I would like to write a small tool that takes a C++ program (a single .cpp file), finds the "main" function and adds 2 function calls to it, one in the beginning and one in the end.
How can this be done? Can I use g++'s parsing mechanism (or any other parser)?
If you want to make it solid, use clang's libraries.
As suggested by some commenters, let me put forward my idea as an answer:
So basically, the idea is:
... original .cpp file ...
#include <yourHeader>
namespace {
SpecialClass specialClassInstance;
}
Where SpecialClass is something like:
class SpecialClass {
public:
SpecialClass() {
firstFunction();
}
~SpecialClass() {
secondFunction();
}
}
This way, you don't need to parse the C++ file. Since you are declaring a global, its constructor will run before main starts and its destructor will run after main returns.
The downside is that you don't get to know the relative order of when your global is constructed compared to others. So if you need to guarantee that firstFunction is called
before any other constructor elsewhere in the entire program, you're out of luck.
I've heard the GCC parser is both hard to use and even harder to get at without invoking the whole toolchain. I would try the clang C/C++ parser (libparse), and the tutorials linked in this question.
Adding a function at the beginning of main() and at the end of main() is a bad idea. What if someone calls return in the middle?.
A better idea is to instantiate a class at the beginning of main() and let that class destructor do the call function you want called at the end. This would ensure that that function always get called.
If you have control of your main program, you can hack a script to do this, and that's by far the easiet way. Simply make sure the insertion points are obvious (odd comments, required placement of tokens, you choose) and unique (including outlawing general coding practices if you have to, to ensure the uniqueness you need is real). Then a dumb string hacking tool to read the source, find the unique markers, and insert your desired calls will work fine.
If the souce of the main program comes from others sources, and you don't have control, then to do this well you need a full C++ program transformation engine. You don't want to build this yourself, as just the C++ parser is an enormous effort to get right. Others here have mentioned Clang and GCC as answers.
An alternative is our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its C++ front end. DMS, using its C++ front end, can parse code (for a variety of C++ dialects), builds ASTs, carry out full name/type resolution to determine the meaning/definition/use of all symbols. It provides procedural and source-to-source transformations to enable changes to the AST, and can regenerate compilable source code complete with original comments.
Related
I am working on creating a package with two new commands, say foo and bar.
For example, if foo.ado contains:
program define foo
...
rex
end
program define rex
...
end
But my other command, bar.ado, also needs to call rex. Where should I put rex?
I see the following few options:
Create a rex.ado file as well.
Create a rex.do file and include it from within both foo.ado and bar.ado using include "`c(sysdir_plus)'r/rex.do" at the bottom of each file.
Copy the code into both foo.ado and bar.ado, which seems ugly because now the code must be maintained in two places.
What is best practice for organizing subroutines that are needed by both foo and bar?
Also, should the subroutine be called rex, _rex, or something else — maybe _foobar_rex — to indicate it is actually a sub-command that foo and bar depend on to work correctly rather than a separate command intended to stand on its own?
Create a rex.ado file as well
Your question is a bit too broad. Personally, I would go with the first option to be safe, although it really depends on the structure of your project. Sometimes including rex in a single ado file may be enough. This will be the case, for example, if foo is a wrapper command. However, for most other use cases, including two commands sharing a common program, i strongly believe that you will need to have a separate ado file.
The second option is obviously unnecessary, since the first does the same thing, plus it does not have to load the program every single time you call it. The third option is probably the worst in a programming context, as it may create conflicts and will be difficult to maintain down the road.
With regards to naming conventions, I would recommend using something like _rex only if you include the program as a subroutine in an ado file. Otherwise, rex will do just fine and will also indicate that the program has a wider scope within your project. It is also better, in my opinion, to provide a more elaborate explanation about the intended use of rex using a comment at the start of the ado file, rather than trying to incorporate this in the name.
This question already has answers here:
Listing Unused Symbols
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
How do I detect function definitions which are never getting called and delete them from the file and then save it?
Suppose I have only 1 CPP file as of now, which has a main() function and many other function definitions (function definition can also be inside main() ). If I were to write a program to parse this CPP file and check whether a function is getting called or not and delete if it is not getting called then what is(are) the way(s) to do it?
There are few ways that come to mind:
I would find out line numbers of beginning and end of main(). I can do it by maintaining a stack of opening and closing braces { and }.
Anything after main would be function definition. Then I can parse for function definitions. To do this I can parse it the following way:
< string >< open paren >< comma separated string(s) for arguments >< closing paren >
Once I have all the names of such functions as described in (2), I can make a map with its names as key and value as a bool, indicating whether a function is getting called once or not.
Finally parse the file once again to check for any calls for functions with their name as in this map. The function call can be from within main or from some other function. The value for the key (i.e. the function name) could be flagged according to whether a function is getting called or not.
I feel I have complicated my logic and it could be done in a smarter way. With the above logic it would be hard to find all the corner cases (there would be many). Also, there could be function pointers to make parsing logic difficult. If that's not enough, the function pointers could be typedefed too.
How do I go about designing my program? Are a map (to maintain filenames) and stack (to maintain braces) the right data structures or is there anything else more suitable to deal with it?
Note: I am not looking for any tool to do this. Nor do I want to use any library (if it exists to make things easy).
I think you should not try to build a C++ parser from scratch, becuse of other said in comments that is really hard. IMHO, you'd better start from CLang libraries, than can do the low-level parsing for you and work directly with the abstract syntax tree.
You could even use crange as an example of how to use them to produce a cross reference table.
Alternatively, you could directly use GNU global, because its gtags command directly generates definition and reference databases that you have to analyse.
IMHO those two ways would be simpler than creating a C++ parser from scratch.
The simplest approach for doing it yourself I can think of is:
Write a minimal parser that can identify functions. It just needs to detect the start and ending line of a function.
Programmatically comment out the first function, save to a temp file.
Try to compile the file by invoking the complier.
Check if there are compile errors, if yes, the function is called, if not, it is unused.
Continue with the next function.
This is a comment, rather than an answer, but I post it here because it's too long for a comment space.
There are lots of issues you should consider. First of all, you should not assume that main() is a first function in a source file.
Even if it is, there should be some functions header declarations before the main() so that the compiler can recognize their invocation in main.
Next, function's opening and closing brace needn't be in separate lines, they also needn't be the only characters in their lines. Generally, almost whole C++ code can be put in a single line!
Furthermore, functions can differ with parameters' types while having the same name (overloading), so you can't recognize which function is called if you don't parse the whole code down to the parameters' types. And even more: you will have to perform type lists matching with standard convertions/casts, possibly considering inline constructors calls. Of course you should not forget default parameters. Google for resolving overloaded function call, for example see an outline here
Additionally, there may be chains of unused functions. For example if a() calls b() and b() calls c() and d(), but a() itself is not called, then the whole four is unused, even though there exist 'calls' to b(), c() and d().
There is also a possibility that functions are called through a pointer, in which case you may be unable to find a call. Example:
int (*testfun)(int) = whattotest ? TestFun1 : TestFun2; // no call
int testResult = testfun(paramToTest); // unknown function called
Finally the code can be pretty obfuscated with #define–s.
Conclusion: you'll probably have to write your own C++ compiler (except the machine code generator) to achieve your goal.
This is a very rough idea and I doubt it's very efficient but maybe it can help you get started. First traverse the file once, picking out any function names (I'm not entirely sure how you would do this). But once you have those names, traverse the file again, looking for the function name anywhere in the file, inside main and other functions too. If you find more than 1 instance it means that the function is being called and should be kept.
I am currently writing a program that sits on top of a C++ interpreter. The user inputs C++ commands at runtime, which are then passed into the interpreter. For certain patterns, I want to replace the command given with a modified form, so that I can provide additional functionality.
I want to replace anything of the form
A->Draw(B1, B2)
with
MyFunc(A, B1, B2).
My first thought was regular expressions, but that would be rather error-prone, as any of A, B1, or B2 could be arbitrary C++ expressions. As these expressions could themselves contain quoted strings or parentheses, it would be quite difficult to match all cases with a regular expression. In addition, there may be multiple, nested forms of this expression
My next thought was to call clang as a subprocess, use "-dump-ast" to get the abstract syntax tree, modify that, then rebuild it into a command to be passed to the C++ interpreter. However, this would require keeping track of any environment changes, such as include files and forward declarations, in order to give clang enough information to parse the expression. As the interpreter does not expose this information, this seems infeasible as well.
The third thought was to use the C++ interpreter's own internal parsing to convert to an abstract syntax tree, then build from there. However, this interpreter does not expose the ast in any way that I was able to find.
Are there any suggestions as to how to proceed, either along one of the stated routes, or along a different route entirely?
What you want is a Program Transformation System.
These are tools that generally let you express changes to source code, written in source level patterns that essentially say:
if you see *this*, replace it by *that*
but operating on Abstract Syntax Trees so the matching and replacement process is
far more trustworthy than what you get with string hacking.
Such tools have to have parsers for the source language of interest.
The source language being C++ makes this fairly difficult.
Clang sort of qualifies; after all it can parse C++. OP objects
it cannot do so without all the environment context. To the extent
that OP is typing (well-formed) program fragments (statements, etc,.)
into the interpreter, Clang may [I don't have much experience with it
myself] have trouble getting focused on what the fragment is (statement? expression? declaration? ...). Finally, Clang isn't really a PTS; its tree modification procedures are not source-to-source transforms. That matters for convenience but might not stop OP from using it; surface syntax rewrite rule are convenient but you can always substitute procedural tree hacking with more effort. When there are more than a few rules, this starts to matter a lot.
GCC with Melt sort of qualifies in the same way that Clang does.
I'm under the impression that Melt makes GCC at best a bit less
intolerable for this kind of work. YMMV.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its full C++14 [EDIT July 2018: C++17] front end absolutely qualifies. DMS has been used to carry out massive transformations
on large scale C++ code bases.
DMS can parse arbitrary (well-formed) fragments of C++ without being told in advance what the syntax category is, and return an AST of the proper grammar nonterminal type, using its pattern-parsing machinery. [You may end up with multiple parses, e.g. ambiguities, that you'll have decide how to resolve, see Why can't C++ be parsed with a LR(1) parser? for more discussion] It can do this without resorting to "the environment" if you are willing to live without macro expansion while parsing, and insist the preprocessor directives (they get parsed too) are nicely structured with respect to the code fragment (#if foo{#endif not allowed) but that's unlikely a real problem for interactively entered code fragments.
DMS then offers a complete procedural AST library for manipulating the parsed trees (search, inspect, modify, build, replace) and can then regenerate surface source code from the modified tree, giving OP text
to feed to the interpreter.
Where it shines in this case is OP can likely write most of his modifications directly as source-to-source syntax rules. For his
example, he can provide DMS with a rewrite rule (untested but pretty close to right):
rule replace_Draw(A:primary,B1:expression,B2:expression):
primary->primary
"\A->Draw(\B1, \B2)" -- pattern
rewrites to
"MyFunc(\A, \B1, \B2)"; -- replacement
and DMS will take any parsed AST containing the left hand side "...Draw..." pattern and replace that subtree with the right hand side, after substituting the matches for A, B1 and B2. The quote marks are metaquotes and are used to distinguish C++ text from rule-syntax text; the backslash is a metaescape used inside metaquotes to name metavariables. For more details of what you can say in the rule syntax, see DMS Rewrite Rules.
If OP provides a set of such rules, DMS can be asked to apply the entire set.
So I think this would work just fine for OP. It is a rather heavyweight mechanism to "add" to the package he wants to provide to a 3rd party; DMS and its C++ front end are hardly "small" programs. But then modern machines have lots of resources so I think its a question of how badly does OP need to do this.
Try modify the headers to supress the method, then compiling you'll find the errors and will be able to replace all core.
As far as you have a C++ interpreter (as CERN's Root) I guess you must use the compiler to intercept all the Draw, an easy and clean way to do that is declare in the headers the Draw method as private, using some defines
class ItemWithDrawMehtod
{
....
public:
#ifdef CATCHTHEMETHOD
private:
#endif
void Draw(A,B);
#ifdef CATCHTHEMETHOD
public:
#endif
....
};
Then compile as:
gcc -DCATCHTHEMETHOD=1 yourfilein.cpp
In case, user want to input complex algorithms to the application, what I suggest is to integrate a scripting language to the app. So that the user can write code [function/algorithm in defined way] so the app can execute it in the interpreter and get the final results. Ex: Python, Perl, JS, etc.
Since you need C++ in the interpreter http://chaiscript.com/ would be a suggestion.
What happens when someone gets ahold of the Draw member function (auto draw = &A::Draw;) and then starts using draw? Presumably you'd want the same improved Draw-functionality to be called in this case too. Thus I think we can conclude that what you really want is to replace the Draw member function with a function of your own.
Since it seems you are not in a position to modify the class containing Draw directly, a solution could be to derive your own class from A and override Draw in there. Then your problem reduces to having your users use your new improved class.
You may again consider the problem of automatically translating uses of class A to your new derived class, but this still seems pretty difficult without the help of a full C++ implementation. Perhaps there is a way to hide the old definition of A and present your replacement under that name instead, via clever use of header files, but I cannot determine whether that's the case from what you've told us.
Another possibility might be to use some dynamic linker hackery using LD_PRELOAD to replace the function Draw that gets called at runtime.
There may be a way to accomplish this mostly with regular expressions.
Since anything that appears after Draw( is already formatted correctly as parameters, you don't need to fully parse them for the purpose you have outlined.
Fundamentally, the part that matters is the "SYMBOL->Draw("
SYMBOL could be any expression that resolves to an object that overloads -> or to a pointer of a type that implements Draw(...). If you reduce this to two cases, you can short-cut the parsing.
For the first case, a simple regular expression that searches for any valid C++ symbol, something similar to "[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_\.]", along with the literal expression "->Draw(". This will give you the portion that must be rewritten, since the code following this part is already formatted as valid C++ parameters.
The second case is for complex expressions that return an overloaded object or pointer. This requires a bit more effort, but a short parsing routine to walk backward through just a complex expression can be written surprisingly easily, since you don't have to support blocks (blocks in C++ cannot return objects, since lambda definitions do not call the lambda themselves, and actual nested code blocks {...} can't return anything directly inline that would apply here). Note that if the expression doesn't end in ) then it has to be a valid symbol in this context, so if you find a ) just match nested ) with ( and extract the symbol preceding the nested SYMBOL(...(...)...)->Draw() pattern. This may be possible with regular expressions, but should be fairly easy in normal code as well.
As soon as you have the symbol or expression, the replacement is trivial, going from
SYMBOL->Draw(...
to
YourFunction(SYMBOL, ...
without having to deal with the additional parameters to Draw().
As an added benefit, chained function calls are parsed for free with this model, since you can recursively iterate over the code such as
A->Draw(B...)->Draw(C...)
The first iteration identifies the first A->Draw( and rewrites the whole statement as
YourFunction(A, B...)->Draw(C...)
which then identifies the second ->Draw with an expression "YourFunction(A, ...)->" preceding it, and rewrites it as
YourFunction(YourFunction(A, B...), C...)
where B... and C... are well-formed C++ parameters, including nested calls.
Without knowing the C++ version that your interpreter supports, or the kind of code you will be rewriting, I really can't provide any sample code that is likely to be worthwhile.
One way is to load user code as a DLL, (something like plugins,)
this way, you don't need to compile your actual application, just the user code will be compiled, and you application will load it dynamically.
I have following requirement:
Adding text at the entry and exit point of any function.
Not altering the source code, beside inserting from above (so no pre-processor or anything)
For example:
void fn(param-list)
{
ENTRY_TEXT (param-list)
//some code
EXIT_TEXT
}
But not only in such a simple case, it'd also run with pre-processor directives!
Example:
void fn(param-list)
#ifdef __WIN__
{
ENTRY_TEXT (param-list)
//some windows code
EXIT_TEXT
}
#else
{
ENTRY_TEXT (param-list)
//some any-os code
if (condition)
{
return; //should become EXIT_TEXT
}
EXIT_TEXT
}
So my question is: Is there a proper way doing this?
I already tried some work with parsers used by compilers but since they all rely on running a pre-processor before parsing, they are useless to me.
Also some of the token generating parser, which do not need a pre-processor are somewhat useless because they generate a memory-mapping of tokens, which then leads to a complete new source code, instead of just inserting the text.
One thing I am working on is to try it with FLEX (or JFlex), if this is a valid option, I would appreciate some input on it. ;-)
EDIT:
To clarify a little bit: The purpose is to allow something like a stack trace.
I want to trace every function call, and in order to follow the call-hierachy, I need to place a macro at the entry-point of a function and at the exit point of a function.
This builds a function-call trace. :-)
EDIT2: Compiler-specific options are not quite suitable since we have many different compilers to use, and many that are propably not well supported by any tools out there.
Unfortunately, your idea is not only impractical (C++ is complex to parse), it's also doomed to fail.
The main issue you have is that exceptions will bypass your EXIT_TEXT macro entirely.
You have several solutions.
As has been noted, the first solution would be to use a platform dependent way of computing the stack trace. It can be somewhat imprecise, especially because of inlining: ie, small functions being inlined in their callers, they do not appear in the stack trace as no function call was generated at assembly level. On the other hand, it's widely available, does not require any surgery of the code and does not affect performance.
A second solution would be to only introduce something on entry and use RAII to do the exit work. Much better than your scheme as it automatically deals with multiple returns and exceptions, it suffers from the same issue: how to perform the insertion automatically. For this you will probably want to operate at the AST level, and modify the AST to introduce your little gem. You could do it with Clang (look up the c++11 migration tool for examples of rewrites at large) or with gcc (using plugins).
Finally, you also have manual annotations. While it may seem underpowered (and a lot of work), I would highlight that you do not leave logging to a tool... I see 3 advantages to doing it manually: you can avoid introducing this overhead in performance sensitive parts, you can retain only a "summary" of big arguments and you can customize the summary based on what's interesting for the current function.
I would suggest using LLVM libraries & Clang to get started.
You could also leverage the C++ language to simplify your process. If you just insert a small object into the code that is constructed on function scope entrance & rely on the fact that it will be destroyed on exit. That should massively simplify recording the 'exit' of the function.
This does not really answer you question, however, for your initial need, you may use the backtrace() function from execinfo.h (if you are using GCC).
How to generate a stacktrace when my gcc C++ app crashes
It should turn this
int Yada (int yada)
{
return yada;
}
into this
int Yada (int yada)
{
SOME_HEIDEGGER_QUOTE;
return yada;
}
but for all (or at least a big bunch of) syntactically legal C/C++ - function and method constructs.
Maybe you've heard of some Perl library that will allow me to perform these kinds of operations in a view lines of code.
My goal is to add a tracer to an old, but big C++ project in order to be able to debug it without a debugger.
Try Aspect C++ (www.aspectc.org). You can define an Aspect that will pick up every method execution.
In fact, the quickstart has pretty much exactly what you are after defined as an example:
http://www.aspectc.org/fileadmin/documentation/ac-quickref.pdf
If you build using GCC and the -pg flag, GCC will automatically issue a call to the mcount() function at the start of every function. In this function you can then inspect the return address to figure out where you were called from. This approach is used by the linux kernel function tracer (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER). Note that this function should be written in assembler, and be careful to preserve all registers!
Also, note that this should be passed only in the build phase, not link, or GCC will add in the profiling libraries that normally implement mcount.
I would suggest using the gcc flag "-finstrument-functions". Basically, it automatically calls a specific function ("__cyg_profile_func_enter") upon entry to each function, and another function is called ("__cyg_profile_func_exit") upon exit of the function. Each function is passed a pointer to the function being entered/exited, and the function which called that one.
You can turn instrumenting off on a per-function or per-file basis... see the docs for details.
The feature goes back at least as far as version 3.0.4 (from February 2002).
This is intended to support profiling, but it does not appear to have side effects like -pg does (which compiles code suitable for profiling).
This could work quite well for your problem (tracing execution of a large program), but, unfortunately, it isn't as general purpose as it would have been if you could specify a macro. On the plus side, you don't need to worry about remembering to add your new code into the beginning of all new functions that are written.
There is no such tool that I am aware of. In order to recognise the correct insertion point, the tool would have to include a complete C++ parser - regular expressions are not enough to accomplish this.
But as there are a number of FOSS C++ parsers out there, such a tool could certainly be written - a sort of intelligent sed for C++ code. The biggest problem would probably be designing the specification language for the insert/update/delete operation - regexes are obviously not the answer, though they should certainly be included in the language somehow.
People are always asking here for ideas for projects - how about this for one?
I use this regex,
"(?<=[\\s:~])(\\w+)\\s*\\([\\w\\s,<>\\[\\].=&':/*]*?\\)\\s*(const)?\\s*{"
to locate the functions and add extra lines of code.
With that regex I also get the function name (group 1) and the arguments (group 2).
Note: you must filter out names like, "while", "do", "for", "switch".
This can be easily done with a program transformation system.
The DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is a general purpose program transformation system, and can be used with many languages (C#, COBOL, Java, EcmaScript, Fortran, ..) as well as specifically with C++.
DMS parses source code (using full langauge front end, in this case for C++),
builds Abstract Syntax Trees, and allows you to apply source-to-source patterns to transform your code from one C# program into another with whatever properties you wish. THe transformation rule to accomplish exactly the task you specified would be:
domain CSharp.
insert_trace():function->function
"\visibility \returntype \fnname(int \parametername)
{ \body } "
->
"\visibility \returntype \fnname(int \parametername)
{ Heidigger(\CppString\(\methodname\),
\CppString\(\parametername\),
\parametername);
\body } "
The quote marks (") are not C++ quote marks; rather, they are "domain quotes", and indicate that the content inside the quote marks is C++ syntax (because we said, "domain CSharp"). The \foo notations are meta syntax.
This rule matches the AST representing the function, and rewrites that AST into the traced form. The resulting AST is then prettyprinted back into source form, which you can compile. You probably need other rules to handle other combinations of arguments; in fact, you'd probably generalize the argument processing to produce (where practical) a string value for each scalar argument.
It should be clear you can do a lot more than just logging with this, and a lot more than just aspect-oriented programming, since you can express arbitrary transformations and not just before-after actions.