Simplest C++ Example to verify my compiler is c++14 compliant? - c++

I am taking a class next week on C++11/14 and need to verify that my design tools are up to date and can actually compile C++11/14.
What is the simplest piece of code that I can put together to verify that I can actually compile and execute C++11/14 code on my Linux box? I know I need GCC 4.9.X or better, but I want to just be sure that everything is jiving before I show up.
Thanks for the help.

You can initially compile with -std=c++14. If your gcc (or clang) is not c++14 compliant then compilation will fail (due to uknown flag) :
g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-std=c++14'
Regarding feature availability (querying the existence of specific features), you can perform feature testing. An example document can be found here : it all boils down to the use of macros to test the availability of the specified feature (therein you can also find what features to look for).
So even if you want to build with several compilers you can write code like this (naive example follows) :
#if __cpp_constexpr
constexpr
#endif
int triple(int k) { return 3*k; } // compiles with c++98 as well
which is how cross platform developing overcomes the joys of supporting multiple compilers and their versions (more elaborate examples would show supporting sth one way in gcc and another way in cl due to different speed of standard implementation)

The __cplusplus macro contains the C++ standard that the compiler is using. Each version of C++ has a specific value for this define. These may (counter intuitively) not match exactly with the name of the standard, so you can use gcc to determine what the values are. For example:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("%ld\n", __cplusplus);
}
Compiled like so:
g++ -std=c++98 file.cpp
g++ -std=c++11 file.cpp
g++ -std=c++14 file.cpp
Gives the following respectively when run:
199711
201103
201300
You can then use the predefined macros to generate errors if the value you're looking for isn't available. For example:
#if __cplusplus < 201300
#error I require C++14 for this code, so die.
#endif
// ...
Then g++ -std=c++11 file.cpp will fail compilation.

To be sure it works you can simple try to compile some code available only since c++14. For example
#include <iostream>
#include <tuple>
#include <functional>
auto f() // this function returns multiple values
{
int x = 5;
return std::make_tuple(x, 7); // not "return {x,7};" because the corresponding
// tuple constructor is explicit (LWG 2051)
}
int main()
{
// heterogeneous tuple construction
int n = 1;
auto t = std::make_tuple(10, "Test", 3.14, std::ref(n), n);
n = 7;
std::cout << "The value of t is " << "("
<< std::get<0>(t) << ", " << std::get<1>(t) << ", "
<< std::get<2>(t) << ", " << std::get<3>(t) << ", "
<< std::get<4>(t) << ")\n";
// function returning multiple values
int a, b;
std::tie(a, b) = f();
std::cout << a << " " << b << "\n";
}
If this does work than you have the right setup :D Hope this helps

Compiling with flag -std=c++11 or -std=c++14 as per Nikos answer can determine if the compiler supports these standards.
Small examples using C++11 and C++14:
For C++11, you could try compiling auto with -std=c++11:
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
auto p1 = make_shared<int>(42);
// use p1
}
For C++14, try using auto as return type with -std=c++14:
auto func(int i)
{
return [i=std::move(i)](int b){return b+i;};
}
int main()
{
int num = func(3)(5);
// use num
}

Related

Function with auto parameter compiles using GCC but does not compile using Visual C++

Please considere the following code-snippet:
#include <iostream>
void print(auto arg) {
std::cout << arg << std::endl;
}
int main() {
print("Hi");
return 0;
}
As you can see here (https://godbolt.org/z/2GSrXs) using GCC the code compiles and runs fine.
As you can see here (https://godbolt.org/z/rtR6w9) using Visual C++ the code does not compile and results in the error message:
<source>(3): error C3533: a parameter cannot have a type that contains 'auto'.
It seems to me that this feature has not jet been implementet in Visual C++?
Additionally I was not able to find the compiler feature in the following list:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/visual-cpp-language-conformance?view=vs-2019. So I am not sure if the Microsoft developer have the feature on their ToDo List?
Functions receiving auto is a C++20 feature. It must be enabled with /std:latest. However, MSVC only has partial support for this syntax at this time, so not all declaration using this feature will work.
GCC has supported auto in function parameters since early C++14 days as an extension.
You can read more about this C++20 feature reading P1141R2: Yet another approach for constrained declarations
Remaining in C++14 standard, you can use the following lambda instead of your function:
auto print = [](auto arg) {
std::cout << arg << std::endl;
};

Is it possible to create a function dynamically, during runtime in C++?

C++ is a static, compiled language, templates are resolved during compile time and so on...
But is it possible to create a function during runtime, that is not described in the source code and has not been converted to machine language during compilation, so that a user can throw at it data that has not been anticipated in the source?
I am aware this cannot happen in a straightforward way, but surely it must be possible, there are plenty of programing languages that are not compiled and create that sort of stuff dynamically that are implemented in either C or C++.
Maybe if factories for all primitive types are created, along with suitable data structures to organize them into more complex objects such as user types and functions, this is achievable?
Any info on the subject as well as pointers to online materials are welcome. Thanks!
EDIT: I am aware it is possible, it is more like I am interested in implementation details :)
Yes, of course, without any tools mentioned in the other answers, but simply using the C++ compiler.
just follow these steps from within your C++ program (on linux, but must be similar on other OS)
write a C++ program into a file (e.g. in /tmp/prog.cc), using an ofstream
compile the program via system("c++ /tmp/prog.cc -o /tmp/prog.so -shared -fPIC");
load the program dynamically, e.g. using dlopen()
You can also just give the bytecode directly to a function and just pass it casted as the function type as demonstrated below.
e.g.
byte[3] func = { 0x90, 0x0f, 0x1 }
*reinterpret_cast<void**>(&func)()
Yes, JIT compilers do it all the time. They allocate a piece of memory that has been given special execution rights by the OS, then fill it with code and cast the pointer to a function pointer and execute it. Pretty simple.
EDIT: Here's an example on how to do it in Linux: http://burnttoys.blogspot.de/2011/04/how-to-allocate-executable-memory-on.html
Below an example for C++ runtime compilation based on the method mentioned before (write code to output file, compile via system(), load via dlopen() and dlsym()). See also the example in a related question. The difference here is that it dynamically compiles a class rather than a function. This is achieved by adding a C-style maker() function to the code to be compiled dynamically. References:
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3687
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/C++-dlopen/thesolution.html
The example only works under Linux (Windows has LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress functions instead), and requires the identical compiler to be available on the target machine.
baseclass.h
#ifndef BASECLASS_H
#define BASECLASS_H
class A
{
protected:
double m_input; // or use a pointer to a larger input object
public:
virtual double f(double x) const = 0;
void init(double input) { m_input=input; }
virtual ~A() {};
};
#endif /* BASECLASS_H */
main.cpp
#include "baseclass.h"
#include <cstdlib> // EXIT_FAILURE, etc
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <dlfcn.h> // dynamic library loading, dlopen() etc
#include <memory> // std::shared_ptr
// compile code, instantiate class and return pointer to base class
// https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3687
// http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/C++-dlopen/thesolution.html
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11016078/
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10564670/
std::shared_ptr<A> compile(const std::string& code)
{
// temporary cpp/library output files
std::string outpath="/tmp";
std::string headerfile="baseclass.h";
std::string cppfile=outpath+"/runtimecode.cpp";
std::string libfile=outpath+"/runtimecode.so";
std::string logfile=outpath+"/runtimecode.log";
std::ofstream out(cppfile.c_str(), std::ofstream::out);
// copy required header file to outpath
std::string cp_cmd="cp " + headerfile + " " + outpath;
system(cp_cmd.c_str());
// add necessary header to the code
std::string newcode = "#include \"" + headerfile + "\"\n\n"
+ code + "\n\n"
"extern \"C\" {\n"
"A* maker()\n"
"{\n"
" return (A*) new B(); \n"
"}\n"
"} // extern C\n";
// output code to file
if(out.bad()) {
std::cout << "cannot open " << cppfile << std::endl;
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
out << newcode;
out.flush();
out.close();
// compile the code
std::string cmd = "g++ -Wall -Wextra " + cppfile + " -o " + libfile
+ " -O2 -shared -fPIC &> " + logfile;
int ret = system(cmd.c_str());
if(WEXITSTATUS(ret) != EXIT_SUCCESS) {
std::cout << "compilation failed, see " << logfile << std::endl;
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
// load dynamic library
void* dynlib = dlopen (libfile.c_str(), RTLD_LAZY);
if(!dynlib) {
std::cerr << "error loading library:\n" << dlerror() << std::endl;
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
// loading symbol from library and assign to pointer
// (to be cast to function pointer later)
void* create = dlsym(dynlib, "maker");
const char* dlsym_error=dlerror();
if(dlsym_error != NULL) {
std::cerr << "error loading symbol:\n" << dlsym_error << std::endl;
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
// execute "create" function
// (casting to function pointer first)
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8245880/
A* a = reinterpret_cast<A*(*)()> (create)();
// cannot close dynamic lib here, because all functions of the class
// object will still refer to the library code
// dlclose(dynlib);
return std::shared_ptr<A>(a);
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
double input=2.0;
double x=5.1;
// code to be compiled at run-time
// class needs to be called B and derived from A
std::string code = "class B : public A {\n"
" double f(double x) const \n"
" {\n"
" return m_input*x;\n"
" }\n"
"};";
std::cout << "compiling.." << std::endl;
std::shared_ptr<A> a = compile(code);
a->init(input);
std::cout << "f(" << x << ") = " << a->f(x) << std::endl;
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
output
$ g++ -Wall -std=c++11 -O2 -c main.cpp -o main.o # c++11 required for std::shared_ptr
$ g++ -ldl main.o -o main
$ ./main
compiling..
f(5.1) = 10.2
Have a look at libtcc; it is simple, fast, reliable and suits your need. I use it whenever I need to compile C functions "on the fly".
In the archive, you will find the file examples/libtcc_test.c, which can give you a good head start.
This little tutorial might also help you: http://blog.mister-muffin.de/2011/10/22/discovering-tcc/
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include "libtcc.h"
int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; }
char my_program[] =
"int fib(int n) {\n"
" if (n <= 2) return 1;\n"
" else return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);\n"
"}\n"
"int foobar(int n) {\n"
" printf(\"fib(%d) = %d\\n\", n, fib(n));\n"
" printf(\"add(%d, %d) = %d\\n\", n, 2 * n, add(n, 2 * n));\n"
" return 1337;\n"
"}\n";
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
TCCState *s;
int (*foobar_func)(int);
void *mem;
s = tcc_new();
tcc_set_output_type(s, TCC_OUTPUT_MEMORY);
tcc_compile_string(s, my_program);
tcc_add_symbol(s, "add", add);
mem = malloc(tcc_relocate(s, NULL));
tcc_relocate(s, mem);
foobar_func = tcc_get_symbol(s, "foobar");
tcc_delete(s);
printf("foobar returned: %d\n", foobar_func(32));
free(mem);
return 0;
}
Ask questions in the comments if you meet any problems using the library!
In addition to simply using an embedded scripting language (Lua is great for embedding) or writing your own compiler for C++ to use at runtime, if you really want to use C++ you can just use an existing compiler.
For example Clang is a C++ compiler built as libraries that could be easily embedded in another program. It was designed to be used from programs like IDEs that need to analyze and manipulate C++ source in various ways, but using the LLVM compiler infrasructure as a backend it also has the ability to generate code at runtime and hand you a function pointer that you can call to run the generated code.
Clang
LLVM
Essentially you will need to write a C++ compiler within your program (not a trivial task), and do the same thing JIT compilers do to run the code. You were actually 90% of the way there with this paragraph:
I am aware this cannot happen in a straightforward way, but surely it
must be possible, there are plenty of programing languages that are
not compiled and create that sort of stuff dynamically that are
implemented in either C or C++.
Exactly--those programs carry the interpreter with them. You run a python program by saying python MyProgram.py--python is the compiled C code that has the ability to interpret and run your program on the fly. You would need do something along those lines, but by using a C++ compiler.
If you need dynamic functions that badly, use a different language :)
A typical approach for this is to combine a C++ (or whatever it's written on) project with scripting language.
Lua is one of the top favorites, since it's well documented, small, and has bindings for a lot of languages.
But if you are not looking into that direction, perhaps you could think of making a use of dynamic libraries?
Yes - you can write a compiler for C++, in C++, with some extra features - write your own functions, compile and run automatically (or not)...
Have a look into ExpressionTrees in .NET - I think this is basically what you want to achieve. Create a tree of subexpressions and then evaluate them. In an object-oriented fashion, each node in the might know how to evaluate itself, by recursion into its subnodes. Your visual language would then create this tree and you can write a simple interpreter to execute it.
Also, check out Ptolemy II, as an example in Java on how such a visual programming language can be written.
You could take a look at Runtime Compiled C++ (or see RCC++ blog and videos), or perhaps try one of its alternatives.
Expanding on Jay's answer using opcodes, the below works on Linux.
Learn opcodes from your compiler:
write own myfunc.cpp, e.g.
double f(double x) { return x*x; }
compile with
$ g++ -O2 -c myfunc.cpp
disassemble function f
$ gdb -batch -ex "file ./myfunc.o" -ex "set disassembly-flavor intel" -ex "disassemble/rs f"
Dump of assembler code for function _Z1fd:
0x0000000000000000 <+0>: f2 0f 59 c0 mulsd xmm0,xmm0
0x0000000000000004 <+4>: c3 ret
End of assembler dump.
This means the function x*x in assembly is mulsd xmm0,xmm0, ret and in machine code f2 0f 59 c0 c3.
Write your own function in machine code:
opcode.cpp
#include <cstdlib> // EXIT_FAILURE etc
#include <cstdio> // printf(), fopen() etc
#include <cstring> // memcpy()
#include <sys/mman.h> // mmap()
// allocate memory and fill it with machine code instructions
// returns pointer to memory location and length in bytes
void* gencode(size_t& length)
{
// machine code
unsigned char opcode[] = {
0xf2, 0x0f, 0x59, 0xc0, // mulsd xmm0,xmm0
0xc3 // ret
};
// allocate memory which allows code execution
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit
void* buf = mmap(NULL,sizeof(opcode),PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0);
// copy machine code to executable memory location
memcpy(buf, opcode, sizeof(opcode));
// return: pointer to memory location with executable code
length = sizeof(opcode);
return buf;
}
// print the disassemby of buf
void print_asm(const void* buf, size_t length)
{
FILE* fp = fopen("/tmp/opcode.bin", "w");
if(fp!=NULL) {
fwrite(buf, length, 1, fp);
fclose(fp);
}
system("objdump -D -M intel -b binary -mi386 /tmp/opcode.bin");
}
int main(int, char**)
{
// generate machine code and point myfunc() to it
size_t length;
void* code=gencode(length);
double (*myfunc)(double); // function pointer
myfunc = reinterpret_cast<double(*)(double)>(code);
double x=1.5;
printf("f(%f)=%f\n", x,myfunc(x));
print_asm(code,length); // for debugging
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
compile and run
$ g++ -O2 opcode.cpp -o opcode
$ ./opcode
f(1.500000)=2.250000
/tmp/opcode.bin: file format binary
Disassembly of section .data:
00000000 <.data>:
0: f2 0f 59 c0 mulsd xmm0,xmm0
4: c3 ret
The simplest solution available, if you're not looking for performance is to embed a scripting language interpreter, e.g. for Lua or Python.
It worked for me like this. You have to use the -fpermissive flag.
I am using CodeBlocks 17.12.
#include <cstddef>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
char func[] = {'\x90', '\x0f', '\x1'};
void (*func2)() = reinterpret_cast<void*>(&func);
func2();
return 0;
}

How to workaround gcc-3.4 bug (or maybe this is not a bug)?

Following code fails with a error message :
t.cpp: In function `void test()':
t.cpp:35: error: expected primary-expression before '>' token
t.cpp:35: error: expected primary-expression before ')' token
Now I don't see any issues with the code and it compiles with gcc-4.x and MSVC 2005 but not with gcc-3.4 (which is still quite popular on some platforms).
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
struct message {
message(std::string s) : s_(s) {}
template<typename CharType>
std::basic_string<CharType> str()
{
return std::basic_string<CharType>(s_.begin(),s_.end());
}
private:
std::string s_;
};
inline message translate(std::string const &s)
{
return message(s);
}
template<typename TheChar>
void test()
{
std::string s="text";
std::basic_string<TheChar> t1,t2,t3,t4,t5;
t1=translate(s).str<TheChar>(); // ok
char const *tmp=s.c_str();
t2=translate(tmp).str<TheChar>(); // ok
t3=message(s.c_str()).str<TheChar>(); // ok
t4=translate(s.c_str()).str<TheChar>(); // fails
t5=translate(s.c_str()).template str<TheChar>(); // ok
std::cout << t1 <<" " << t2 <<" " << t3 << " " << t4 << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
test<char>();
}
Is it possible to workaround it on the level of translate function and message class, or maybe my code is wrong, if so where?
Edit:
Bugs related to template-functions in GCC 3.4.6 says I need to use keyword template but should I?
Is this a bug? Do I have to write a template keyword? Because in all other cases I do not have to? And it is quite wired I do not have to write it when I use ".c_str()" member function.
Why gcc-4 not always an option
This program does not starts when compiled with gcc-4 under Cygwin
#include <iostream>
#include <locale>
class bar : public std::locale::facet {
public:
bar(size_t refs=0) : std::locale::facet(refs)
{
}
static std::locale::id id;
};
std::locale::id bar::id;
using namespace std;
int main()
{
std::locale l=std::locale(std::locale(),new bar());
std::cout << has_facet<bar>(l) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
And this code does not compiles with gcc-4.3 under OpenSolaris 2009- broken concepts checks...
#include <map>
struct tree {
std::map<int,tree> left,right;
};
As mentioned elsewhere, that seems to be a compiler bug. Fair enough; those exist. Here's what you do about those:
#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ < 4
// Use erroneous syntax hack to work around a compiler bug.
t4=translate(s.c_str()).template str<TheChar>();
#else
t4=translate(s.c_str()).str<TheChar>();
#endif
GCC always defines __GNUC__ to the major compiler version number. If you need it, you also get __GNUC_MINOR__ and __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ for the y and z of the x.y.z version number.
This is a bug in the old compiler. Newer GCC's, from 4.0 to (the yet unreleased) 4.5, accept it, as they should. It is standard C++. (Intel and Comeau accept it also.)
Regarding cygwin and opensolaris, of course gcc-3.4 is not the only option: the newer versions (the released 4.4.3, or the unreleased 4.5 branch) work fine on these OS'es. For cygwin, it's part of the official distribution (see the gcc4* packages in the list). For opensolaris, you can compile it yourself (and instructions on how to do so can easily be found with Google).
I would try to use a different workaround, since adding the template disambiguator there is incorrect and will break if you move to a different compiler later on.
I don't know the real code, but passing a regular std::string seems to work (option 1: avoid converting to const char * just to create a temporary) or you could provide an overloaded translate that takes a const char* as argument (if the compiler does not complain there), depending on your requirements.

How to use C++ in Go

In the new Go language, how do I call C++ code? In other words, how can I wrap my C++ classes and use them in Go?
Update: I've succeeded in linking a small test C++ class with Go
If you wrap you C++ code with a C interface you should be able to call your library with cgo (see the example of gmp in $GOROOT/misc/cgo/gmp).
I'm not sure if the idea of a class in C++ is really expressible in Go, as it doesn't have inheritance.
Here's an example:
I have a C++ class defined as:
// foo.hpp
class cxxFoo {
public:
int a;
cxxFoo(int _a):a(_a){};
~cxxFoo(){};
void Bar();
};
// foo.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "foo.hpp"
void
cxxFoo::Bar(void){
std::cout<<this->a<<std::endl;
}
which I want to use in Go. I'll use the C interface
// foo.h
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
typedef void* Foo;
Foo FooInit(void);
void FooFree(Foo);
void FooBar(Foo);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
(I use a void* instead of a C struct so the compiler knows the size of Foo)
The implementation is:
//cfoo.cpp
#include "foo.hpp"
#include "foo.h"
Foo FooInit()
{
cxxFoo * ret = new cxxFoo(1);
return (void*)ret;
}
void FooFree(Foo f)
{
cxxFoo * foo = (cxxFoo*)f;
delete foo;
}
void FooBar(Foo f)
{
cxxFoo * foo = (cxxFoo*)f;
foo->Bar();
}
with all that done, the Go file is:
// foo.go
package foo
// #include "foo.h"
import "C"
import "unsafe"
type GoFoo struct {
foo C.Foo;
}
func New()(GoFoo){
var ret GoFoo;
ret.foo = C.FooInit();
return ret;
}
func (f GoFoo)Free(){
C.FooFree(unsafe.Pointer(f.foo));
}
func (f GoFoo)Bar(){
C.FooBar(unsafe.Pointer(f.foo));
}
The makefile I used to compile this was:
// makefile
TARG=foo
CGOFILES=foo.go
include $(GOROOT)/src/Make.$(GOARCH)
include $(GOROOT)/src/Make.pkg
foo.o:foo.cpp
g++ $(_CGO_CFLAGS_$(GOARCH)) -fPIC -O2 -o $# -c $(CGO_CFLAGS) $<
cfoo.o:cfoo.cpp
g++ $(_CGO_CFLAGS_$(GOARCH)) -fPIC -O2 -o $# -c $(CGO_CFLAGS) $<
CGO_LDFLAGS+=-lstdc++
$(elem)_foo.so: foo.cgo4.o foo.o cfoo.o
gcc $(_CGO_CFLAGS_$(GOARCH)) $(_CGO_LDFLAGS_$(GOOS)) -o $# $^ $(CGO_LDFLAGS)
Try testing it with:
// foo_test.go
package foo
import "testing"
func TestFoo(t *testing.T){
foo := New();
foo.Bar();
foo.Free();
}
You'll need to install the shared library with make install, then run make test. Expected output is:
gotest
rm -f _test/foo.a _gotest_.6
6g -o _gotest_.6 foo.cgo1.go foo.cgo2.go foo_test.go
rm -f _test/foo.a
gopack grc _test/foo.a _gotest_.6 foo.cgo3.6
1
PASS
Seems that currently SWIG is best solution for this:
https://www.swig.org/Doc4.0/Go.html
It supports inheritance and even allows to subclass C++ class with Go struct so when overridden methods are called in C++ code, Go code is fired.
Section about C++ in Go FAQ is updated and now mentions SWIG and no longer says "because Go is garbage-collected it will be unwise to do so, at least naively".
As of go1.2+, cgo automatically incorporates and compiles C++ code:
http://golang.org/doc/go1.2#cgo_and_cpp
You can't quite yet from what I read in the FAQ:
Do Go programs link with C/C++ programs?
There are two Go compiler implementations, gc (the 6g program and friends) and gccgo. Gc uses a different calling convention and linker and can therefore only be linked with C programs using the same convention. There is such a C compiler but no C++ compiler. Gccgo is a GCC front-end that can, with care, be linked with GCC-compiled C or C++ programs.
The cgo program provides the mechanism for a “foreign function interface” to allow safe calling of C libraries from Go code. SWIG extends this capability to C++ libraries.
I've created the following example based on Scott Wales' answer. I've tested it in macOS High Sierra 10.13.3 running go version go1.10 darwin/amd64.
(1) Code for library.hpp, the C++ API we aim to call.
#pragma once
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int value);
~Foo();
int value() const;
private:
int m_value;
};
(2) Code for library.cpp, the C++ implementation.
#include "library.hpp"
#include <iostream>
Foo::Foo(int value) : m_value(value) {
std::cout << "[c++] Foo::Foo(" << m_value << ")" << std::endl;
}
Foo::~Foo() { std::cout << "[c++] Foo::~Foo(" << m_value << ")" << std::endl; }
int Foo::value() const {
std::cout << "[c++] Foo::value() is " << m_value << std::endl;
return m_value;
}
(3) Code for library-bridge.h the bridge needed to expose a C API implemented in C++ so that go can use it.
#pragma once
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
void* LIB_NewFoo(int value);
void LIB_DestroyFoo(void* foo);
int LIB_FooValue(void* foo);
#ifdef __cplusplus
} // extern "C"
#endif
(4) Code for library-bridge.cpp, the implementation of the bridge.
#include <iostream>
#include "library-bridge.h"
#include "library.hpp"
void* LIB_NewFoo(int value) {
std::cout << "[c++ bridge] LIB_NewFoo(" << value << ")" << std::endl;
auto foo = new Foo(value);
std::cout << "[c++ bridge] LIB_NewFoo(" << value << ") will return pointer "
<< foo << std::endl;
return foo;
}
// Utility function local to the bridge's implementation
Foo* AsFoo(void* foo) { return reinterpret_cast<Foo*>(foo); }
void LIB_DestroyFoo(void* foo) {
std::cout << "[c++ bridge] LIB_DestroyFoo(" << foo << ")" << std::endl;
AsFoo(foo)->~Foo();
}
int LIB_FooValue(void* foo) {
std::cout << "[c++ bridge] LIB_FooValue(" << foo << ")" << std::endl;
return AsFoo(foo)->value();
}
(5) Finally, library.go, the go program calling the C++ API.
package main
// #cgo LDFLAGS: -L. -llibrary
// #include "library-bridge.h"
import "C"
import "unsafe"
import "fmt"
type Foo struct {
ptr unsafe.Pointer
}
func NewFoo(value int) Foo {
var foo Foo
foo.ptr = C.LIB_NewFoo(C.int(value))
return foo
}
func (foo Foo) Free() {
C.LIB_DestroyFoo(foo.ptr)
}
func (foo Foo) value() int {
return int(C.LIB_FooValue(foo.ptr))
}
func main() {
foo := NewFoo(42)
defer foo.Free() // The Go analog to C++'s RAII
fmt.Println("[go]", foo.value())
}
Using the following Makefile
liblibrary.so: library.cpp library-bridge.cpp
clang++ -o liblibrary.so library.cpp library-bridge.cpp \
-std=c++17 -O3 -Wall -Wextra -fPIC -shared
I can run the example program as follows:
$ make
clang++ -o liblibrary.so library.cpp library-bridge.cpp \
-std=c++17 -O3 -Wall -Wextra -fPIC -shared
$ go run library.go
[c++ bridge] LIB_NewFoo(42)
[c++] Foo::Foo(42)
[c++ bridge] LIB_NewFoo(42) will return pointer 0x42002e0
[c++ bridge] LIB_FooValue(0x42002e0)
[c++] Foo::value() is 42
[go] 42
[c++ bridge] LIB_DestroyFoo(0x42002e0)
[c++] Foo::~Foo(42)
Important
The comments above import "C" in the go program are NOT OPTIONAL. You must put them exactly as shown so that cgo knows which header and library to load, in this case:
// #cgo LDFLAGS: -L. -llibrary
// #include "library-bridge.h"
import "C"
Link to GitHub repo with the full example.
Looks it's one of the early asked question about Golang . And same time answers to never update . During these three to four years , too many new libraries and blog post has been out . Below are the few links what I felt useful .
SWIG and Go
Calling C++ Code From Go With SWIG
On comparing languages, C++ and Go
GoForCPPProgrammers
There's talk about interoperability between C and Go when using the gcc Go compiler, gccgo. There are limitations both to the interoperability and the implemented feature set of Go when using gccgo, however (e.g., limited goroutines, no garbage collection).
You're walking on uncharted territory here. Here is the Go example for calling C code, perhaps you can do something like that after reading up on C++ name mangling and calling conventions, and lots of trial and error.
If you still feel like trying it, good luck.
You might need to add -lc++ to the LDFlags for Golang/CGo to recognize the need for the standard library.
The problem here is that a compliant implementation does not need to put your classes in a compile .cpp file. If the compiler can optimize out the existence of a class, so long as the program behaves the same way without it, then it can be omitted from the output executable.
C has a standardized binary interface. Therefore you'll be able to know that your functions are exported. But C++ has no such standard behind it.
Funny how many broader issues this announcement has dredged up. Dan Lyke had a very entertaining and thoughtful discussion on his website, Flutterby, about developing Interprocess Standards as a way of bootstrapping new languages (and other ramifications, but that's the one that is germane here).
This can be achieved using command cgo.
In essence
'If the import of "C" is immediately preceded by a comment, that comment, called the preamble, is used as a header when compiling the C parts of the package. For example:'
source:https://golang.org/cmd/cgo/
// #include <stdio.h>
// #include <errno.h>
import "C"

Is there a way to get function name inside a C++ function?

I want to implement a function tracer, which would trace how much time a function is taking to execute. I have following class for the same:-
class FuncTracer
{
public:
FuncTracer(LPCTSTR strFuncName_in)
{
m_strFuncName[0] = _T('\0');
if( strFuncName_in ||
_T('\0') != strFuncName_in[0])
{
_tcscpy(m_strFuncName,strFuncName_in);
TCHAR strLog[MAX_PATH];
_stprintf(strLog,_T("Entering Func:- <%s>"),m_strFuncName);
LOG(strLog)
m_dwEnterTime = GetTickCount();
}
}
~FuncTracer()
{
TCHAR strLog[MAX_PATH];
_stprintf(strLog,_T("Leaving Func:- <%s>, Time inside the func <%d> ms"),m_strFuncName, GetTickCount()-m_dwEnterTime);
LOG(strLog)
}
private:
TCHAR m_strFuncName[MAX_PATH];
DWORD m_dwEnterTime;
};
void TestClass::TestFunction()
{
// I want to avoid writing the function name maually..
// Is there any macro (__LINE__)or some other way to
// get the function name inside a function ??
FuncTracer(_T("TestClass::TestFunction"));
/*
* Rest of the function code.
*/
}
I want to know if there is any way to get the name of the function from inside of a function? Basically I want the users of my class to simply create an object the same. They may not pass the function name.
C99 has __func__, but for C++ this will be compiler specific. On the plus side, some of the compiler-specific versions provide additional type information, which is particularly nice when you're tracing inside a templatized function/class.
MSVC: __FUNCTION__, __FUNCDNAME__, __FUNCSIG__
GCC: __func__, __FUNCTION__, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__
Boost library has defined macro BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION for most C++ compilers in header boost/current_function.hpp. If the compiler is too old to support this, the result will be "(unknown)".
VC++ has
__FUNCTION__ for undecorated names
and
__FUNCDNAME__ for decorated names
And you can write a macro that will itself allocate an object and pass the name-yelding macro inside the constructor. Smth like
#define ALLOC_LOGGER FuncTracer ____tracer( __FUNCTION__ );
C++20 std::source_location::function_name
main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <string_view>
#include <source_location>
void log(std::string_view message,
const std::source_location& location = std::source_location::current()
) {
std::cout << "info:"
<< location.file_name() << ":"
<< location.line() << ":"
<< location.function_name() << " "
<< message << '\n';
}
int f(int i) {
log("Hello world!"); // Line 16
return i + 1;
}
int f(double i) {
log("Hello world!"); // Line 21
return i + 1.0;
}
int main() {
f(1);
f(1.0);
}
Compile and run:
g++ -ggdb3 -O0 -std=c++20 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -o source_location.out source_location.cpp
./source_location.out
Output:
info:source_location.cpp:16:int f(int) Hello world!
info:source_location.cpp:21:int f(double) Hello world!
so note how the call preserves caller information, so we see the desired main call location instead of log.
I have covered the relevant standards in a bit more detail at: What's the difference between __PRETTY_FUNCTION__, __FUNCTION__, __func__?
Tested on Ubuntu 22.04, GCC 11.3.
I was going to say I didn't know of any such thing but then I saw the other answers...
It might interest you to know that an execution profiler (like gprof) does exactly what you're asking about - it tracks the amount of time spent executing each function. A profiler basically works by recording the instruction pointer (IP), the address of the currently executing instruction, every 10ms or so. After the program is done running, you invoke a postprocessor that examines the list of IPs and the program, and converts those addresses into function names. So I'd suggest just using the instruction pointer, rather than the function name, both because it's easier to code and because it's more efficient to work with a single number than with a string.