I'm currently working on a project where I often have to build linked lists of various C structs. Since I don't want to keep repeating myself setting next pointers, I wrote some helper templates, but soon found out that it falls apart if one of the next fields is a pointer-to-const.
My linked list elements look something like this:
struct WorkingElementType {
void *pNext;
/* stuff */
};
struct TroublesomeElementType {
const void *pNext;
/* stuff */
};
In reality, there are of course a lot more of these structs. My helper functions have to keep a pointer to the last element's pNext field in order to write to it when the linked list gets extended, so I went for a void **ppNext = &last->pNext. Unfortunately, that of course breaks down with TroublesomeElementType and its const void *pNext.
In the end, what I'd like to achieve is this:
void **m_ppNext;
/* In one function */
m_ppNext = &last->pNext;
/* In a different function, extending the list */
T *elementToAppend = ...;
*m_ppNext = elementToAppend;
I solved this by using a std::variant<void **, const void **> ppNext instead, but using a std::variant and std::visit just for a difference in constness that doesn't even affect the code's function feels like a bit of a waste.
That's why I'm wondering: Is it legal to use const_cast here to cast away const and stuff the const void ** into a void ** only for updating the pointed-to pointer? No const object actually gets modified, after all.
In other words: I'm not sure whether it's legal to alias const void* and void *. (My gut feeling says no, it's not legal because these are incompatible types, but I don't know for sure.)
The C++ standard in question is C++20.
Here's some simple example code:
#include <variant>
int g_i = 42;
/* This is legal */
void setIntPtr1(std::variant<int **, const int **> v) {
std::visit([](auto& p) { *p = &g_i; }, v);
}
int testNonConst1() {
int *i;
setIntPtr1(&i);
return *i;
}
int testConst1() {
const int *i;
setIntPtr1(&i);
return *i;
}
/* But I'm not sure about this */
void setIntPtr2(int **p) {
*p = &g_i;
}
int testNonConst2() {
int *i;
setIntPtr2(&i);
return *i;
}
int testConst2() {
const int *i;
setIntPtr2(const_cast<int **>(&i)); // Is this legal?
return *i;
}
On Godbolt, all of the various test... functions compile to the exact same assembly, but I don't know if testConst2 is legal C++.
I've found the following two existing questions:
Is it legal to modify any data pointer through a void **
Why isn't it legal to convert "pointer to pointer to non-const" to a "pointer to pointer to const"
However, both of them don't seem to quite answer my question. The first one deals with casting any T** to a void **, which is not what I'm doing; I'm just casting away constness. The second one asks why it's a compile error to convert a void ** to a const void **, but not whether interpreting the memory of a void * as a const void * and vice-versa (without actually overwriting a const object) would be a violation of the aliasing rules.
Yes, it is legal.
[basic.lval]/11:
If a program attempts to access the stored value of an object through a glvalue whose type is not similar to one of the following types the behavior is undefined:
the dynamic type of the object [...]
T* and const T* are similar:
Two types T1 and T2 are similar if they have cv-decompositions with the same n such that corresponding Pi components are either the same or one is "array of Ni" and the other is "array of unknown bound of", and the types denoted by U are the same.
Related
Basically Im wanting to fetch a pointer of a constant and anonymous object, such as an instance of a class, array or struct that is inialised with T {x, y, z...}. Sorry for my poor skills in wording.
The basic code that Im trying to write is as follows:
//Clunky, Im sure there is an inbuilt class that can replace this, any information would be a nice addition
template<class T> class TerminatedArray {
public:
T* children;
int length;
TerminatedArray(const T* children) {
this->children = children;
length = 0;
while ((unsigned long)&children[length] != 0)
length++;
}
TerminatedArray() {
length = 0;
while ((unsigned long)&children[length] != 0)
length++;
}
const T get(int i) {
if (i < 0 || i >= length)
return 0;
return children[i];
}
};
const TerminatedArray<const int> i = (const TerminatedArray<const int>){(const int[]){1,2,3,4,5,6,0}};
class Settings {
public:
struct Option {
const char* name;
};
struct Directory {
const char* name;
TerminatedArray<const int> const children;
};
const Directory* baseDir;
const TerminatedArray<const Option>* options;
Settings(const Directory* _baseDir, const TerminatedArray<const Option> *_options);
};
//in some init method's:
Settings s = Settings(
&(const Settings::Directory){
"Clock",
(const TerminatedArray<const int>){(const int[]){1,2,0}}
},
&(const TerminatedArray<const Settings::Option>){(const Settings::Option[]){
{"testFoo"},
{"foofoo"},
0
}}
);
The code that I refer to is at the very bottom, the definition of s. I seem to be able to initialize a constant array of integers, but when applying the same technique to classes, it fails with:
error: taking address of temporary [-fpermissive]
I don't even know if C++ supports such things, I want to avoid having to have separate const definitions dirtying and splitting up the code, and instead have them clean and anonymous.
The reason for wanting all these definitions as constants is that Im working on an Arduino project that requires efficient balancing of SRAM to Flash. And I have a lot of Flash to my disposal.
My question is this. How can I declare a constant anonymous class/struct using aggregate initialization?
The direct (and better) equivalent to TerminatedArray is std::initializer_list:
class Settings {
public:
struct Option {
const char* name;
};
struct Directory {
const char* name;
std::initializer_list<const int> const children;
};
const Directory* baseDir;
const std::initializer_list<const Option>* options;
Settings(const Directory& _baseDir, const std::initializer_list<const Option>& _options);
};
//in some init method's:
Settings s = Settings(
{
"Clock",
{1,2,0}
},
{
{"testFoo"},
{"foofoo"}
}
);
https://godbolt.org/z/8t7j0f
However, this will almost certainly have lifetime issues (which the compiler tried to warn you about with "taking address of temporary"). If you want to store a (non-owning) pointer (or reference) then somebody else should have ownership of the object. But when initializing with temporary objects like this, nobody else does. The temporaries die at the end of the full expression, so your stored pointers now point to dead objects. Fixing this is a different matter (possibly making your requirements conflicting).
Somewhat relatedly, I'm not sure whether storing a std::initializer_list as class member is a good idea might. But it's certainly the thing you can use as function parameter to make aggregate initialization nicer.
&children[length] != 0 is still true or UB.
If you don't want to allocate memory, you might take reference to existing array:
class Settings {
public:
struct Option {
const char* name;
};
struct Directory {
const char* name;
std::span<const int> const children;
};
const Directory baseDir;
const std::span<const Option> options;
Settings(Directory baseDir, span<const Option> options);
};
//in some method:
const std::array<int, 3> ints{{1,2,0}};
const std::array<Settings::Option> options{{"testFoo"}, {"foofoo"}};
Settings s{"Clock", {ints}}, options};
First, you're not aggregate-initializing anything. This is uniform initialization and you're calling constructors instead of directly initializing members. This is because your classes have user-defined constructors, and classes with constructors can't be aggregate-initialized.
Second, you're not really able to "initialize a constant array of integers". It merely compiles. Trying to run it gives undefined behavior - in my case, trying to construct i goes into an infinite search for element value 0.
In C++, there's values on the stack, there's values on the heap and there's temporary values (I genuinely apologize to anyone who knows C++ for this statement).
Values on the heap have permanent addresses which you can pass around freely.
Values on the stack have temporary addresses which are valid until
the end of the block.
Temporary values either don't have addresses
(as your compiler warns you) or have a valid address for the duration
of the expression they're used for.
You're using such a temporary to initialize i, and trying to store and use the address of a temporary. This is an error and to fix it you can create your "temporary" array on the stack if you don't plan to use i outside of the block where your array will be.
Or you can create your array on the heap, use its address to initialize i, and remember to explicitly delete your array when you're done with it.
I recommend reading https://isocpp.org/faq and getting familiar with lifetime of variables and memory management before attempting to fix this code. It should give you a much better idea of what you need to do to make your code do what you want it to do.
Best of luck.
Guys I have a function like this (this is given and should not be modified).
void readData(int &ID, void*&data, bool &mybool) {
if(mybool)
{
std::string a = "bla";
std::string* ptrToString = &a;
data = ptrToString;
}
else
{
int b = 9;
int* ptrToint = &b;
data = ptrToint;
}
}
So I want to use this function in a loop and save the returned function parameters in a vector (for each iteration).
To do so, I wrote the following struct:
template<typename T>
struct dataStruct {
int id;
T** data; //I first has void** data, but would not be better to
// have the type? instead of converting myData back
// to void* ?
bool mybool;
};
my main.cpp then look like this:
int main()
{
void* myData = nullptr;
std::vector<dataStruct> vec; // this line also doesn't compile. it need the typename
bool bb = false;
for(int id = 1 ; id < 5; id++) {
if (id%2) { bb = true; }
readData(id, myData, bb); //after this line myData point to a string
vec.push_back(id, &myData<?>); //how can I set the template param to be the type myData point to?
}
}
Or is there a better way to do that without template? I used c++11 (I can't use c++14)
The function that you say cannot be modified, i.e. readData() is the one that should alert you!
It causes Undefined Behavior, since the pointers are set to local variables, which means that when the function terminates, then these pointers will be dangling pointers.
Let us leave aside the shenanigans of the readData function for now under the assumption that it was just for the sake of the example (and does not produce UB in your real use case).
You cannot directly store values with different (static) types in a std::vector. Notably, dataStruct<int> and dataStruct<std::string> are completely unrelated types, you cannot store them in the same vector as-is.
Your problem boils down to "I have data that is given to me in a type-unsafe manner and want to eventually get type-safe access to it". The solution to this is to create a data structure that your type-unsafe data is parsed into. For example, it seems that you inteded for your example data to have structure in the sense that there are pairs of int and std::string (note that your id%2 is not doing that because the else is missing and the bool is never set to false again, but I guess you wanted it to alternate).
So let's turn that bunch of void* into structured data:
std::pair<int, std::string> readPair(int pairIndex)
{
void* ptr;
std::pair<int, std::string> ret;
// Copying data here.
readData(2 * pairIndex + 1, ptr, false);
ret.first = *reinterpret_cast<int*>(ptr);
readData(2 * pairIndex + 2, ptr, true);
ret.second = *reinterpret_cast<std::string*>(ptr);
}
void main()
{
std::vector<std::pair<int, std::string>> parsedData;
parsedData.push_back(readPair(0));
parsedData.push_back(readPair(1));
}
Demo
(I removed the references from the readData() signature for brevity - you get the same effect by storing the temporary expressions in variables.)
Generally speaking: Whatever relation between id and the expected data type is should just be turned into the data structure - otherwise you can only reason about the type of your data entries when you know both the current ID and this relation, which is exactly something you should encapsulate in a data structure.
Your readData isn't a useful function. Any attempt at using what it produces gives undefined behavior.
Yes, it's possible to do roughly what you're asking for without a template. To do it meaningfully, you have a couple of choices. The "old school" way would be to store the data in a tagged union:
struct tagged_data {
enum { T_INT, T_STR } tag;
union {
int x;
char *y;
} data;
};
This lets you store either a string or an int, and you set the tag to tell you which one a particular tagged_data item contains. Then (crucially) when you store a string into it, you dynamically allocate the data it points at, so it will remain valid until you explicitly free the data.
Unfortunately, (at least if memory serves) C++11 doesn't support storing non-POD types in a union, so if you went this route, you'd have to use a char * as above, not an actual std::string.
One way to remove (most of) those limitations is to use an inheritance-based model:
class Data {
public:
virtual ~Data() { }
};
class StringData : public Data {
std::string content;
public:
StringData(std::string const &init) : content(init) {}
};
class IntData : public Data {
int content;
public:
IntData(std::string const &init) : content(init) {}
};
This is somewhat incomplete, but I think probably enough to give the general idea--you'd have an array (or vector) of pointers to the base class. To insert data, you'd create a StringData or IntData object (allocating it dynamically) and then store its address into the collection of Data *. When you need to get one back, you use dynamic_cast (among other things) to figure out which one it started as, and get back to that type safely. All somewhat ugly, but it does work.
Even with C++11, you can use a template-based solution. For example, Boost::variant, can do this job quite nicely. This will provide an overloaded constructor and value semantics, so you could do something like:
boost::variant<int, std::string> some_object("input string");
In other words, it's pretty what you'd get if you spent the time and effort necessary to finish the inheritance-based code outlined above--except that it's dramatically cleaner, since it gets rid of the requirement to store a pointer to the base class, use dynamic_cast to retrieve an object of the correct type, and so on. In short, it's the right solution to the problem (until/unless you can upgrade to a newer compiler, and use std::variant instead).
Apart from the problem in given code described in comments/replies.
I am trying to answer your question
vec.push_back(id, &myData<?>); //how can I set the template param to be the type myData point to?
Before that you need to modify vec definition as following
vector<dataStruct<void>> vec;
Now you can simple push element in vector
vec.push_back({id, &mydata, bb});
i have tried to modify your code so that it can work
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
struct dataStruct
{
int id;
T** data;
bool mybool;
};
void readData(int &ID, void*& data, bool& mybool)
{
if (mybool)
{
data = new string("bla");
}
else
{
int b = 0;
data = &b;
}
}
int main ()
{
void* mydata = nullptr;
vector<dataStruct<void>> vec;
bool bb = false;
for (int id = 0; id < 5; id++)
{
if (id%2) bb = true;
readData(id, mydata, bb);
vec.push_back({id, &mydata, bb});
}
}
I'm here looking at some C++ code and am not understanding something. It is irrelevant but it comes from a YARP (robot middleware) tutorial which goes with the documentation.
virtual void getHeader(const Bytes& header)
{
const char *target = "HUMANITY";
for (int i=0; i<8 && i<header.length(); i++)
{
header.get()[i] = target[i];
}
}
Now, header is a reference to const and thus cannot be modified within this function. get is called on it, its prototype is char *get() const;. How can header.get() be subscripted and modified ? The program compiles fine. I may have not understood what happens here but I'm basing myself on what I've read in C++ Primer...
I would very much appreciate a little clarification!
Have a nice day,
char *get() const;
The right hand const means "this member doesn't alter anything in the class that's not mutable", and it's honoring that - it isn't changing anything. The implementation is probably something like this:
char *Bytes::get() const
{
return const_cast<char *>(m_bytes);
}
The pointer that is being returned, however, is a simple "char*". Think of it this way:
(header.get())[i] = target[i];
// or
char* p = header.get();
p[i] = target[i];
Whoever designed the interface decided that the content of a const Byte object can be modified by stuffing values into it. Presumably they've done whatever hacks they needed to make header.get()[i] modifiable. I wouldn't use this code as an exemplar of good interface design.
Looking at the doc:
struct Bytes {
char* get() const; // works
char*& get() const; // would not work
char* mem_;
};
This code is perfectly valid, even though it is bad practice. The
problem is that a copy of the pointer is made and the constness of the
class is lost. constness in C++ is largely conceptual and easy to
break (often even without consequences). I'd complain to the
implementer. It should look like this:
struct Bytes {
char* get(); // works
const char* get() const; // would not work
char* mem_;
};
header.get() should returns char*, assuming it as base address and indexed with [i] and string in target coped to that location.
#antitrust given good point, return address can't be modified by address content can e.g.
char x[100];
char* get() const
{
return x;
}
int calling function you can do like:
get()[i] = target[i];
it will copy target string to x, this method can be useful when x is private member to class, and you are to copy in x.
Edit if get() is a inline function then calling get() function in a loop will not effect performance., I mean such function should be defined inline.
This question is similar to what I'm trying to do Calling C++ member function pointer from a struct .
However my structure contains a member function pointer that is defined in a different class then the one the structure is defined and used in. Here is some example code of how my classes, structures and function pointers are laid out.
// Alpha.h:
class Alpha{
public:
void function1(char name[], int number);
void function2(char name[], int number);
void function3(char name[], int number);
typedef void (Alpha::*My_func_ptr)(char name[], int number);
static My_func_ptr functionTable[];
};
// Alpha.cpp:
#include "Alpha.h"
Alpha::My_func_ptr Alpha::functionTable[] = {
&Alpha::function1,
&Alpha::function2,
&Alpha::function3
};
void Alpha::function1(char name[], int number)
{
//some stuff
}
void Alpha::function2(char name[], int number)
{
//some stuff
}
void Alpha::function3(char name[], int number)
{
//some stuff
}
// Beta.h:
#include "Alpha.h"
typdef struct{
char bName[10];
Alpha::My_func_ptr fptr;
}ptr_structure;
class Beta{
public:
void betafunction();
Alpha alphaobject;
ptr_structure str_array[3];
};
// Beta.cpp:
#include "Beta.h"
void betafunction()
{
str_array[0].fptr = alphaobject.functionTable[0];
str_array[1].fptr = alphaobject.functionTable[1];
str_array[2].fptr = alphaobject.functionTable[2];
(str_array[0].fptr)("name", 1); //gives error expression must have
//(pointer-to-) function type
(this->*str_array[0].fptr)("name", 1);
//error pointer-to-member selection class types are incompatible "Beta" and "Alpha"
//sample function pointer call using function table from other class,
//this syntax compiles and runs without error.
(alphaobject.*Alpha::functionTable[0]("name", 1);
}
As you can see I can call the function pointer from an array, but can't seem to figure out how to call a function pointer from inside an array of structures.
When calling a through member function pointer, you need to have an instance of the object associated with that pointer:
(alphaobject.*(str_array[0].fptr))("name", 1)
^^^^^^^^^^^
I would think:
(object.*functionTable[0])(args, ...);
(objptr->*functionTable[0])(args, ....);
IIRC, the combination of object and the .* operator is like a big unary operator. So that has lower precedence to the [0] postfix. However, it also has lower prededence than the function call postfix operator (args, ...)
Analogy:
(*foo)(); /* classic C */
Of course the * operator is not required when calling a regular function. But if you do write it, you need the parens, because *foo() means something else.
You can go to one of two solutions, depending on how readable you want the code. The unreadable version (which might even be wrong, and I won't even try to compile):
void Beta::betafunction() {
Alpha a;
(a.*(strArray[0].fptr))("name",1);
}
But I would actually try to make things a bit simpler:
void Beta::betafunction() {
Alpha a;
Alpha::My_func_ptr mptr = strArray[0].fptr;
(a.*mptr)("name",1);
}
I believe the second to be much more readable, and the compiler can optimize away mptr pretty easily, so there is no point in trying to play guru with the syntax.
I need to pass something like a pointer that takes anything as a function parameter. You know, something without any predefined type or a type that can take anything like this:
void MyFunc( *pointer );
And then use it like:
char * x = "YAY!";
MyFunc(x);
int y = 10;
MyFunc(&y);
MyObj *b = new MyObj();
MyFunc(b);
And I don't want to use templates because I am mostly using C in my project.
Is there anything that can be used here except a function macro?
In C++, Boost.Any will let you do this in a type-safe way:
void func(boost::any const &x)
{
// any_cast a reference and it
// will throw if x is not an int.
int i = any_cast<int>(x);
// any_cast a pointer and it will
// return a null pointer if x is not an int.
int const *p = any_cast<int>(&x);
}
// pass in whatever you want.
func(123);
func("123");
In C, you would use a void pointer:
void func(void const *x)
{
// it's up to you to ensure x points to an int. if
// it's not, it might crash or it might silently appear
// to work. nothing is checked for you!
int i = *(int const*)x;
}
// pass in whatever you want.
int i = 123;
func(&i);
func("123");
You seem adverse to it but I'll recommend it anyway: if you're using C++, embrace it. Don't be afraid of templates. Things like Boost.Any and void pointers have a place in C++, but it is very small.
Update:
Well , I am making a small signals - slots - connections library to be
used with my gui toolkit. So that I can get rid of the Ugly WNDPROC. I
need these pointers for the connections.
If you need multi-target signals, Boost.Signals already provides a full and tested signals/slots implementation. You can use Boost.Bind (or std::bind, if you've got a C++0x compiler) to connect member functions:
struct button
{
boost::signal<void(button&)> on_click;
}
struct my_window
{
button b;
my_window()
{
b.on_click.connect(std::bind(&my_window::handle_click,
this, std::placeholders::_1));
}
void handle_click(button &b)
{
}
void simulate_click()
{
b.on_click(b);
}
};
If you only want a simple callback, Boost.Function (or std::function if you've got a C++0x compiler) will work well:
struct button
{
std::function<void(button&)> on_click;
}
struct my_window
{
button b;
my_window()
{
b.on_click = std::bind(&my_window::handle_click,
this, std::placeholders::_1);
}
void handle_click(button &b)
{
}
void simulate_click()
{
b.on_click(b);
}
};
You can use a function that takes a void*, but you must be aware of the pointer types that are not compatible with void*:
pointers to functions:
void MyFunc(void*);
MyFunc(&MyFunc); // WRONG
pointers to members:
void MyFunc(void*);
struct A { int x; };
MyFunc(&A::x); // WRONG
While these pointers are not compatible with void* (even with casting, on some compilers), they are themselves data. So you can pass a pointer to the pointer:
void MyFunc(void*);
void (*pfn)(void*) = &MyFunc;
MyFunc(&pfn); // ok
struct A { int x; };
int A::*px = &A::x;
MyFunc(&px); // ok
You can define the method as taking one void * argument. Of course, at that point, it's up to you to figure out what to do with the data (as far as accessing it or casting it.)
void MyFunc(void * ptr);
You could use:
void MyFunc( void* p){}
int g = 10;
MyFunc( (void*)&g );
void * is the way to do it. You can assign any pointer type to and from a void *. But to use the pointer in the called function, you'll have to know the type so you can create an appropriate local pointer or cast appropriately. You can encode a limited set of types as enum symbols, and perhaps use a switch to select type-specific behavior. But without a specific purpose or use-case, you might end up chasing your tail in a quest for generality for which C was never intended.
Another way would be to make a union to contain all the various types you know are needed.
typedef union {
int i;
char c;
float f;
} vartype;
Then if the value can carry around its own type-identifier, it becomes a tag-union or variant-record.
typedef struct {
enum type { INT, CHAR, FLOAT } type;
vartype var;
} varrec;