Without using macros or Boost libraries, is it possible to iterate through a classe's own members in C++?
I know "Reflections" are not natively possible in C++ like they are in Java, C# and Go (heartbreaking), but I don't know if that applies to just classes looking at attributes of other classes or if that also applies to themselves.
I'm hopeful some class minding it's own business might be able to see the attributes of itself somehow at runtime; is this possible?
Nonono. C++ is statically typed compiled language; it does not need to know the names of the members at runtime since all access at runtime is done by address; this makes member names useless cruft that does not justify being in the executable. You can't access what's not there.
The only way to know member names at runtime is to include code that explicitly stores the name during the compilation process - i.e. macros.
Related
I've made a programm with libraries.
One library has a interface for to include a header for an extern programm call:
class IDA{
private:
class IDA_A;
IDA_A *p_IDA_A;
public:
IDA();
~IDA();
void A_Function(const char *A_String);
};
Then I opened the header with Kate and placed
class IDA_A;
IDA_A *p_IDA_A;
into the public part.
And this worked?! But why? And can I avoid that?
Greeting
Earlybite
And this worked?!
Yes
But why?
private, protected and public are just hints to the C+++ compiler how the data structure is supposed to be used. The C++ compiler will error out if piece of C++ source doesn't follow this, but that's it.
It has no effect whatsoever on the memory layout. In particular the C++ standard mandates, that member variables of a class must be laid out in memory in the order they are declared in the class definition.
And can I avoid that?
No. In the same way you can not avoid, that some other piece of code static_casts a (opaque) pointer to your class to char* and dumps it out to a file as is, completely with vtable and everything.
If you really want to avoid the user of a library to "look inside" you must give them some handle value and internally use a map (std::map or similar) to look up the actual instance from the handle value. I do this in some of the libraries I develop, for robustness reasons, but also because some of the programming environments there are bindings for don't deal properly with pointers.
Of course this works. The whole private-public stuff is only checked by the compiler. There are no runtime-checks for this. If the library is already compiled, the user only needs the library file (shared object) and the header files for development. If you afterwards change the header file in the pattern you mentioned, IDA_A is considered public by the compiler.
How can you avoid that? There is no way for this. If another user changes your headerfile, you can do nothing about it. Also is the question: Why bother with it? It can have very ugly side-effects if the headerfile for an already compiled lib is been changed. So the one who changes it also has to deal with the issues. There is just some stuff you dont do. One of them is moving stuff in headers around for libraries (unless you are currently developing on that library).
You've got access to the p_IDA_A member variable, and this is always possible in the manner you've outlined. But it is of type IDA_A, which for which you only have a declaration, but not the definition. So you can not do anything meaningful with it. (This method of data hiding is called the pimpl idiom).
I have two dll-exported classes A and B. A's declaration contains a function which uses a std::vector in its signature like:
class EXPORT A{
// ...
std::vector<B> myFunction(std::vector<B> const &input);
};
(EXPORT is the usual macro to put in place _declspec(dllexport)/_declspec(dllimport) accordingly.)
Reading about the issues related to using STL classes in a DLL interface, I gather in summary:
Using std::vector in a DLL interface would require all the clients of that DLL to be compiled with the same version of the same compiler because STL containers are not binary compatible. Even worse, depending on the use of that DLL by clients conjointly with other DLLs, the ''instable'' DLL API can break these client applications when system updates are installed (e.g. Microsoft KB packages) (really?).
Despite the above, if required, std::vector can be used in a DLL API by exporting std::vector<B> like:
template class EXPORT std::allocator<B>;
template class EXPORT std::vector<B>;
though, this is usually mentioned in the context when one wants to use std::vector as a member of A (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/168958).
The following Microsoft Support Article discusses how to access std::vector objects created in a DLL through a pointer or reference from within the executable (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q172396). The above solution to use template class EXPORT ... seems to be applicable too. However, the drawback summarized under the first bullet point seems to remain.
To completely get rid of the problem, one would need to wrap std::vector and change the signature of myFunction, PIMPL etc..
My questions are:
Is the above summary correct, or do I miss here something essential?
Why does compilation of my class 'A' not generate warning C4251 (class 'std::vector<_Ty>' needs to have dll-interface to be used by clients of...)? I have no compiler warnings turned off and I don't get any warning on using std::vector in myFunction in exported class A (with VS2005).
What needs to be done to correctly export myFunction in A? Is it viable to just export std::vector<B> and B's allocator?
What are the implications of returning std::vector by-value? Assuming a client executable which has been compiled with a different compiler(-version). Does trouble persist when returning by-value where the vector is copied? I guess yes. Similarly for passing std::vector as a constant reference: could access to std::vector<B> (which might was constructed by an executable compiled with a different compiler(-version)) lead to trouble within myFunction? I guess yes again..
Is the last bullet point listed above really the only clean solution?
Many thanks in advance for your feedback.
Unfortunately, your list is very much spot-on. The root cause of this is that DLL-to-DLL or DLL-to-EXE is defined on the level of the operating system, while the the interface between functions is defined on the level of a compiler. In a way, your task is similar (although somewhat easier) to that of client-server interaction, when the client and the server lack binary compatibility.
The compiler maps what it can to the way the DLL importing and exporting is done in a particular operating system. Since language specifications give compilers a lot of liberty when it comes to binary layout of user-defined types and sometimes even built-in types (recall that the exact size of int is compiler-dependent, as long as minimal sizing requirements are met), importing and exporting from DLLs needs to be done manually to achieve binary-level compatibility.
When you use the same version of the same compiler, this last issue above does not create a problem. However, as soon as a different compiler enters the picture, all bets are off: you need to go back to the plainly-typed interfaces, and introduce wrappers to maintain nice-looking interfaces inside your code.
I've been having the same problem and discovered a neat solution to it.
Instead of passing std:vector, you can pass a QVector from the Qt library.
The problems you quote are then handled inside the Qt library and you do not need to deal with it at all.
Of course, the cost is having to use the library and accept its slightly worse performance.
In terms of the amount of coding and debugging time it saves you, this solution is well worth it.
Just out of curiosity: is there a way to use variable as object name in c++?
something along the lines:
char a[] = "testme\0";
*a *vr = new *a();
If you were to write a c/c++ compiler how would you go about to implement such a thing?
I know they implemented this feature in zend engine but to lazy to look it up.
Maybe some of you guys can enlight me :)
In case what you are looking for is something like this
<?php
$className = "ClassName";
$instance = new $className();
?>
That's simply not possible in C++. This fails for many reasons, one of them that C++ at runtime doesn't know much about names of classes anymore (only in debug mode) If somebody wanted to write a compiler that would allow something like this, it would be necessary to keep a lot of information that a C++ compiler only needs during compilation and linking. Changing this would create a new language.
If you want to dynamically create classes depending on information only available at runtime, in C++ you would most likely use some of the Creational Design Patterns.
Edit:
PHP is one language, C++ is a very different one. 16M may not be that much nowadays, for a C++ programmer where some programs are in the k range, it's a whole world. Nobody wants to ship a complete compiler with his C++ app to be able to get all the dynamic features (that btw PHP too implements only in a limited way as far as I know, if you want really dynamic runtime code creation, have a look at Ruby or Python). C++ has (as all languages) a certain philosophy and creating objects by name in a string doesn't fit very well with it. This feature alone is quite useless anyway and would by no means justify the overhead necessary to implement it. This could most likely be done without adding runtime compilation, but even the extra kilobytes necessary to store the names alone make no sense in the C++ world. And C++ is strictly typed and this functionality would have to make sure, that type checking doesn't break.
In C and C++, identifier names do not have the same meaning they do in PHP.
PHP is a dynamic language, and (at least conceptually) runs in an interpreted context. Identifier names are present at run time, they can be inspected through PHP's reflection features, you can use strings to refer to functions, variables, globals, and object properties by name, etc. PHP identifiers are actual semantic entities.
In C++, identifiers are lost at run time (again, conceptually speaking). You use them in your source code to identify variables, functions, classes, etc., but the compiler translates them into memory addresses or literal values, or even optimizes them away completely. Identifier names are not generally present in the compiled binary (unless you instructed the compiler to include debug symbols), and there is no way to inspect them at run-time. Even with RTTI, the best you can get is an arbitrary number to identify a type; you can compare them for equality, but you cannot get the name back.
Consequently, if you want to translate strings into identifier names at run-time in C++, you have to perform the mapping manually. std::map can be a great help for this - you hand it a string, and it gives you a value. This doesn't work directly for class names; for these, you need to implement some sort of factory method. A nice solution is to have one wrapper function for each type, and then a std::map that maps class names to the corresponding wrappers. Something like:
map<string, FoobarFactoryMethod> factory_map;
Foobar* FooFactory() { return new Foo(); }
Foobar* BarFactory() { return new Bar(); }
Foobar* BazFactory() { return new Baz(); }
void fill_map() {
factory_map["Foo"] = FooFactory;
factory_map["Bar"] = BarFactory;
factory_map["Baz"] = BazFactory;
}
// and then later:
Foobar* f = factory_map[classname]();
Why do you even want to have this feature? You are most likely misusing OOP. Whenever my needs ran into hard language barriers like this I ended up doing one of the following:
Rethink your solution to the problem so it fits OOP better
Create a DSL for your problem (domain specific language)
Create a code generator for this part of your problem
Pick a language that fits your problem better
A combination of the above
I would think that what you want to do would be best accomplished using interfaces and a factory pattern.
As far as I know, if I have a class such as the following:
class TileSurface{
public:
Tile * tile;
enum Type{
Top,
Left,
Right
};
Type type;
Point2D screenverts[4]; // it's a rectangle.. so..
TileSurface(Tile * thetile, Type thetype);
};
There's no easy way to programatically (using templates or whatever) go through each member and do things like print their types (for example, typeinfo's typeid(Tile).name()).
Being able to loop through them would be a useful and easy way to generate class size reports, etc. Is this impossible to do, or is there a way (even using external tools) for this?
Simply not possible in C++. You would need something like Reflection to implement this, which C++ doesn't have.
As far as your code is concerned after it is compiled, the "class" doesn't exist -- the names of the variables as well as their types have no meaning in assembly, and therefore they aren't encoded into the binary.
(Note: When I say "Not possible in C++" I mean "not possible to do built into the language" -- you could of course write a C++ parser in C++ which could implement this sort of thing...)
No. There are no easy way. If to put "easy way" aside then with C++ you can do anything imaginable.
If you want just to dump your data contents run-time then simplest way is to implement operator<<(ostream&,YourClass const&) for each YourClass you are interested in. Bit more complex is to implement visitor pattern, but with visitor pattern you may have different reports done by different visitors and also the visitors may do other things, not only generate reports.
If you want it as static analysis (program is not running, you want to generate reports) then you can use debugger database. Alternatively you may analyze AST generated by some compilers (g++ and CLang have options to generate it) and generate reports from it.
If you really need run-time reflection then you have to build it into your classes. That involves overhead. For example you may use common base-classes and put all data members of classes into array too. It is often done to communicate with applications written in languages that have reflection on more equal grounds (oldest example is Lisp).
I beg to differ from the conventional wisdom. C++ does have it; it's not part of the C++ standard, but every single C++ compiler I've seen emits metadata of this sort for use by the debugger.
Moreover, two formats for the debug database cover almost all modern compilers: pdb (the Microsoft format) and dwarf2 (just about everything else).
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is what you call an "external tool" for extractingt/transforming arbitrary code. DMS is generalized compiler technology parameterized by explicit langauge definitions. It has language definitions for C, C++, Java, COBOL, PHP, ...
For C, C++, Java and COBOL versions, it provides complete access to parse trees, and symbol table information. That symbol table information includes the kind of data you are likely to want from "reflection". If you goal is to enumerate some set of fields or methods and do something with them, DMS can be used to transform the code (or generate derived code) according to what you find in the symbol tables in arbitrary ways.
If you derive all types of the member variables from your common typeinfo-provider-baseclass, then you can get that. It is a bit more work than like in Java, but possible.
External tools: you mentioned that you need reports like class size, etc.--
Doxygen could help http://www.doxygen.nl/manual/features.html to generate class member lists (including inherited members).
I was reading the GoF book and in the beginning of the prototype section I read this:
This benefit applies primarily to
languages like C++ that don't treat
classes as first class objects.
I've never used C++ but I do have a pretty good understanding of OO programming, yet, this doesn't really make any sense to me. Can anyone out there elaborate on this (I have used\use: C, Python, Java, SQL if that helps.)
For a class to be a first class object, the language needs to support doing things like allowing functions to take classes (not instances) as parameters, be able to hold classes in containers, and be able to return classes from functions.
For an example of a language with first class classes, consider Java. Any object is an instance of its class. That class is itself an instance of java.lang.Class.
For everybody else, heres the full quote:
"Reduced subclassing. Factory Method
(107) often produces a hierarchy of
Creator classes that parallels the
product class hierarchy. The Prototype
pattern lets you clone a prototype
instead of asking a factory method to
make a new object. Hence you don't
need a Creator class hierarchy at all.
This benefit applies primarily to
languages like C++ that don't treat
classes as first-class objects.
Languages that do, like Smalltalk and
Objective C, derive less benefit,
since you can always use a class
object as a creator. Class objects
already act like prototypes in these
languages." - GoF, page 120.
As Steve puts it,
I found it subtle in so much as one
might have understood it as implying
that /instances/ of classes are not
treated a first class objects in C++.
If the same words used by GoF appeared
in a less formal setting, they may
well have intended /instances/ rather
than classes. The distinction may not
seem subtle to /you/. /I/, however,
did have to give it some thought.
I do believe the distinction is
important. If I'm not mistaken, there
is no requirement than a compiled C++
program preserve any artifact by which
the class from which an object is
created could be reconstructed. IOW,
to use Java terminology, there is no
/Class/ object.
In Java, every class is an object in and of itself, derived from java.lang.Class, that lets you access information about that class, its methods etc. from within the program. C++ isn't like that; classes (as opposed to objects thereof) aren't really accessible at runtime. There's a facility called RTTI (Run-time Type Information) that lets you do some things along those lines, but it's pretty limited and I believe has performance costs.
You've used python, which is a language with first-class classes. You can pass a class to a function, store it in a list, etc. In the example below, the function new_instance() returns a new instance of the class it is passed.
class Klass1:
pass
class Klass2:
pass
def new_instance(k):
return k()
instance_k1 = new_instance(Klass1)
instance_k2 = new_instance(Klass2)
print type(instance_k1), instance_k1.__class__
print type(instance_k2), instance_k2.__class__
C# and Java programs can be aware of their own classes because both .NET and Java runtimes provide reflection, which, in general, lets a program have information about its own structure (in both .NET and Java, this structure happens to be in terms of classes).
There's no way you can afford reflection without relying upon a runtime environment, because a program cannot be self-aware by itself*. But if the execution of your program is managed by a runtime, then the program can have information about itself from the runtime. Since C++ is compiled to native, unmanaged code, there's no way you can afford reflection in C++**.
...
* Well, there's no reason why a program couldn't read its own machine code and "try to make conclusions" about itself. But I think that's something nobody would like to do.
** Not strictly accurate. Using horrible macro-based hacks, you can achieve something similar to reflection as long as your class hierarchy has a single root. MFC is an example of this.
Template metaprogramming has offered C++ more ways to play with classes, but to be honest I don't think the current system allows the full range of operations people may want to do (mainly, there is no standard way to discover all the methods available to a class or object). That's not an oversight, it is by design.