Related
Following Boost.Spirit compiler examples I am migrating my Flex/Bison based calculator-like grammar to Spirit based. I want to add a feature #include<another_input.inp>. I have defined the include_statement grammar successfully. Should I follow the way error handling was doing: on_success(include_statement, annotation_function(...)), i.e. for each successful matching of include_statement, get the new input file name and call phrase_parse() again ? or like the Flex/Bison to push/pop the input stack?
Thanks.
Guessing, from the little information that is here, that you meant to ask whether you can reuse the same grammar instance, or it should be better to instantiate a new instance to parse the includes, it depends.
You can do both.
When the grammar is stateless (hint: it usually is if you can use it const) there's no difference. Otherwise, prefer to instantiate a separate instance.
However,
the point is somewhat moot since it appears you already decided to parse the includes after parsing the main document (if I get your comment right)
there's always the danger of global state; Even if the grammar object is const, you could potentially modify external state (e.g. using phx::ref from semantic action) so, this would be an issue, regardless of whether you used separate grammar instances.
In the implementation files for the C++ STL I see a lot of functions like __glibcxx_class_requires and __glibcxx_requires_nonempty. What do these type of functions do? Should I be including these in my own files if I'm implementing a new Container that conforms to the STL standards?
These are actually not functions, but macros:
Information on these is scattered, but I did find some here, here and here.
Mostly used for debug and are defined in debug.h. Can also use for in-line asserts to prevent a program from continuing if certain conditions are met (not met).
I recently disabled RTTI on my compiler (MSVC10) and the executable size decreased significantly. By comparing the produced executables using a text editor, I found that the RTTI-less version contains much less symbol names, explaining the saved space.
AFAIK, those symbol names are only used to fill the type_info structure associated with each the polymorphic type, and one can programmatically access them calling type_info::name().
According to the standard, the format of the string returned by type_info::name() is unspecified. That is, no one can rely one it to do serious things portably. So, it should be possible for an implementation to always return an empty string without breaking anything, thus reducing the executable size without disabling RTTI support (so we can still use the typeid operator & compare type_info's objects safely).
But... is it possible ? I'm using MSVC10 and I've not found any option to do that. I can either disable completely RTTI (/GR-), or enable it with full type names (/GR). Does any compiler provide such an option?
So, it should be possible for an implementation to always return an empty string without breaking anything, thus reducing the executable size without disabling RTTI support (so we can still use the typeid operator & compare type_info's objects safely).
You are misreading the standard. The intent of making the return value from type_info::name() unspecified (other than a null-terminated binary string) was to give the implementers of the compiler/library/run-time environment free reign to implement the RTTI requirements as they see best. You, the programmer, have no say in how the Application Binary Interface (if there is one) is designed or implemented.
You're asking three different questions here.
The initial question asks whether there's any way to get MSVC to not generate names, or whether it's possible with other compilers, or, failing that, whether there's any way to strip the names out of the generated type_info without breaking things.
Then you want to know whether it would be possible to modify the MS ABI (presumably not too radically) so that it would be possible to strip the names.
Finally, you want to know whether it would be possible to design an ABI that didn't have names.
Question #1 is itself a complex question. As far as I know, there's no way to get MSVC to not generate names. And most other compilers are aimed at ABIs that specifically define what typeid(foo).name() must return, so they also can't be made to not generate names.
The more interesting question is, what happens if you strip out the names. For MSVC, I don't know the answer. The best thing to do here is probably to try it—go into your DLLs and change the first character of each name to \0 and see if it breaks dynamic_cast, etc. (I know that you can do this with Mac and linux x86_64 executables generated by g++ 4.2 and it works, but let's put that aside for now.)
On to question #2, assuming blanking the names doesn't work, it wouldn't be that hard to modify a name-based system to no longer require names. One trivial solution is to use hashes of the names, or even ROT13-encoded names (remember that the original goal here is "I don't want casual users to see the embarrassing names of my classes"). But I'm not sure that would count for what you're looking for. A slightly more complex solution is as follows:
For "dllexport"ed classes, generate a UUID, put that in the typeinfo, and also put it in the .LIB import library that gets generated along with the DLL.
For "dllimport"ed classes, read the UUID out of the .LIB and use that instead.
So, if you manage to get the dllexport/dllimport right, it will work, because your exe will be using the same UUID as the dll. But what if you don't? What if you "accidentally" specify identical classes (e.g., an instantiation of the same template with the same parameters) in your DLL and your EXE, without marking one as dllexport and one as dllimport? RTTI won't see them as the same type.
Is this a problem? Well, the C++ standard doesn't say it is. And neither does any MS documentation. In fact, the documentation explicitly says that you're not allowed to do this. You cannot use the same class or function in two different modules unless you explicitly export it from one module and import it into another. The fact that this is very hard to do with class templates is a problem, and it's a problem they don't try to solve.
Let's take a realistic example: Create a node-based linkedlist class template with a global static sentinel, where every list's last node points to that sentinel, and the end() function just returns a pointer to it. (Microsoft's own implementation of std::map used to do exactly this; I'm not sure if that's still true.) New up a linkedlist<int> in your exe, and pass it by reference to a function in your dll that tries to iterate from l.begin() to l.end(). It will never finish, because none of the nodes created by the exe will point to the copy of the sentinel in the dll. Of course if you pass l.begin() and l.end() into the DLL, instead of passing l itself, you won't have this problem. You can usually get away with passing a std::string or various other types by reference, just because they don't depend on anything that breaks. But you're not actually allowed to do so, you're just getting lucky. So, while replacing the names with UUIDs that have to be looked up at link time means types can't be matched up at link-loader time, the fact that types already can't be matched up at link-loader time means this is irrelevant.
It would be possible to build a name-based system that didn't have these problems. The ARM C++ ABI (and the iOS and Android ABIs based on it) restricts what programmers can get away with much less than MS, and has very specific requirements on how the link-loader has to make it work (3.2.5). This one couldn't be modified to not be name-based because it was an explicit choice in the design that:
• type_info::operator== and type_info::operator!= compare the strings returned by type_info::name(), not just the pointers to the RTTI objects and their names.
• No reliance is placed on the address returned by type_info::name(). (That is, t1.name() != t2.name() does not imply that t1 != t2).
The first condition effectively requires that these operators (and type_info::before()) must be called out of line, and that the execution environment must provide appropriate implementations of them.
But it's also possible to build an ABI that doesn't have this problem and that doesn't use names. Which segues nicely to #3.
The Itanium ABI (used by, among other things, both OS X and recent linux on x86_64 and i386) does guarantee that a linkedlist<int> generated in one object and a linkedlist<int> generated from the same header in another object can be linked together at runtime and will be the same type, which means they must have equal type_info objects. From 2.9.1:
It is intended that two type_info pointers point to equivalent type descriptions if and only if the pointers are equal. An implementation must satisfy this constraint, e.g. by using symbol preemption, COMDAT sections, or other mechanisms.
The compiler, linker, and link-loader must work together to make sure that a linkedlist<int> created in your executable points to the exact same type_info object that a linkedlist<int> created in your shared object would.
So, if you just took out all the names, it wouldn't make any difference at all. (And this is pretty easily tested and verified.)
But how could you possibly implement this ABI spec? j_kubik effectively argues that it's impossible because you'd have to preserve some link-time information in the .so files. Which points to the obvious answer: preserve some link-time information in the .so files. In fact, you already have to do that to handle, e.g., load-time relocations; this just extends what you need to preserve. And in fact, both Apple and GNU/linux/g++/ELF do exactly that. (This is part of the reason everyone building complex linux systems had to learn about symbol visibility and vague linkage a few years ago.)
There's an even more obvious way to solve the problem: Write a C++-based link loader, instead of trying to make the C++ compiler and linker work together to trick a C-based link loader. But as far as I know, nobody's tried that since Be.
Requirements for type-descriptor:
Works correctly in multi compilation-unit and shared-library environment;
Works correctly for different versions of shared libraries;
Works correctly although different compilation units don't share any information about type, except it's name: usually one header is used for all compilation units to define same type, but it's not required; even if, it doesn't affect resulting object file.
Work correctly despite fact that template instantiations must be fully-defined (so including type_info data) in every library that uses them, and yet behave like one type if several such libs are used together.
The fourth rule essentially bans all non-name based type-descriptors like UUIDs (unless specifically mentioned in type definition, but that is just name-replacement at best, and probably requires standard-alterations).
Stroing thuse UUIDs in separate files like suggeste .LIB files also causes trouble: different library versions implementing new types would cause trouble.
Compilation units should be able to share the same type (and its type_info) without the need to involve linker - because it should stay free of any language-specifics.
So type-name can be only unique type descriptor without completely re-modeling compilation and linking (also dynamic). I could imagine it working, but not under current scheme.
I want to use C with templates on a embedded environment and I wanted to know what is the cost of compiling a C program with a C++ compiler?
I'm interested in knowing if there will be more code than the one the C compiler will generate.
Note that as the program is a C program, is expect to call the C++ compiler without exception and RTTI support.
Thanks,
Vicente
The C++ compiler may take longer to compile the code (since it has to build data structures for overload resolution, it can't know ahead of time that the program doesn't use overloads), but the resulting binary should be quite similar.
Actually, one important optimization difference is that C++ follows strict aliasing rules by default, while C requires the restrict keyword to enable aliasing optimizations. This isn't likely to affect code size much, but it could affect correctness and performance significantly.
There's probably no 'cost', assuming that the two compilers are of equivalent quality. The traditional objection to this is that C++ is much more complex and so it's more likely that a C++ compiler will have bugs in it.
Realistically, this is much less of a problem that it used to be, and I tend to do most of my embedded stuff now as a sort of horrible C/C++ hybrid - taking advantage of stronger typing and easier variable declaration rules, without incurring RTTI or exception handling overheads. If you're taking a given compiler (GCC, etc) and switching it from C to C++ mode, then much of what you have to worry about is common to the two languages anyway.
The only way to really know is for you to try it with the compilers you care about. A quick experiment here on a trivial program shows that the output is the same.
Your program will be linked to the C++ runtime library, not the C one. The C++ is larger as well.
Also, there are a couple of differences between C and C++ (aliases were already pointed out) so it may happen that your C code just does not compile in C++.
If it's C, then you can expect it will be exactly the same.
To elaborate: both C and C++ will forward their parse tree into the same backend that generates code (possibly via another intermediate representation), which means that if the code is functionally identical, the output will look the same (or nearly so).
Templates do "inflate" code, but you would otherwise have to write the same code or use macros to the same effect, so this is no "extra cost". Contrarily, the compiler may be able to optimize templates better in some cases.
A C++ compiler cannot compile C code. It can only compile C++, including a very ugly language which is the intersection of C and C++ and the worst of both worlds. Some C code will fail to compile at all on a C++ compiler, for example:
char *s = malloc(len+1);
While other C code will be compiled to the wrong thing, for example:
sizeof 'a'
I have found this extra-ordinary document Technical Report on C++ Performance. I have found there all the answers i was looking for.
Thanks to all that have answered this question.
There will be more code because that is what templates do. They are a stencil for generating (more) code.
Otherwise, you should see no differences between compiling a C program with a C compiler versus compiling with a C++ compiler.
If you don't use any of the extra "features" there should be no difference in size or behavior of the end result.
Although the C code will likely compile to something very similar (assuming there's no exception support enabled), using templates can very rapidly result in large binaries - you have to be careful, because every template instantiation can recursively result in other templates being implicitly instantiated as well.
There was a time when the C++ compiler linked in a bunch of C++ stuff even if the program didnt use it and you would see binaries that were 10 to 100 times larger than the C compiler would produce. I think a lot of that has gone away.
Since this is tagged "embedded", I assume its for embedded systems?
In that case, the major difference between C and C++ is the way C++ treats structs. All structs will be treated like classes, meaning they will have constructors.
All instances of structs/classes declared at file scope or as static will then have their constructors called before main() is executed, in a similar manner to static initialization, which you already have there no matter C or C++.
All these constructor calls at bootup is a major disadvantage in efficiency for embedded systems, where the code resides in NVM and not in RAM. Just like static initialization, it will create an ugly, undesired workload peak at the start of the program, where values from NVM are copied into the RAM.
There are ways around the static initialization in C/C++: most embedded compilers have an option to disable it. But since that is a non-standard setup, all code using statics would then have to be written so that it never uses any initialization values, but instead sets all static variables in runtime.
But as far as I know, there is no way around calling constructors, without violating the standard.
EDIT:
Here is source code executed in one such C++ system, Freescale HCS08 Codewarrior 6.3. This code is injected in the user program after static initialization, but before main() is executed:
static void Call_Constructors(void) {
int i;
...
i = (int)(_startupData.nofInitBodies - 1);
while (i >= 0) {
(&_startupData.initBodies->initFunc)[i](); /* call C++ constructors */
i--;
}
...
At the very least, this overhead code must be executed at program startup, no matter how efficient the compiler is at converting constructors into static initializtion.
C++ runtime start-up differs slightly from C start-up because it must invoke the constructors for global static objects before main() is called. This call loop is trivial and should not add much.
In the case of C++ code that is also entirely C compilable no static constructors will be present so the loop will not iterate.
In most cases apart from that, you will normally see no significant difference, in C++ you only pay for what you use.
After a few years coding in C++, I was recently offered a job coding in C, in the embedded field.
Putting aside the question of whether it's right or wrong to dismiss C++ in the embedded field, there are some features/idioms in C++ I would miss a lot. Just to name a few:
Generic, type-safe data structures (using templates).
RAII. Especially in functions with multiple return points, e.g. not having to remember to release the mutex on each return point.
Destructors in general. I.e. you write a d'tor once for MyClass, then if a MyClass instance is a member of MyOtherClass, MyOtherClass doesn't have to explicitly deinitialize the MyClass instance - its d'tor is called automatically.
Namespaces.
What are your experiences moving from C++ to C?
What C substitutes did you find for your favorite C++ features/idioms? Did you discover any C features you wish C++ had?
Working on an embedded project, I tried working in all C once, and just couldn't stand it. It was just so verbose that it made it hard to read anything. Also, I liked the optimized-for-embedded containers I had written, which had to turn into much less safe and harder to fix #define blocks.
Code that in C++ looked like:
if(uart[0]->Send(pktQueue.Top(), sizeof(Packet)))
pktQueue.Dequeue(1);
turns into:
if(UART_uchar_SendBlock(uart[0], Queue_Packet_Top(pktQueue), sizeof(Packet)))
Queue_Packet_Dequeue(pktQueue, 1);
which many people will probably say is fine but gets ridiculous if you have to do more than a couple "method" calls in a line. Two lines of C++ would turn into five of C (due to 80-char line length limits). Both would generate the same code, so it's not like the target processor cared!
One time (back in 1995), I tried writing a lot of C for a multiprocessor data-processing program. The kind where each processor has its own memory and program. The vendor-supplied compiler was a C compiler (some kind of HighC derivative), their libraries were closed source so I couldn't use GCC to build, and their APIs were designed with the mindset that your programs would primarily be the initialize/process/terminate variety, so inter-processor communication was rudimentary at best.
I got about a month in before I gave up, found a copy of cfront, and hacked it into the makefiles so I could use C++. Cfront didn't even support templates, but the C++ code was much, much clearer.
Generic, type-safe data structures (using templates).
The closest thing C has to templates is to declare a header file with a lot of code that looks like:
TYPE * Queue_##TYPE##_Top(Queue_##TYPE##* const this)
{ /* ... */ }
then pull it in with something like:
#define TYPE Packet
#include "Queue.h"
#undef TYPE
Note that this won't work for compound types (e.g. no queues of unsigned char) unless you make a typedef first.
Oh, and remember, if this code isn't actually used anywhere, then you don't even know if it's syntactically correct.
EDIT: One more thing: you'll need to manually manage instantiation of code. If your "template" code isn't all inline functions, then you'll have to put in some control to make sure that things get instantiated only once so your linker doesn't spit out a pile of "multiple instances of Foo" errors.
To do this, you'll have to put the non-inlined stuff in an "implementation" section in your header file:
#ifdef implementation_##TYPE
/* Non-inlines, "static members", global definitions, etc. go here. */
#endif
And then, in one place in all your code per template variant, you have to:
#define TYPE Packet
#define implementation_Packet
#include "Queue.h"
#undef TYPE
Also, this implementation section needs to be outside the standard #ifndef/#define/#endif litany, because you may include the template header file in another header file, but need to instantiate afterward in a .c file.
Yep, it gets ugly fast. Which is why most C programmers don't even try.
RAII.
Especially in functions with multiple return points, e.g. not having to remember to release the mutex on each return point.
Well, forget your pretty code and get used to all your return points (except the end of the function) being gotos:
TYPE * Queue_##TYPE##_Top(Queue_##TYPE##* const this)
{
TYPE * result;
Mutex_Lock(this->lock);
if(this->head == this->tail)
{
result = 0;
goto Queue_##TYPE##_Top_exit:;
}
/* Figure out `result` for real, then fall through to... */
Queue_##TYPE##_Top_exit:
Mutex_Lock(this->lock);
return result;
}
Destructors in general.
I.e. you write a d'tor once for MyClass, then if a MyClass instance is a member of MyOtherClass, MyOtherClass doesn't have to explicitly deinitialize the MyClass instance - its d'tor is called automatically.
Object construction has to be explicitly handled the same way.
Namespaces.
That's actually a simple one to fix: just tack a prefix onto every symbol. This is the primary cause of the source bloat that I talked about earlier (since classes are implicit namespaces). The C folks have been living this, well, forever, and probably won't see what the big deal is.
YMMV
I moved from C++ to C for a different reason (some sort of allergic reaction ;) and there are only a few thing that I miss and some things that I gained. If you stick to C99, if you may, there are constructs that let you program quite nicely and safely, in particular
designated initializers (eventually
combined with macros) make
initialization of simple classes as
painless as constructors
compound literals for temporary variables
for-scope variable may help you to do scope bound resource management, in particular to ensure to unlock of mutexes or free of arrays, even under preliminary function returns
__VA_ARGS__ macros can be used to have default arguments to functions and to do code unrolling
inline functions and macros that combine well to replace (sort of) overloaded functions
The difference between C and C++ is the predictability of the code's behavior.
It is a easier to predict with great accuracy what your code will do in C, in C++ it might become a bit more difficult to come up with an exact prediction.
The predictability in C gives you better control of what your code is doing, but that also means you have to do more stuff.
In C++ you can write less code to get the same thing done, but (at leas for me) I have trouble occasionally knowing how the object code is laid out in memory and it's expected behavior.
Nothing like the STL exists for C.
There are libs available which provide similar functionality, but it isn't builtin anymore.
Think that would be one of my biggest problems... Knowing with which tool I could solve the problem, but not having the tools available in the language I have to use.
In my line of work - which is embedded, by the way - I am constantly switching back & forth between C and C++.
When I'm in C, I miss from C++:
templates (including but not limited to STL containers). I use them for things like special counters, buffer pools, etc. (built up my own library of class templates & function templates that I use in different embedded projects)
very powerful standard library
destructors, which of course make RAII possible (mutexes, interrupt disable, tracing, etc.)
access specifiers, to better enforce who can use (not see) what
I use inheritance on larger projects, and C++'s built-in support for it is much cleaner & nicer than the C "hack" of embedding the base class as the first member (not to mention automatic invocation of constructors, init. lists, etc.) but the items listed above are the ones I miss the most.
Also, probably only about a third of the embedded C++ projects I work on use exceptions, so I've become accustomed to living without them, so I don't miss them too much when I move back to C.
On the flip side, when I move back to a C project with a significant number of developers, there are whole classes of C++ problems that I'm used to explaining to people which go away. Mostly problems due to the complexity of C++, and people who think they know what's going on, but they're really at the "C with classes" part of the C++ confidence curve.
Given the choice, I'd prefer using C++ on a project, but only if the team is pretty solid on the language. Also of course assuming it's not an 8K μC project where I'm effectively writing "C" anyway.
Couple of observations
Unless you plan to use your c++ compiler to build your C (which is possible if you stick to a well define subset of C++) you will soon discover things that your compiler allows in C that would be a compile error in C++.
No more cryptic template errors (yay!)
No (language supported) object oriented programming
Pretty much the same reasons I have for using C++ or a mix of C/C++ rather than pure C. I can live without namespaces but I use them all the time if the code standard allows it. The reasons is that you can write much more compact code in C++. This is very usefull for me, I write servers in C++ which tend to crash now and then. At that point it helps a lot if the code you are looking at is short and consist. For example consider the following code:
uint32_t
ScoreList::FindHighScore(
uint32_t p_PlayerId)
{
MutexLock lock(m_Lock);
uint32_t highScore = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < m_Players.Size(); i++)
{
Player& player = m_Players[i];
if(player.m_Score > highScore)
highScore = player.m_Score;
}
return highScore;
}
In C that looks like:
uint32_t
ScoreList_getHighScore(
ScoreList* p_ScoreList)
{
uint32_t highScore = 0;
Mutex_Lock(p_ScoreList->m_Lock);
for(int i = 0; i < Array_GetSize(p_ScoreList->m_Players); i++)
{
Player* player = p_ScoreList->m_Players[i];
if(player->m_Score > highScore)
highScore = player->m_Score;
}
Mutex_UnLock(p_ScoreList->m_Lock);
return highScore;
}
Not a world of difference. One more line of code, but that tends to add up. Nomally you try your best to keep it clean and lean but sometimes you have to do something more complex. And in those situations you value your line count. One more line is one more thing to look at when you try to figure out why your broadcast network suddenly stops delivering messages.
Anyway I find that C++ allows me to do more complex things in a safe fashion.
yes! i have experienced both of these languages and what i found is C++ is more friendly language. It facilitates with more features. It is better to say that C++ is superset of C language as it provide additional features like polymorphism, interitance, operator and function overloading, user defined data types which is not really supported in C. The thousand lines of code is reduce to few lines with the help of object oriented programming that's the main reason of moving from C to C++.
I think the main problem why c++ is harder to be accepted in embedded environment is because of the lack of engineers that understand how to use c++ properly.
Yes, the same reasoning can be applied to C as well, but luckily there aren't that many pitfalls in C that can shoot yourself in the foot. C++ on the other hand, you need to know when not to use certain features in c++.
All in all, I like c++. I use that on the O/S services layer, driver, management code, etc.
But if your team doesn't have enough experience with it, it's gonna be a tough challenge.
I had experience with both. When the rest of the team wasn't ready for it, it was a total disaster. On the other hand, it was good experience.
Certainly, the desire to escape complex/messy syntax is understandable. Sometimes C can appear to be the solution. However, C++ is where the industry support is, including tooling and libraries, so that is hard to work around.
C++ has so many features today including lambdas.
A good approach is to leverage C++ itself to make your code simpler. Objects are good for isolating things under the hood so that at a higher level, the code is simpler. The core guidelines recommend concrete (simple) objects, so that approach can help.
The level of complexity is under the engineer's control. If multiple inheritance (MI) is useful in a scenario and one prefers that option, then one may use MI.
Alternatively, one can define interfaces, inherit from the interface(s), and contain implementing objects (composition/aggregation) and expose the objects through the interface using inline wrappers. The inline wrappers compile down to nothing, i.e., compile down to simple use of the internal (contained) object, yet the container object appears to have that functionality as if multiple inheritance was used.
C++ also has namespaces, so one should leverage namespaces even if coding in a C-like style.
One can use the language itself to create simpler patterns and the STL is full of examples: array, vector, map, queue, string, unique_ptr,... And one can control (to a reasonable extent) how complex their code is.
So, going back to C is not the way, nor is it necessary. One may use C++ in a C-like way, or use C++ multiple inheritance, or use any option in-between.