I am having issues in a code having structure similar to the following minimum example. There is only one instance of MainClass. It makes new instance of Classlet on each call to its MainClass::makeclasslet()
I have multiple classlets writing to a single list buffer. After some time I need to copy/ dump the values from list buffer (FIFO).
The problem is that I am getting the following output in MainClass::clearbuffer()
>>>>>>>>>> 704 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buffer size: 65363..... 1
I am unable to understand why the std::list::empty() returns true even when the buffer is locked with an atomic bool flag.
I have tried moving the call to clearbuffer() (in addval()) to the main application thread so that not each Classlet event calls clearbuffer().
I have also tried adding delay QThread::msleep(10); after setting busy = true;.
But some time after the application starts, I am getting the output shown above. Instead of popping all 65363+704 values in the list, it only popped 704 and broke the loop on list::isempty() being true (apparently).
class MainClass : public QObject {
Q_OBJECT
private:
std:: list<int> alist;
std::atomic<bool> busy;
MainClass() {
busy = false;
}
~MainClass() {
// delete all classlets
}
void makeclasslet() {
Classlet newclasslet = new Classlet();
// store the reference
}
void addval(int val) {
alist.push_back(val);
if (alist.size() > 100)
{
if (!busy)
{
clearbuffer();
}
}
}
void clearbuffer() {
if (!busy)
{
busy = true;
int i = 0;
while (!alist.empty())
{
i = i + 1;
// save alist.front() to file
alist.pop_front();
}
printf(">>>>>>>>>> %d >>>>>>>>>>> Buffer size: %d ..... %d\n", i, m_lstCSVBuffer.size(), m_lstCSVBuffer.empty());
busy = false;
}
}
}
class Classlet {
private:
Mainclass* parent;
void onsomeevent(int val) {
parent->addval(val);
}
}
I am using qt5.9 on Ubuntu 18.04. GCC/ G++ 7.5.0
I have several functions that try and evaluate some data. Each function returns a 1 if it can successfully evaluate the data or 0 if it can not. The functions are called one after the other but execution should stop if one returns a value of 1.
Example functions look like so:
int function1(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int function2(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
... more functions ...
How would be the clearest way to organise this flow? I know I can use if statements as such:
void doSomething(void)
{
if (function1(data))
{
return;
}
if (function2(data))
{
return;
}
... more if's ...
}
But this seems long winded and has a huge number of if's that need typing. Another choice I thought of is to call the next function from the return 0 of the function like so
int function1(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return function2(data);
}
int function2(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return function3(data);
}
... more functions ...
Making calling cleaner because you only need to call function1() to evaluate as far as you need to but seems to make the code harder to maintain. If another check need to be inserted into the middle of the flow, or the order of the calls changes, then all of the functions after the new one will need to be changed to account for it.
Am I missing some smart clear c++ way of achieving this kind of program flow or is one of these methods best. I am leaning towards the if method at the moment but I feel like I am missing something.
void doSomething() {
function1(data) || function2(data) /* || ... more function calls ... */;
}
Logical-or || operator happens to have the properties you need - evaluated left to right and stops as soon as one operand is true.
I think you can make a vector of lambdas where each lambdas contains specific process on how you evaluate your data. Something like this.
std::vector<std::function<bool(std::string&)> listCheckers;
listCheckers.push_back([](std::string& p_data) -> bool { return function1(p_data); });
listCheckers.push_back([](std::string& p_data) -> bool { return function2(p_data); });
listCheckers.push_back([](std::string& p_data) -> bool { return function3(p_data); });
//...and so on...
//-----------------------------
std::string theData = "Hello I'm a Data";
//evaluate all data
bool bSuccess = false;
for(fnChecker : listCheckers){
if(fnChecker(theData)) {
bSuccess = true;
break;
}
}
if(bSuccess ) { cout << "A function has evaluated the data successfully." << endl; }
You can modify the list however you like at runtime by: external objects, config settings from file, etc...
If I desire to run a piece of code in a function, only from the second invocation of the function onwards,
Questions:
Is there something wrong to do that?
How can I possibly achieve this ? Is using a static variable to do this a good idea ?
There's two answers to this question, depending on whether you have to deal with multi-threaded serialization or not.
No threading:
void doSomething() {
static bool firstTime = true;
if (firstTime) {
// do code specific to first pass
firstTime = false;
} else {
// do code specific to 2nd+ pass
}
// do any code that is common
}
With threading:
I'll write the generic boilerplate, but this code is system specific (requiring some variant of an atomic compareAndSet).
void doSomethingThreadSafe() {
static volatile atomic<int> passState = 0;
do {
if ( passState == 2 ) {
//perform pass 2+ code
break;
} else
if ( passState.compareAndSet(0,1) ) { // if passState==0 set passState=1 return true else return false
//perform pass 1 initialization code
passState = 2;
break;
} else {
//loser in setup collision, delay (wait for init code to finish) then retry
sleep(1);
}
} while(1);
//perform code common to all passes
}
Multi-threading will be a problem. To prevent this, if required, you'll probably need something like a mutex.
Like this:
void someFunction()
{
static bool firstRun = true;
if (!firstRun)
{
// code to execute from the second time onwards
}
else
{
firstRun = false;
}
// other code
}
Add a global counter.
eg:-
static int counter = 0;
public void testFunc(){
if(counter==1){
........
<Execute the functionality>
........
}
counter++;
}
I'm trying to execute a function, only after my global bool flag gets set to true. I'm currently parsing a file with instructions. Two of the commands are attack and testIsZOmbie.
void NAttack::CodeGen(CodeContext& context)
{
if(flag == true)
{
context.m_Ops.push_back("attack ");
}
}
The problem is that the flag only gets set after my NisZombie::CodeGen function, which always gets called after NAttack....Is there any way to delay NAttack being called until NisZOmbie?
void NisZombie::CodeGen(CodeContext& context)
{
if (m_Dir->m_value == 1)
{
context.m_Ops.push_back("test_zombie,1");
//std::cout<<"HERE";
context.m_Ops.push_back("je, ");
flag = true;
}
}
How can I find the current depth inside a recursive function in C++ without passing in the previous level? i.e. is it possible to know how many times the function was called without using a parameter to keep track of the level and passing that number in as a parameter each time the function is called?
For example my recursive function looks like this:
DoSomething(int level)
{
print level;
if (level > 10)
return;
DoSomething(++level);
}
main
{
DoSomething(0);
}
Building on the answer already given by JoshD:
void recursive()
{
static int calls = 0;
static int max_calls = 0;
calls++;
if (calls > max_calls)
max_calls = calls;
recursive();
calls--;
}
This resets the counter after the recursive function is complete, but still tracks the maximum depth of the recursion.
I wouldn't use static variables like this for anything but a quick test, to be deleted soon after. If you really need to track this on an ongoing basis there are better methods.
You could use a static variable in the function...
void recursive()
{
static int calls = 0;
calls++;
recursive();
}
Of course, this will keep counting when you start a new originating call....
If you want it to be re-entrant and thread-safe, why not:
void rec(int &level) // reference to your level var
{
// do work
rec(++level); // go down one level
}
main()
{
//and you call it like
int level=0;
rec(level);
cout<<level<<" levels."<<endl;
}
No static/global variables to mess up threading and you can use different variables for different recursive chains for re-entrancy issues.
You can use a local static variable, if you don't care about thread-safety.
Although, this will only give you a proper count the first time you run your recursive routine. A better technique would be a RAII guard-type class which contains an internal static variable. At the start of the recursive routine, construct the guard class. The constructor would increment the internal static variable, and the destructor would decrement it. This way, when you create a new stack-frame the counter increments by one, and when you return from each stack-frame the counter would decrement by one.
struct recursion_guard
{
recursion_guard() { ++counter; }
~recursion_guard() { --counter; }
static int counter;
};
int recursion_guard::counter = 0;
void recurse(int x)
{
recursion_guard rg;
if (x > 10) return;
recurse(x + 1);
}
int main()
{
recurse(0);
recurse(0);
}
Note however, that this is still not thread-safe. If you need thread-safety, you can replace the static-storage variable with a thread-local-storage variable, either using boost::thread_specific_ptr or the C++0x thread local facilities.
You could also pass in the level as a template parameter, if it can be determined at compile-time. You could also use a function object. This is by far and away the best option - less hassle, and static variables should be avoided wherever possible.
struct DoSomething {
DoSomething() {
calls = 0;
}
void operator()() {
std::cout << calls;
calls++;
if (calls < 10)
return operator()();
return;
}
int calls;
};
int main() {
DoSomething()(); // note the double ().
std::cin.get();
}
convert level to an instance variable of a new object (typically a template) capable of containing the arguments and (possibly) the function. then you can reuse the recursion accumulator interface.
You can also try using a global variable to log the depth.
var depth = 0;
DoSomething()
{
print ++depth;
if (depth > 10)
return;
DoSomething();
}
main
{
DoSomething(0);
}
I came here when I sensed that some recursion is required, because I was implementing a function that can validate the chain of trust in a certificate chain. This is not X.509 but instead it is just the basics wherein the issuer key of a certificate must match the public key of the signer.
bool verify_chain(std::vector<Cert>& chain,
Cert* certificate,
unsigned char* pOrigin = nullptr, int depth = 0)
{
bool flag = false;
if (certificate == nullptr) {
// use first element in case parameter is null
certificate = &chain[0];
}
if (pOrigin == nullptr) {
pOrigin = certificate->pubkey;
} else {
if (std::memcmp(pOrigin, certificate->pubkey, 32) == 0) {
return false; // detected circular chain
}
}
if (certificate->hasValidSignature()) {
if (!certificate->isRootCA()) {
Cert* issuerCert = certificate->getIssuer(chain);
if (issuerCert) {
flag = verify_chain(chain, issuerCert, pOrigin, depth+1);
}
} else {
flag = true;
}
}
if (pOrigin && depth == 1) {
pOrigin = nullptr;
}
return flag;
}
I needed to know the recursion depth so that I can correctly clean up pOrigin. at the right stack frame during the unwinding of the call stack.
I used pOrigin to detect a circular chain, without which the recursive call can go on forever. For example,
cert0 signs cert1
cert1 signs cert2
cert2 signs cert0
I later realized that a simple for-loop can do it for simple cases when there is only one common chain.
bool verify_chain2(std::vector<Cert> &chain, Cert& cert)
{
Cert *pCert = &cert;
unsigned char *startkey = cert.pubkey;
while (pCert != nullptr) {
if (pCert->hasValidSignature()) {
if (!pCert->isRootCA()) {
pCert = pCert->getIssuer(chain);
if (pCert == nullptr
|| std::memcmp(pCert->pubkey, startkey, 32) == 0) {
return false;
}
continue;
} else {
return true;
}
} else {
return false;
}
}
return false;
}
But recursion is a must when there is not one common chain but instead the chain is within each certificate. I welcome any comments. Thank you.