So I was trying to set up an easy way for future developments to define log-messages.
I thought of the following object-initialization inside a Header (as a global variable "SYSTEM_START"; not inside a function!):
const LogMessage SYSTEM_STARTED(0x0001, DEBUG, "System started");
which needs other declarations from a different header (just for the example here):
enum LogSeverity_E : uint8_t
{
INFO = 0x01,
DEBUG = 0x02
};
class LogMessage
{
public:
LogMessage( uint16_t messageId, LogSeverity_E severityId, const char* text = nullptr );
const char* getText() const;
private:
uint16_t messageId_;
LogSeverity_E severityId_;
const char* text_;
};
and its definition in a cpp:
LogMessage::LogMessage(uint16_t messageId, LogSeverity_E severityId, ConstCharPtr text) :
messageId_ { messageId }, severityId_ {severityId}, text_ { text }
{
/* if I call a function here, e.g. a Singleton-function-call. What will happen if the object is initialized as a local/global variable like at the top? */
};
const char* LogMessage::getText() const
{
return text_;
};
I am not working on a PC but on an embedded hardware with a special compiler. And what I saw here is that it calls this constructor even before jumping to main and so it also calls a singleton there as well.
I couldn't find any definition for this behaviour inside the cppreference nor elsewhere because everywhere the constructor-body for constant objects is just empty.
so as the comment in the constructor states: what happens if I call a function there in this specific example with const-objects as global variables? Is my explained behaviour that happens here a legal behaviour? Is even the usage of this code like this a legal behaviour? Or am I just lucky with my compiler and my embedded hw?
Related
In a class header file Texture.h I declare a static const int.
static const int MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS;
In Texture.cpp I define the variable as 0.
const int Texture::MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS = 0;
Now in Window.cpp class's constructor I attempt to assign to the variable using an out parameter, however this obviously does not compile as &Texture::MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS points to a const int* and not an int* .
glGetIntegerv(GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS, &Texture::MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS);
I have tried using const_cast, but am greeted with a segmentation fault on runtime.
glGetIntegerv(GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS, const_cast<int*>(&Texture::MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS));
I have also tried directly casting to an int * but once again, seg fault.
glGetIntegerv(GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS, (int*)&Texture::MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS);
Many thanks.
EDIT 2: So since you're trying to abstract OpenGL contexts, you'll have to let go of the "traditional" constructor/destructor idioms. And just for your information (unrelated to this question): OpenGL contexts are not tied to windows! As long as a set of windows and OpenGL contexts are compatible with each other, you may mix and match any way you like. But I digress.
The standard idiom to deal with a situation like yours is to use preinitializing factory functions. Like this:
class MyOpenGLContextWrapper {
public:
// Yes, shared_ptr; using a unique_ptr here for objects that are kind
// of a nexus for other things -- like an OpenGL context -- just creates
// a lot of pain and misery. Trust me, I know what I'm talkink about.
typedef std::shared_ptr<MyOpenGLContextWrapper> ptr;
struct constdata {
NativeGLContextType context;
// ...
GLint max_texture_image_units;
// ...
};
static ptr create();
protected:
MyOpenGLContextWrapper(constdata const &cdata) : c(cdata) {};
virtual ~MyOpenGLContextWrapper();
constdata const c;
}
MyOpenGLContextWrapper::ptr MyOpenGLContextWrapper::create()
{
struct object : public MyOpenGLContextWrapper {
object(MyOpenGLContextWrapper::constdata const &cdata) : MyOpenGLContextWrapper(cdata) {}
~object(){}
};
MyOpenGLContextWrapper::constdata cdata = {};
// of course this should all also do error checking and failure rollbacks
cdata.context = create_opengl_context();
bind_opengl_context(cdata.context);
// ...
glGetInteger(GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS, &cdata.max_texture_image_units);
return std::make_shared<object>(cdata);
}
EDIT: I just saw that you intend to use this to hold on to a OpenGL limit. In that case you can't do this on a global scope anyway, since those values depend on the OpenGL context in use. A process may have several OpenGL contexts, each with different limits.
On most computer systems you'll encounter these days, variables declared const in global scope will be placed in memory that has been marked as read only. You literally can't assign to such a variable.
The usual approach to implement global scope runtime constants is by means of query functions that will return from an internal or otherwise concealed or protected value. Like
// header.h
int runtime_constant();
#define RUNTIME_CONSTANT runtime_constant()
// implementation.c / .cpp
int runtime_constant_query(){
static int x = 0;
// NOTE: This is not thread safe!
if( !x ){ x = determine_value(); }
return x;
}
You can then fetch the value by calling that function.
Provided that glGetIntegerv doesn't depend on other gl* functions being called before, you may use an immediately-invoked lambda:
// Texture.cpp
const int Texture::MAX_TEXTURE_SLOTS = []
{
int maxTextureSlots{0}:
glGetIntegerv(GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS, &maxTextureSlots);
return maxTextureSlots;
}();
You don't.
You can't assign to a const outside of its definition. Also, using a const variable where the const has been const_casted away is UB. This also means you can't directly initialize a const variable with an output parameter. For trivial types, just output to another variable and make a const copy if you so wish.
If you were the author of the function you're calling, you would do well not to use out parameters, and then you could assign to const variables directly, perhaps using structured bindings if you want to name multiple of the outputs at a time. But here, you're not.
In embedded systems, you often have a memory location which is not within the program memory itself but which points to some hardware registers. Most C SDKs provide these as #define statements. According to the following article, https://arne-mertz.de/2017/06/stepping-away-from-define/ one method of transitioning from #define statements (as used by C SDKs) to something more C++ friendly, is to create a class which forces reinterpret_cast to occur at runtime.
I am trying to go about this in a slightly different way because I want to be able to create "type traits" for the different pointers. Let me illustrate with an example.
#define USART1_ADDR 0x1234
#define USART2_ADDR 0x5678
template <typename T_, std::intptr_t ADDR_>
class MemPointer {
public:
static T_& ref() { return *reinterpret_cast<T_*>(ADDR_); }
};
class USART {
public:
void foo() { _registerA = 0x10; }
private:
uint32_t _registerA;
uint32_t _registerB;
};
using USART1 = MemPointer<USART, USART1_ADDR>;
using USART2 = MemPointer<USART, USART2_ADDR>;
template <typename USART_>
class usart_name;
template <>
class usart_name<USART1> {
public:
static constexpr const char* name() { return "USART1"; }
};
template <>
class usart_name<USART2> {
public:
static constexpr const char* name() { return "USART2"; }
};
Each USART "instance" in this example is its own, unique type so that I am able to create traits which allow compile-time "lookup" of information about the USART instance.
This actually seems to work, however, I wanted to create some test code as follows
static USART testUsart;
#define TEST_USART_ADDR (std::intptr_t)(&testUsart);
using TEST_USART = MemPointer<USART, TEST_USART_ADDR>;
Which fails with the following error:
conversion from pointer type 'USART*' to arithmetic type
'intptr_t' {aka 'long long int'} in a constant expression
I believe I understand the source of the problem based upon Why is reinterpret_cast not constexpr?
My question is, is there a way to make my MemPointer template work for test code like above as well?
EDIT
One solution is to have a separate class for each "instance" has follows
class USART1 : public USART {
public:
static USART& ref() { return *reinterpret_cast<USART*>(USART1_ADDR); }
};
class USART2 : public USART {
public:
static USART& ref() { return *reinterpret_cast<USART*>(USART2_ADDR); }
};
I would prefer some sort of template + using combination though so that I don't need to write a bunch of classes. But perhaps this is the only option.
is there a way to make my MemPointer template work for test code like above as well?
You could just stop insisting that the address be an intptr_t. You're going to cast it to a pointer anyway, so why not just allow any type for which that conversion exists?
template <typename T_, typename P, P ADDR_>
class MemPointer {
public:
static T_& ref() { return *reinterpret_cast<T_*>(ADDR_); }
};
using USART1 = MemPointer<USART, std::intptr_t, USART1_ADDR>;
using USART2 = MemPointer<USART, std::intptr_t, USART2_ADDR>;
static USART testUsart;
using TEST_USART = MemPointer<USART, USART*, &testUsart>;
Follow-up notes:
if this were for a library to be used by others, I'd consider adding a static_assert(std::is_trivial_v<T_>) inside MemPointer to catch annoying errors
there are a few potential issues around things like padding & alignment, but I assume you know what your particular embedded platform is doing
you should volatile-qualify your register members, or the whole object (eg. you can return std::add_volatile_t<T_>& from MemPointer::ref)
This is so the compiler knows that every write is an observable side-effect (ie, observable by the hardware even if your program never reads it back), and that every read may produce a different value (because the hardware can update it even if your program doesn't).
I am trying to achieve the following. I want to store some of the system information in a set of variables.
Say the variables are:
std::string GPU;
std::string CPU;
std::string OS;
I want these variables to have global scope, but only for reading (they should not be modified). Normally for this one would simply append const to the declaration. However for some of these variables I need to find the information at runtime after main has executed.
The issues is thus that I cannot simply initialize them statically as one normally would, I need to wait until some processing has been made to set them.
Overall I need the variables to be initialized once and exactly once by a function and then just be readable.
Is this achievable at all?
Why not hide required constants behind private static scope of a struct? In multithreaded environment you may even add a conditional variable and wait for initialization.
struct globals {
static const std::string& GPU() {assert(is_inited_); return gpu_;}
static init(std::string GPU, ...) {gpu_ = std::move(GPU); ...; is_inited_ = true;}
private:
std::string gpu_;
std::string cpu_;
std::string os_;
book is_inited_;
};
int main() {
...
// initialize consts at some point
globals::init();
...
// access consts
globals::GPU();
}
// initial values
std::string globals::gpu_;
...
bool globals::is_inited_ = false;
I have a configuration file which gets read in, parsed and put into structures at the beginning of my programs run time.
The problem I am having is that I want these structures to be constant since the values in them should not change during the programs lifespan.
Currently I am doing the following:
config.h
#pragma warning(push)
#pragma warning(disable: 4510) /*-- we don't want a default constructor --*/
#pragma warning(disable: 4610) /*-- we don't want this to ever be user instantiated --*/
typedef struct SerialNode {
private:
void operator=(SerialNode&);
public:
const char* const port;
const char* const format;
} SerialNode;
#pragma warning(pop)
typedef std::map<const char*, const SerialNode*, MapStrComp> SerialMap;
SerialMap SerialConfig;
config.cpp
/*-- so we don't fall out of scope --*/
SerialNode* global_sn;
SerialNode local_sn = {port, format};
global_sn = new SerialNode(local_sn);
SerialConfig[key_store] = global_sn;
This works fine. However my problem is that now I am dealing with more complicated configuration data which requires me to pull a structure back out of the list, modify it and then put it back.
Obviously I can't modify it, so the solution would be something like:
SerialNode* global_sn;
SerialNode* old_sn = SerialConfig[key_store];
SerialNode local_sn = {port, format, old_sn->old_data, old_sn->more_old_data};
global_sn = new SerialNode(local_sn);
SerialConfig[key_store] = global_sn;
delete old_sn;
But this strikes me as bad programming practice. Is there is a better way to achieve what I'm going for which doesn't require such a hacked looking solution?
For reference, I'm using Visual Studio 2010
As always, the best thing you can do is not re-implement something that has already been written. There are a large number of libraries and frameworks that will help with serialization for c++:
Boost Serialization
Qt
Protocol Buffers
msgpack
Capn' Proto
Ideally the serialization framework you choose will exactly recreate the data graph that you are trying to store. Regardless of whether you have done any fixup, your goal will likely be to only provide const access to the global configuration data. Just make sure that mutators (including non const pointers) are not exposed via a header file.
The simple answer is what Thomas suggest, but correctly done (that is, not causing undefined behavior):
Create a mutable configuration object but pass it to the rest of the components by constant reference. When you create (and where you maintain) the real object you can change it, but the rest of the application won't be able to modify the config. A common pattern I have used in the past was:
class SomeObject {
Configuration const & config;
public:
SomeObject(Configuration const & config) : config(config) {}
void f() {
if (config.someParam()) { ...
// ...
void loadConfiguration(Config & config) { ... }
int main() {
Configuration config;
loadConfiguration(config); // config is a non-const &, can modify
SomeObject object(config); // object holds a const&, can only read
object.f();
// ...
This is not an answer to your question, just some observations to your code.
You don't need the typedef struct SerialNode { ... } SerialNode;, this is a c idiom. In c++, you just write struct SerialNode { ... }; and use SerialNode as a type name.
If you want to prevent a default constructor, make it private as you already do with the assignment operator
class SerialNode {
private:
SerialNode();
SerialNode &operator=(SerialNode&);
...
};
Don't use char* members, use std::string instead. C++ strings are much easier and safer to use than plain char pointers and the associated heap allocation.
Same goes for the map key; if you use std::string as a key, you don't need MapStrComp anymore, because std::string already provides an appropriate comparison.
Probably nicer is to wrap the whole thing in a singleton class:
class Config {
public:
static Config const& get() { return *config; }
static void load();
SerialNode const* operator[](const char*);
private:
static Config* config;
SerialMap map;
};
void Config::load() {
config = new Config();
// put things into it
}
Disclaimer: not tested, and haven't used C++ in a while, so there might be some syntax errors :)
So this is what I am trying to accomplish. I am trying to use a sax parser to parse some XML. it looks like I need to call all their methods as statics. So if I want to pass a value back from say startElement it is static void startElement. Which brings me to my example code. I have been pulling my hair on how to update a value in a Nesting class from a static member function.
I have looked at several things such as defining OuterClass * oc; then trying to reference oc->allRecords, but since it is a static method inside, it fails. I am sure I am doing something wrong architecturally, so any feedback on what would be the right way to do this would be a great help. Thanks.
class Attribute {
string AttributeName;
string AttributeValue;
};
typedef shared_ptr<Attribute> AttributePtr;
class AttributeSet {
vector<AttributePtr> Attributes;
};
typedef shared_ptr<AttributeSet> AttributeSetPtr;
class OuterClass {
public :
vector<AttributeSetPtr> allRecords;
class InnerClass {
public:
static mymethod1() {
// I need to be able to set attributes here :
// This would be the characters method for sax parsing
// What is the right way to Attributes.push_back(new Attribute(Name,Value));
}
static mymethod2() {
// I also need to be able to add Records here :
// This would be the endElement for sax parsing
// What is the right way to allRecords.push_back(AttributeSet);
}
};
// EDIT: CALLING CODE GOES HERE (WAS EDITED - SEE BELOW)
};
// ADDING INFORMATION REGARDING HOW METHOD 1 & 2 are called
xmlSAXHandler saxHandler;
memset(&saxHandler, 0, sizeof(saxHandler));
saxHandler.initialized = XML_SAX2_MAGIC;
...
saxHandler.endElementsNs = &InnerClass::method2;
saxHandler.characters = &InnerClass::method1;
...
InnerClass innerXmlParsingClass
xmlSaxUserParseMemory( &saxHandler, &innerXmlParsingClass, xmlString, xmlString.length());
Your mistake is using an inner class (are you coming from Java?).
I don't know what you believe you are are achieving with an inner class, but it won't work. Don't use inner classes in C++ unless you really know what it does (for inner classes, protected and private members of the outer classes are seen as if they were public).
Now, as the solution to your problem, I guess it depends on the implementation you're using (I used once Apache's Xerces SAX, but I know Microsoft offers its own SAX implementation, and that there should be a lot other alternatives, so...)
Edit
After the comment, I found the following tutorial:
http://www.jamesh.id.au/articles/libxml-sax/libxml-sax.html
I must say that, coming from Java to C++, and using a C API, you have a kind of courage...
:-D
If you are not familiar enough with function pointers, and C in general, using libxml2 will be a challenge. Be sure that in the end, you will understand those notions... Note that C have a way to handle the data that C++, Java or C# developers associate to this. The C way is to pass a pointer to your data (the user data) to a function, and when the callback is called, it passes back this pointer, typed as a void *. You must then cast it back to its right type, and voilà, you have your this back.
:-)
Anyway, reading the doc, I see that when you parse the file, you'll call the following C function:
int xmlSAXUserParseFile( xmlSAXHandlerPtr sax,
void * user_data,
const char * filename);
the user_data part is the one that interest you because it enables you to have a context. So, wrapping this function in a C++ class, you could have something like:
// MySaxBase.hpp
class MySaxBase
{
public :
MySaxBase() ;
int parseFile(const std::string & p_filename) ;
virtual void startDocument() ;
virtual void endDocument() ;
private :
static void do_startDocument(void *p_user_data) ;
static void do_endDocument(void *p_user_data) ;
xmlSAXHandler m_sax ;
}
.
// MySaxBase.cpp
extern "C"
{
void do_startDocument(void *p_user_data)
{
// this static method will convert the p_user_data into
// the this pointer...
MySaxBase * saxBase = static_cast<MySaxBase *>(p_user_data) ;
// ...and call the right virtual method
saxBase->startDocument() ;
}
void do_endDocument(void *p_user_data)
{
// this static method will convert the p_user_data into
// the this pointer...
MySaxBase * saxBase = static_cast<MySaxBase *>(p_user_data) ;
// ...and call the right virtual method
saxBase->endDocument() ;
}
} // extern "C"
MySaxBase::MySaxBase()
{
// the m_sax structure must be set to zero to NULL all its
// pointers to functions
memset(&m_sax, 0, sizeof(xmlSAXHandler)) ;
// Now, we initialize some pointers to the static method we
// want to be called
this->m_sax.startDocument = do_startDocument ;
this->m_sax.endDocument = do_endDocument ;
}
int MySaxBase::parseFile(const std::string & p_filename)
{
// the important thing, here, is the this pointer, passed as
// a user_data parameter
return xmlSAXUserParseFile(&m_sax, this, p_filename.c_str()) ;
}
void MySaxBase::startDocument()
{
// The document started. Override this method to
// actually do something
}
void MySaxBase::endDocument()
{
// The document ended. Override this method to
// actually do something
}
I did not test this, and I never used libxml2, but I guess the code must be Ok, and this should be enough for you to continue on your own: Just add the methods you want to support, initialize the sax handler with the relevant function pointers, and you'll have your class complete.
The MySaxBase::startDocument and MySaxBase::endDocument methods are virtual just for you to derive from MySaxBase and then override those methods.
Edit 2
I'll reproduce here Steve Jessop's excellent comment:
+1. One tiny quibble - I don't think that static member functions are guaranteed by the C++ standard to have C linkage / calling convention, but to use them as a callback from a C API, that's what they need. I don't specifically know what implementations it makes a difference, but for safety do_startDocument should be a free function declared with extern "C". On the same subject: a Java programmer may not realise you have make sure that the function can't throw an exception (because C doesn't have them). So you'd normally want to see a try/catch(...) in the wrapper function. – Steve Jessop
Following this, and after reading Johannes Schaub - litb (who else?) no less excellent answer at static vs extern "C"/"C++" , I modified the code to make do_startDocument and do_endDocument real C functions (i.e. wrapped in an extern "C" block). This usually is not important (I never encountered this kind of problem), but, better safe than sorry.
Your basic problem is that static methods are not per-instance, so there is no this pointer. You somehow need to get a OuterClass* passed to mymethod1 and mymethod2.
If you show us how mymethod1 and mymethod2 are called, we can help you further.
If it's simply called by you someplace where you have a OuterClass object, then your solution is simple:
class OuterClass
{
// ...
static void mymethod1(OuterClass* oc)
{
oc->all_records.push_back( something );
}
};
void some_func()
{
OuterClass oc;
OuterClass::method1(&oc);
}
Since you updated your question here is how you should do this:
class OuterClass {
public:
vector<AttributeSetPtr> allRecords;
void characters(const xmlChar* ch, int len)
{
// do here whatever you want
allRecords.push_back(bla bla);
}
static void static_characters(void* ctx, const xmlChar* ch, int len) {
// retrieve this pointer from ctx
static_cast<OuterClass*>(ctx)->characters(ch, len);
}
};
saxHandler.characters = &OuterClass::static_characters;
...
OuterClass outerClass;
xmlSaxUserParseMemory(&saxHandler, static_cast<void*>(&outerClass), xmlString, xmlString.length());