dc660 read of address 0xffffffff'
This is one of the methods:
PFI = ^TFI;
TFI = record
Id : TToken;
Name : TName;
Parameters : string;
end;
function TListFI.IsIn(S: PChar): PFI;
function SearchName2(Item: PFI):Boolean;
var N1, N2: PChar;
begin
N1:= StrNew(Item^.Name);
N2:= StrNew(S); //Here is the issue
SearchName2:= (StrComp(StrUpper(N1), StrUpper(N2)) = 0);
StrDispose(N1);
StrDispose(N2);
end;
begin
IsIn:= PFI(FirstThat(#SearchName2));
end;
I have googled and I found someone describing a similar problem, and he affirms that when the incremental linker is disabled it works, can someone tell me what and where is it or give some advice to solve this situation.
[EDIT]
Removing the # now gives me the following error in IsIn:= PFI(FirstThat(SearchName2));
E2010 Incompatible types: 'TObject' and 'PFI'
I am adding the FirstThat procedure to see if it may help.
TFuncionColeccion = function (Elemento: TObject): Boolean;
function TColeccion.FirstThat (Rutina: TFuncionColeccion): TObject;
var
i: Integer;
begin
For i:=0 to Count-1 do
if Rutina(Items[i]) then
begin
FirstThat:=Items[i];
exit;
end;
FirstThat:=nil;
end;
It is (and always has been) an error to call local (nested) procedures by pointer, which is clearly what your FirstThat function does. The compiler has to do special things with the stack to call local functions and give them access to the parent scope's variables (S in your code), but the compiler can only know to do those special things when the local function is called directly. The compiler cannot know that the argument to FirstThat will be a local function, so it doesn't include the special code when FirstThat invokes the pointed-to function.
The bottom line is that the stack inside the function doesn't get set up the way it's supposed to, and that means any number of strange symptoms may appear. You'll have to use some other way. Maybe make SearchName2 be a two-argument function, and then write FirstThat to accept S as a parameter that it can forward to the function argument.
You shouldn't need to use the # operator when constructing a function pointer. When you do, the compiler tends to skip type checking, which is what allowed you to pass a local function pointer to FirstThat in the first place. When the function you're passing really matches the required prototype, the compiler will allow you to pass it without the # operator.
You are reporting an access violation in
StrNew(S)
where S is of type PChar. The explanation for that, with probability very close to 1, is that S is not in fact a pointer to null terminated array of WideChar.
In Delphi 7, PChar is an alias for PAnsiChar. That is a pointer to null terminated array of AnsiChar, i.e. 8 bit characters. In Delphi XE2, PChar is an alias for PWideChar, a pointer to null terminated array of WideChar, i.e. 16 bit characters.
It helps to understand what StrNew does. It walks the array until it finds a null character. For 8 bit text that is a single zero byte. For 16 bit text, the null is a zero 16 bit word. Then it allocates a new block of memory of the same length as the input string, and makes a copy into that new memory. The source code is:
function StrNew(const Str: PWideChar): PWideChar;
var
Size: Cardinal;
begin
if Str = nil then Result := nil else
begin
Size := StrLen(Str) + 1;
Result := StrMove(WideStrAlloc(Size), Str, Size);
end;
end;
The only plausible failure mode is that when StrLen walks the array, it attempts an invalid memory read. And that can only happen if your input parameter is invalid. In other words, this must be a programming error on your part.
One possible explanation is that you are in fact passing 8 bit text to this function despite promising to pass 16 bit text. An easy mistake to make, especially if you are not yet fully familiar with the Unicode change. The 8 bit text has a zero terminator, but the byte that follows happens not to be zero. Or the zero byte falls at an odd numbered offset from the start. And then StrNew continues walking the buffer, but now it is off the end and it so happens that it doesn't find a zero word before overrunning into an address that has not been allocated. And that is an access violation.
If that is so then solution will be either:
Change the function's parameter to be of type PAnsiChar, and fix the dubious casting at the call site.
Pass the function 16 bit text as it requires.
In your update you include the address which cannot be read, 0xffffffff. This is -1 in hex. And that would seem to be the most prosaic of errors. Your pointer is completely bogus! Your exact error message can be reproduced with this code: StrNew(PChar(-1)).
I don't have enough information here to tell you why your pointer is bogus. Hopefully you've learnt some debugging and diagnostic techniques that will enable you to solve the problem. At least you now know that the error is in your code.
Assuming that BuscaName2 and SearchName2 are one and the same thing, then you need look no further. Local procedures can only be called from a containing function. As #Rob correctly says, the use of # with procedures is almost always incorrect and is a warning sign of serious problems with your code.
I am experimenting with the ability to dynamically invoke procedures or functions that reside in a function table. The specific application is a DLL that exports a pointer to a function table together with information on the number of arguments and types. The host application then has the ability to interrogate the DLL and call the functions. If they were object methods I could use Rtti to invoke them but they are normal procedures and functions. The DLL has to export normal function pointers not objects because the DLL could be written in any language including C, Delphi etc.
For example, I have a record declared and filled out in a DLL:
TAPI = record
add : function (var a, b : double) : double;
mult : function (var a, b : double) : double;
end;
PAPI = ^TAPI;
I retrieve the pointer to this record, declared as:
apiPtr : PAPI;
Assume I also have access to the names of the procedures, number of arguments and argument types for each entry in the record.
Assume I want to call the add function. The function pointer to add will be:
#apiPtr^.add // I assume this will give me a pointer to the add function
I assume there is no other way other than to use some asm to push the necessary arguments on the stack and retrieve the result?
First question, what is the best calling convention to declare the procedure as, cdecl? Seems easiest for assembling the stack before the call.
Second question, are there any examples online that actually do this? I came across http://www.swissdelphicenter.ch/torry/showcode.php?id=1745 (DynamicDllCall) which is close to what I want but I simplified as below, it now returns a pointer (EAX) to the result:
function DynamicDllCall(proc : pointer; const Parameters: array of Pointer): pointer;
var x, n: Integer;
p: Pointer;
begin
n := High(Parameters);
if n > -1 then begin
x := n;
repeat
p := Parameters[x];
asm
PUSH p
end;
Dec(x);
until x = -1;
end;
asm
CALL proc
MOV p, EAX <- must be changed to "FST result" if return value is double
end;
result := p;
end;
but I can't get it to work, it returns a value for the first parameters instead of the result. Maybe I have the calling convention wrong or maybe I misunderstand how to retrieve the result in EAX.
I call DynamicDllCall as follows:
var proc : pointer;
parameters: array of Pointer;
x, y, z : double;
p : pointer;
begin
x:= 2.3; y := 6.7;
SetLength(parameters, 2);
parameters[0] := #x; parameters[1] := #y;
proc := #apiPtr^.add;
p := DynamicDllCall(proc, Parameters);
z := double (p^);
Any advice gratefully received. I appreciate that some may feel this isn't the way one should go about doing this but I am still curious if it is at least possible.
Update 1 I can confirm that the add function is getting the correct values to do the addition.
Update 2 If I change the signature of add to:
add : function (var a, b, c : double) : double;
and I assign the result to c inside add, then I can retrieve the correct answer in the parameters array (assuming I add one more element to it, 3 instead of 2). The problem therefore is that I misunderstand how values are returned from functions. Can anyone explain how functions return values and how best to retrieve them?
Update 3 I have my answer. I should have guessed. Delphi returns different types via different registers. eg integers return via EAX, double on the other hand returns via ST(0). To copy ST(0) to the result variable I must use "FST result" rather than "MOV p, EAX". I least I now know it is possible in principle to do this. Whether it is a sensible thing to do is another matter I must now think about.
This is an XY problem: You want to do X, and, for whatever reason, you've decided Y is the solution, but you're having trouble making Y work. In your case, X is call external functions via pointers and Y is manually push parameters on the stack. But to accomplish X, you don't really need to do Y.
The expression #apiPtr^.add will not give you a pointer to the function. It will give you a pointer to the add field of the TAPI record. (Since add is the first member of the record, the address of that field will be equal to the address held in apiPtr; in code, Assert(CompareMem(#apiPtr, #apiPtr^.add, SizeOf(Pointer)).) The add field holds a pointer to the function, so if that's what you want, just use apiPtr^.add (and note that the ^ is optional in Delphi).
The best calling convention to use is stdcall. Any language that supports exporting DLL functions will support that calling convention.
You don't need assembler or any other tricky stack manipulation to call your functions. You already know the function's type because you used it to declare add. To call the function pointed to by that field, simply use the same syntax as for calling an ordinary function:
z := apiPtr.add(x, y);
The compiler knows the declared type of the add field, so it will arrange the stack for you.
This is a hard problem to solve. One way to dynamically access methods in a DLL at runtime would be to use a foreign function interface library such as libffi, dyncall or DynaCall(). None of these however have yet been ported to the Delphi environment.
If the application is to interface a set of methods in a DLL together with Rtti information provided by the DLL and expose them to a scripting language such as Python, one option is to write Delphi code that inspects the DLL and writes out a ctypes compatible script which can be loaded into an embedded Python interpreter at runtime. So long as one defines before hand a limited but sufficient set of types that the DLL methods can handle, this is a practical solution.