I'm trying to implement a callback which passes control from an Interrupt Service Routine to a member function on a c++ class. I thought lambdas and closures would be a convenient means of doing this, but I'm having trouble implementing it. Below is a simplified version of my code.
The issue I'm stuck on is how to store the "function pointer" to the "lambda".
class Gpio
{
public:
typedef void (*ExtiHandler)();
private:
ExtiHandler handler;
public:
void enable_irq(ExtiHandler handler_in)
{
// enable interrupt
// ...
// save handler so callback can be issued later
handler = handler_in;
}
};
class Button
{
private:
Gpio& pin;
public:
Button(Gpio& pin_in) : pin(pin_in)
{
};
void button_pressed()
{
// do something
}
void init()
{
pin.enable_irq([this]() { this->button_pressed(); });
}
};
Compiling fails with the following error message;
no matching function for call to 'Gpio::enable_irq(Button::init()::<lambda()>)'candidate: void Gpio::enable_irq(Gpio::ExtiHandler) no known conversion for argument 1 from 'Button::init()::<lambda()>' to 'Gpio::ExtiHandler {aka void (*)()}' Build failed
How can I modify this code to resolve the compile error?
The problem is, that enable_irq function expects a typed function pointer of type void (*ExtiHandler)() not a lambda function.
That means, here
pin.enable_irq([this]() { this->button_pressed(); });
you are trying to store a lambda function(with capturing the instance) to a typed function pointer. You could have converted the lambda to a function pointer(easily) if it would have been a capture-less lambda.
See [expr.prim.lambda.closure] (sec 7)
The closure type for a non-generic lambda-expression with no
lambda-capture whose constraints (if any) are satisfied has a
conversion function to pointer to function with C++ language linkage
having the same parameter and return types as the closure type's
function call operator.
Since lambdas are not just ordinary functions and capturing it need to preserve a state,
you can not find any simple or conventional solution to make them assign to function pointers.
Solution - 1
The simplest solution is to use std::function instead, by paying some type erasure overhead. That means, in your code, just need to change the
typedef void(*ExtiHandler)();
to
typedef std::function<void()> ExtiHandler;
// or
// using ExtiHandler = std::function<void()>;
Solution - 2
Can this be accomplished without using the STL?
Yes. After making a small research on this topic, I came up with a type traits solution to store the lambdas with closure to the equivalent typed function pointer.
#include <iostream>
template<typename Lambda> struct convert_lambda : convert_lambda<decltype(&Lambda::operator())> {};
template<typename Lambda, typename ReType, typename... Args>
struct convert_lambda<ReType(Lambda::*)(Args...) const>
{
using funPtr = ReType(*)(Args...);
static funPtr make_function_ptr(const Lambda& t)
{
static const Lambda& lmda = t;
return [](Args... args) { return lmda(args...); };
}
};
template<typename Lambda> using convert_lambda_t = typename convert_lambda<Lambda>::funPtr;
template<typename Lambda> constexpr convert_lambda_t<Lambda> make_function_ptr(const Lambda& t)
{
return convert_lambda<Lambda>::make_function_ptr(t);
}
Usage: SEE LIVE EXAMPLE
You can now simply continue with your Gpio and Button classes, without
changing anything.:
pin.enable_irq(make_function_ptr([this]() { this->button_pressed(); }));
// or
// pin.enable_irq(make_function_ptr([&]() { this->button_pressed();}));
Or with arguments. For example
int aa = 4;
auto lmda = [&aa](const int a, const float f) { std::cout << a * aa * f << std::endl; };
void(*fPtrTest)(const int, const float) = make_function_ptr(lmda);
fPtrTest(1, 2.0f);
Drawbacks: The solution - 2:
is not capable of recognizing the optional sequence of specifiers.(i.e, mutable, constexpr)
is not capable of forwarding parameter pack to the traits. i.e,
the following is not possible:
return [](Args&&... args) { return lmda(std::forward<Args>(args)...); };
Closure object can be assigned to function pointer only if capture list of lambda is empty, in your case this condition is not met - [this].
You can use std::function as wrapper to store your closures:
#include <functional>
class Gpio
{
public:
using ExtiHandler = std::function<void()>;
private:
std::function<void()> handler;
public:
void enable_irq(const ExtiHandler& handler_in)
{
handler = handler_in;
}
};
If you don't have std library then you could implement the type erasure yourself.
Something like this ...
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
struct function
{
struct base
{
virtual void call() = 0;
virtual base* clone() = 0;
};
template <typename Fn>
struct impl : base
{
Fn fn_;
impl(Fn&& fn) : fn_(std::forward<Fn>(fn)){}
impl(Fn& fn) : fn_(fn){}
virtual void call()
{
fn_();
}
virtual base* clone() { return new impl<Fn>(fn_); }
};
base* holder_;
function() : holder_(nullptr)
{};
template <typename Fn>
function(Fn&& fn) : holder_(nullptr)
{
holder_ = new impl<Fn>(std::forward<Fn>(fn));
}
function( function&& other)
{
holder_ = other.holder_;
other.holder_ = nullptr;
}
function(const function& other)
{
holder_ = other.holder_->clone();
}
~function()
{
if (holder_) delete holder_;
}
function& operator=(function&& other)
{
if (holder_) delete holder_;
holder_ = other.holder_;
other.holder_ = nullptr;
return *this;
}
function& operator=(const function& other)
{
if (holder_) delete holder_;
holder_ = other.holder_->clone();
return *this;
}
void operator()()
{
holder_->call();
}
};
class Gpio
{
public:
using ExtiHandler = function;
//private:
ExtiHandler handler;
//public:
void enable_irq(ExtiHandler handler_in)
{
// enable interrupt
// ...
// save handler so callback can be issued later
handler = handler_in;
}
};
class Button
{
private:
Gpio& pin;
public:
Button(Gpio& pin_in) : pin(pin_in)
{
};
void button_pressed()
{
std::cout << "Button pressed" << std::endl;
}
void init()
{
pin.enable_irq([this]() { this->button_pressed(); });
}
};
int main() {
Gpio some_pin;
Button b(some_pin);
b.init();
some_pin.handler();
return 0;
}
Demo
Related
I am curious how one would go about storing a parameter pack passed into a function and storing the values for later use.
For instance:
class Storage {
public:
template<typename... Args>
Storage(Args... args) {
//store args somehow
}
}
Basically I am trying to make a class like tuple, but where you don't have to specify what types the tuple will hold, you just pass in the values through the constructor.
So for instance instead of doing something like this:
std::tuple<int, std::string> t = std::make_tuple(5, "s");
You could do this:
Storage storage(5, "s");
And this way you could any Storage objects in the same vector or list. And then in the storage class there would be some method like std::get that would return a given index of an element we passed in.
Since run will return void, I assume all the functions you need to wrap can be functions that return void too.
In that case you can do it like this (and let lambda capture do the storing for you):
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <string>
#include <utility>
class FnWrapper
{
public:
template<typename fn_t, typename... args_t>
FnWrapper(fn_t fn, args_t&&... args) :
m_fn{ [=] { fn(args...); } }
{
}
void run()
{
m_fn();
}
private:
std::function<void()> m_fn;
};
void foo(const std::string& b)
{
std::cout << b;
}
int main()
{
std::string hello{ "Hello World!" };
FnWrapper wrapper{ foo, hello };
wrapper.run();
return 0;
}
OK, what you're asking is type erasure. Typical way of implementing it is via a virtual function inherited by a class template.
Live demo here: https://godbolt.org/z/fddfTEe5M
I stripped all the forwards, references and other boilerplate for brevity. It is not meant to be production code by any means.
#include<memory>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
struct Fn
{
Fn() = default;
template<typename F, typename...Arguments>
Fn(F f, Arguments...arguments)
{
callable =
std::make_unique<CallableImpl<F, Arguments...>>(f, arguments...);
}
void operator()()
{
callable
? callable->call()
: throw std::runtime_error("empty function");
}
struct Callable
{
virtual void call() =0;
virtual ~Callable() = default;
};
template<typename T, typename...Args_>
struct CallableImpl : Callable
{
CallableImpl(T f, Args_...args)
: theCallable(f)
, theArgs(std::make_tuple(args...))
{}
T theCallable;
std::tuple<Args_...> theArgs;
void call() override
{
std::apply(theCallable, theArgs);
}
};
std::unique_ptr<Callable> callable{};
};
void f(int a)
{
std::cout << a << '\n';
}
int main(int, char*[])
{
Fn fx{f, 3};
fx();
char x = 'q';
Fn flambda( [x](){std::cerr << x << '\n';} );
flambda();
}
The "meat" of it lies here:
struct Callable
{
virtual void call() =0;
virtual ~Callable() = default;
};
template<typename T, typename...Args_>
struct CallableImpl : Callable
{
CallableImpl(T f, Args_...args)
: theCallable(f)
, theArgs(std::make_tuple(args...))
{}
T theCallable;
std::tuple<Args_...> theArgs;
void call() override
{
std::apply(theCallable, theArgs);
}
};
Callable is just the interface to access the object. Enough to store a pointer to it and access desired methods.
The actual storage happens in its derived classes:template<typename T, typename...Args_> struct CallableImpl : Callable. Note the tuple there.
T is for storing the actual object, whatever it is. Note that it has to implement some for of compile-time interface, in C++ terms referred to as a concept. In that case, it has to be callable with a given set of arguments.
Thus it has to be known upfront.
The outer structure holds the unique_ptr to Callable but is able to instantiate the interface thanks to the templated constructor:
template<typename F, typename...Arguments>
Fn(F f, Arguments...arguments)
{
callable =
std::make_unique<CallableImpl<F, Arguments...>>(f, arguments...);
}
What is the main advantage of it?
When done properly, it has value semantics. Effectively, it can be used to represent a sort of polymorphism without derivation, note T doesn't have to have a common base class, it just has to be callable in one way or another; this can be used for addition, subtraction, printing, whatever.
As for the main drawbacks: a virtual function call (CallableImpl stored as Callable) which may hinder performance. Also, getting back the original type is difficult, if not nearly impossible.
I'm designing an interface, by which users can define a class that tells what they want to do.
The code is something like the following,
#include <stdio.h>
class Dummy{
public:
void do(){ printf("do nothing\n"); }
};
class Task{
public:
void do(){ printf("do something\n"); }
};
template <class TASK>
void func(TASK &task = Dummy()){
task.do();
}
int main(){
func(); // do nothing
Task task;
func(task); // do something
}
How to make it work?
The main issue is this func argument:
TASK &task = Dummy()
It will not work unless it is const. This happens because non-const lvalue reference to type cannot bind to a temporary.
But if you can use const there, you can easily solve your problem:
class Dummy{
public:
void doit() const { printf("do nothing\n"); }
};
class Task{
public:
void doit() const { printf("do something\n"); }
};
template <class TASK = Dummy>
void func(const TASK &task = TASK()){
task.doit();
}
int main(){
func(); // do nothing
Task task;
func(task); // do something
}
For starters, don't have an identifier (function named) named do, since do is a language keyword. Using it as an identifier is a diagnosable error. There's no option other than changing the name of the function.
Second, the argument will of func() will need to be const, since the default value being passed is a temporary (which can only be bound to a const reference). This also means your function in the classes needs to be const qualified.
Third, when calling func() it is necessary to either pass SOME information so the compiler can work out how to instantiate the template. If you want to pass no information at all at the call site (i.e. func()) then you need to have a non-templated overload.
Fourth, use C++ streams rather than C I/O.
class Dummy
{
public:
void do_it() const { std::cout << "do nothing\n"; }
};
class Task
{
public:
void do_it() const { std::cout << "do something\n"; }
};
template <class TASK>
void func(const TASK &task)
{
task.do_it();
}
void func()
{
func(Dummy());
}
int main()
{
func(); // do nothing
Task task;
func(task); // do something
}
Option 2 is to replace the two versions of func() above with
template <class TASK = Dummy>
void func(const TASK &task = TASK())
{
task.do_it();
}
I'd like to fill in the store() and launch() methods in the below code. The important detail which captures the spirit of the problem is that the object foo declared in main() no longer exists at the time we call launch(). How can I do this?
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstring>
#include <type_traits>
template<typename T, typename U=
typename std::enable_if<std::is_trivially_copyable<T>::value,T>::type>
struct Launchable {
void launch() { /* some code here */ }
T t;
// other members as needed to support DelayedLauncher
};
class DelayedLauncher {
public:
template<typename T>
void store(const Launchable<T>& t) {
// copy-construct/memcpy t into some storage
}
void launch() const {
// call t.launch(), where t is (a copy of) the last value passed into store()
}
// other members as needed
};
int main() {
DelayedLauncher launcher;
{
Launchable<int> foo;
launcher.store(foo);
}
launcher.launch(); // calls foo.launch()
return 0;
}
Note that if we only had a fixed set of N types to pass into store(), we could achieve the desired functionality by declaring N Launchable<T> fields and N non-template store() methods, one for each type, along with an enum field whose value is use in a switch statement in the launch() method. But I'm looking for an implementation of DelayedLauncher that will not need modification as more Launchable types are added.
using std::function:
class DelayedLauncher {
public:
template<typename T>
void store(const Launchable<T>& t) {
f = [t]() {t.launch();};
}
void launch() const { f(); }
private:
std::function<void()> f;
};
You could give Launchable a base class with a virtual launch() and no template, and store pointers to that base class in Launcher::store.
EDIT: Adapted from #dshin's solution:
struct LaunchableBase {
virtual void launch() = 0;
};
template<typename T, typename U=
typename std::enable_if<std::is_trivially_copyable<T>::value,T>::type>
struct Launchable : public LaunchableBase {
virtual void launch() override { /* some code here */ }
T t;
// other members as needed to support DelayedLauncher
};
class DelayedLauncher {
public:
template<typename T>
void store(const Launchable<T>& t) {
static_assert(sizeof(t) <= sizeof(obj_buffer),
"insufficient obj_buffer size");
static_assert(std::is_trivially_destructible<T>::value,
"leak would occur with current impl");
p = new (obj_buffer) Launchable<T>(t);
}
void launch() const {
p->launch();
}
private:
char obj_buffer[1024]; // static_assert inside store() protects us from overflow
LaunchableBase *p;
};
I believe this variant of Jarod42's solution will avoid dynamic allocation, although I would appreciate if someone could confirm that this will work the way I think it will:
class DelayedLauncher {
public:
template<typename T>
void store(const Launchable<T>& t) {
static_assert(sizeof(t) <= sizeof(obj_buffer),
"insufficient obj_buffer size");
static_assert(std::is_trivially_destructible<T>::value,
"leak would occur with current impl");
auto p = new (obj_buffer) Launchable<T>(t);
auto ref = std::ref(*p);
f = [=]() {ref.get().launch();};
}
void launch() const {
f();
}
private:
char obj_buffer[1024]; // static_assert inside store() protects us from overflow
std::function<void()> f;
};
I believe it should work because the resources I've looked at indicate that std::function implementations typically have a "small capture" optimization, only triggering a dynamic allocation if the total size of the captured data exceeds some threshold.
EDIT: I replaced my code with a version provided by Jarod42 in the comments. The standard guarantees the above implementation will not trigger dynamic allocation.
I have several classes which each store and call a callback function. The callback functions' signatures have different parameter and return types, but all of them take just one parameter.
To verify that these classes call their callbacks when they should, I'm trying to write a general test class which (1) provides a callback function which takes one parameter, (2) lets the user query whether that function has been called, and (3) lets the user examine the parameter which was passed to that function. So far, I have something like this:
template<class ReturnType, class ParameterType> class Callable
{
public:
Callable() : m_called(false), m_param() {}
ReturnType operator()(ParameterType param)
{
m_called = true;
m_param = param;
return Returntype();
}
bool Called() { return m_called; }
ParameterType Param() { return m_param; }
private:
bool m_called;
ParameterType m_param;
};
Here's a class which might be tested using class Callable:
#include <boost/function.hpp>
class ToBeTested
{
ToBeTested(boost::function<bool (int)> callback) : m_callback(callback) {};
boost::function<bool (int)> m_callback;
// (methods which should cause the callback to be called here)
};
Here's some test code:
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
int main(int, char**)
{
Callable<bool, int> callable;
ToBeTested tbt(boost::bind(&Callable<bool, int>::operator());
// (tell tbt it should call its callback here)
if (callable.Called()
{
if (EXPECTED_VALUE == callable.Param();
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
This gives me (1) and (2), but there's a problem with (3) when the callback takes its parameter by reference: Callable::m_param is a reference type and therefore can't be default initialised. I could fix that by making Callable::operator() take its parameter by reference, like this:
ReturnType operator()(ParameterType & param)
...but then I can't use class Callable when the callback function takes its parameter by value.
Is there a way to make my test class work regardless of whether the callback function takes its parameter by reference, or do I need to write two nearly-identical test classes?
You could try something like this, where references are actually stored as pointers:
template<typename T>
struct ref_to_ptr
{
typedef T type;
static T wrap(T x) { return x; }
static T unwrap(T x) { return x; }
};
template<typename T>
struct ref_to_ptr<T&>
{
typedef T* type;
static T* wrap(T& x) { return &x; }
static T& unwrap(T* x) { return *x; }
};
template<class ReturnType, class ParameterType> class Callable
{
public:
Callable() : m_called(false), m_param() {}
ReturnType operator()(ParameterType param)
{
m_called = true;
m_param = ref_to_ptr<ParameterType>::wrap(param);
return Returntype();
}
bool Called() { return m_called; }
ParameterType Param() { return ref_to_ptr<ParameterType>::unwrap(m_param); }
private:
bool m_called;
typename ref_to_ptr<ParameterType>::type m_param;
};
I have a Message class that is able to pack its payload to binary and unpack it back. Like:
PayloadA p;
msg->Unpack(&p);
where PayloadA is a class.
The problem is that I have a bunch of payloads, so I need giant if or switch statement:
if (msg->PayloadType() == kPayloadTypeA)
{
PayloadA p;
msg->Unpack(&p); // void Unpack(IPayload *);
// do something with payload ...
}
else if ...
I want to write a helper function that unpacks payloads. But what would be the type of this function? Something like:
PayloadType UnpackPayload(IMessage *msg) { ... }
where PayloadType is a typedef of a proper payload class. I know it is impossible but I looking for solutions like this. Any ideas?
Thanks.
I would split one level higher to avoid the problem entirely:
#include <map>
#include <functional>
...
std::map<int, std::function<void()> _actions;
...
// In some init section
_actions[kPayloadA] = [](IMessage* msg) {
PayloadA p;
msg->Unpack(&p);
// do something with payload ...
};
// repeat for all payloads
...
// decoding function
DecodeMsg(IMessage* msg) {
_actions[id](msg);
}
To further reduce the code size, try to make Unpack a function template (possible easily only if it's not virtual, if it is you can try to add one level of indirection so that it isn't ;):
class Message {
template <class Payload>
Payload Unpack() { ... }
};
auto p = msg->Unpack<PayloadA>();
// do something with payload ...
EDIT
Now let's see how we can avoid writing the long list of _actions[kPayloadN]. This is highly non trivial.
First you need a helper to run code during the static initialization (i.e. before main):
template <class T>
class Registrable
{
struct Registrar
{
Registrar()
{
T::Init();
}
};
static Registrar R;
template <Registrar& r>
struct Force{ };
static Force<R> F; // Required to force all compilers to instantiate R
// it won't be done without this
};
template <class T>
typename Registrable<T>::Registrar Registrable<T>::R;
Now we need to define our actual registration logic:
typedef map<int, function<void()> PayloadActionsT;
inline PayloadActionsT& GetActions() // you may move this to a CPP
{
static PayloadActionsT all;
return all;
}
Then we factor in the parsing code:
template <class Payload>
struct BasePayload : Registrable<BasePayload>
{
static void Init()
{
GetActions()[Payload::Id] = [](IMessage* msg) {
auto p = msg->Unpack<Payload>();
p.Action();
}
}
};
Then we define all the payloads one by one
struct PayloadA : BasePayload<PayloadA>
{
static const int Id = /* something unique */;
void Action()
{ /* what to do with this payload */ }
}
Finally we parse the incoming messages:
void DecodeMessage(IMessage* msg)
{
static const auto& actions = GetActions();
actions[msg->GetPayloadType]();
}
How about a Factory Method that creates a payload according to the type, combined with a payload constructor for each payload type, taking a message as a parameter?
There's no avoiding the switch (or some similar construct), but at least it's straightforward and the construction code is separate from the switch.
Example:
class PayloadA : public Payload
{
public:
PayloadA(const &Message m) {...} // unpacks from m
};
class PayloadB : public Payload
{
public:
PayloadB(const &Message m) {...} // as above
};
Payload * UnpackFromMessage(const Message &m)
{
switch (m.PayloadType) :
case TypeA : return new PayloadA(m);
case TypeB : return new PayloadB(m);
... etc...
}
I seen this solved with unions. The first member of the union is the type of packet contained.
Examples here: What is a union?
An important question is how the payloads differ, and how they are the same. A system whereby you produce objects of a type determined by the payload, then interact with them via a virtual interface that is common to all types of payload, is reasonable in some cases.
Another option assuming you have a finite and fixed list of types of payload, returning a boost::variant is relatively easy. Then to process it, call apply_visitor with a functor that accepts every type in the variant.
If you only want to handle one type of payload differently, a "call and run the lambda if and only if the type matches T" function isn't that hard to write this way.
So you can get syntax like this:
struct State;
struct HandlePayload
{
typedef void return_type;
State* s;
HandlePayload(State* s_):s(s_) {}
void operator()( int const& payload ) const {
// handle int here
}
void operator()( std::shared_ptr<bob> const& payload ) const {
// handle bob ptrs here
}
template<typename T>
void operator()( T const& payload ) const {
// other types, maybe ignore them
}
}
which is cute and all, but you'll note it is quite indirect. However, you'll also note that you can write template code with a generic type T above to handle the payload, and use stuff like traits classes for some situations, or explicit specialization for others.
If you expect the payload to be one particular kind, and only want to do some special work in that case, writing a single-type handler on a boost::variant is easy.
template<typename T, typename Func>
struct Helper {
typedef bool return_type;
Func f;
Helper(Func f_):f(f_) {}
bool operator()(T const& t) {f(t); return true; }
template<typename U>
bool operator()(U const& u) { return false; }
};
template<typename T, typename Variant, typename Func>
bool ApplyFunc( Variant const& v, Func f )
{
return boost::apply_visitor( Helper<T, Func>(f), v );
}
which will call f on a variant v but only on the type T in the Variant, returning true iff the type is matched.
Using this, you can do stuff like:
boost::variant<int, double> v = 1.0;
boost::variant<int, double> v2 = int(1);
ApplyFunc<double>( v, [&](double d) { std::cout << "Double is " << d << "\n"; } );
ApplyFunc<double>( v2, [&](double d) { std::cout << "code is not run\n"; } );
ApplyFunc<int>( v2, [&](int i) { std::cout << "code is run\n"; } );
or some such variant.
One good solution is a common base class + all payloads inheriting from that class:
class PayLoadBase {
virtual char get_ch(int i) const=0;
virtual int num_chs() const=0;
};
And then the unpack would look like this:
class Unpacker {
public:
PayLoadBase &Unpack(IMessage *msg) {
switch(msg->PayLoadType()) {
case A: a = *msg; return a;
case B: b = *msg; return b;
...
}
}
private:
PayLoadA a;
PayLoadB b;
PayLoadC c;
};
You can make the function return a void *. A void pointer can be cast to any other type.