This quesiton is composed of a couple parts, the first has to do with the -> operator in a class. Does it take some sort of input (according to the C++ standard)? For example
some_return_type? operator->( long address ) {
cast the address to some sort of pointer and do something with it...
return something?...possibly... maybe not?;
}
So in reality A::SomeMethod() would refer to an address for a function in memory passed to ->. Or
A::someStaticOrNonStaticDataMember would refer to an address for a field?
If so (given that we do not have access to the actual type of the class), or something like this exists, what is it, and can we reconstruct part of a pointer, or align a pointer, (or write a class with an algorithm to do this), for a class based on some information about that class, so that it had an operable -> operator, so one could write:
somePointer->A::SomeMethod();
and have it call A::SomeMethod()? And maybe make context for the memory used in the class?
From the comments it seems you want to control how Compiler handles and generates -> tokens. This is for your bad luck not possible, because Compiler doesn't expose such information, nor is it required by Standard to do so
It is like you are trying to have "dynamic" (the C# type) but in C++, unluckily this is not possible. What could be similiar is wrapping some sort of "Closure collection" addressed by strings (a sort of scripting language) but that would be really heavy and not very nice.
Actually doing what you want with the syntax you showed is not possible.
If the type of an object is not known, then you have that object hided behind a "void *". That means basically that the only way you can use that object is by casting it back to its original type.
Suppose you have a DLL that expose 2 functions (with header files)
// creates an object of given type or null_ptr if no object match
void* getObject(std::string obj_type);
// call a method on that object
void callMethod(void* obj, std::string method_name, void* args, void* returnval);
Actually that solution (even if ugly) allows to call methods on objects that you don't know (it could be a lot better than that.)
But that force you to use void* and strings. That's because how C++ resolve method names (in reality also in C# the "dynamic" type generates behind the scenes reflection code that use strings with method names and is particulary slow)
So something similiar can be achieved with
float fuelLiters = 3.0f;
void * myObj = createObject("SomeCar");
callMethod(myObj,"loadFuel", &fuelLiters, null_ptr);
you probably can make the syntax a little better with templates or some macro, but you'll never be able to do something like
myObj->A::loadFuel(fuelLiters);
What you can do is having the externally loaded class, use the same interfaces of your application, says:
class ICar{
public:
void loadFuel(float liters)=0;
};
In that case you can use a function that cast the opaque object handle to ICar. This is what I already doing in a library I wrote 2 years ago:
So you just need the DLL expose a method for casting the class (downcast)
//if given object is implementing a ICar, the correct pointer is returned, else
// this function will return nullptr (or throw exception if you like more)
void * downcast( typeof(ICar), myObj);
You'll need simply
ICar *myCar = static_cast<ICar>(downcast( typeof(ICar), myObj));
myCar->loadFuel(3.0f);
However note that both the DLL and your application should "know" about what "ICar" is, so they must include the "ICar" header.
doing that is definitely possible, I did it already in 2 different ways, so If you need more details about implementation I'll be happy to show a possible way (given I understood correctly your question).
The arrow operator (->) is a dereference operator that is used exclusively with pointers to objects that have members.
foo->bar() is the same as (*foo).bar()
If you want to overload -> you should also overload *
Related
Sometimes I have a problem and see 3 ways of implementing the solution. I want to know when to use which of these 3 different implementations. Below there are some exsamples, to see what I mean. I also wrote some pros/kontras which I think is correct. If something seems to be wrong, then please tell me and I'll change that.
void* example:
void method(void* value)
{
//save value as member
}
pro void*:
void* can save every type and you don't have to use templates (in headers).
kontra void*:
-when you have a list of void* you can store in index[1] another type than in index[2] which is critical, because you don't know which type it is. But with dynamic_cast you can check if you can cast it to the type or not.
-when you have a void* list with entities of the same class which have 2 variables, you can not sort by variable1 / variable2 without casting it back to the original class.
Extension exsample:
Creating a new class and extent it on another class:
class CTestClass
{
void Method1();
};
class CTest2 : CTestClass
{
//use somehow the method
};
std::vector<CTestClass> list;
pro Extension:
this way of implementing a class can be usefull, if you need a method which is in every object you need. For example you want to sort by a variable. In such a method you can make the compare.
kontra Extension:
much effort
exsample template:
template <class T>
class CTest
{
//do some stuff
};
pro template:
in a template list, you can not add different types at the same time.
kontra template:
when you have a template list of type T and T has for exsample 2 variables. You can not say: sort by variable1 or variable2 because you can not get into the class T.
As far as I know: you have to implement the template into the header file, which is ugly to see.
I hope everyone understands what I mean.
Is void* a good way to program?
Can I write templates also in .cpp files?
What do you think when to use which of this techniques? Is there some kind of rule?
The statement below is incorrect
pro void*:
void* can save every type and you don't have to use templates (in
headers).
Templates haver their closest equivalent in cross macros and not in void pointers, but exist for a different set of purposes than the mere polymorphism afforded by void pointers. Using void pointers in no way substitutes templates.
While modern programmers might not recommend about using void pointers, complaining about the (true!) potential dangers afforded, old school C-style code certainly has a use for them and this is the reason they exist. Pairing the benefits gained from void pointers with the tradeoff in performance by the C++ dynamic cast, would simply spoil the choice.
Void pointers just exist to offer limitless flexibility at managing memory when you know what you are doing and should be used only in that case. There is no comparison between them and templates.
A method that takes a void * argument should only exist when:
Case 1: The size of the passed data is known and the argument is considered as raw data. It makes no difference what that data is.
Case 2: The size of the passed data is known and you plan to convert it to a pointer of the appropriate type later (for example by some parsing, enumeration policy, known type, etc) but in order to go through some general purpose functions, libraries, APIs, you must convert it to known-length void* inbetween.
Coming from Delphi, I'm used to using class references (metaclasses) like this:
type
TClass = class of TForm;
var
x: TClass;
f: TForm;
begin
x := TForm;
f := x.Create();
f.ShowModal();
f.Free;
end;
Actually, every class X derived from TObject have a method called ClassType that returns a TClass that can be used to create instances of X.
Is there anything like that in C++?
Metaclasses do not exist in C++. Part of why is because metaclasses require virtual constructors and most-derived-to-base creation order, which are two things C++ does not have, but Delphi does.
However, in C++Builder specifically, there is limited support for Delphi metaclasses. The C++ compiler has a __classid() and __typeinfo() extension for retrieving a Delphi-compatible TMetaClass* pointer for any class derived from TObject. That pointer can be passed as-is to Delphi code (you can use Delphi .pas files in a C++Builder project).
The TApplication::CreateForm() method is implemented in Delphi and has a TMetaClass* parameter in C++ (despite its name, it can actually instantiate any class that derives from TComponent, if you do not mind the TApplication object being assigned as the Owner), for example:
TForm *f;
Application->CreateForm(__classid(TForm), &f);
f->ShowModal();
delete f;
Or you can write your own custom Delphi code if you need more control over the constructor call:
unit CreateAFormUnit;
interface
uses
Classes, Forms;
function CreateAForm(AClass: TFormClass; AOwner: TComponent): TForm;
implementation
function CreateAForm(AClass: TFormClass; AOwner: TComponent): TForm;
begin
Result := AClass.Create(AOwner);
end;
end.
#include "CreateAFormUnit.hpp"
TForm *f = CreateAForm(__classid(TForm), SomeOwner);
f->ShowModal();
delete f;
Apparently modern Delphi supports metaclasses in much the same way as original Smalltalk.
There is nothing like that in C++.
One main problem with emulating that feature in C++, having run-time dynamic assignment of values that represent type, and being able to create instances from such values, is that in C++ it's necessary to statically know the constructors of a type in order to instantiate.
Probably you can achieve much of the same high-level goal by using C++ static polymorphism, which includes function overloading and the template mechanism, instead of extreme runtime polymorphism with metaclasses.
However, one way to emulate the effect with C++, is to use cloneable exemplar-objects, and/or almost the same idea, polymorphic object factory objects. The former is quite unusual, the latter can be encountered now and then (mostly the difference is where the parameterization occurs: with the examplar-object it's that object's state, while with the object factory it's arguments to the creation function). Personally I would stay away from that, because C++ is designed for static typing, and this idea is about cajoling C++ into emulating a language with very different characteristics and programming style etc.
Type information does not exist at runtime with C++. (Except when enabling RTTI but it is still different than what you need)
A common idiom is to create a virtual clone() method that obviously clones the object which is usually in some prototypical state. It is similar to a constructor, but the concrete type is resolved at runtime.
class Object
{
public:
virtual Object* clone() const = 0;
};
If you don't mind spending some time examining foreign sources, you can take a look at how a project does it: https://github.com/rheit/zdoom/blob/master/src/dobjtype.h (note: this is a quite big and evolving source port of Doom, so be advised even just reading will take quite some time). Look at PClass and related types. I don't know what is done here exactly, but from my limited knowledge they construct a structure with necessary metatable for each class and use some preprocessor magic in form of defines for readability (or something else). Their approach allows seamlessly create usual C++ classes, but adds support for PClass::FindClass("SomeClass") to get the class reference and use that as needed, for example to create an instance of the class. It also can check inheritance, create new classes on the fly and replace classes by others, i. e. you can replace CDoesntWorksUnderWinXP by CWorksEverywhere (as an example, they use it differently of course). I had a quick research back then, their approach isn't exceptional, it was explained on some sites but since I had only so much interest I don't remember details.
Virtual table is arrary of function pointers.
How can i implement it as every function has different signature ?
You don't implement it.
The compiler generates it (or something with equivalent functionality), and it's not constrained by the type system so it can simply store the function addresses and generate whatever code is needed to call them correctly.
You can implement something vaguely similar using a struct containing different types of function pointer, rather than an array. That's quite a common way of implementing dynamic polymorphism in C; for example, the Linux kernel provides polymorphic behaviour for file-like objects by defining an interface along the lines of:
struct fileops {
int (*fo_read) (struct file *fp, ...);
int (*fo_write) (struct file *fp, ...);
// and so on
};
If functions in a virtual table have different signatures, you'll have to implement it as a structure type containing members with heterogeneous types.
Alternately, if you have other information telling you what the signatures are, you can cast a function pointer to another function pointer type, as long as you cast it back to the correct type before calling it.
If you know every function at compile time, then you could use a struct of differently typed function pointers (however, if you know every function at compile time, why wouldn't you just use a class with virtual methods?).
If you want to do this at runtime, then an array of void* would probably suffice. You'd need to cast the pointers in when you store them and out (to the correct type) again before you call them. Of course, you'll need to keep track of the function types (including calling convention) somewhere else.
Without knowing what you're planning to do with this it's very difficult to give a more useful answer.
There are valid reasons for implementing vtables in code. They're an implementation detail though, so you'll need to be targeting a known ABI rather than just 'C++'. The only time I've done this was an experiment to dynamically create new COM classes at runtime (the ABI expected of a COM object is a pointer to a vtable that contains functions following the __stdcall calling convention where the first 3 functions implement the IUnknown interface).
This is not a question about how they work and declared, this I think is pretty much clear to me. The question is about why to implement this?
I suppose the practical reason is to simplify bunch of other code to relate and declare their variables of base type, to handle objects and their specific methods from many other subclasses?
Could this be done by templating and typechecking, like I do it in Objective C? If so, what is more efficient? I find it confusing to declare object as one class and instantiate it as another, even if it is its child.
SOrry for stupid questions, but I havent done any real projects in C++ yet and since I am active Objective C developer (it is much smaller language thus relying heavily on SDK's functionalities, like OSX, iOS) I need to have clear view on any parallel ways of both cousins.
Yes, this can be done with templates, but then the caller must know what the actual type of the object is (the concrete class) and this increases coupling.
With virtual functions the caller doesn't need to know the actual class - it operates through a pointer to a base class, so you can compile the client once and the implementor can change the actual implementation as much as it wants and the client doesn't have to know about that as long as the interface is unchanged.
Virtual functions implement polymorphism. I don't know Obj-C, so I cannot compare both, but the motivating use case is that you can use derived objects in place of base objects and the code will work. If you have a compiled and working function foo that operates on a reference to base you need not modify it to have it work with an instance of derived.
You could do that (assuming that you had runtime type information) by obtaining the real type of the argument and then dispatching directly to the appropriate function with a switch of shorts, but that would require either manually modifying the switch for each new type (high maintenance cost) or having reflection (unavailable in C++) to obtain the method pointer. Even then, after obtaining a method pointer you would have to call it, which is as expensive as the virtual call.
As to the cost associated to a virtual call, basically (in all implementations with a virtual method table) a call to a virtual function foo applied on object o: o.foo() is translated to o.vptr[ 3 ](), where 3 is the position of foo in the virtual table, and that is a compile time constant. This basically is a double indirection:
From the object o obtain the pointer to the vtable, index that table to obtain the pointer to the function and then call. The extra cost compared with a direct non-polymorphic call is just the table lookup. (In fact there can be other hidden costs when using multiple inheritance, as the implicit this pointer might have to be shifted), but the cost of the virtual dispatch is very small.
I don't know the first thing about Objective-C, but here's why you want to "declare an object as one class and instantiate it as another": the Liskov Substitution Principle.
Since a PDF is a document, and an OpenOffice.org document is a document, and a Word Document is a document, it's quite natural to write
Document *d;
if (ends_with(filename, ".pdf"))
d = new PdfDocument(filename);
else if (ends_with(filename, ".doc"))
d = new WordDocument(filename);
else
// you get the point
d->print();
Now, for this to work, print would have to be virtual, or be implemented using virtual functions, or be implemented using a crude hack that reinvents the virtual wheel. The program need to know at runtime which of various print methods to apply.
Templating solves a different problem, where you determine at compile time which of the various containers you're going to use (for example) when you want to store a bunch of elements. If you operate on those containers with template functions, then you don't need to rewrite them when you switch containers, or add another container to your program.
A virtual function is important in inheritance. Think of an example where you have a CMonster class and then a CRaidBoss and CBoss class that inherit from CMonster.
Both need to be drawn. A CMonster has a Draw() function, but the way a CRaidBoss and a CBoss are drawn is different. Thus, the implementation is left to them by utilizing the virtual function Draw.
Well, the idea is simply to allow the compiler to perform checks for you.
It's like a lot of features : ways to hide what you don't want to have to do yourself. That's abstraction.
Inheritance, interfaces, etc. allow you to provide an interface to the compiler for the implementation code to match.
If you didn't have the virtual function mecanism, you would have to write :
class A
{
void do_something();
};
class B : public A
{
void do_something(); // this one "hide" the A::do_something(), it replace it.
};
void DoSomething( A* object )
{
// calling object->do_something will ALWAYS call A::do_something()
// that's not what you want if object is B...
// so we have to check manually:
B* b_object = dynamic_cast<B*>( object );
if( b_object != NULL ) // ok it's a b object, call B::do_something();
{
b_object->do_something()
}
else
{
object->do_something(); // that's a A, call A::do_something();
}
}
Here there are several problems :
you have to write this for each function redefined in a class hierarchy.
you have one additional if for each child class.
you have to touch this function again each time you add a definition to the whole hierarcy.
it's visible code, you can get it wrong easily, each time
So, marking functions virtual does this correctly in an implicit way, rerouting automatically, in a dynamic way, the function call to the correct implementation, depending on the final type of the object.
You dont' have to write any logic so you can't get errors in this code and have an additional thing to worry about.
It's the kind of thing you don't want to bother with as it can be done by the compiler/runtime.
The use of templates is also technically known as polymorphism from theorists. Yep, both are valid approach to the problem. The implementation technics employed will explain better or worse performance for them.
For example, Java implements templates, but through template erasure. This means that it is only apparently using templates, under the surface is plain old polymorphism.
C++ has very powerful templates. The use of templates makes code quicker, though each use of a template instantiates it for the given type. This means that, if you use an std::vector for ints, doubles and strings, you'll have three different vector classes: this means that the size of the executable will suffer.
in C++, I can easily create a function pointer by taking the address of a member function. However, is it possible to change the address of that local function?
I.e. say I have funcA() and funcB() in the same class, defined differently. I'm looking to change the address of funcA() to that of funcB(), such that at run time calling funcA() actually results in a call to funcB(). I know this is ugly, but I need to do this, thanks!
EDIT----------
Background on what I'm trying to do:
I'm hoping to implement unit tests for an existing code base, some of the methods in the base class which all of my modules are inheriting from are non-virtual. I'm not allowed to edit any production code. I can fiddle with the build process and substitute in a base class with the relevant methods set to virtual but I thought I'd rather use a hack like this (which I thought was possible).
Also, I'm interested in the topic out of technical curiosity, as through the process of trying to hack around this problem I'm learning quite a bit about how things such as code generation & function look-up work under the hood, which I haven't had a chance to learn in school having just finished 2nd year of university. I'm not sure as to I'll ever be taught such things in school as I'm in a computer engineering program rather than CS.
Back on topic
The the method funcA() and funcB() do indeed have the same signature, so the problem is that I can only get the address of a function using the & operator? Would I be correct in saying that I can't change the address of the function, or swap out the contents at that address without corrupting portions of memory? Would DLL injection be a good approach for a situation like this if the functions are exported to a dll?
No. Functions are compiled into the executable, and their address is fixed throughout the life-time of the program.
The closest thing is virtual functions. Give us an example of what you're trying to accomplish, I promise there's a better way.
It cannot be done the way you describe it. The only way to change the target for a statically bound call is by modifying the actual executable code of your program. C++ language has no features that could accomplish that.
If you want function calls to be resolved at run-time you have to either use explicitly indirect calls (call through function pointers), or use language features that are based on run-time call resolution (like virtual functions), or you can use plain branching with good-old if or switch. Which is more appropriate in your case depends on your specific problem.
Technically it might be possible for virtual functions by modifying the vtable of the type, but you most certainly cannot do it without violating the standard (causing Undefined Behavior) and it would require knowledge of how your specific compiler handles vtables.
For other functions it is not possible because the addresses of the functions are directly written to program code, which is generally on a read-only memory area.
I am fairly sure this is impossible in pure C++. C++ is not a dynamic language.
What you want is a pointer to a function, you can point it to FuncA or FuncB assuming that they have the same signature.
You cannot do what you want to do directly. However, you can achieve a similar result with some slightly different criteria, using something you are already familiar with -- function pointers. Consider:
// This type could be whatever you need, including a member function pointer type.
typedef void (*FunctionPointer)();
struct T {
FunctionPointer Function;
};
Now you can set the Function member on any given T instance, and call it. This is about as close as you can reasonably get, and I presume that since you are already aware of function pointers you're already aware of this solution.
Why don't you edit your question with a more complete description of the problem you're trying to solve? As it stands it really sounds like you're trying to do something horrible.
Its simple!
For
at run time calling funcA() actually results in a call to funcB().
write funcA() similar to following:
int funcA( int a, int b) {
return funcB( a, b );
}
:-)