I have an API:
void func(struct s st)
{
//do some stuff
}
when struct s define as:
struct s
{
char* str1;
char* str2;
};
Now, I want to call func() multiple times with different pairs of string literals.
So I wanted store my structs in iterable container. for example std::vector:
const std::vector <struct s> sts=
{
{
"str1",
"str2"
},
{
"str3",
"str4"
}
...
};
for(auto& st : sts)
{
func(st);
}
But I get an error:
ISO C++ forbids converting a string constant to ‘char*’.
I know the problem is that I try to assign string literal (const char*) to char*, but how can I fix it?
I know I can implement init function (or define), and call it every time. something like:
s init_struct(const char* str1, const char* str2)
{
char *str1_ = strdup(str1);
char *str2_ = strdup(str2);
return {str1_, str2_};
}
but I want my code simply as possible. also, I can't change func() prototype or struct s declaration.
My question is: what is the fastest and cleanest way to initialize iterable container with the structs?
When I say "fastest" I don't mean to performance (my code doesn't run in real time), but in terms of readability.
In C++, the type of a string literal is an array of const char. Hence, you should define your structure to take a const char *:
struct s
{
const char* str1;
const char* str2;
};
While it would work to use string, this creates unnecessary copies, since the string literals are not going away. (If you want to use a more C++ type, at least use string_view rather than string, but given how simple this case is, I think const char * is just fine.)
First thing to recognize, you'll need to copy somewhere. On some architectures, cstring literals are in a different kind of memory than char*, so to be standard compliant, you need this.
Second trick, a std::initializer_list<T> can be initialized from a class that descends from T. Thus, you can add a class (scons) that has the proper constructor (and descends from s). While in general you cannot convert container<scons> to container<s>, you can still initialize a vector<s> as it'll look for std::initializer_list<s>, which can be constructed this way. Easier to tell by code:
#include <vector>
#include <string.h>
struct s
{
char* str1;
char* str2;
};
// even this could be templated, as arg count can be deduced using structured binding in c++17
struct scons : s
{
scons(const char* s1, const char* s2)
: s{strdup(s1), strdup(s2)} {}
};
int main() {
std::vector<s> v =
{
scons{
"str1",
"str2"
},
{
"str3",
"str4"
},
{
"str5",
"str6"
}
};
}
Note that you only need to specify the new ctor for the first element, the rest is auto-deduced.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdio>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct s
{
char* str1;
char* str2;
s(){
}
s(string s1, string s2){
str1=new char[s1.size()+1];
str1[s1.size()]=0;
for(int i(0);i<s1.size();++i)
str1[i]=s1[i];
str2=new char[s2.size()+1];
str2[s2.size()]=0;
for(int i(0);i<s2.size();++i)
str2[i]=s2[i];
}
};
int main(){
const std::vector <struct s> sts=
{
{
"str1",
"str2"
},
{
"str3",
"str4"
}
};
return 0;
}
Is that ok?
Related
class foo {
public:
const char name[100];
foo(const char name[]) : name(name) {};
};
int main(){
foo("test");
return 0;
}
Does not compile. How do I initialize const char[] non-static class member?
You have different option, depending on what you want to achieve.
arrays in C++ are strange beasts, they do not behave like most other types, in particular they decay to pointers and do not have copy-constructors (unless wrapped in a structure/class).
foo(const char name[]) does not take an array by value/by copy, it takes a pointer (yes, the syntax is confusing).
Thus name(name) is trying to initialize an array with a pointer.
If this would compile, it would make it super-easy to overflow the stack by accident, as there is no guarantee that the pointer name points to an array that is long at most 100 elements.
Solution 1
Use a more suitable construct - use a string.
From your snippet, it seems you want to store a piece of text (variable named name, initialisation with a string-literal...), so a std::string or other string-like class (even const char*) is a better construct.
class foo {
public:
std::string name;
explicit foo(std::string name_) : name(name_) {};
};
int main(){
foo("test");
}
Solution 2
Use a better array
If you really need to store/copy an array, consider using std::array (since c++11)
#include <array>
class foo {
public:
std::array<char, 100> name;
explicit foo(std::array<char, 100> name_) : name(name_) {};
};
int main(){
foo(std::array<char, 100>{"test"});
}
Solution 3
Pass the array by const-ref.
There are use--cases where you really want to use an array.
In this case you need to pass the value by reference, and copy the content with std::initializer_list (since c++14, but it's possible to emulate in c++11)
#include <utility>
class foo {
template <std::size_t... PACK1>
explicit foo(const char (&name_)[100], std::index_sequence<PACK1...>)
: name{ name_[PACK1]... }
{}
const char name[100];
public:
explicit foo(const char (&name_)[100])
: foo(name_, std::make_index_sequence<100>{})
{}
};
int main(){
const char hello[100] = "hello!";
foo f = foo(hello);
}
const char (&arr)[100] is an array of length 100 passed by const-reference.
As arrays do not have copy-constructors, we need to use index_sequence to initilize all members.
Solution 4
Use pointers and initialize the array in 2 phases.
Passing the array by const-reference means you need to create such a big array beforehand, and that you cannot pass a string literal which length is not exactly 101 (because of terminatig \0).
#include <cstring>
class foo {
const char name[100];
public:
// constructor requires copy... unsure if needs to be so
explicit foo(const char* name_)
{
std::copy(name_, name_ + std::strlen(name_), name);
}
};
int main(){
const char test[100] = "test!";
foo f = foo(test);
}
i would sugest to use a std::string if you are using c++, but if the const char [] is a must, here is the solution, basically you just copy some portion of the shortest string to the array of size 100, leaving unfilled the extra space(ie: name will result in name = ['t','e','s','t','\0',...]
https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstring/memcpy/
https://ideone.com/91nC60
#include <iostream>
class foo{
const char *name;
public:
void showme(){
std::cout<<name<<std::endl;
};
foo(const char *_name) : name(_name) {
};
};
int main(){
foo a("test");
a.showme();
return 0;
}
or
#include <iostream>
struct foo{
const char *name;
void showme(){
std::cout<<name<<std::endl;
};
};
int main(){
foo a={
.name="test"
};
a.showme();
return 0;
}
The Ghostscript interpreter API has a function
GSDLLEXPORT int GSDLLAPI gsapi_init_with_args(void *instance, int argc, char **argv)
The final argument argv is a pointer to an array of C strings, which are interpreted as command-line arguments. I obviously cannot change the signature of the function gsapi_init_with_args to take a const char ** argument instead.
If I were willing to ignore (or silence) the deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' warning, then I would write simply
char *gs_argv[] = {"", "-dNOPAUSE", "-dBATCH", ...};
and pass gs_argv as the final argument. But I would prefer to fix my code so that I am not relying on an external function to behave in the way I expect it to (and effectively treat gs_argv as const char**).
Is there any simple way to declare gs_argv as an array of pointers to (non-const) C strings, and initialize its elements with string literals? (That is, using a similar approach to how I can initialize a single C string: using char c_str[] = "abc".) The best I can think of is to use
const char *gs_argv0[] = {"", "-dNOPAUSE", "-dBATCH", ...};
and then copy the contents, element by element, into gs_argv.
Please note that I understand why the compiler gives this warning (and have read the answers to, among others, this question). I am asking for a solution, rather than an explanation.
You can use:
char arg1[] = "";
char arg2[] = "-dNOPAUSE";
char arg3[] = "-dBATCH";
char* gs_argv0[] = {arg1, arg2, arg3, NULL};
int argc = sizeof(gs_argv0)/sizeof(gs_argv0[0]) - 1;
gsapi_init_with_args(instance, argc, gs_argv0)
Create copies of the string literals using strdup. This is more verbose, but fixes the warning.
char* gs_argv0[NARGS];
gs_argv0[0] = strdup("");
gs_argv0[1] = strdup("-dNOPAUSE");
// ...
Note that you will also need to free the memory allocated by strdup if you want to prevent leaks.
You might also want to add a comment to your code saying why you are doing this, to make it clear for future readers.
If you can guarantee that the function will not modify the non-const parameter, then it is acceptable to use const_cast in this situation.
A C++14 solution.
#define W(x) \
(([](auto& s)->char* \
{ \
static char r[sizeof(s)]; \
strcpy (r, s); \
return r; \
})(x))
char* argv[] =
{ W("--foo=bar",
W("baz"),
nullptr
};
Since this code requires C++11, there's a lower cost C++11 solution in another answer below. I'm leaving this one for posterity.
There are pretty much two choices: ignore it and const_cast, or do the right thing. Since this is modern C++, you're supposed to have nice, RAII classes. Thus, the simplest, safest thing to do is to safely wrap such an array.
// https://github.com/KubaO/stackoverflown/tree/master/questions/args-cstrings-32484688
#include <initializer_list>
#include <type_traits>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cassert>
#include <vector>
class Args {
struct str_vector : std::vector<char*> {
~str_vector() { for (auto str : *this) free(str); }
} m_data;
void append_copy(const char * s) {
assert(s);
auto copy = strdup(s);
if (copy) m_data.push_back(copy); else throw std::bad_alloc();
}
public:
Args(std::initializer_list<const char*> l) {
for (auto str : l) append_copy(str);
m_data.push_back(nullptr);
}
template <std::size_t N>
Args(const char * const (&l)[N]) {
for (auto str : l) append_copy(str);
m_data.push_back(nullptr);
}
/// Initializes the arguments with a null-terminated array of strings.
template<class C, typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<C, char const**>::value>::type>
Args(C l) {
while (*l) append_copy(*l++);
m_data.push_back(nullptr);
}
/// Initializes the arguments with an array of strings with given number of elements.
Args(const char ** l, size_t count) {
while (count--) append_copy(*l++);
m_data.push_back(nullptr);
}
Args(Args && o) = default;
Args(const Args &) = delete;
size_t size() const { return m_data.size() - 1; }
char ** data() { return m_data.data(); }
bool operator==(const Args & o) const {
if (size() != o.size()) return false;
for (size_t i = 0; i < size(); ++i)
if (strcmp(m_data[i], o.m_data[i]) != 0) return false;
return true;
}
};
Let's see how it works:
#include <iostream>
extern "C" int gsapi_init_with_args(void*, int argc, char** argv) {
for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
std::cout << "arg " << i << "=" << argv[i] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
int main()
{
Args args1 { "foo", "bar", "baz" };
const char * args2i[] { "foo", "bar", "baz", nullptr };
Args args2 { (const char **)args2i };
const char * args3i[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" };
Args args3 { args3i };
const char * const args4i[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" };
Args args4 { args4i };
const char * args5i[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" };
Args args5 { args5i, sizeof(args5i)/sizeof(args5i[0]) };
assert(args1 == args2);
assert(args2 == args3);
assert(args3 == args4);
assert(args4 == args5);
gsapi_init_with_args(nullptr, args1.size(), args1.data());
}
Output:
arg 0=foo
arg 1=bar
arg 2=baz
Try to const_cast it:
gsapi_init_with_args(instance, argc, const_cast<char**>(argv));
Maybe it will help with fixing warning.
Inspired by n.m.'s C++14 version, here's a C++11 version. The trick is to use an evaluated empty lambda expression to generate a fresh type, so that each instantiation of W__ is unique.
template <typename T, int N> static char * W__(const char (&src)[N], T) {
static char storage[N];
strcpy(storage, src);
return storage;
}
#define W(x) W__(x, []{})
char * argv[] = {
W("foo"),
W("bar")
};
The static in front of W__'s return type means that W__ has internal linkage and won't bloat the object file with extra symbols. It has nothing to do with the static in front of storage, as the latter indicates the static storage duration for the local variable. The code below would be perfectly valid, but of course doing the wrong thing and having undefined behavior:
template <typename T, int N> static char * BAD(const char (&src)[N], T) {
char storage[N];
strcpy(storage, src);
return storage;
}
Since a lambda has to be evaluated, you can't simply make its type a template argument:
template<typename> void G();
G<decltype([]{})>(); // doesn't work
I am trying to overload the subscript operator -i know it as the element access operator- to take a char * or a std::string.
I have a struct
struct foo
{
int Age;
const char *Name;
};
and a std::vector that will be holding multiple instances of this struct.
std::vector<foo>bar;
my goal is to be able to access each foo in bar by calling them by their name.
std::cout<<"Simon's age is: "<<bar["simon"];
I've just been searching google for a long while trying to find an example or something to go off, with no luck.
i thought that this would work
foo operator[](char *Name)
{
for(int i=0;i<bar.size();i++)
{
if(bar[i].Name == Name){return bar[i];}
}
}
however apparently i'm doing something wrong
I do know this could be done with an std::map but i'd rather use an std::vector, thanks.
I would greatly appreciate your help however you choose to offer it. Thank you .
To do what you want requires inheriting from std::vector. Otherwise you can't overload its methods.
Something like the following (untested).
struct fooVector : public std::vector<foo> {
typedef std::vector<foo> super;
using super::size;
...
foo& operator[](char const* Name) {
super& self=*this;
for(int i=0;i<size();i++)
{
if( ! strcmp( self[i].Name, Name) ){return self[i];}
}
// Need to do something reasonable if not found
}
};
bar[i].Name == Name
was probably meant to be
strcmp(bar[i].Name, Name) == 0
However, you'll be better off using std::strings than managing plain char pointers.
And instead of inheriting form a vector, create a class with a vector as a member and have your operator[] on that class.
First of all there are some problems with your test:
1) you're using const char* for string type, comparing with == would likely fail as you're comparing two pointers and not their content. you need to use strcmp or better use std::string (c++ way)
2) what if your index operator would not find the value you're looking for?
I don't think this is a proper way of doing this but in case you really want to use vector you can inherit your own class and define new operator which uses const char* as a index argument:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <string.h>
struct foo {
int age;
const char *name;
};
class MyVector : public std::vector<foo> {
public:
const foo* operator[](const char* name) const {
for (auto it=cbegin(); it != cend(); ++it) {
if (strcmp(it->name, name) == 0) {
return &(*it);
}
}
return nullptr;
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
foo foo1 = { 10, "abc" };
foo foo2 = { 20, "test" };
MyVector v;
v.push_back(foo1);
v.push_back(foo2);
std::cout << "test: " << v["test"]->age << std::endl;
}
Although it's not generally advised to inherit from stl containers (they don't have virtual destructors), if you don't add any data attributes to inherited class you should be fine.
But I would suggest you to consider using std::map as a container and std::string as index / name attribute type. Searching vector has linear complexity but std::map has logaritmic complexity. Or you can consider using hash tables.
I have written some code to cast const char* to int by using constexpr and thus I can use a const char* as a template argument. Here is the code:
#include <iostream>
class conststr
{
public:
template<std::size_t N>
constexpr conststr(const char(&STR)[N])
:string(STR), size(N-1)
{}
constexpr conststr(const char* STR, std::size_t N)
:string(STR), size(N)
{}
constexpr char operator[](std::size_t n)
{
return n < size ? string[n] : 0;
}
constexpr std::size_t get_size()
{
return size;
}
constexpr const char* get_string()
{
return string;
}
//This method is related with Fowler–Noll–Vo hash function
constexpr unsigned hash(int n=0, unsigned h=2166136261)
{
return n == size ? h : hash(n+1,(h * 16777619) ^ (string[n]));
}
private:
const char* string;
std::size_t size;
};
// output function that requires a compile-time constant, for testing
template<int N> struct OUT
{
OUT() { std::cout << N << '\n'; }
};
int constexpr operator "" _const(const char* str, size_t sz)
{
return conststr(str,sz).hash();
}
int main()
{
OUT<"A dummy string"_const> out;
OUT<"A very long template parameter as a const char*"_const> out2;
}
In this example code, type of out is OUT<1494474505> and type of out2 is OUT<106227495>. Magic behind this code is conststr::hash() it is a constexpr recursion that uses FNV Hash function. And thus it creates an integral hash for const char* which is hopefully a unique one.
I have some questions about this method:
Is this a safe approach to use? Or can this approach be an evil in a specific use?
Can you write a better hash function that creates different integer for each string without being limited to a number of chars? (in my method, the length is long enough)
Can you write a code that implicitly casts const char* to int constexpr via conststr and thus we will not need aesthetically ugly (and also time consumer) _const user-defined string literal? For example OUT<"String"> will be legal (and cast "String" to integer).
Any help will be appreciated, thanks a lot.
Although your method is very interesting, it is not really a way to pass a string literal as a template argument. In fact, it is a generator of template argument based on string literal, which is not the same: you cannot retrieve string from hashed_string... It kinda defeats the whole interest of string literals in templates.
EDIT : the following was right when the hash used was the weighted sum of the letters, which is not the case after the edit of the OP.
You can also have problems with your hash function, as stated by mitchnull's answer. This may be another big problem with your method, the collisions. For example:
// Both outputs 3721
OUT<"0 silent"_const> out;
OUT<"7 listen"_const> out2;
As far as I know, you cannot pass a string literal in a template argument straightforwardly in the current standard. However, you can "fake" it. Here's what I use in general:
struct string_holder //
{ // All of this can be heavily optimized by
static const char* asString() // the compiler. It is also easy to generate
{ // with a macro.
return "Hello world!"; //
} //
}; //
Then, I pass the "fake string literal" via a type argument:
template<typename str>
struct out
{
out()
{
std::cout << str::asString() << "\n";
}
};
EDIT2: you said in the comments you used this to distinguish between several specializations of a class template. The method you showed is valid for that, but you can also use tags:
// tags
struct myTag {};
struct Long {};
struct Float {};
// class template
template<typename tag>
struct Integer
{
// ...
};
template<> struct Integer<Long> { /* ... */ };
// use
Integer<Long> ...; // those are 2
Integer<Float> ...; // different types
Here is the pattern that I am using for template const string parameters.
class F {
static constexpr const char conststr[]= "some const string";
TemplateObject<conststr> instance;
};
see :
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18031951/782168
I have some C code that I'm trying to convert/wrap into a C++ class. I ran into some C literal arrays(correct me if I'm calling them wrong) and I'm not sure how to initialize them in the C++ constructor since I don't think you can do literals, which I think are compile time specific, to something that is runtime specific.
Should I just explicitly define the array to be of a certain size and just do a strcpy, or some such, of the literal to the array in the constructor?
char sysUpTime[] = {1,3,6,1,2,1,1,3,0};
As an alternative to initializer lists or string manipulation, you could use something like the following (if you really wanted to):
struct Wrapper
{
template <size_t N>
Wrapper(const char(&arr)[N]) : vec(arr, arr+N) { }
vector<char> vec;
};
I've left everything public due to chronic laziness on my part :). You can then initialise like this:
char foo[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
Wrapper bar(foo);
copy(bar.vec.begin(), bar.vec.end(), ostream_iterator<int>(cout, ", "));
Could just use std::string to store OID then initialize it in member initializer list for example:
#include <string>
class Wrapper
{
public:
Wrapper() : sysUpTime("1.3.6.1.2.1.1.3.0") { }
private:
std::string sysUpTime;
};
Or use C++11 std::array
class Wrapper
{
public:
Wrapper() : sysUpTime{{1,3,6,1,2,1,1,3,0}} { }
public:
std::array<char, 10> sysUpTime;
};
The main problem when passing different size c-style arrays to a constructor is that you must pass the size along with it. Here's an example of putting the array into a member vector:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
struct Test
{
std::vector<char> sysUpTime;
Test(const char sysUpTime[], size_t size) :
sysUpTime(sysUpTime, sysUpTime + size)
{ }
};
int main()
{
const char sysUpTime[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
Test test(sysUpTime, sizeof(sysUpTime) / sizeof(char));
}
Unfortunately I know of no way to do this without using a dynamic array (vector), aside from using templates which means that you'll get a separate class instantiated for each and every change in the size of your array.