I am writing file conversion code from a proprietary file format to one more generic. My goal is to support multiple versions of the manufacturer's file format.
I have a multiple versions of the same proprietary headers. The headers define various structs which comprise the main file header (the file is simply a large header followed by raw data).
I need to read the first 4 bytes of the source file to determine the file version. The file version, in turn, tells me which version of the C-structs was used to create the file.
The issues are:
I can't modify the proprietary headers
The headers do not use namespaces or classes
There are a good handful of macros defined in the headers
Possible solutions:
Build different converter binaries for each file version type :-(
Inconvenient for both user and developer
Dynamically load libraries for each version
The converter is plugin-oriented, so there's already a lot of this happening
I have tried hacking with namespaces:
namespace version1 {
#include "version1.h"
}
namespace version2 {
#include "version2.h"
}
int main (void) {
version1::header *hdr = new version1::header;
return 0;
}
But this won't work because of include guards, and because there are multiple macros are redefined in each header.
Is there an elegant way to handle this?
You could use two different source files, together with a forward declaration:
// Forward declare in main.cpp:
namespace version1
{
struct header;
}
namespace version2
{
struct header;
}
// version1.cpp:
namespace version1
{
#include <version1.h>
}
version1::header* new_v1_header()
{
return new version1::header;
}
// other functions using `version1::header`
// version2.cpp:
namespace version2
{
#include <version2.h>
}
version2::header* new_v2_header()
{
return new version2::header;
}
// other functions using `version2::header`
Another alternative is to implement a wrapper class, which has a base-class that is just an empty shell:
class header_base
{
virtual int func1(char *stuff) = 0;
... many other virtual functions.
};
// Create implementation of header_v1 or header_v2:
header_base* make_header(unsigned int magic);
header_base.cpp:
#include "header_v1.h"
#include "header_v2.h"
header_base* make_header(unsigned int magic)
{
switch(magic)
{
case Magic_V1:
return new header_v1;
case Magic_V2:
return new header_v2;
default:
assert(0);
return 0;
}
}
and then implement, in two separate
in headerv1.h:
class header_v1 : public header_base
{
int func1(char *stuff);
...
};
header_v1.cpp:
#include "header1.h"
int header_v1::func1(char *stuff)
{
...
return 17;
}
And similar for header_v2.h and header_v2.cpp.
Related
Let's say my program consists of two components trusted and untrusted. I would like to have to code class A's declaration only once but in two different namespaces, but their implementation can be different based on the namespace with only coding the common API once. I do not want to use macros for implementations like #ifdef UNTRSUTED .etc.
I do not want to use abstractions and inheritance to achieve different behavior. I'm just curious if it's possible.
In the header A.h I will have
// A.h
#pragma once
namespace app {
// I know I can't get what I want with naming the same namespace twice
namespace untrusted, trusted {
class A {
doDifferentFoo();
doCommonBar() // this one is common between two impls;
}
}
}
And in the implementation, I will have A-common.cpp (to implement common interface for both namespaces only once), A-untrusted.cpp (to implement doDifferentFoo for untrusted namespace) and A-trusted.cpp (to implement doDifferentFoo for trusted namespace)
I guess the simplest way to do this, is to move the common declarations into an extra file and then include it twice:
A_detail.h:
// No `#pragma once` here!
class A {
doDifferentFoo();
doCommonBar(); // this one is common between two impls;
};
A.h:
#pragma once
namespace app {
namespace trusted {
#include "a_detail.h"
}
namespace untrusted {
#include "a_detail.h"
}
}
A-untrusted.cpp:
#include "a.h"
namespace app { namespace untrusted {
// ...
} }
A-trusted.cpp:
#include "a.h"
namespace app { namespace trusted {
// ...
} }
A-common_detail.cpp (maybe choose different file ending; should not be compiled as translation unit):
// common definitions/declarations without `namespace`
A-common.cpp:
namespace app {
namespace untrusted {
#include "A-common_detail.cpp"
}
namespace trusted {
#include "A-common_detail.cpp"
}
}
I am not sure that this is worth it. Alternatively you could (in each file with common code) use a macro for all common code and call that twice for the two namespaces. However you did say that you didn't want to use macros.
There is no way to do this without the help of the preprocessor, because every declaration (with only one declarator) declares exactly one name in one scope.
// A.h
class A {
void doDifferentFoo();
void doCommonBar()
{ // ...
}
};
// A_trusted.h
namespace app
{
namespace trusted
{
#include "A.h"
void A::doDifferentFoo() // can be moved to cpp-file if needed/wanted
{
}
}
}
// A_untrusted.h
namespace app
{
namespace untrusted
{
#include "A.h"
void A::doDifferentFoo() // can be moved to cpp-file if needed/wanted
{
}
}
}
(Not sure whether this is exclusively a C/C++ issue)
I’m currently fragmenting elements of a large Arduino project into reusable libraries - so far soo good.
However, a number of methods in the libraries return special structs which are declared in a data-types.h file contained in each library. The problem I have now is I'm unable to import/utilise these structs in my main sketch. I've tried declaring a variable of the DataTypes class in the main library header file and accessing the structs through it, but I get error error: invalid use of 'struct DataTypes::_theStructNameHere_t'
How would I go about accessing these structs from the library in my main sketch to declare as a variable type? I don't want to have to copy the header file which contains the structs from the library into my sketch, and I also don't want to have to create a separate library just for this single header file of structs!
Here's a quick example of what I mean:
Main.cpp:
#include <Arduino.h>
#include <MyLibrary.h>
MyLibrary myLib;
void setup() {
(This is declared in the library) myLib.dataTypes._theStructNameHere_t response = myLib.getASpecialValueWhichIsOfType_theStructNameHere_t()// Gives "error: invalid use of 'struct DataTypes::_theStructNameHere_t'""
// Example usage of the struct:
Serial.print("\n Loop Card Status: ");Serial.print(response.loop_status, HEX);
if (response.number_allocated > 0) {
Serial.print("\n Devices Allocated: ");Serial.print(response.number_allocated, HEX);
} else {
if (response.loop_status != 0x123) {
// Some condition
} else {
// Something else
}
}
}
void loop() {
...
}
Library Structure:
src/
- /data-types/
- - data-types.h
- MyLibrary.cpp
- MyLibrary.h
Library Header MyLibrary.h:
#ifndef _MYLIBRARY_H_
#define _MYLIBRARY_H_
#include <Arduino.h>
#include "./helpers/helpers.h"
...
#include "./data-types/data-types.h"
class MyLibrary {
public:
Uart *_commPort;
Helpers helpers;
...
DataTypes dataTypes;
DataTypes::_theStructNameHere_t getASpecialValueWhichIsOfType_theStructNameHere_t();
...
protected:
private:
};
#endif // _MYLIBRARY_H_
DataTypes Class data-types.h:
#ifndef _RESPONSE_TYPES_H
#define _RESPONSE_TYPES_H
class DataTypes
{
public:
struct _theStructNameHere_t
{
bool successful;
uint8_t loop_status;
uint8_t number_allocated;
uint8_t highest_address;
uint8_t number_inputs;
uint8_t number_outputs;
}
..even more..
private:
}
#endif // _RESPONSE_TYPES_H
I was able to obtain a MCVE from your example:
class DataTypes
{
public:
struct _theStructNameHere_t
{
};
};
class Library
{
public:
DataTypes dataTypes;
DataTypes::_theStructNameHere_t getMyDataType();
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Library myLib;
myLib.dataTypes._theStructNameHere_t response;
}
which gives a similar error as your code:
~$ g++ test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'int main(int, char**)':
test.cpp:20:21: error: invalid use of 'struct DataTypes::_theStructNameHere_t'
myLib.dataTypes._theStructNameHere_t response;
The problem is that you use an instance to access the struct type/name. To fix it, replace
myLib.dataTypes._theStructNameHere_t response = ...;
with
DataTypes::_theStructNameHere_t response = ...;
Notes:
Instead of using classes to create separate namespaces, please consider using namespaces directly. This is a feature of C++ which is available under Arduino.
namespace Library {
namespace DataTypes {
struct _theStructNameHere_t
{
...
};
...
} /*** namespace Library::DataTypes ***/
} /*** namespace Library ***/
Please read StackOverflow guidelines concerning how to ask a good question, in particular the section about Mininimal, Complete and Verifiable Example.
Sooner or later someone will tell you that there is no such thing as C/C++; C is C and C++ is C++; Arduino lives in its own world, even if is based on C++. Thus, you might want to remove C and C++ tags from your question.
I recently got this idea to separate different platform specific implementations (could be Win32/X, opengl/dx/vulkan, etc...) using CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern): I thought of something like this:
IDisplayDevice.h
#pragma once
#include "OSConfig.h"
namespace cbn
{
template <class TDerived> // Win32 type here
struct IDisplayDevice
{
bool run_frame(void) {
return
static_cast<const TDerived*>(this)->run_frame();
}
// a lot of other methods ...
};
}
Win32DisplayDevice.h:
#pragma once
#include "OSConfig.h"
// make sure it only gets compiled on win32/64
#if defined(CBN_OS_WINDOWS)
namespace cbn
{
class CWin32DisplayDevice
: public IDisplayDevice<CWin32DisplayDevice> {
public:
bool run_frame(void) {
call_hInstance();
call_hWnd();
#ifdef CBN_RENDERAPI_DX11
call_dx11_bufferswap();
#endif
return some_state;
}
private:
};
}
#endif
I would then provide an other implementation the same way in XDisplayDevice.h.
Finally, I would make a common interface in DisplayDevice.h:
#include "Win32DisplayDevice.h"
#include "XDisplayDevice.h"
namespace cbn
{
class CDisplayDevice
{
public:
CBN_INLINE
bool run_frame(void) { return device_->run_frame(); }
private:
#if defined(CBN_OS_WINDOWS)
CWin32DisplayDevice device_;
#elif defined(CBN_OS_LINUX)
CXDisplayDevice device_;
#elif // and so on
#else
// does nothing ...
CNillDisplayDevice device_;
#endif
}
}
So I could call it in main.cpp like:
int main()
{
CDisplayDevice my_device;
while(my_device->run_frame())
{
do_some_magic();
}
}
Do you think this would be a good way to deal with platform specific code ?
PS: I avoid victuals and polymorphism because of platform restraints (android, ps4, etc...) where pointer calls matter.
Consider this code:
struct OpenGLTraits // keep this in it's own files (.h and .cpp)
{
bool run_frame() { /* open gl specific stuff here */ }
};
struct VulkanTraits // keep this in it's own files (.h and .cpp)
{
bool run_frame() { /* vulkan specific stuff here */ }
};
template<typename T>
class DisplayDevice
{
using graphic_traits = T;
graphic_traits graphics; // maybe inject this in constructor?
void do_your_operation()
{
if(!graphics.run_frame()) // subsystem-specific call
{ ... }
}
};
This will use subsystem-specific calls, and abstract them away between a common API, without a virtual call involved. You can even inline the run_frame() implementations.
Edit (address comment question):
consider this:
#ifdef FLAG_SPECIFYING_OPEN_GL
using Device = DisplayDevice<OpenGLTraits>;
#elif FLAG_SPECIFYING_VULKAN
using Device = DisplayDevice<VulkanTraits>;
...
#endif
client code:
Device device;
device.do_your_operation();
I don't really see the benefit of CRTP here, you still have platform specific (as opposed to feature specific) ifdefs within the code, and this tends to make things harder to read and maintain. I usually prefer having different implementations in different source files - and in fact, generally having seperate directories for each platform.
such as:
platform/win64
platform/win32
platform/gnu-linux
platform/freebsd
In this way you can largely avoid the ifdef clutter, and you generally know where to find the platform specific things. You also know what you need to write in order to port things to another platform. The build system can then be made to select the correct source rather than the preprocessor.
This question has derived from this one.
I have a working program which must be split into multiple parts. In this program is needed to use a variable (now it's a GTK+ one :P) many times in parts of the program that will end up in separated .cpp files.
So, I made a simple example to understand how to make variables available to the program parts. A modified version of the previous code would be:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int entero = 10;
void function()
{
cout<<entero<<endl;
//action1...;
}
void separated_function()
{
cout<<entero<<endl;
//action2...;
}
int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
function();
separated_function();
cout<<entero<<endl;
//something else with the mentioned variables...;
return 0;
}
It is needed to split the code correctly, to have function(), another_function() and main() in separated .cpp files,and make entero avaliable to all of them... BUT:
In the previous question #NeilKirk commented:Do not use global variables. Put the required state into a struct or class, and pass it to functions as necessary as a parameter (And I also have found many web pages pointing that is not recommended to use global variables).
And, as far I can understand, in the answer provided by #PaulH., he is describing how to make variables avaliable by making them global.
This answer was very useful, it worked fine not only with char arrays, but also with ints, strings and GTK+ variables (or pointers to variables :P).
But since this method is not recommended, I would thank anyone who could show what would be the correct way to split the code passing the variables as a function parameter or some other method more recommended than the - working - global variables one.
I researched about parameters and classes, but I'm a newbie, and I messed the code up with no good result.
You need to give the parameter as a reference if you want the same comportement as a global variable
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// renamed the parameter to avoid confusion ('entero' is valid though)
void function(int &ent)
{
cout<<ent<<endl;
++ent; // modify its value
//action1...;
}
void separated_function(int &ent)
{
cout<<ent<<endl;
++ent; // modify its value again
//action2...;
}
int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
int entero = 10; // initializing the variable
// give the parameter by reference => the functions will be able to modify its value
function(entero);
separated_function(entero);
cout<<entero<<endl;
//something else with the mentioned variables...;
return 0;
}
output:
10
11
12
Defining a class or struct in a header file is the way to go, then include the header file in all source files that needs the classes or structures. You can also place function prototypes or preprocessor macros in header files if they are needed by multiple source files, as well as variable declarations (e.g. extern int some_int_var;) and namespace declarations.
You will not get multiple definition errors from defining the classes, because classes is a concept for the compiler to handle, classes themselves are never passed on for the linker where multiple definition errors occurs.
Lets take a simple example, with one header file and two source files.
First the header file, e.g. myheader.h:
#ifndef MYHEADER_H
#define MYHEADER_H
// The above is called include guards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard)
// and are used to protect the header file from being included
// by the same source file twice
// Define a namespace
namespace foo
{
// Define a class
class my_class
{
public:
my_class(int val)
: value_(val)
{}
int get_value() const
{
return value_;
}
void set_value(const int val)
{
value_ = val;
}
private:
int value_;
};
// Declare a function prototype
void bar(my_class& v);
}
#endif // MYHEADER_H
The above header file defines a namespace foo and in the namespace a class my_class and a function bar.
(The namespace is strictly not necessary for a simple program like this, but for larger projects it becomes more needed.)
Then the first source file, e.g. main.cpp:
#include <iostream>
#include "myheader.h" // Include our own header file
int main()
{
using namespace foo;
my_class my_object(123); // Create an instance of the class
bar(my_object); // Call the function
std::cout << "In main(), value is " << my_object.get_value() << '\n';
// All done
}
And finally the second source file, e.g. bar.cpp:
#include <iostream>
#include "myheader.h"
void foo::bar(foo::my_class& val)
{
std::cout << "In foo::bar(), value is " << val.get_value() << '\n';
val.set_value(456);
}
Put all three files in the same project, and build. You should now get an executable program that outputs
In foo::bar(), value is 123
In main(), value is 456
I prefer to provide a functional interface to global data.
.h file:
extern int get_entero();
extern void set_entero(int v);
.cpp file:
static int entero = 10;
int get_entero()
{
return entero;
}
void set_entero(int v)
{
entero = v;
}
Then, everywhere else, use those functions.
#include "the_h_file"
void function()
{
cout << get_entero() << endl;
//action1...;
}
void separated_function()
{
cout << get_entero() << endl;
//action2...;
}
int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
function();
separated_function();
cout<< get_entero() <<endl;
//something else with the mentioned variables...;
return 0;
}
If you do not plan to modify the variable, it is generally ok to make it global. However, it is best to declare it with the const keyword to signal the compiler that it should not be modified, like so:
const int ENTERO = 10;
If you are using multiple cpp files, also consider using a header file for your structures and function declarations.
If you are planning on modifying the variable, just pass it around in function parameters.
The biggest problem I seem to run into when coding in c++ is the fact that you must declare a class before you can reference it. Say I have two header file like this...
Header1.h
#include "Header2.h"
#include <deque>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class HelloPackage;
class Hello
{
public:
string Message;
HelloPackage * Package;
Hello():Message("")
{
}
Hello(string message, HelloPackage * pack)
{
Message = message;
Package = pack;
}
void Execute()
{
cout << Message << endl;
//HelloPackage->NothingReally doesn't exist.
//this is the issue essentially
Package->NothingReally(8);
}
};
Header2.h
#include "Header1.h"
#include <deque>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class HelloPackage
{
public:
deque<Hello> Hellos;
HelloPackage()
{
Hellos = deque<Hello>();
}
int AddHello(string Message)
{
Hellos.push_back(Hello(Message,this));
}
void ExecuteAll()
{
for each(Hello h in Hellos)
h.Execute();
}
int NothingReally(int y)
{
int a = 0;
a += 1;
return a + y;
}
}
What I'm wondering is, is there any elegant solution for dealing with these issues? In say c#, and java, you're not restricted by this "linear" compiling.
Use header include guards, either "#ifndef / #define / #endif", or "#pragma once"
Put your code in a .cpp, not inline in the header
???
Profit
The reason this will work for you is because you can then use forward declarations of the class you want to reference without including the file if you so wish.
You are missing include guards
why define methods in the header?
Besides these problems with your code, to answer your question : normal way is to forward declare classes - not to include headers in headers (unless you have to).
If you follow a few basic rules, it is not awkward at all. But in comparison to e.g. Java or C#, you have to follow these rules by yourself, the compiler and/or language spec does not enforce it.
Other answers already noted that, but I will recap here so you have it in one place:
Use include guards. They make sure that your header (and thus your class definition) is only included once.
Normally, you will want to separate the declaration and implementation of your methods. This makes the header files more reusable and will reduce compilation time, because the header requires normally fewer #includes than the CPP (i.e. implementation) file.
In the header, use forward declarations instead of includes. This is possible only if you just use the name of the respective type, but don't need to know any "internals". The reason for this is that the forward declaration just tells the compiler that a certain name exists, but not what it contains.
This is a forward declaration of class Bar:
class Bar;
class Foo {
void foooh(Bar * b);
};
Here, the compiler will know that there is a Bar somewhere, but it does not know what members it has.
Use "using namespace xyz" only in CPP files, not in headers.
Allright, here comes your example code, modified to meet these rules. I only show the Hello class, the HelloPackage is to be separated into header and CPP file accordingly.
Hello.h (was Header1.h in your example)
#include <string>
class HelloPackage;
class Hello
{
public:
Hello();
Hello(std::string message, HelloPackage * pack);
void Execute();
private:
string Message;
HelloPackage * Package;
};
Hello.cpp
#include "Hello.h"
#include "HelloPackage.h"
using namespace std;
Hello::Hello() : Message("")
{}
Hello::Hello(string message, HelloPackage * pack)
{
Message = message;
Package = pack;
}
void Hello::Execute()
{
cout << Message << endl;
// Now accessing NothingReally works!
Package->NothingReally(8);
}
One question that may arise is why is the include for string is needed. Couldn't you just forward declare the string class, too?
The difference is that you use the string as embedded member, you don't use a pointer to string. This is ok, but it forces you to use #include, because the compiler must know how much space a string instance needs inside your Hello class.