class Test
{
public:
int i;
};
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
Test *i = new Test;
return 0;
}
Is it possible to get support for the arrow notation? So if I write i. it automatically gets expand to i->
I am using SublimeClang. If something like this doesn't exist, would it be possible it create such a plugin?
Take a look at Autohotkey for windows, using this tutorial. or on Linux use Autokey, by following this tutorial.
However, how hard can typing one extra character be as chris said? What if not everything is a pointer?
Related
I'm working with a large C++ project that presently produces 66 different binaries. Each entrypoint contains its own global variables and main() function, though there's a lot of common code that's provided through a shared library.
For ease of distribution, I would like to distribute a single statically-linked binary, like you'd get from a Go or Rust project. Instead of invoking:
./ProgramFoo
./ProgramBar
I'd like to have a single combined binary that "execs" itself into one of those tools behind the scenes based on argv parameters, sort of like how busybox works:
./CombinedProgram ProgramFoo
./CombinedProgram ProgramBar
Look, I get that there's a "right" way to do this — refactor all 66 source files. Replace all global state with class singletons. Replace all the main() functions with entrypoint functions that could be dispatched from a single, unifying main() function. That sounds like a lot of work and a fair amount of disruption to all the other developers on the project. Is there truly no alternative on the compiler/linker level?
(I also don't want to just archive the binaries inside the CombinedProgram, write them to disk, and exec them. Boo. If I wanted a tarball, I'd just use a tarball.)
My understanding of C/C++ binary production is that the compiler will insert a crt0 startup routine that will initialize all my global state and then invoke main() with the appropriate parameters. Could I... perhaps... sneak some code in before that crt0 that peeks at argv and then proceeds down the correct code path?
Is there truly no alternative on the compiler/linker level?
Not really. Refactoring is the best / least work way to accomplish your task.
% cc -o one busy.c ; ln one two ; ./one ; ./two
one
two
The main() needs to look at ARGV[0] to determine how it was called. Then act on that information.
Simplest example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int one(int argc, char **argv) {
printf("one\n");
return 1;
}
int two(int argc, char **argv) {
printf("two\n");
return 2;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
char *end = argv[0];
int len = strlen(end);
end += len; // jump to the end of the command.
if (argc >= 1) {
if (!strcmp(end-3, "one")) {
return one(argc, argv);
} else if (!strcmp(end-3, "two")) {
return two(argc, argv);
}
}
}
I don't know of a tool that automatically refactors the commands into functions. The alternative is having one file determine what to do and then exec one of the 66 other statically-linked binaries.
I am trying to port some static checks from an old in-house C++ static checker to clang-tidy.
Since I am really new to this tool, I am having a really hard time doing it and I am starting to think that it's not the proper tool to do what I want.
So basically what I am currently trying to implement, is a check on pointer initialization. I want to verify that a local pointer is properly initialized before being used.
For example if I take this sample of code:
void method(const char *);
int main(int argc, char **argv){
const char * ptNotInit;
const char * ptInit = "hello";
method(ptNotInit);
method(ptInit);
return 0;
}
I want to get an error on method(ptNotInit) because I am passing a nullptr to method.
At first I try a very simple matcher:
Finder->addMatcher(varDecl(hasType(pointerType())).bind("pointerDeclaration"),this);
// and
const auto *MatchedPtDecl = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<VarDecl>("pointerDeclaration");
if ( MatchedPtDecl->hasInit() == false )
// Do an error
So i get an error on ptNotInit and argv, so I add MatchedPtDecl->isLocalVarDecl() and all seems fine.
Except that in my code sample I add:
ptNotInit = "Hello again";
method(ptNotInit);
I still get an error on ptNotInit when I abviously initialized it just before the call to method.
I suppose that the VarDecl method hasInit() just apply for the declaration of the variable, explaining why it return false?
So my question is, how can I know when calling method(ptNotInit) if ptNotInit was initialized?
Clang-tidy seems powerful to find something, but I don't know how to find the lack of something, if you see what I mean...
I try to write more complex matcher to find init like this one
Finder->addMatcher(binaryOperator(hasOperatorName("="),hasLHS(declRefExpr(hasType(pointerType()),hasDeclaration(varDecl().bind("pointerDeclaration"))).bind("affectation")))
If my pointer is on the left of an = operator, that should be an initialization... Ok why not, but at the end I want to know that there are no initialization, I don't want to match initialization syntax... Maybe I am taking the problem backward.
Any tips would help, or if you can point me to an already implemented checker doing something similar, that would be a great help!
For some reason, I can't start gtest tests from commandline, so I can't pass any arguments to it. I want to run InitGoogleTest already with a parameter defined in code.
Somewhere on the Internet I found a solution like this:
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
char *option[] = { "test.exe", //it doesn't have meaning, just dummy
"--gtest_output=xml:filename" };
int argc1 = 2;
::testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc1, option);
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
This solution didn't produce any errors but didn't create any xml with report either.
Can anyone suggest how to force gtest to write xml from Init?
You can override the output flag by adding
::testing::GTEST_FLAG(output) = "xml:filename";
before the call to InitGoogleTest. You can read more on it at Google Test docs.
I'm a new programmer,my program is about getting LED on,maybe the simplest in C language,but it is always having _'Delay10ms':function contains unnamed parameter,hoping someone help me to solve it.
here are my words:
#include<reg51.h>
#include<intrins.h>
#define GPIO_LED P2
void Delay10ms(unsigned char time)
{
unsigned char i,j;
for(i=1;i<110*time;i++)
for(j=1;j<110;j++);
}
void main()
{
unsigned char n,i,j;
GPIO_LED=0X01;
while(1)
{
for(n=0;n<7;n++)
{
GPIO_LED=_crol_(GPIO_LED,1);
Delay10ms(50);
}
for(n=0;n<7;n++)
{
GPIO_LED=_cror_(GPIO_LED,1);
Delay10ms(50);
}
}
}
Either <reg51.h> or <intrins.h> probably have standard library includes. One of these library includes contains the standard header function time() that returns the current system time. Because your function parameter's name is time the IDE probably can't figure out what you meant with it and thus it gives you that error/warning. Try renaming your variable.
Also, the return type of main() has never been void (C++), use int.
It has been a Long time gone since I played c, but your code Looks o.k., maybe there is a name conflict ("time")
But there are some more questions:
- Why do you use char (unsigned char = 0..255) instead of classic int? This would be make code more readable.
- What do you expect how relyable your timer could be on a multitasking operating System?
I would implement such a function (if it not exists) as
void MyDelay (unsigned int delay_time)
{
start = MyOs.GiveMeTheTime()
while (MyOs.GiveMeTheTime() - start < delay_time)
{};
}
MyOs and GiveMeTheTime are names chosen by me. You must find out, which functions are available on your System, I am sure, they are.
I suppose, you try to program anything like a raspberry pi. Maybe this link could help:
Example Which Provides Accurate uS Timing
Sorry if the title is misleading, I'm currently looking for solutions to the following:
I'm developing a library, for other people to use. They have to follow a strict design concept and the way they structure any additional features within the library. They all use Linux and (Vim) and as such as are allowed to use terminal commands (i.e to be able to compile etc..) and we all use clang as a compiler.
My question is this: Let's suppose I write a function called: "checkCode":
template<typename T>
void checkCode(T&& codeSnippet)
{
//// code
}
I want to make this function run so whenever they type "checkCode" in a terminal this function is therefore called. I know using clang thy have similar functionality, however, this is understandable as you're using the whole of clang. So:
1) Is it possible to just compile a class, and then access each of the functions through
the .dylab | .so file?
2) Might it be a better idea, or, better to take a copy of the source of clang, add this functionality and role it out to those using and contributing to the library? This would be like an additional add-on to clang?
Thanks
you could use one executable and symbolic links to it like busybox:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
string programName = argv[0];
size_t lastSlash = programName.find_last_of('/');
if(lastSlash != string::npos)
programName = programName.substr(lastSlash + 1);
if(programName == "function_1")
{
function_1();
return 0;
}
if(programName == "function_2")
{
function_2();
return 0;
}
// ...
// normal main code
return 0;
}