Comming from MATLAB, I would like to know if there is a way to use function arguments in c++ like it is done in MALTAB. Here is an example to illustrate, what I am trying to use in c++:
draw('shape','circle','radius',5); // should draw a circle
draw('shape','square','width',3,'hight',4); // should draw a square
The function above is the same, but the function arguements differ. I would like to use this syntax in c++. Is there a good way to do this? Thanks.
You could try the following (albeit it's not really clear what your main intention is):
void MyDrawingFunc(const std::vector<std::string>& Arguments)
{
auto& arg = Arguments[0];
if (arg == "shape")
DoShapeStuff(Arguments); // use Arguments[1...]
else if (arg == "otherThing")
...
}
You can make c++ work exactly like MATLAB (see answer above), but it doesn't make too much sense. A very good indication for that is your test case itself:
draw('shape','square','width',3,'hight',4); // should draw a square
You misspelt height. In my usual code you would be getting (runtime) warning of "unknown specifier hight" and having 4 ignored in favor of default value or perhaps doing nothing. And this warning is here only because I bother writing it in otherwise block. A lot of coworkers' code doesn't, and would just silently use default value or not do anything.
Now try debugging that in the middle of a complicated find some elements on image function - you wouldn't easily figure out it is a simple typo in your call to draw function.
So, instead of making Matlab code in c++, you should write something like:
void MyDrawingFunct(Shape shape){
...}
void MyDrawingFunct(Curve curve){
...}
Where you would draw shapes you have defined (like square, circle etc), and another function for curves etc. Or, if you want to safeguard against say adding Ellipse to Shape and have it fail at runtime, you can have some more functions - ...(Square ...) etc.
The main benefit is that trying to call MyDrawingFunct with say Ellipsoid will immediately notify you of error (at compile time), while doing things your usual MATLAB way will have you wondering whether ellipsoid is not implemented or you just made a typo somewhere (like in your example). And you will hit that at runtime.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Listing Unused Symbols
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
How do I detect function definitions which are never getting called and delete them from the file and then save it?
Suppose I have only 1 CPP file as of now, which has a main() function and many other function definitions (function definition can also be inside main() ). If I were to write a program to parse this CPP file and check whether a function is getting called or not and delete if it is not getting called then what is(are) the way(s) to do it?
There are few ways that come to mind:
I would find out line numbers of beginning and end of main(). I can do it by maintaining a stack of opening and closing braces { and }.
Anything after main would be function definition. Then I can parse for function definitions. To do this I can parse it the following way:
< string >< open paren >< comma separated string(s) for arguments >< closing paren >
Once I have all the names of such functions as described in (2), I can make a map with its names as key and value as a bool, indicating whether a function is getting called once or not.
Finally parse the file once again to check for any calls for functions with their name as in this map. The function call can be from within main or from some other function. The value for the key (i.e. the function name) could be flagged according to whether a function is getting called or not.
I feel I have complicated my logic and it could be done in a smarter way. With the above logic it would be hard to find all the corner cases (there would be many). Also, there could be function pointers to make parsing logic difficult. If that's not enough, the function pointers could be typedefed too.
How do I go about designing my program? Are a map (to maintain filenames) and stack (to maintain braces) the right data structures or is there anything else more suitable to deal with it?
Note: I am not looking for any tool to do this. Nor do I want to use any library (if it exists to make things easy).
I think you should not try to build a C++ parser from scratch, becuse of other said in comments that is really hard. IMHO, you'd better start from CLang libraries, than can do the low-level parsing for you and work directly with the abstract syntax tree.
You could even use crange as an example of how to use them to produce a cross reference table.
Alternatively, you could directly use GNU global, because its gtags command directly generates definition and reference databases that you have to analyse.
IMHO those two ways would be simpler than creating a C++ parser from scratch.
The simplest approach for doing it yourself I can think of is:
Write a minimal parser that can identify functions. It just needs to detect the start and ending line of a function.
Programmatically comment out the first function, save to a temp file.
Try to compile the file by invoking the complier.
Check if there are compile errors, if yes, the function is called, if not, it is unused.
Continue with the next function.
This is a comment, rather than an answer, but I post it here because it's too long for a comment space.
There are lots of issues you should consider. First of all, you should not assume that main() is a first function in a source file.
Even if it is, there should be some functions header declarations before the main() so that the compiler can recognize their invocation in main.
Next, function's opening and closing brace needn't be in separate lines, they also needn't be the only characters in their lines. Generally, almost whole C++ code can be put in a single line!
Furthermore, functions can differ with parameters' types while having the same name (overloading), so you can't recognize which function is called if you don't parse the whole code down to the parameters' types. And even more: you will have to perform type lists matching with standard convertions/casts, possibly considering inline constructors calls. Of course you should not forget default parameters. Google for resolving overloaded function call, for example see an outline here
Additionally, there may be chains of unused functions. For example if a() calls b() and b() calls c() and d(), but a() itself is not called, then the whole four is unused, even though there exist 'calls' to b(), c() and d().
There is also a possibility that functions are called through a pointer, in which case you may be unable to find a call. Example:
int (*testfun)(int) = whattotest ? TestFun1 : TestFun2; // no call
int testResult = testfun(paramToTest); // unknown function called
Finally the code can be pretty obfuscated with #define–s.
Conclusion: you'll probably have to write your own C++ compiler (except the machine code generator) to achieve your goal.
This is a very rough idea and I doubt it's very efficient but maybe it can help you get started. First traverse the file once, picking out any function names (I'm not entirely sure how you would do this). But once you have those names, traverse the file again, looking for the function name anywhere in the file, inside main and other functions too. If you find more than 1 instance it means that the function is being called and should be kept.
I was looking over some example functions and methods (I'm currently in a C++ class), and I noticed that there were a few functions that, rather than being void, they were something like
int myFunction() {
// ...;
return 0;
}
Where the ellipses is obviously some other statement. Why are they returning zero? What's the point of returning a specific value every time you run a function?
I understand that main() has to be int (at least according to the standards) because it is related (or is?) the exit code and thus works with the operating system. However, I can't think of a reason a non-main function would do this.
Is there any particular reason why someone might want to do this, as opposed to simply making a void function?
If that's really what they're doing, returning 0 regardless of what the function does, then it's entirely pointless and they shouldn't be doing it.
In the C world, an int return type is a convention so that you can return your own "error code", but not only is this not idiomatic C++ but if, again, your programmer is always returning 0, then it's entirely silly.
Specifically:
I understand that main() has to be int (at least according to the standards) because it is related (or is?) the exit code and thus works with the operating system. However, I can't think of a reason a non-main function would do this.
I agree.
There's a common convention of int functions returning 0 for success and some non-zero error code for failure.
An int function that always returns 0 might as well be a void function if viewed in isolation. But depending on the context, there might be good reasons to make it compatible with other functions that returning meaningful results. It could mean that the function's return type won't have to be changed if it's later modified so it detects errors -- or it might be necessary for its declaration to be compatible with other int-returning functions, if it's used as a callback or template argument.
I suggest examining other similar functions in the library or program.
It's a convention, particularly among C programmers, to return 0 if the function did not experience any errors and return a nonzero value if there was an error.
This has carried over into C++, and although it's less common and less of a convention due to exception handling and other more object-oriented-friendly ways of handling errors, it does come up often enough.
One more issue that was not touched by other answers. Within the ellipses may be another return statement:
int myFunction() {
// ...;
if (error)
return code;
// ...;
return 0;
}
in which case myFunction is not always returning 0, but rather only when no error has occurred. Such return statements are often preferred over more structured but more verbose if/else code blocks, and may often be disguised within long, sloppy code.
Most of the time function like this should be returning void.
Another possibility is that this function is one of a series of closed-related functions that have the same signature. The return int value may signal the status, say returning 0 for success, and a few of these functions always succeed. To change the signature may break the consistency, or would make the function unusable as function objects since the signature does not match.
Is there any particular reason why someone might want to do this, as opposed to simply making a void function?
Why does your mother cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the oven? Answer: Because that's what her grandmother did. However, her grandmother did that for a simple reason: Her roast pan wasn't big enough to hold a full-sized roast.
I work with a simulation tool that in its earliest incarnations required that all functions callable by the simulation engine must return a success status: 0=success, non-zero=failure. Functions that could never fail were coded to always returned zero. The simulation engine has been able to accommodate functions that return void for a long, long, time. That returning an integer success code was the required behavior from some previous millennium hasn't stopped cargo cult programmers from carrying this behavior of writing functions that always returning zero forward to the current day.
In certain programming languages you find procedures and functions. In C, C++ and similar languages you don't. Rather you only have functions.
In practice, a procedure is a part of a program that performs a certain task. A function on the other hand is like a procedure but the function can return an answer back.
Since C++ has only functions, how would you create a procedure? That's when you would either create a void function or return any value you like to show that the task is complete. It doesn't have to be 0. You can even return a character if you like to.
Take for example, the cout statement. It just outputs something but not return anything. This works like a procedure.
Now consider a math function like tan(x). It is meant to use x and return an answer back to the program that called it. In this case, you cannot return just anything. You must return the value of the TAN operation.
So if you need to write your own functions, you must return a value based on what you're doing. If there's nothing to return, you may just write a void function or return a dummy value like 0 or anything else.
In practice though, it's common to find functions returning 0 to indicate that 'all went off well' but this is not necessarily a rule.
here's an example of a function I would write, which returns a value:
float Area ( int radius)
{
float Answer = 3.14159 * radius * radius;
return Answer;
}
This takes the radius as a parameter and returns the calculated answer (area). In this case you cannot just say return 0.
I hope this is clear.
I have rewritten part of my code from very simple c arrays to using (or trying to use) objects in order to get more structure into it. Instead of passing arrays through the function header I am now using a global array defined by a singleton. You can see an example of a function in my code below:
it was:
void calcdiv(int nx,int ny,float **u,float **v,
float **divu,float dx,float dy,float **p,
float dt,float rho, float **bp,float **lapp)
{
int i,j;
for (i=2;i<=nx-3;++i){
for (j=2;j<=ny-3;++j){
divu[i][j] = (u[i+1][j]-u[i-1][j])*facu +
(v[i][j+1]-v[i][j-1])*facv;
}
}
...
now it is:
void calcdiv()
{
int i,j;
SingletonClass* gV = [SingletonClass sharedInstance];
for (i=2;i<=gV.nx-3;++i){
for (j=2;j<=gV.ny-3;++j){
gV.divu[i][j] = (gV.u[i+1][j]-gV.u[i-1][j])*facu +
(gV.v[i][j+1]-gV.v[i][j-1])*facv;
}
}
...
Before the restructuring I have been using the function call as given above. That means passing the pointers to the arrays directly. Now I access the arrays by the singleton call "SingletonClass* gV...". It works very fine except the fact that it is much slower than before. The profiler tells me that my program spends 41% of the time with objc_msgSend which I have not had before.
From reading through the posts I have understood that this probably can happen when msgSend is called very often. This is then most likely the case here, because my program needs a lot of number crunching in order to display an animated flow with OpenGl.
This leads me to my question: What would you suggest? Should I stay with my simple C implementation or is there a rather simple way to accelerate the objective c version? Please be patient with me since I am new to objective c programming.
Any hints and recommendations are greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.
If your straight C method works fine, and your Objective C method puts you at a disadvantage due to method calling, and you need the performance, then there's no reason not to use straight C. From looking at your code, I don't see any advantage to whatever "structure" you're adding, because the working code looks almost precisely the same. In other words, Obj-C doesn't buy you anything here, but straight C does, so go with what's best for your user, because in terms of maintainability and readability, there's no difference in the two implementations.
Dearest stack exchange,
I'm programming an MRI scanner. I won't go into too much background, but I'm fairly constrained in how much code I've got access to, and the way things have been set up is...suboptimal. I have a situation as follows:
There is a big library, written in C++. It ultimately does "transcoding" (in the worst possible way), writing out FPGA assembly that DoesThings. It provides a set of functions to "userland" that are translated into (through a mix of preprocessor macros and black magic) long strings of 16 bit and 32 bit words. The way this is done is prone to buffer overflows, and generally to falling over.*
The FPGA assembly is then strung out over a glorified serial link to the relevant electronics, which executes it (doing the scan), and returning the data back again for processing.
Programmers are expected to use the functions provided by the library to do their thing, in C (not C++) functions that are linked against the standard library. Unfortunately, in my case, I need to extend the library.
There's a fairly complicated chain of preprocessor substitution and tokenization, calling, and (in general) stuff happening between you writing doSomething() in your code, and the relevant library function actually executing it. I think I've got it figured out to some extent, but it basically means that I've got no real idea about the scope of anything...
In short, my problem is:
In the middle of a method, in a deep dark corner of many thousands of lines of code in a big blob I have little control over, with god-knows-what variable scoping going on, I need to:
Extend this method to take a function pointer (to a userland function) as an argument, but
Let this userland function, written after the library has been compiled, have access to variables that are local to both the scope of the method where it appears, as well as variables in the (C) function where it is called.
This seems like an absolute mire of memory management, and I thought I'd ask here for the "best practice" in these situations, as it's likely that there are lots of subtle issues I might run into -- and that others might have lots of relevant wisdom to impart. Debugging the system is a nightmare, and I've not really got any support from the scanner's manufacturer on this.
A brief sketch of how I plan to proceed is as follows:
In the .cpp library:
/* In something::something() /*
/* declare a pointer to a function */
void (*fp)(int*, int, int, ...);
/* by default, the pointer points to a placeholder at compile time*/
fp = &doNothing(...);
...
/* At the appropriate time, point the pointer to the userland function, whose address is supplied as an argument to something(): /*
fp= userFuncPtr;
/* Declare memory for the user function to plonk data into */
i_arr_coefficients = (int) malloc(SOMETHING_SENSIBLE);
/* Create a pointer to that array for the userland function */
i_ptr_array=&i_arr_coefficients[0];
/* define a struct of pointers to local variables for the userland function to use*/
ptrStrct=createPtrStruct();
/* Call the user's function: */
fp(i_ptr_array,ptrStrct, ...);
CarryOnWithSomethingElse();
The point of the placeholder function is to keep things ticking over if the user function isn't linked in. I get that this could be replaced with a #DEFINE, but the compiler's cleverness or stupidity might result in odd (to my ignorant mind, at least) behaviour.
In the userland function, we'd have something like:
void doUsefulThings(i_ptr_array, ptrStrct, localVariableAddresses, ...) {
double a=*ptrStrct.a;
double b=*ptrStrct.b;
double c=*localVariableAddresses.c;
double d=doMaths(a, b, c);
/* I.e. do maths using all of these numbers we've got from the different sources */
storeData(i_ptr_array, d);
/* And put the results of that maths where the C++ method can see it */
}
...
something(&doUsefulThings(i_ptr_array, ptrStrct, localVariableAddresses, ...), ...);
...
If this is as clear as mud please tell me! Thank you very much for your help. And, by the way, I sincerely wish someone would make an open hardware/source MRI system.
*As an aside, this is the primary justification the manufacturer uses to discourage us from modifying the big library in the first place!
You have full access to the C code. You have limited access to the C++ library code. The C code is defining the "doUsefullthings" function. From C code you are calling the "Something" function ( C++ class/function) with function pointer to "doUseFullThings" as the argument. Now the control goes to the C++ library. Here the various arguments are allocated memory and initialized. Then the the "doUseFullThings" is called with those arguments. Here the control transfers back to the C code. In short, the main program(C) calls the library(C++) and the library calls the C function.
One of the requirements is that the "userland function should have access to local variable from the C code where it is called". When you call "something" you are only giving the address of "doUseFullThings". There is no parameter/argument of "something" that captures the address of the local variables. So "doUseFullThings" does not have access to those variables.
malloc statement returns pointer. This has not been handled properly.( probably you were trying to give us overview ). You must be taking care to free this somewhere.
Since this is a mixture of C and C++ code, it is difficult to use RAII (taking care of allocated memory), Perfect forwarding ( avoid copying variables), Lambda functions ( to access local varibales) etc. Under the circumstances, your approach seems to be the way to go.
I have a very difficult problem I'm trying to solve: Let's say I have an arbitrary instruction pointer. I need to find out if that instruction pointer resides in a specific function (let's call it "Foo").
One approach to this would be to try to find the start and ending bounds of the function and see if the IP resides in it. The starting bound is easy to find:
void *start = &Foo;
The problem is, I don't know how to get the ending address of the function (or how "long" the function is, in bytes of assembly).
Does anyone have any ideas how you would get the "length" of a function, or a completely different way of doing this?
Let's assume that there is no SEH or C++ exception handling in the function. Also note that I am on a win32 platform, and have full access to the win32 api.
This won't work. You're presuming functions are contigous in memory and that one address will map to one function. The optimizer has a lot of leeway here and can move code from functions around the image.
If you have PDB files, you can use something like the dbghelp or DIA API's to figure this out. For instance, SymFromAddr. There may be some ambiguity here as a single address can map to multiple functions.
I've seen code that tries to do this before with something like:
#pragma optimize("", off)
void Foo()
{
}
void FooEnd()
{
}
#pragma optimize("", on)
And then FooEnd-Foo was used to compute the length of function Foo. This approach is incredibly error prone and still makes a lot of assumptions about exactly how the code is generated.
Look at the *.map file which can optionally be generated by the linker when it links the program, or at the program's debug (*.pdb) file.
OK, I haven't done assembly in about 15 years. Back then, I didn't do very much. Also, it was 680x0 asm. BUT...
Don't you just need to put a label before and after the function, take their addresses, subtract them for the function length, and then just compare the IP? I've seen the former done. The latter seems obvious.
If you're doing this in C, look first for debugging support --- ChrisW is spot on with map files, but also see if your C compiler's standard library provides anything for this low-level stuff -- most compilers provide tools for analysing the stack etc., for instance, even though it's not standard. Otherwise, try just using inline assembly, or wrapping the C function with an assembly file and a empty wrapper function with those labels.
The most simple solution is maintaining a state variable:
volatile int FOO_is_running = 0;
int Foo( int par ){
FOO_is_running = 1;
/* do the work */
FOO_is_running = 0;
return 0;
}
Here's how I do it, but it's using gcc/gdb.
$ gdb ImageWithSymbols
gdb> info line * 0xYourEIPhere
Edit: Formatting is giving me fits. Time for another beer.