I was exploring C++0x today, and I encountered the new lambda feature. My question is how are these different (in terms of use) from blocks and why might one prefer one over the other?
Thanks.
there is a a short syntax with C++0x lambdas to take every variable in
scope by reference. ([&]) The type of a lambda is also unspecified,
allowing potentially more optimal code.
Now, when you look at Apple blocks, it will require __block specifiers
added to variables you want to modify (the very fact that this is
required suggests the whole system is defective). Variables are taken
by reference but then by value when the block exits the scope (and the
copied context necessarily lives on the heap, it seems). A weird
semantic that will only lead to broken designs, but probably makes
people that love GC happy. Without saying this probably has quite the
efficiency cost, of course, since this requires special indirections.
It is claimed the C++0x lambdas syntax would break compatibility with
C programs, but I don't think that is true. There are probably other
problems to integrate it with C, though, mainly the fact that C can't
really deal with unspecified types and build type erasure.
Apple blocks is really just an ObjC feature they try to generalize to
other languages. For C++, the system designed for that language is
just so much better.
EDIT:
To properly give credit, I took this information from http://www.rhinocerus.net/forum/language-c-moderated/558214-blocks-vs-c-lambdas.html a long time ago. That link is dead now; however, the original discussion appears to be archived here, thanks to #stefan for finding it.
I think it basically comes down to a question of your starting point. If you're starting from Objective-C, and writing C++ (Objective-C++) primarily (or exclusively) as an adjunct to Objective-C, then using blocks throughout all the code may make sense, simply to retain as much commonality as possible across the code base. Even if (for example) a project used some pieces written in Objective-C and others in C++, it could make sense to use blocks in both retain as much similarity throughout the code base as possible.
Unless you're using them outside of C++, however, I see little reason to prefer blocks over C++ lambdas. In what I'd guess to be the most common use (a predicate or action in an algorithm) the only noticeable difference between the two would be that one starts with ^ and the other with [].
Older versions of Objective C++
Before the ARC, there were internal differences in the implementation of blocks and lambdas that were likely to affect some more advanced uses. For example, blocks worked vaguely like C strings, so you used Block_copy to copy one, Block_release to free the copy, and so on. On the other hand, in C++ this is all automated so the copy ctor automatically uses Block_copy and the dtor Block_release as needed. At the same time, it did involve a bit more "magic", so (for example) when you copy a block, the copy is always allocated dynamically, regardless of how the source was allocated.
If, for one reason or another, you're stuck with using an older (I'm tempted to say "ancient") compiler or maintaining older code (and don't want to update the codebase as a whole) the memory management difference may be worth taking into account.
Mike Ash provides a detailed comparison. Blocks and lambdas differ in their syntax, their data type, the way they capture variables, the way they behave when copied, and their performance.
How they relate to C/C++/Objective-C:
I will refer to Apple's blocks extension as "Objective-C blocks" even
though this is not entirely correct. They are actually an addition to
C (and can even be used in C++), with some extra behaviors to make
them more useful in Objective-C. However, they are deeply intertwined
with Objective-C in their implementation, and "C blocks" is vague, so
I think that "Objective-C blocks" is the best way to refer to them
here.
C++0x lambdas are part of C++ only and can't be used from C.
Presumably they can be used in Objective-C++ if the compiler supports
C++0x.
A very high-level summary of the differences:
Objective-C blocks are somewhat simpler to write and to use,
especially in the case of using them for asynchronous or background
tasks where the block has to be copied and kept alive beyond the
lifetime of the scope where it was created. C++0x lambdas ultimately
provide more flexibility and potential speed, but at the cost of
considerable added complexity.
As of recent clang versions (3.2, 3.3rc and 3.4svn) they are interchangable in Objective-C(++) code. In C++ you have to use lambda, but in Objective-C(++) if you have
C++ support in your libobjc.
Apple's libobjc.B.dylib have it for sure. If you are using GNUstep, you need to either compile libobjc2 (and only libobjc2) with cmake and linking against libsupc++ (or whatever C++ ABI library you use) or link your project against libobjcxx as well
Blocks runtime should exist.
It is part of libSystem.dylib on OS X which libc is linked against so it is not much an issue there. You can use LLVM compiler-rt for this or use libobjc2. I personally recommend you use libobjc2 as it provided a Blocks runtime that is compatible with the rest of GNUstep, which is also called for.
Foundation kit.
This is due to how clang handle the ABI of interchanging C++ lambda and Objective-C blocks. clang do so with NSAutoreleasePool which is part of Foundation.
then you can safely interchange parts.
Related
I'm interested in compiling a list of c++ features that are not advisable for use in embedded systems (and which may cause people to recommend c over c++). Please try to add why if you know, or add your why to others' answers.
Here's one for a start (the only one I know)
Dynamic polymorphism, don't know why, but someone said it's "costly"
The Joint Strike Fighter Coding Standards here: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf are a pretty good overview of how to use C++ for embedded programming.
The ban on Dynamic Polymorphism is a holdover from the 90s, and has no rational basis. It takes no longer to call a virtual function than it does to do a switch and a call. If you are going to avoid virtual function calls, you might as well be using C.
Certain features require run-time support, so if you miss the required support, you should avoid those features. In particular, the following features usually need extra run-time support:
exceptions
RTTI
dynamic memory allocation
virtual inheritance (a bit unsure about this one)
People also usually mention templates, but they are only an advanced macro facility -- so you can freely use them in embedded systems. Still, you might want to avoid them since they can lead to code bloat after compilation.
Your embedded system should come with documentation saying what, if any, run-time support for C++ (and otherwise) is available.
You should choose features depending on your device. It could be sensible for some feature or maybe not. It depends on its architecture. For instance, Google has a reduced version of C++ compiler for Android platform. Simple common rule is to avoid constructions that will result in heavy runtime code.
Excessive template use. Multiple template instantiations with different parameters will result in multiple copies of the same functions in your object code, hence increasing its size, unless your compiler is smart enough to fold identical code (e.g. if template depends on a type T, instantiation with int will in most cases be identical to instantiation with long).
A way to avoid code size increase with templates, you can write an unsafe core version of your code, and have thin type-safe template wrappers.
dynamic_cast can be pretty costly CPU-wise because it needs to scan the class hierarchy and do string comparison of class names [citation needed].
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm planning to code a library that should be usable by a large number of people in on a wide spectrum of platforms. What do I have to consider to design it right? To make this questions more specific, there are four "subquestions" at the end.
Choice of language
Considering all the known requirements and details, I concluded that a library written in C or C++ was the way to go. I think the primary usage of my library will be in programs written in C, C++ and Java SE, but I can also think of reasons to use it from Java ME, PHP, .NET, Objective C, Python, Ruby, bash scrips, etc... Maybe I cannot target all of them, but if it's possible, I'll do it.
Requirements
It would be to much to describe the full purpose of my library here, but there are some aspects that might be important to this question:
The library itself will start out small, but definitely will grow to enormous complexity, so it is not an option to maintain several versions in parallel.
Most of the complexity will be hidden inside the library, though
The library will construct an object graph that is used heavily inside. Some clients of the library will only be interested in specific attributes of specific objects, while other clients must traverse the object graph in some way
Clients may change the objects, and the library must be notified thereof
The library may change the objects, and the client must be notified thereof, if it already has a handle to that object
The library must be multi-threaded, because it will maintain network connections to several other hosts
While some requests to the library may be handled synchronously, many of them will take too long and must be processed in the background, and notify the client on success (or failure)
Of course, answers are welcome no matter if they address my specific requirements, or if they answer the question in a general way that matters to a wider audience!
My assumptions, so far
So here are some of my assumptions and conclusions, which I gathered in the past months:
Internally I can use whatever I want, e.g. C++ with operator overloading, multiple inheritance, template meta programming... as long as there is a portable compiler which handles it (think of gcc / g++)
But my interface has to be a clean C interface that does not involve name mangling
Also, I think my interface should only consist of functions, with basic/primitive data types (and maybe pointers) passed as parameters and return values
If I use pointers, I think I should only use them to pass them back to the library, not to operate directly on the referenced memory
For usage in a C++ application, I might also offer an object oriented interface (Which is also prone to name mangling, so the App must either use the same compiler, or include the library in source form)
Is this also true for usage in C# ?
For usage in Java SE / Java EE, the Java native interface (JNI) applies. I have some basic knowledge about it, but I should definitely double check it.
Not all client languages handle multithreading well, so there should be a single thread talking to the client
For usage on Java ME, there is no such thing as JNI, but I might go with Nested VM
For usage in Bash scripts, there must be an executable with a command line interface
For the other client languages, I have no idea
For most client languages, it would be nice to have kind of an adapter interface written in that language. I think there are tools to automatically generate this for Java and some others
For object oriented languages, it might be possible to create an object oriented adapter which hides the fact that the interface to the library is function based - but I don't know if its worth the effort
Possible subquestions
is this possible with manageable effort, or is it just too much portability?
are there any good books / websites about this kind of design criteria?
are any of my assumptions wrong?
which open source libraries are worth studying to learn from their design / interface / souce?
meta: This question is rather long, do you see any way to split it into several smaller ones? (If you reply to this, do it as a comment, not as an answer)
Mostly correct. Straight procedural interface is the best. (which is not entirely the same as C btw(**), but close enough)
I interface DLLs a lot(*), both open source and commercial, so here are some points that I remember from daily practice, note that these are more recommended areas to research, and not cardinal truths:
Watch out for decoration and similar "minor" mangling schemes, specially if you use a MS compiler. Most notably the stdcall convention sometimes leads to decoration generation for VB's sake (decoration is stuff like #6 after the function symbol name)
Not all compilers can actually layout all kinds of structures:
so avoid overusing unions.
avoid bitpacking
and preferably pack the records for 32-bit x86. While theoretically slower, at least all compilers can access packed records afaik, and the official alignment requirements have changed over time as the architecture evolved
On Windows use stdcall. This is the default for Windows DLLs. Avoid fastcall, it is not entirely standarized (specially how small records are passed)
Some tips to make automated header translation easier:
macros are hard to autoconvert due to their untypeness. Avoid them, use functions
Define separate types for each pointer types, and don't use composite types (xtype **) in function declarations.
follow the "define before use" mantra as much as possible, this will avoid users that translate headers to rearrange them if their language in general requires defining before use, and makes it easier for one-pass parsers to translate them. Or if they need context info to auto translate.
Don't expose more than necessary. Leave handle types opague if possible. It will only cause versioning troubles later.
Do not return structured types like records/structs or arrays as returntype of functions.
always have a version check function (easier to make a distinction).
be careful with enums and boolean. Other languages might have slightly different assumptions. You can use them, but document well how they behave and how large they are. Also think ahead, and make sure that enums don't become larger if you add a few fields, break the interface. (e.g. on Delphi/pascal by default booleans are 0 or 1, and other values are undefined. There are special types for C-like booleans (byte,16-bit or 32-bit word size, though they were originally introduced for COM, not C interfacing))
I prefer stringtypes that are pointer to char + length as separate field (COM also does this). Preferably not having to rely on zero terminated. This is not just because of security (overflow) reasons, but also because it is easier/cheaper to interface them to Delphi native types that way.
Memory always create the API in a way that encourages a total separation of memory management. IOW don't assume anything about memory management. This means that all structures in your lib are allocated via your own memory manager, and if a function passes a struct to you, copy it instead of storing a pointer made with the "clients" memory management. Because you will sooner or later accidentally call free or realloc on it :-)
(implementation language, not interface), be reluctant to change the coprocessor exception mask. Some languages change this as part of conforming to their standards floating point error(exception-)handling.
Always pair a callbacks with an user configurable context. This can be used by the user to give the the callback state without defining global variables. (like e.g. an object instance)
be careful with the coprocessor status word. It might be changed by others and break your code, and if you change it, other code might stop working. The status word is generally not saved/restored as part of calling conventions. At least not in practice.
don't use C style varargs parameters. Not all languages allow variable number of parameters in an unsafe way
(*) Delphi programmer by day, a job that involves interfacing a lot of hardware and thus translating vendor SDK headers. By night Free Pascal developer, in charge of, among others, the Windows headers.
(**)
This is because what "C" means binary is still dependant on the used C compiler, specially if there is no real universal system ABI. Think of stuff like:
C adding an underscore prefix on some binary formats (a.out, Coff?)
sometimes different C compilers have different opinions on what to do with small structures passed by value. Officially they shouldn't support it at all afaik, but most do.
structure packing sometimes varies, as do details of calling conventions (like skipping
integer registers or not if a parameter is registerable in a FPU register)
===== automated header conversions ====
While I don't know SWIG that well, I know and use some delphi specific header tools( h2pas, Darth/headconv etc).
However I never use them in fully automatic mode, since more often then not the output sucks. Comments change line or are stripped, and formatting is not retained.
I usually make a small script (in Pascal, but you can use anything with decent string support) that splits a header up, and then try a tool on relatively homogeneous parts (e.g. only structures, or only defines etc).
Then I check if I like the automated conversion output, and either use it, or try to make a specific converter myself. Since it is for a subset (like only structures) it is often way easier than making a complete header converter. Of course it depends a bit what my target is. (nice, readable headers or quick and dirty). At each step I might do a few substitutions (with sed or an editor).
The most complicated scheme I did for Winapi commctrl and ActiveX/comctl headers. There I combined IDL and the C header (IDL for the interfaces, which are a bunch of unparsable macros in C, the C header for the rest), and managed to get the macros typed for about 80% (by propogating the typecasts in sendmessage macros back to the macro declaration, with reasonable (wparam,lparam,lresult) defaults)
The semi automated way has the disadvantage that the order of declarations is different (e.g. first constants, then structures then function declarations), which sometimes makes maintenance a pain. I therefore always keep the original headers/sdk to compare with.
The Jedi winapi conversion project might have more info, they translated about half of the windows headers to Delphi, and thus have enormous experience.
I don't know but if it's for Windows then you might try either a straight C-like API (similar to the WINAPI), or packaging your code as a COM component: because I'd guess that programming languages might want to be able to invoke the Windows API, and/or use COM objects.
Regarding automatic wrapper generation, consider using SWIG. For Java, it will do all the JNI work. Also, it is able to translate complex OO-C++-interfaces properly (provided you follow some basic guidelines, i.e. no nested classes, no over-use of templates, plus the ones mentioned by Marco van de Voort).
Think C, nothing else. C is one of the most popular programming languages. It is widely used on many different software platforms, and there are few computer architectures for which a C compiler does not exist. All popular high-level languages provide an interface to C. That makes your library accessible from almost all platforms in existence. Don't worry too much about providing an Object Oriented interface. Once you have the library done in C, OOP, functional or any other style interface can be created in appropriate client languages. No other systems programming language will give you C's flexibility and potability.
NestedVM I think is going to be slower than pure Java because of the array bounds checking on the int[][] that represents the MIPS virtual machine memory. It is such a good concept but might not perform well enough right now (until phone manufacturers add NestedVM support (if they do!), most stuff is going to be SLOW for now, n'est-ce pas)? Whilst it may be able to unpack JPEGs without error, speed is of no small concern! :)
Nothing else in what you've written sticks out, which isn't to say that it's right or wrong! The principles sound (mainly just listening to choice of words and language to be honest) like roughly standard best practice but I haven't thought through the details of everything you've said. As you said yourself, this really ought to be several questions. But of course doing this kind of thing is not automatically easy just because you're fixed on perhaps a slightly different architecture to the last code base you've worked on...! ;)
My thoughts:
All your comments on C interface compatibility sound sensible to me, pretty much best practice except you don't seem to properly address memory management policy - some sentences a bit ambiguous/vague/wrong-sounding. The design of the memory management will be to a large extent determined by the access patterns made in your application, rather than the functionality per se. I suiggest you study others' attempts at making portable interfaces like the standard ANSI C API, Unix API, Win32 API, Cocoa, J2SE, etc carefully.
If it was me, I'd write the library in a carefully chosen subset of the common elements of regular Java and Davlik virtual machine Java and also write my own custom parser that translates the code to C for platforms that support C, which would of course be most of them. I would suggest that if you restrict yourself to data types of various size ints, bools, Strings, Dictionaries and Arrays and make careful use of them that will help in cross-platform issues without affecting performance much most of the time.
your assumptions seem ok, but i see trouble ahead, much of which you have already spotted in your assumptions.
As you said, you can't really export c++ classes and methods, you will need to provide a function based c interface. What ever facade you build around that, it will remain a function based interface at heart.
The basic problem i see with that is that people choose a specific language and its runtime because their way of thinking (functional or object oriented) or the problem they address (web programming, database,...) corresponds to that language in some way or other.
A library implemented in c will probably never feel like the libraries they are used to, unless they program in c themselves.
Personally, I would always prefer a library that "feels like python" when I use python, and one that feels like java when I do Java EE, even though I know c and c++.
So your effort might be of little actual use (other than your gain in experience), because people will probably want to stick with their mindset, and rather re-implement the functionality than use a library that does the job, but does not fit.
I also fear the desired portability will seriously hamper development. Just think of the infinite build settings needed, and tests for that. I have worked on a project that tried to maintain compatibility for 5 operating systems (all posix-like, but still) and about 10 compilers, the builds were a nightmare to test and maintain.
Give it an XML interface, whether passed as a parameter and return value or as files through a command-line invocation. This may not seem as direct as a normal function interface, but is the most practical way to access an executable from, e.g., Java.
I think I have an advanced knowledge of C++, and I'd like to learn C.
There are a lot of resources to help people going from C to C++, but I've not found anything useful to do the opposite of that.
Specifically:
Are there widely used general purpose libraries every C programmer should know about (like boost for C++) ?
What are the most important C idioms (like RAII for C++) ?
Should I learn C99 and use it, or stick to C89 ?
Any pitfalls/traps for a C++ developer ?
Anything else useful to know ?
There's a lot here already, so maybe this is just a minor addition but here's what I find to be the biggest differences.
Library:
I put this first, because this in my opinion this is the biggest difference in practice. The C standard library is very(!) sparse. It offers a bare minimum of services. For everything else you have to roll your own or find a library to use (and many people do). You have file I/O and some very basic string functions and math. For everything else you have to roll your own or find a library to use. I find I miss extended containers (especially maps) heavily when moving from C++ to C, but there are a lot of other ones.
Idioms:
Both languages have manual memory (resource) management, but C++ gives you some tools to hide the need. In C you will find yourself tracking resources by hand much more often, and you have to get used to that. Particular examples are arrays and strings (C++ vector and string save you a lot of work), smart pointers (you can't really do "smart pointers" as such in C. You can do reference counting, but you have to up and down the reference counts yourself, which is very error prone -- the reason smart pointers were added to C++ in the first place), and the lack of RAII generally which you will notice everywhere if you are used to the modern style of C++ programming.
You have to be explicit about construction and destruction. You can argue about the merits of flaws of this, but there's a lot more explicit code as a result.
Error handling. C++ exceptions can be tricky to get right so not everyone uses them, but if you do use them you will find you have to pay a lot of attention to how you do error notification. Needing to check for return values on all important calls (some would argue all calls) takes a lot of discipline and a lot of C code out there doesn't do it.
Strings (and arrays in general) don't carry their sizes around. You have to pass a lot of extra parameters in C to deal with this.
Without namespaces you have to manage your global namespace carefully.
There's no explicit tying of functions to types as there is with class in C++. You have to maintain a convention of prefixing everything you want associated with a type.
You will see a lot more macros. Macros are used in C in many places where C++ has language features to do the same, especially symbolic constants (C has enum but lots of older code uses #define instead), and for generics (where C++ uses templates).
Advice:
Consider finding an extended library for general use. Take a look at GLib or APR.
Even if you don't want a full library consider finding a map / dictionary / hashtable for general use. Also consider bundling up a bare bones "string" type that contains a size.
Get used to putting module or "class" prefixes on all public names. This is a little tedious but it will save you a lot of headaches.
Make heavy use of forward declaration to make types opaque. Where in C++ you might have private data in a header and rely on private is preventing access, in C you want to push implementation details into the source files as much as possible. (You actually want to do this in C++ too in my opinion, but C makes it easier, so more people do it.)
C++ reveals the implementation in the header, even though it technically hides it from access outside the class.
// C.hh
class C
{
public:
void method1();
int method2();
private:
int value1;
char * value2;
};
C pushes the 'class' definition into the source file. The header is all forward declarations.
// C.h
typedef struct C C; // forward declaration
void c_method1(C *);
int c_method2(C *);
// C.c
struct C
{
int value1;
char * value2;
};
Glib is a good starting point for modern C and gets you used to concepts like opaque types and semi-object orientation, which are common stylistically in modern C. On the other end of the spectrum standard POSIX APIs are kind of "classical" C.
The biggest gap in going from C++ to C isn't syntax, it's idiom and there, like C++, there are different schools of programming. You'll write fairly different C if you doing a device driver vs., say, an XML parser.
Q5. Anything else useful to know?
Buy a copy of K&R2 and read it through. On a cost per page basis it'll probably be the most expensive book on computing you'll ever buy with your own money but it will give you a deep appreciation for C and the thought processes that went into it. Doing the exercises will also hone your skills and get you used to what is available in the language as opposed to C++.
Taking your questions in order:
Unfortunately, there's nothing like Boost for C.
Nothing that's really on the order of RAII either.
The only compiler that tries to implement C99 is Comeau.
Lots of them all over the place, I'm afraid.
Quite a bit. C takes quite a different mindset than C.
Some of those may seem rather terse, but such is life. There are some good libraries for C, but no one place like Boost that they've been collected together or given a relatively uniform interface like Boost has done for C++.
There are lots of idioms, but many of them are in how you edit your code, such as sort of imitating RAII by writing an fopen() and a matching fclose() in quick succession, and only afterwards writing the code in between to process the data.
The pitfalls/traps that wait around every corner mostly stem from lack of dynamic data structures like string and vector, so you frequently have to write such things yourself. Without operator overloading, constructors, etc., it's considerably more difficult to make them really general purpose. Lots of libraries have them, but you end up rolling your own anyway because:the library doesn't do quite what you want, orusing the library is more work than it's worth.
The difference in mindset is almost certainly the biggest thing, at least for me. When I'm writing C++, I concentrate almost all my real effort on designing the cleanest possible interfaces, and I tend to treat the implementation of an interface as almost throwaway code. For the most part, I don't plan on making minor tweaks to that part of the code -- as long as the interface is good, replacing the entire implementation is usually easy enough that I don't worry about it much.
In C, it seems (at least to me) much more difficult to separate the interface from the implementation nearly as thoroughly or cleanly. As such, I tend to spend a lot more time trying to implement every part of the code as cleanly as possible, because later changes tend to be more difficult and throwing away and replacing pieces that aren't very good is substantially less likely to work out very well.
Edit (since people have raised questions about C99 support): While my statement about lack of C99 support may seem harsh, the fact is that it's true.
MS VC++: supports C95, and has a couple C99 features (e.g. C++ style comment delimiters), mostly because C99 standardized what they'd previously had as an extension.
Gnu: According to C99 Features Status page, the most recent iteration of gcc (4.4) has some C99 features, but some (including VLAs) are characterized as "broken", and others as "missing". Some of the missing "features" are really whole areas, not individual features.
PCC: The PCC site claims C99 conformance only as a goal for the future, not as a present reality.
Embarcadero Technologies (nee Borland) don't seem to say anything about conformance with C99 at all -- from the looks of things, the last time they worked on the C compiler may well have been before C99 was even released.
Microsoft openly states that they have no current plans for supporting C99, and they're not going to even consider it until VS 2010 is released. Though I can't find any public statements about it, Embarcadero appears about the same: no hint of a current plan, and nor even that they're going to consider working on it anytime soon.
While gcc and pcc both seem to have plans, they're currently just that: plans. They both openly admit that at the present time, they aren't really even very close to conforming with C99.
Here's a quick reference of some of the major things you'll want to know.
This is advice you didn't ask for: I think most potential employers take it as a given that if you C++ you know C. Learning the finer points of C, while an interesting academic exercise, will IMO not earn you a lot of eligibility points.
If you ever end up in a position of needing to do C, you'll catch on to the differences quickly enough.
But don't listen to me. I was too lazy and stupid to learn C++ :)
Anything else useful to know ?
C99 is not subset of c++ any revision, but separate language.
Just about the biggest shock I had when I went back to C was that variables are defined at the function level - i.e. you can't scope variables inside a block(if statement or for loop) inside a function.
Except for very few cases, any C code is valid C++, so there isn't actually anything new you should learn.
It's more a matter of unlearning.
Not using new, not using classes, defining variables at the beginning of a code block, etc.
In a strict sense, C++ is not object-oriented, but it's still procedural with support for classes. That said, you are actually using procedural programming in C++ already, the most shocking change will be not having classes, inheritance, polymorphism, etc.
As C++ is almost a superset of C89, you should know just about all of C89 already. You probably want to concentrate on the differences between C89 and C99.
I am writing a program, more specifically a bootloader, for an embedded system. I am going to use a C library to interact with some of the hardware components and I have the choice of writing it either in C or C++. Is there any reason I should choose one over the other? I do not need the object oriented features of C++ but it does have a stronger type system. Could it have other language features that would make the program more robust? I know some people avoid C++ because it can (but not always) generate large firmware images.
This isn't a particularly straightforward question to answer. It depends on a number of factors including:
How you prefer to layout your code.
Whether there's a C++ compiler available for your target (and any other targets you may wish to use the bootloader on).
How critical the code size is for your application (we're talking about 10% extra maybe, not MB as suggested by another answer).
Personally, I really like classes as a way of laying out my code. Even when writing C code, I'll tend to keep everything in modular files with file-scope static functions "simulating" member functions and (a few) file-scope static variables to "simulate" member variables. Having said that, most of my existing embedded projects (all of which are relatively small scale, up to a maximum of 128kB flash including bootloader, but usually less) have tended to be written in C. Now that I have a C++ compiler though, I'm certainly considering moving to C++.
There are considerable benefits to C++ from simply using references, overloading and templates, even if you don't go as far as classes. Certainly, I'd stop short of using a lot of more advanced features, including the use of dynamic memory allocation (new). Then again, I'd avoid dynamic memory allocation (malloc etc) in embedded C as well if possible.
If you have a C++ compiler (even if it's only g++), it is worth running your code through it just for the additional type checking so that you can reduce the number of problems in your code. The C++ compiler can pick up on a few things that even static analysis tools won't spot.
For a good discussion on many invalid reasons people reject C++, see Dan Saks' article on Embedded.com.
For a boot-loader the obvious choice is C, especially on an embedded system. The generated code will need to be close to the metal, and very easy to debug, likely by dropping into assembly, which quickly becomes difficult without care in C++. Also C tool-chains are far more ubiquitous than C++ tool-chains, allowing your boot-loader to be used on more platforms. Lastly, generated binaries are typically smaller, and use less memory when written C style.
If you don't need to use Object Orientation, use C. Simple choice there. Its simpler and easier, whilst accomplishing the same task.
Some die hards will disagree, but OO is what makes C++ > C, and vice versa in a lot of circumstances.
I would use C unless there is a specific reason to use C++. For a Bootloader you are not really going to need OO.
Use the simplest tool that will accomplish the job.
Write programs in C is not the same as writing it in C++. If you know how to do it only in C++, then your choice is C++. For writing bootloader it will be better to minimize code, so you probably will have to disable standard C++ library. If you know how to write in C then you should use C — it is more common choice for such kind of tasks.
Most of the previous answers assume that your bootloader is small and simple which is typically the case; however, if it becomes more complex (i.e. you need to be able to load from an Ethernet port, a USB port, or a serial port...you need to validate the code that is being loaded before you wipe out your existing code, etc.) you may want to consider C++.
I have also found that the bootloader and the application typically share some amount of common code so you may also want to consider using the same language as your application to facilitate the code sharing.
The C language is substantially easier to parse than C++. This means a program that is both valid C and valid C++ will compile faster as a C program. Probably not a major concern, but it is just another reason why C++ is probably overkill.
Go with C++ and objchoose what language features you need. You still have full control of the output object code as long as you understand the C++ abstractions that you're using.
Use of OO can still run well if you avoid the use of virtual functions. Avoid immutable object types that require a lot of copying in order to pass values, like std::string. But, you can still use features like templates without any real impact on runtime performance.
Use C with µClibc. It will make your code simpler and reduce its footprint. Can be found in: www.uclibc.org.
I was given an assignment to basically explain this. I have taken a quick look at the compiler documentation, and it seems to be a good place to start although it is quite extensive and I don't have much time. I'd like to know if I'd need to understand the C99 standards beforehand, or if there's another good source I can check. I'm going to be using it with Windows if it makes any difference. I also understand simple concepts such as heaps, stacks, linking and whatnot.
AFAIK, g++ is simply a C/C++ compiler, nothing more. memory is managed according to the standard C/C++ libraries.
Any decent C/C++ tutorial should give the basics for this information - but memory management in C/C++ is a huge topic. Surely for an entry level class your instructor would give some guidance & probably a more specific, less open-ended question.
g++ is just a compiler. It follows the rules of the language it compiles (In G++'s case, C++, but you also mention C99).
And for your fairly specific questions, you may need to
Consult the language standard (For C++ this is ISO/IEC 14882 ). Unfortunately not free, but you can find drafts online for free that are basically as good as the real thing. The latest official version is C++2003 (ISO/IEC 14882-2003), but contains only very minor changes from the original '89. C++09 is getting close to completion too, and again, there are drafts available online for this. Be warned though, it is heavy reading, and I wouldn't recommend trying to find anything there unless you're already very familiar with the language.
Analyze the assembler code the
compiler generates. The standard
leaves a lot up to the
implementation, so the only way to
find out how G++ specifically pushes
things onto the stack, in which
order and so on, is to analyze the
code it generates. (Also note that
this likely changes between
different versions of G++)
C++ is a notoriously underspecified language. There are huge chunks that just aren't covered by the standard, and where the compiler is free to do what it likes. This makes it a bit of a challenge to find out exactly what a given compiler is doing under the hood.
For this reason, you should also make sure you know exactly what you're expected to do. Dig up information on what the language says about memory management, or how g++ specifically deals with it?
I'm not clear on this question. If by "understanding memory management in mingw/g++" you mean "understand how the mingw g++ compiler handles memory internally while it is compiling files, such as when it allocates and frees abstract syntax tree nodes, etc.") then your answer is that as a multi-pass compiler GCC may not know the optimal lifetime for any particular piece of data but it does know that large groups of objects won't be needed from one pass to the other, so it uses memory pools when possible and garbage collection elsewhere.
On the other hand, if you're asking about how "how/when/what order ... objects, functions, variables, etc are put into the stack ... what is allocated and when and how this impacts performance" then you're in for a long night skimming through code.