Sending an object to server - c++

Hi i have a client program and a server program.
I created a struct like this
struct player
{
Int x,y;
Int score;
Std::string name;
}
I created the object with:
player p;
And i initialized it:
p.x = 100; p.y = 200; p.score = 281;
p.name = "DiCri";
I sent the object to the server.
SDLNet_TCP_Send(client, (char*)&p, sizeof(p));
All works fine.
The server gets the object with data.
The only problem is the name.
Server says that x is 100, y is 200, score is 281, and name is a sort of strange random symbols.
I don't know why.
Help. How to fix that?
This happens also if that was a char* and not a string.
Thanks
EDIT1:
I found a question similar to mine: Serialization of an object.
And the user who asked this question wants to send this object over the network too.
I'll try to follow the answers
EDIT2:
using char name[100] it works.
EDIT3:
Thanks now all works fine! Sorry for bad english because i'm italian!

Player contains 3 ints and a std::string This ints can easily be written to a stream with write (watch out for the differing byte orders, endian, used by processors) , but the string is too complex an object. Option 1 is to replace the string with a fixed size char array to simplify the structure, but this adds more pain than it's worth. The char array can easily be overflowed, and always writes the full size of the array whether you used it or not.
The better approach is to establish a communication protocol and serialize the data.
First establish the endian to be used by the protocol so that both sides know exactly which byte order is used. Traditionally Big Endian is used for network communications, but there are fewer and fewer big endian devices, so this is increasingly becoming a case of, "Your call."
Let's stick with big endian because the tools for this are ancient, well known, and well established. If you are using a socket library odds are very good you have access to tools to perform the operations required.
Next, explicitly size the integer data types. Different implementations of C++ may have different sizes for fundamental types. Solution for this one is simple: Don't use the fundamental types. Instead, use the fixed width integers defined in in cstdint
Right now our structure looks something like
struct player
{
int x,y;
int score;
std::string name;
}
It needs to look more like
struct player
{
int32_t x,y;
int32_t score;
std::string name;
}
Now there are no surprises about the size of an integer. The code either compiles or does not support int32_t. Stop laughing. There are still 8 bit micro controllers out there.
Now that we know what the integers look like, we can make a pair of functions to handle reading and writing:
bool sendInt32(int32_t val)
{
int32_t temp = htonl(val);
int result = SDLNet_TCP_Send(client, (char*)&temp, sizeof(temp));
return result == sizeof(temp); // this is simplified. Could do a lot more here
}
bool readInt32(int32_t & val)
{
int32_t temp;
if (readuntil(client, (char*)&temp, sizeof(temp)))
{
val = ntohl(temp);
return true;
}
return false;
}
Where readuntil is a function that keeps reading data from the socket until the socket either fails or all of the requested data has been read. Do NOT assume that all of the data you wanted will arrive all to the same time. Sometimes you have to wait. Even if you wrote it all in one chunk it won't necessarily arrive all in one chunk. Dealing with this is another question, but it gets asked just about weekly so you should be able to find a good answer with a bit of searching.
Now for the string. You go the C route and send a null terminated string, but I find this makes the reader much more complicated than it needs to be. Instead I prefix the string data with the length so all the reader has to do is read the length and then read length bytes.
Basically this:
bool sendstring(const std::string & str)
{
if (sendInt32(str.size()))
{
int result = SDLNet_TCP_Send(client, str.c_str(), str.size());
return result == str.size();
}
return false;
}
bool readstring(std::string & str)
{
int32 len;
if (readInt32(len))
{
str.resize(len);
return readuntil(client, str.data(), len) == len;
}
return false;
}
All together, a writer looks something like
bool writePlayer(const Player & p)
{
return sendInt32(p.x) &&
sendInt32(p.y) &&
sendInt32(p.score) &&
sendString(p.name);
}
and a reader
bool readPlayer(Player & p)
{
return readInt32(p.x) &&
readInt32(p.y) &&
readInt32(p.score) &&
readString(p.name);
}

First of all, Std::string should be replaced by array of char.
You also aware about network repsentation of Int on different OS. htons() and ntohs must be used for sending a 16bits integer over Networking.

Related

C++ serialization - use of reinterpret_cast from char * to a struct

I am exchanging a struct called struct update_packet with other servers (of identical or similar system) running the same program through UDP socket using sendto(..) and recvfrom().
update_packet needs to be in the general message format, which means its fields has predetermined fixed size and the size of the struct is the sum of the fields.
struct node {
uint32_t IP;
uint16_t port;
int16_t nil;
uint16_t server_id;
uint16_t cost;
};
struct update_packet {
uint16_t num_update_fields;
uint16_t port;
uint32_t IP;
struct node * nodes;
update_packet() :
num_update_fields(num_nodes), IP(myIP), port(myport)
{//fill in nodes array};
};
(update_packet contains a pointer array of struct node)
I used reinterpret_cast to send an instance of update packet via UDP, and the following compiles and sends to the correct destination.
int update_packet_size = sizeof(up);
sendto(s, reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&up), update_packet_size, 0,
(struct sockaddr *)&dest_addr, sizeof(dest_addr));
However, when I receive it and try to decode it by
struct update_packet update_msg =
reinterpret_cast<struct update_packet>(recved_msg);
I get an error
In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
error: invalid cast from type ‘char*’ to type ‘update_packet’
struct update_packet update_msg =
reinterpret_cast<struct update_packet>(recved_msg);
Why does this error occur, and how can I fix this?
Also, is this a correct way to exchange data in an instance of struct through sockets? If not, what should I do? Do I need a pack()ing function like in http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/examples/pack2.c ?
Generalities
The cast issue has been properly answered in other questions.
However, you should never rely on pointer cast for sending/receiving a struct through the network, for many reasons including:
Packing : the compiler may align struct variables and insert padding bytes. This is compiler dependent, thus your code will not be portable. If the two communicating machines run your program compiled with different compilers, it will likely not work.
Endianness : for the same reason, the byte order when sending a multibyte number (such as int) may be different between the two machines.
This would be resulting in a code which might work for some times, but a few years later which would cause a lot of problems, if someone changes the compiler, the platform, etc... As this is for an educational project you should try doing it the proper way...
For this reason, converting data from a struct into a char array for sending through the network or writing to file should be done carefully, variable by variable, and if possible taking endianness into account. This process is called "serializing".
Serialization in details
Serialization means you convert a data structure into an array of bytes, that can be sent over the network.
The serialized format is not necessarily binary : text or xml are possible options. If the amount of data is small, text is maybe the best solution, and you can rely on the STL only with stringstreams (std::istringstream and std::ostringstream)
There are several good libraries for serializing to binary, for instance Boost::serialization or QDataStream in Qt.
You may also do it yourself, look SO for "C++ serializing"
Simple serializing to text using the STL
In your case, you might just serialize to a text string using something like:
std::ostringstream oss;
oss << up.port;
oss << up.IP;
oss << up.num_update_fields;
for(unsigned int i=0;i<up.num_update_fields;i++)
{
oss << up.nodes[i].IP;
oss << up.nodes[i].port;
oss << up.nodes[i].nil;
oss << up.nodes[i].server_id;
oss << up.nodes[i].cost;
}
std::string str = oss.str();
char * data_to_send = str.data();
unsigned int num_bytes_to_send = str.size();
And for deserializing received data:
std::string str(data_received, num_bytes_received);
std::istringstream(str);
update_packet up;
iss >> up.port;
iss >> up.IP;
iss >> up.num_update_fields;
//maximum number of nodes should be checked here before doing memory allocation!
up.nodes = (nodes*)malloc(sizeof(node)*up.num_update_fields);
for(unsigned int i=0;i<up.num_update_fields;i++)
{
iss >> up.nodes[i].IP;
iss >> up.nodes[i].port;
iss >> up.nodes[i].nil;
iss >> up.nodes[i].server_id;
iss >> up.nodes[i].cost;
}
This will be 100% portable and safe. You may verify data validity by checking the iss error flags.
Also you might, for safety:
Use a std::vector instead of the node pointer. This will prevent memory leaks and other issues
Check the number of nodes just after iss >> up.num_update_fields;, if it's too big just abort the decoding before allocating a huge buffer that will crash your program and maybe the system. Network attacks are based on "holes" like that : you may cause the a server to crash by making him allocate a buffer 100x larger than its RAM, if this kind of check is not made.
If your networking API has a std::iostream interface, you may use directly the << and >> operators from it, without using the intermediate string and stringstreams
You might think using space separated text is a waste of bandwidth. Think this only if your number of nodes is large, and makes the bandwidth use become non-negligible and critical. In that case, you need to serialize to binary. But don't do it if the text solution works perfectly (beware of premature optimization!)
Simple Binary serialization (not byte-order/endianness aware):
Replace:
oss.write << up.port;
By:
oss.write((const char *)&up.port, sizeof(up.port));
Endianness
But in your project, Big-Endian is required. If you are running on a PC (x86) you need to invert bytes in every field.
1)First option : by hand
const char * ptr = &up.port;
unsigned int s = sizeof(up.port);
for(unsigned int i=0; i<s; i++)
oss.put(ptr[s-1-i]);
Ultimate code : detect endianness (this is not difficult to do - look for it on SO) and adapt your serialization code.
2)Second option : use a library like boost or Qt
These libraries let you choose the endianness of the output data. Then they auto-detect the platform endianness and do the job automatically.
You can't cast a pointer to a struct, but you can cast a pointer to a pointer to a struct.
Change
struct update_packet update_msg =
reinterpret_cast<struct update_packet>(recved_msg);
to
update_packet * update_msg =
reinterpret_cast<update_packet *>(recved_msg);
And yes, you need, at least pack() because the compiler on the sending side might add padding differently. However it is not 100% safe. You also have take into account that the sending and receiving machine differ in endianess. I would suggest that you look into proper serialization mechanisms.
You may also use:
struct update_packet update_msg;
memcpy(&update_msg, recved_msg, size-of-message);
You must however ensure that size-of-message is exactly what you are looking for.
Speaking just of decoding (your computer - your rules), both endianness and packing can be taken into account on GCC and Clang with a combo like this (it's using the Boost.Endian library):
#include <boost/endian/arithmetic.hpp>
using boost::endian::big_uint16_t;
using boost::endian::big_uint32_t;
using boost::endian::big_uint64_t;
#pragma pack(push, 1)
enum class e_message_type: uint8_t {
hello = 'H',
goodbye = 'G'
};
struct message_header {
big_uint16_t size;
e_message_type message_type;
std::byte reserved;
};
static_assert(sizeof(header) == 4);
struct price_quote {
big_uint64_t price;
big_uint32_t size;
big_uint32_t timestamp;
};
static_assert(sizeof(header) == 16);
template<class T> struct envelope {
message_header header;
T payload;
};
static_assert(sizeof(envelope<price_quote>) == 20);
#pragma pack(pop)
// and then
auto& x = *static_cast<envelope const*>(buffer.data());

C++ read()-ing from a socket to an ofstream

Is there a C/C++ way to read data from a socket using read() and having the receiving buffer be a file (ofstream) or a similar self-extending object (vector e.g.)?
EDIT: The question arose while I contemplated how to read a stream socket that may receive the contents of a, say 10000+ byte file. I just never did like putting 20000 or 50000 bytes (large enough for now) on the stack as a buffer where the file could be stored temporarily till I could stick in into a file. Why not just stream it directly into the file to star with.
Much like you can get at the char* inside a std:string, I thought of something like
read( int fd, outFile.front(), std::npos ); // npos = INT_MAX
or something like that.
end edit
Thanks.
This is simplistic, and off the top of my fingers, but I think something along these lines would work out:
template <unsigned BUF_SIZE>
struct Buffer {
char buf_[BUF_SIZE];
int len_;
Buffer () : buf_(), len_(0) {}
int read (int fd) {
int r = read(fd, buf_ + len_, BUF_SIZE - len_);
if (r > 0) len_ += r;
return r;
}
int capacity () const { return BUF_SIZE - len_; }
}
template <unsigned BUF_SIZE>
struct BufferStream {
typedef std::unique_ptr< Buffer<BUF_SIZE> > BufferPtr;
std::vector<BufferPtr> stream_;
BufferStream () : stream_(1, BufferPtr(new Buffer<BUF_SIZE>)) {}
int read (int fd) {
if ((*stream_.rbegin())->capacity() == 0)
stream_.push_back(BufferPtr(new Buffer<BUF_SIZE>));
return (*stream_.rbegin())->read(fd);
}
};
In a comment, you mentioned you wanted to avoid creating a big char buffer. When using the read system call, it is generally more efficient to perform a few large reads rather than many small ones. So most implementations will opt for large input buffers to gain that efficiency. You could implement something like:
std::vector<char> input;
char in;
int r;
while ((r = read(fd, &in, 1)) == 1) input.push_back(in);
But that would involve a system call and at least one byte copied for every byte of input. In contrast, the code I put forth avoids extra data copies.
I don't really expect the code I put out to be the solution you would adopt. I just wanted to provide you with an illustration of how to create a self-extending object that was fairly space and time efficient. Depending on your purposes, you may want to extend it, or write your own. Off the top of my head, some improvements may be:
use std::list instead, to avoid vector resizing
allow API a parameter to specify how many bytes to read
use readv to always allow at least BUF_SIZE bytes (or more than BUF_SIZE bytes) to be read at a time
Take a look at stream support in boost::asio.

Most efficient way of writing byte array for streaming

I need to create a byte array that is needed to be stream to another device through UART. There are some fixed parameters that I can fill in before hand but variables such as string is dynamically sized. Right up till now, I've been doing:
unsigned char buffer[255];
unsigned char wr_head = 0;
buffer[wr_head++] = 0x01; // and so on
memcpy(&buffer[wr_head], &some_chararray, sizeof(some_chararray));
wr_head += some_chararray;
I've experimented with other methods like std::string and std::vector but I felt that there is much manageable way of writing byte array for streams. Suggestions?
edit: Please advice on performance as well because is threaded.
edit2: Sorry for lacking of details the first time around. The device is indeed an embedded device. Though some suggested some solution, its not really what I want. Maybe a snippet of my current implementation will clear some confusion:
unsigned char buffer[255];
unsigned char wr_head = 0;
buffer[wr_head++] = 0x01; // Set message type
buffer[wr_head++] = 0x30; // message length
memcpy(&buffer[wr_head], &some_chararray, sizeof(some_chararray));
wr_head += some_chararray;
buffer[wr_head++] = CalChecksum;
UartSend(&buffer, wr_head); // Send array to stream out from UART
The configuration and setting value is known before hand, provided by the device documentation. This question is related to what I've asked in here
Thanks for the effort so far.
A ring buffer is a typical solution for problems like these.
I have no idea what kind of device you're on, but I'll just suppose that you're writing for some kind of embedded device. Let's assume that there's some interrupt moving data from the ring buffer to the UART. This interrupt will call getc, other code will call putc and puts.
class RingBuffer {
private:
static unsigned BUFSZ = 256;
volatile unsigned char buf[BUFSZ];
volatile unsigned char read, write;
public:
RingBuffer() : read(0), write(0) { }
// Blocks until space is available
void putc(unsigned int c) {
while (((write - read) & (BUFSZ - 1)) == 1)
sleep();
buf[write++ & (BUFSZ - 1)] = c;
}
// Returns -1 if empty
int getc() {
if (read == write)
return -1;
return buf[read++ & (BUFSZ - 1)];
}
// There are faster ways to write this.
void puts(char *str) {
for (; *str; ++str)
putc(*str);
}
};
Typically, you don't want to make the buffer dynamically grow for something like this. There's lots of room for improvement in the above code, and there are also libraries available for this kind of thing.
This particular implementation also never lets you fill the buffer completely, but the code is simpler as a result. I probably wouldn't put this code in production, but hopefully it's a step in the right direction.
If UartSend is a blocking function then you can do just this:
void UartSend(byte b) { UartSend(&b, 1); } // sends one byte
UartSend(0x01); // Set message type
UartSend(0x30); // message length
UartSend(some_chararray,sizeof(some_chararray));

Serializing struct containing char*

I'm getting an error with serializing a char* string error C2228: left of '.serialize' must have class/struct/union I could use a std::string and then get a const char* from it. but I require the char* string.
The error message says it all, there's no support in boost serialization to serialize pointers to primitive types.
You can do something like this in the store code:
int len = strlen(string) + 1;
ar & len;
ar & boost::serialization::make_binary_object(string, len);
and in the load code:
int len;
ar & len;
string = new char[len]; //Don't forget to deallocate the old string
ar & boost::serialization::make_binary_object(string, len);
There is no way to serialize pointer to something in boost::serialization (I suspect, there is no actual way to do that too). Pointer is just a memory address, these memory addresses are generally specific for instance of object, and, what's really important, this address doesn't contain information where to stop the serialization.
You can't just say to your serializer: "Hey, take something out from this pointer and serialize this something. I don't care what size does it have, just do it..."
First and the optimal solution for your problem is wrapping your char* using std::string or your own string implementation. The second would mean writing special serializing routine for char* and, I suspect, will generally do the same as the first method does.
Try this:
struct Example
{
int i;
char c;
char * text; // Prefer std::string to char *
void Serialize(std::ostream& output)
{
output << i << "\n";
output << c << "\n";
// Output the length of the text member,
// followed by the actual text.
size_t text_length = 0;
if (text)
(
text_length = strlen(text);
}
output << text_length << "\n";
output << text << "\n";
};
void Input(std::istream& input)
{
input >> i;
input.ignore(1000, '\n'); // Eat any characters after the integer.
input >> c;
input.ignore(1000, '\n');
// Read the size of the text data.
size_t text_length = 0;
input >> text_length;
input.ignore(1000, '\n');
delete[] text; // Destroy previous contents, if any.
text = NULL;
if (text_length)
{
text = new char[text_length];
input.read(text, text_length);
}
};
Since pointers are not portable, the data must be written instead.
The text is known as a variable length field. Variable length fields are commonly output (serialized) in two data structures: length followed by data OR data followed by terminal character. Specifying the length first allows usage of block reading. With the latter data structure, the data must be read one unit at a time until the terminal character is read. Note: the latter data structure also implies that the terminal character cannot be part of the set of data items.
Some important issue to think about for serialization:
1. Use a format that is platform independent, such as ASCII text for numbers.
2. If a platform method is not available or allowed, define the exact specification for numbers, including Endianness and maximum length.
3. For floating point numbers, the specification should treat the components of a floating point number as individual numbers that have to abide by the specification for a number (i.e. exponent, magnitude and mantissa).
4. Prefer fixed length records to variable length records.
5. Prefer serializing to a buffer. Users of the object can then create a buffer of one or more objects and write the buffer as one block (using one operation). Likewise for input.
6. Prefer using a database to serializing. Although this may not be possible for networking, try every effort to have a database manage the data. The database may be able to send the data over the network.

How do I convert a big-endian struct to a little endian-struct?

I have a binary file that was created on a unix machine. It's just a bunch of records written one after another. The record is defined something like this:
struct RECORD {
UINT32 foo;
UINT32 bar;
CHAR fooword[11];
CHAR barword[11];
UNIT16 baz;
}
I am trying to figure out how I would read and interpret this data on a Windows machine. I have something like this:
fstream f;
f.open("file.bin", ios::in | ios::binary);
RECORD r;
f.read((char*)&detail, sizeof(RECORD));
cout << "fooword = " << r.fooword << endl;
I get a bunch of data, but it's not the data I expect. I'm suspect that my problem has to do with the endian difference of the machines, so I've come to ask about that.
I understand that multiple bytes will be stored in little-endian on windows and big-endian in a unix environment, and I get that. For two bytes, 0x1234 on windows will be 0x3412 on a unix system.
Does endianness affect the byte order of the struct as a whole, or of each individual member of the struct? What approaches would I take to convert a struct created on a unix system to one that has the same data on a windows system? Any links that are more in depth than the byte order of a couple bytes would be great, too!
As well as the endian, you need to be aware of padding differences between the two platforms. Particularly if you have odd length char arrays and 16 bit values, you may well find different numbers of pad bytes between some elements.
Edit: if the structure was written out with no packing, then it should be fairly straightforward. Something like this (untested) code should do the job:
// Functions to swap the endian of 16 and 32 bit values
inline void SwapEndian(UINT16 &val)
{
val = (val<<8) | (val>>8);
}
inline void SwapEndian(UINT32 &val)
{
val = (val<<24) | ((val<<8) & 0x00ff0000) |
((val>>8) & 0x0000ff00) | (val>>24);
}
Then, once you've loaded the struct, just swap each element:
SwapEndian(r.foo);
SwapEndian(r.bar);
SwapEndian(r.baz);
Actually, endianness is a property of the underlying hardware, not the OS.
The best solution is to convert to a standard when writing the data -- Google for "network byte order" and you should find the methods to do this.
Edit: here's the link: http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/libc/Byte-Order.html
Don't read directly into struct from a file! The packing might be different, you have to fiddle with pragma pack or similar compiler specific constructs. Too unreliable. A lot of programmers get away with this since their code isn't compiled in wide number of architectures and systems, but that doesn't mean it's OK thing to do!
A good alternative approach is to read the header, whatever, into a buffer and parse from three to avoid the I/O overhead in atomic operations like reading a unsigned 32 bit integer!
char buffer[32];
char* temp = buffer;
f.read(buffer, 32);
RECORD rec;
rec.foo = parse_uint32(temp); temp += 4;
rec.bar = parse_uint32(temp); temp += 4;
memcpy(&rec.fooword, temp, 11); temp += 11;
memcpy(%red.barword, temp, 11); temp += 11;
rec.baz = parse_uint16(temp); temp += 2;
The declaration of parse_uint32 would look like this:
uint32 parse_uint32(char* buffer)
{
uint32 x;
// ...
return x;
}
This is a very simple abstraction, it doesn't cost any extra in practise to update the pointer as well:
uint32 parse_uint32(char*& buffer)
{
uint32 x;
// ...
buffer += 4;
return x;
}
The later form allows cleaner code for parsing the buffer; the pointer is automatically updated when you parse from the input.
Likewise, memcpy could have a helper, something like:
void parse_copy(void* dest, char*& buffer, size_t size)
{
memcpy(dest, buffer, size);
buffer += size;
}
The beauty of this kind of arrangement is that you can have namespace "little_endian" and "big_endian", then you can do this in your code:
using little_endian;
// do your parsing for little_endian input stream here..
Easy to switch endianess for the same code, though, rarely needed feature.. file-formats usually have a fixed endianess anyway.
DO NOT abstract this into class with virtual methods; would just add overhead, but feel free to if so inclined:
little_endian_reader reader(data, size);
uint32 x = reader.read_uint32();
uint32 y = reader.read_uint32();
The reader object would obviously just be a thin wrapper around pointer. The size parameter would be for error checking, if any. Not really mandatory for the interface per-se.
Notice how the choise of endianess here was done at COMPILATION TIME (since we create little_endian_reader object), so we invoke the virtual method overhead for no particularly good reason, so I wouldn't go with this approach. ;-)
At this stage there is no real reason to keep the "fileformat struct" around as-is, you can organize the data to your liking and not necessarily read it into any specific struct at all; after all, it's just data. When you read files like images, you don't really need the header around.. you should have your image container which is same for all file types, so the code to read a specific format should just read the file, interpret and reformat the data & store the payload. =)
I mean, does this look complicated?
uint32 xsize = buffer.read<uint32>();
uint32 ysize = buffer.read<uint32>();
float aspect = buffer.read<float>();
The code can look that nice, and be a really low-overhead! If the endianess is same for file and architecture the code is compiled for, the innerloop can look like this:
uint32 value = *reinterpret_cast<uint32*>)(ptr); ptr += 4;
return value;
That might be illegal on some architectures, so that optimization might be a Bad Idea, and use slower, but more robust approach:
uint32 value = ptr[0] | (static_cast<uint32>(ptr[1]) << 8) | ...; ptr += 4;
return value;
On a x86 that can compile into bswap or mov, which is reasonably low-overhead if the method is inlined; the compiler would insert "move" node into the intermediate code, nothing else, which is fairly efficient. If alignment is a problem the full read-shift-or sequence might get generated, outch, but still not too shabby. Compare-branch could allow the optimization, if test the address LSB's and see if can use the fast or slow version of the parsing. But this would mean penalty for the test in every read. Might not be worth the effort.
Oh, right, we are reading HEADERS and stuff, I don't think that is a bottleneck in too many applications. If some codec is doing some really TIGHT innerloop, again, reading into a temporary buffer and decoding from there is well-adviced. Same principle.. no one reads byte-at-time from file when processing a large volume of data. Well, actually, I seen that kind of code very often and the usual reply to "why you do it" is that the file systems do block reads and that the bytes come from memory anyway, true, but they go through a deep call stack which is high-overhead for getting a few bytes!
Still, write the parser code once and use zillion times -> epic win.
Reading directly into struct from a file: DON'T DO IT FOLKS!
It affects each member independently, not the whole struct. Also, it does not affect things like arrays. For instance, it just makes bytes in an ints stored in reverse order.
PS. That said, there could be a machine with weird endianness. What I just said applies to most used machines (x86, ARM, PowerPC, SPARC).
You have to correct the endianess of each member of more than one byte, individually. Strings do not need to be converted (fooword and barword), as they can be seen as sequences of bytes.
However, you must take care of another problem: aligmenent of the members in your struct. Basically, you must check if sizeof(RECORD) is the same on both unix and windows code. Compilers usually provide pragmas to define the aligment you want (for example, #pragma pack).
You also have to consider alignment differences between the two compilers. Each compiler is allowed to insert padding between members in a structure the best suits the architecture. So you really need to know:
How the UNIX prog writes to the file
If it is a binary copy of the object the exact layout of the structure.
If it is a binary copy what the endian-ness of the source architecture.
This is why most programs (That I have seen (that need to be platform neutral)) serialize the data as a text stream that can be easily read by the standard iostreams.
I like to implement a SwapBytes method for each data type that needs swapping, like this:
inline u_int ByteSwap(u_int in)
{
u_int out;
char *indata = (char *)&in;
char *outdata = (char *)&out;
outdata[0] = indata[3] ;
outdata[3] = indata[0] ;
outdata[1] = indata[2] ;
outdata[2] = indata[1] ;
return out;
}
inline u_short ByteSwap(u_short in)
{
u_short out;
char *indata = (char *)&in;
char *outdata = (char *)&out;
outdata[0] = indata[1] ;
outdata[1] = indata[0] ;
return out;
}
Then I add a function to the structure that needs swapping, like this:
struct RECORD {
UINT32 foo;
UINT32 bar;
CHAR fooword[11];
CHAR barword[11];
UNIT16 baz;
void SwapBytes()
{
foo = ByteSwap(foo);
bar = ByteSwap(bar);
baz = ByteSwap(baz);
}
}
Then you can modify your code that reads (or writes) the structure like this:
fstream f;
f.open("file.bin", ios::in | ios::binary);
RECORD r;
f.read((char*)&detail, sizeof(RECORD));
r.SwapBytes();
cout << "fooword = " << r.fooword << endl;
To support different platforms you just need to have a platform specific implementation of each ByteSwap overload.
Something like this should work:
#include <algorithm>
struct RECORD {
UINT32 foo;
UINT32 bar;
CHAR fooword[11];
CHAR barword[11];
UINT16 baz;
}
void ReverseBytes( void *start, int size )
{
char *beg = start;
char *end = beg + size;
std::reverse( beg, end );
}
int main() {
fstream f;
f.open( "file.bin", ios::in | ios::binary );
// for each entry {
RECORD r;
f.read( (char *)&r, sizeof( RECORD ) );
ReverseBytes( r.foo, sizeof( UINT32 ) );
ReverseBytes( r.bar, sizeof( UINT32 ) );
ReverseBytes( r.baz, sizeof( UINT16 )
// }
return 0;
}