Trying to understand the proper way to copy values into an class member array. Currently, I take each value of the array and copy them into the corresponding element of the member array:
struct IPAddress
{
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4]) :
values{values[0], values[1], values[2], values[3]}
{
}
const unsigned char values[4];
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
unsigned char values[] = {10, 0, 0, 1};
IPAddress address(values);
return 0;
}
This works, but is there a way to "automagically" copy all the values in the constructor? I mean, what would I do if the values were of a class had 100 elements instead of 4? Or 1000?
I'm aware that I should be using std::array. But since this code is built for a microcontroller, using std library is not really an option.
Any takers?
You should be using std::array. This is one part of the standard library that shouldn't be offensive to embedded programming.
If you don't have access to it, it's not hard to implement a class just like it. It's a straight forward aggregate with saner semantics than raw arrays. It's also likely to be reused, which makes it a good candidate for a utility you should implement.
Failing that, you can rely on delegating c'tors, which I only add here for the intellectual exercise:
struct IPAddress
{
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4])
: IPAddress(values, std::make_index_sequence<4>{})
{
}
const unsigned char values[4];
private:
template<std::size_t... I>
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4], std::index_sequence<I...>)
: values{values[I]...}
{
}
};
The key is in the pack expansion values{values[I]...}, which turns into an initializer not unlike your original one. See it live.
I'm aware that I should be using std::array. But since this code is built for a microcontroller, using std library is not really an option.
If you don't want to include array, you can still implement your own type for solving your issue:
template<typename T, std::size_t N>
class values_t {
public:
values_t(const T *ptr) {
// copy N elements
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
value[i] = ptr[i]; // copy element
}
T& operator[](int i) { return value[i]; }
const T& operator[](int i) const { return value[i]; }
private:
typename std::remove_const<T>::type value[N];
};
Then, initializing the values data member of IPAddress becomes much simpler:
struct IPAddress
{
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4]) :
values{values} {} // <-- copy as a whole
values_t<const unsigned char, 4> values;
};
Not to sure how to name this question because the problem itself is looking for a construct of which I don´t know its name.
The problem is I am dealing with programs whose control flow depends greatly of data.
For example I created a MIPS simulator which implemented a list of more than 50 instructions, each implemented on its own and everything governed by a huge switch case
switch (function){ //Function is an int, each function (eg SLL) is
case 0: //associated with one
if (state->debug_level > 0){
fprintf(state->debug_out, "SLL\n");
}
step_err = SLL(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
break;
case 2:
if (state->debug_level > 0){
fprintf(state->debug_out, "SRL\n");
}
step_err = SRL(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
break;
case 3:
if (state->debug_level > 0){
fprintf(state->debug_out, "SRA\n");
}
//
I have been told that this could have been implemented using function pointers, but to do so what I am looking for is a way of relating data of any kind, say a string to other data, say an integer. I am aware of maps but wouldn't want to push back each pair. I am looking for some sort of array like syntax I think if seen before which might look something similar to this:
¿type? function_codes[]{
0, "SLL";
2, "SRL";
3, "SRA";
...
}
I am not looking for a solution to this problem but a generic approach to introducing quick relationships between data and using this to modify control flow.
EDIT AFTER ANSWERS
What I was actually looking for but I didnt know was indeed maps but in particular its initialization syntax similar to an array (see accepted answer). This used with function pointers did the required job.
As you guessed, function pointers are in fact a good way to do this. Since you specify that you don't want to use a Map, this is how you would implement your integer-based function dispatch using an array of function pointers. Note that since I don't know the type signature of your MIPS functions (SLL, SRL, etc.) I've used dummy placeholder type names.
typedef ret_t (*mips_func)(arg1_t, arg2_t, arg3_t, arg4_t, arg5_t);
mips_func function_codes[] = {
&SLL,
&SRL,
&SRA,
...
};
//...Later, in the part of your code that used to contain the big switch statement
step_err = (*function_codes[function])(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
The syntax &SLL gets a pointer to the function SLL, which I assume is already in scope because you can call it directly from your switch statement.
Note that this assumes the numeric codes for the functions are a continuous sequence of integers from 0 to [max code value]. If some numeric codes are unused, then you will either need to leave explicit gaps in your array (by placing a NULL pointer in one or more entries) or use std::map<int, mips_func> so that you can use arbitrary non-continuous integer values as keys to functions. Fortunately, using a Map still doesn't require push_backing each element, since C++ now has initializer lists. The same code using a Map would look like this:
typedef ret_t (*mips_func)(arg1_t, arg2_t, arg3_t, arg4_t, arg5_t);
std::map<int, mips_func> function_codes = {
{0, &SLL},
{2, &SRL},
{4, &SRA},
...
};
//Using the Map looks exactly the same, due to its overloaded operator[]
step_err = (*function_codes[function])(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
For simplify you can use associative containers. If the order is important then use std::map, or std::unordered_map in the other case.
And you can use syntax similar to the desired
std::map<size_t, std::string> codes_map = decltype(codes_map) {
{ 0, "val1" },
{ 1, "val2" }
};
You could group the data as static members w/ the same name across structs, then use templates to access them generically:
struct A { auto call() const { return "((1))"; }; static const char * name; };
struct B { auto call() const { return "{{2}}"; }; static const char * name; };
struct C { auto call() const { return "<<3>>"; }; static const char * name; };
// n.b. these `T...` have: `sizeof(T) == ... == sizeof(empty_struct)`
const char * A::name = "A";
const char * B::name = "B";
const char * C::name = "C";
boost::variant (and the soon to be implemented std::variant) implements a type-safe union, which provides a very clean and efficient way of using these structs as values:
#include <cstdio>
#include <vector>
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
int main()
{
std::vector<boost::variant<A, B, C>> letters{A{}, B{}, C{}, B{}, A{}};
auto visitor = [](auto x) { std::printf("%s(): %s\n", x.name, x.call()); };
for (auto var : letters) { boost::apply_visitor(visitor, var); }
}
Demo
It seems like you have two problems: the flow-control issue (dispatch) and the map issue (an implementation note). I get that the program flow is nonstatic and unknowable at compile-time… but so is the map static? For static maps I get a lot of mileage out of using a traits-ish approach to create a compile-time mapping. Here’s a quick example mapping file suffixes to Objective-C enum constants:
namespace objc {
namespace image {
template <std::size_t N> inline
constexpr std::size_t static_strlen(char const (&)[N]) { return N; }
template <NSBitmapImageFileType t>
struct suffix_t;
#define DEFINE_SUFFIX(endstring, nstype) \
template <> \
struct suffix_t<nstype> { \
static constexpr std::size_t N = static_strlen(endstring); \
static constexpr char const str[N] = endstring; \
static constexpr NSBitmapImageFileType type = nstype; \
};
DEFINE_SUFFIX("tiff", NSTIFFFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("bmp", NSBMPFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("gif", NSGIFFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("jpg", NSJPEGFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("png", NSPNGFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("jp2", NSJPEG2000FileType);
template <NSBitmapImageFileType nstype>
char const* suffix_value = suffix_t<nstype>::str;
}
}
… see how that works? the nice part is that using it has no runtime overhead, which if your map is static, you can use something like that.
For dynamic flow-control and dispatch, function pointers work; that is what happens automatically if you use polymorphic classes and virtual functions but it seems like you have an architecture in place already that may not be amenable to being redone with such high-modernist architectural notions. I like c++11 lambdas as they solve like 90% of my problems in this arena. Perhaps you can elablrate (I will amend my answer)!
If you only have a small number of indices to support, from 0 to 50, you'll get the best performance if you put your function pointers in an array and not a map.
The syntax is also short:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
static void f0() {
std::cout << "f0\n";
}
static void f1() {
std::cout << "f1\n";
}
void main()
{
std::function<void()> f[2] = { f0, f1 };
f[0](); // prints "f0"
f[1](); // prints "f1"
}
Or, if you prefer classes over functions:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
class myfunc {
public:
virtual void run() abstract;
virtual ~myfunc() {}
};
class f0 : public myfunc {
public:
virtual void run() {
std::cout << "f0\n";
}
};
class f1 : public myfunc {
public:
virtual void run() {
std::cout << "f1\n";
}
};
void main()
{
myfunc* f[2] = { new f0(), new f1() };
f[0]->run(); // prints "f0"
f[1]->run(); // prints "f1"
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(f) / sizeof(f[0]); ++i)
delete f[i];
}
Given some definitions
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <map>
using namespace std;
struct state{
int debug_level = 1;
const char* debug_out = "%s";
} s;
// some functions to call
void SLL(state& s, int, int, int, int){
cout << "SLL";
}
void SLR(state& s, int, int, int, int){
cout << "SLR";
}
void SLT(state& s, int, int, int, int){
cout << "SLT";
}
You can use a Map
auto mappedname2fn = map<string, delctype(SLL)*>{
{"SLL", SLL},
{"SLR", SLR}
};
// call a map function
mappedname2fn["SLR"](s, 1, 2, 3, 4);
If you don't want a map you can use a pre-sorted array for a binary search
Here's a binary search of an array of name, function pairs
template<typename P, int N, typename ...T>
auto callFn(P(&a)[N], string val, T&&... params){
auto it = lower_bound(a, a+N, make_pair(val, nullptr),
[](auto& p1, auto& p2){return p1.first < p2.first;});
if(it==(a+N) || val<it->first) throw logic_error("not found");
return it->second(forward<T>(params)...);
}
So you can set up an array and use that:-
// array sorted in alphabetical order for binary search to work
pair<string, decltype(SLL)*> name2fn[] = {
{"SLL", SLL},
{"SLR", SLR},
{"SLT", SLT}
};
void callFn(string name, state& s, int a, int b, int c, int d){
try{
callFn(name2fn, name, s, a, b, c, d);
}
catch(exception& e){
cout << e.what();
}
}
// call it
callFn("SLL", s, 1, 2, 3, 4);
im pretty new in c++ and my problem is the following:
i need an array in which i want so save values. all valus are of the same type.
there are two cases: the array should save int values or float.
when i compile, i dont knwo yet which type it will be, so it has to be defined while executing the programm.
i tried something like this:
void* myArray;
int a = 10;
if(something){
myArray = new int[a];
}
else{
myArray = new float[a];
}
after this i want so calculate things with these values, but i always get errors because the array is still void
There are several ways of doing this in C++:
You could use a void* and add reinterpret_cast<...> as needed,
You could make an array of unions that have both an int and a float, or
You could use templates.
The first two approaches are idiomatic to C, but not to C++. Both approaches are workable, but they result in solutions that are hard to understand and maintain.
The third approach lets you do things very cleanly:
template <typename T>
void calc() {
// You could use std::vector<T> here for even better flexibility
T* a = new T[10];
... // Perform your computations here
delete[] a;
// You don't need a delete if you use std::vector<T>
}
int main() {
...
// You can make a type decision at runtime
if (mustUseInt) {
calc<int>();
} else {
calc<float>();
}
return 0;
}
struct calculator : public boost::static_visitor<> {
void operator()(const std::vector<int>& vi) const {
// evaluate the array as ints
}
void operator()(const std::vector<float>& vf) const {
// evaluate the array as floats
}
};
using nasty_array = boost::variant<std::vector<int>, std::vector<float>>;
std::unique_ptr<nasty_array> myArray;
int a = 10;
if (something) {
myArray.reset(std::vector<int>(a));
}
else {
myArray.reset(std::vector<float>(a));
}
boost::apply_visitor( calculator(), *myArray );
Sorry, new to C++, converting from C, and have struggled to find a good way to do this...
//Fragment follows
const char *List1[]={"Choice1", "Not a good choice", "choice3"}; //rom-able
const char *List2[]={"Hello", "Experts", "Can", "You", "Help?"};
class ListIF{
private:
int index;
char *list;
public:
void GetValString(char *tgt,int len);//get parameter value as string max len chars
void SetIndex(int n){index = n;};
int GetIndex(void){return index;};
};
//end Fragment
The problem is how to write the constructor so that I can "encapsulate" the lists inside the class, without getting heap bloat (embedded target). And then how to write the gettor so that we can see list[index] within the class.
I am going daft trying to do something that seems obvious, so I am missing something?
In C++, prefer using std::string over const char*. It will solve most of your problems you face with const char*.
For an array of strings, use std::vector<std::string>. It will solve most of your problems you face with const char *[].
You can even initialize the std::vector with multiple strings as,
std::vector<std::string> List1(adder<std::string>("Choice1")("Not a good choice")("choice3"));
std::vector<std::string> List2(adder<std::string>("Hello")("Experts")("Can")("You")("Help?"));
Where adder<> is a class template defined as:
template<typename T>
struct adder
{
std::vector<T> items;
adder(const T &item) { items.push_back(item); }
adder& operator()(const T & item) { items.push_back(item); return *this; }
operator std::vector<T>&() { return items ; }
};
Sample running code here : http://www.ideone.com/GLEZr
/** Wrapper for C style arrays; does not take ownership of the array */
template <typename T>
class static_array
{
T *array;
size_t nelems;
public:
template <size_t N>
static_array(T (&a)[N]) : array(a), nelems(N) {}
T &operator[](size_t i) { return array[i]; }
T const &operator[](size_t i) const { return array[i]; }
size_t size() const { return nelems; }
};
typedef static_array<char const *> static_cstr_array;
Construct as static_cstr_array array1(List1). The setter is operator[], i.e.
array1[1] = "foo!";
You can add any method that you want to this class.
(I chose the name static_array because, as far as the class is concerned, the underlying array must be static: it should not grow, shrink or move due to realloc or otherwise. It doesn't mean the array must have static linkage.)
Not sure what you want your functions to be but one way to wrap the arrays would be:
EDIT : changed to incorporate Larsmans suggestion (on the chance that your compiler can't handle his answer).
class ListIF
{
private:
std::vector<const char*> m_list;//stores ptrs to the ROM
public:
ListIF(char const **list, size_t n) : m_list(list, list+n) {}
const char* get( int pos )
{
return m_list[pos];
}
};
How do I define a typedef for a fixed length array so that I can also 'new'. The following does not work:
typedef double Vector[3];
Vector *v = new Vector; // does not compile
We are trying to wrap into C++ some old C code which handles float * and float (*)[3] in a generic way.
The pointer to an double[3] is double * - so this will work:
typedef double Vector[3];
double *v = new Vector;
But I suggest you don't use it that way - to delete the array you need the array-delete-operator:
delete[] v;
But on new Vector you don't see it is an array and so it might be forgotten.
This case is handled (and strongly recommended to avoid) in Scott Meyers Effective C++. So better don't use an typedef here.
class Vector
{
public: // methods
double * data() { return mData; }
const double * data() const { return mData; }
double & operator[](int i) { return mData[i]; }
double operator[](int i) const { return mData[i]; }
private: // attributes
double mData[3];
};
will allow
Vector * pv = new Vector;
Vector & v = *pv;
v[0] = 1;
v[1] = 2;
v[2] = 3;
pass_it_to_legacy_lib(v.data());
delete pv;
One issue with your original example is that it would invoke the new operator where the new[] would actually be correct. Also, it would make it non-obvious that delete[] had to be used instead of plain delete.
The class approach doesn't need new[] and takes full advantage of the apriori fixed length.
If you're happy to use templates in your C++ code, something like this could work..
template <typename T, int S>
struct array
{
array() : _inst() {}
template<typename _F>
void operator()(_F & f)
{
f(_inst);
}
operator T*() { return _inst; }
// real array
T _inst[S];
};
typedef array<double, 4> d4;
void foo(double*)
{
}
int main(void)
{
d4 d; // no need for new, but you can use if you want
// first way to call is to pass the function to the array object, which will then
// visit
d(foo);
// take advantage of the type operator (operator T*)
foo(d);
}
#include <cassert>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
template<typename Type, int Dimension>
const vector<Type> make_fixed_vector(const Type& value = Type())
{
return vector<Type>(Dimension, value);
}
int main(void)
{
vector<int> v3 = make_fixed_vector<int, 3>();
assert(v3.size() == 3);
}
C++1x compilers are able to deduce the type of a variable, which is handy when declaring multi-dimensional "fixed" vectors using this technique:
.
.
.
template<typename Type, int Rows, int Columns>
const vector<vector<Type> > make_fixed_vector_vector(const Type& value = Type())
{
return vector<vector<Type> >(Rows, make_fixed_vector<Type, Columns>(value));
}
int main(void)
{
auto vv = make_fixed_vector_vector<int, 3, 4>(42);
assert(vv.size() == 3);
assert(vv[0].size() == 4);
assert(vv[0][0] == 42);
assert(vv[2][3] == 42);
}
I had this simple idea when programming a parser-function for list expressions which shall return a fixed-size vector of vector of integers. For example, a vector<vector<int> >(1) for a expression like "(0,8)", but a vector<vector<int> >(2) for a expression like "(3-4)(5)" and so on. In the application up to 5 parenthesized definitions are possible, which represent logical references to program data. I first try to parse a vector<vector<int> >(5). Worked? Ok, got reference type A, the most detailed one. Otherwise vector<vector<int> >(4) indicates a reference type B etc.
For this purpose make_fixed_vector worked well, but from a general perspective the technique has flaws. Most notably, since make_fixed_vector returns no true type, its dimension(s) cannot be checked at compile-time. At runtime reserve, resize and push_back calls are possible. And, since function templates cannot have default template arguments, custom allocators require more typing:
template<typename Type, int Dimension, template<typename> class Allocator>
const vector<Type Allocator<Type> > make_fixed_vector(const Type& value = Type())
{
return vector<Type, Allocator<Type> >(Dimension, value);
}
vector<int> v3 = make_fixed_vector<int, 3, std::allocator>();
etc. etc. But this technique keeps smaller projects basic. Unless this virtue is relevant Boost's boost::array might be more realistic.