Is there any way to directly pass a variable number of arguments from one function to another?
I'd like to achieve a minimal solution like the following:
int func1(string param1, ...){
int status = STATUS_1;
func2(status, param1, ...);
}
I know I can do this using something like the following, but this code is going to be duplicated multiple times so I'd like to keep it as minimalist as possible while also keeping the function call very short
int func1(string param1, ...){
int status = STATUS_1;
va_list args;
va_start(args, param1);
func2(status, param1, args);
va_end(args);
}
Thanks!
No, you have to pass the varargs using a va_list as per your second example.
It's just 3 lines extra code, if you want to avoid duplicating those lines, and func2 is always the same, or atleast takes the same parameters, make a macro out of it.
#define CALL_MY_VA_FUNC(func,param) do {\
va_list args; \
va_start(args,param);\
func(param,param,args);\
va_end(args); } while(0)
Just pass args as a parameter of type va_list to func2
Maybe you could try wrapping the parameters in a struct.
struct Params
{
int status;
std::string param1;
};
void func1(Params& params)
{
int status = params.status;
func2(params);
}
void func2(Params& params)
{
std::string param1 = params.param1;
}
I sometime use that trick when the list of parameter changes a lot during refactoring.
I'm not sure from your question if that could solve your problem though.
--
It is interesting to note that the same thing can be used for templates by defining typedefs and the like in the struct (i usually always use class in my code, since there is basically no difference between struct and class in c++) instead of normal members. It can be a workaround to the problem of having to maintain code with lot of templates that will change a lot during refactoring or developement.
Related
(Title edited to clarify intent.
Original Title: "Can I heap-allocate a va_list to use it later?")
I'm trying to develop a scripting system for my game that allows me to look at all functions which will be called on a future frame and what arguments they will take. Since the args these functions take aren't all the same, I figured the best approach would be to make a struct containing an unwrapper function that takes a va_list, and a va_list to be passed to it. Each unwrapper function just takes the va_list, separates it back into multiple variables, and passes it to a corresponding real function. Then each script has a queue of those structs to be executed on a given frame.
Here's the script class:
class MoveScript {
public:
MoveScript();
MoveScript(std::string name, std::function<void()> move_script);
void activate(); //Clear the ScriptFrame queue, then call move_script()
void execute(float frame); //Checks if the front ScriptFrame is set to this frame. If it is, then call its execute function and remove it from the queue
std::string name;
std::queue<ScriptFrame> frames;
private:
std::function<void()> move_script{ []() {} }; //Runs whenever a new script is activated, populates the ScriptFrame queue
};
Here's the ScriptFrame class:
class ScriptFrame {
public:
ScriptFrame();
ScriptFrame(float frame);
void execute(); //Executes each function_call in the queue with its corresponding function_arg
float frame;
std::queue<std::function<void(ScriptArg)>> function_calls;
std::queue<ScriptArg> function_args;
};
Here's a ScriptArg:
struct ScriptArg {
ScriptArg();
ScriptArg(int num_args, std::va_list va);
void destroy(); //Call va_end() so I don't have to do it within the unwrapper funcs
int num_args;
std::va_list va;
};
And here's an example of all of this in practice
script("wait", [this]() {
execute_frame(0, [this]() {
push_function(&BattleObject::SET_RATE, 1, 0.5);
});
});
void BattleObject::SET_RATE(ScriptArg args) {
UNWRAP(rate, float);
set_rate(rate);
}
Where script initializes a MoveScript and adds it to a table, execute_frame creates a new ScriptFrame to execute on the given frame, push_function pushes the unwrapper function and a va_list generated by the args to the ScriptFrame's respective queues, and UNWRAP is a macro that expands to float rate = va_arg(args.va, float);
As I’m sure you can already tell, this code doesn’t work because of how a va_list becomes invalid after the function which called va_start returns. I found another question about it but couldn’t find any suggestions that I figured could work. I’ve seen stuff about storing a void* instead of va_list and getting the args directly within push_function, but since the args passed can be of different types, I don’t think there’s any way for me to safely use va_arg at that point. So I was wondering, if I heap-allocate the va_list, will that allow me to store it properly, or does it become invalidated as soon as the function which takes the ellipsis goes out of scope? If it does, can I possibly store the ellipsis directly instead of a va_list, then create a va_list in the unwrapper function? Or just generally if there’s a better way to accomplish my goal, what would that be? Let me know if there’s any other info I should provide.
Thanks!
Update: I tried tuples to store the data as a few answers suggested, but that didn't work because I needed to be able to properly index them while the function was still being wrapped, at which point the number and types of args were still unknown. Due to how templates work, I couldn't find a way to store the entire tuple in the ScriptArg struct either (Note: It's entirely possible that all of this was possible to work around and I just couldn't figure it out, but either way I found a way to handle it without using tuples which works for my purposes).
In any case, I managed to accomplish what I was looking for using a queue of std::any instead of a va_list, and populating the queue with all of the variadic arguments the function took. Handling the variadic args using a tuple still didn't seem to work, but as it turns out, I could just use a vector instead. Here's what the full process looks like.
ScriptArg declaration:
struct ScriptArg {
ScriptArg();
ScriptArg(int num_args, std::queue<std::any> args);
std::any get_arg(); //Get the argument at the front of the queue, pop it and return the argument
void pop();
int num_args;
std::queue<std::any> args;
};
The UNWRAP macros:
//Declares a variable of the given type and extracts its value from the queue
#define UNWRAP(var_name, type) type var_name = std::any_cast<type>(args.get_arg());
//Same as the above, but for variables that were already declared
#define UNWRAP_NO_DECL(var_name, type) var_name = std::any_cast<type>(args.get_arg());
Wrapping a member function:
template<typename ...T>
void push_function(void (BattleObject::* function)(ScriptArg), T... args) {
std::queue<std::any> queue = extract_variadic_to_queue(args...);
ScriptArg sa(sizeof...(args), queue);
active_script_frame.function_calls.push(std::bind(function, this, std::placeholders::_1)); //I believe I could also just bind the arguments directly instead of putting a placeholder here, but since I need to store the arguments separately for other reasons, this is fine.
active_script_frame.function_args.push(sa);
}
template<typename ...T>
std::queue<std::any> extract_variadic_to_queue_impl(const T&... args) {
std::vector<std::any> vec = { args... };
std::queue<std::any> ret;
for (int i = 0, max = vec.size(); i < max; i++) {
ret.push(vec[i]);
}
return ret;
}
template<typename ...T>
std::queue<std::any> extract_variadic_to_queue(T... args) {
return extract_variadic_to_queue_impl(std::any(args)...);
}
And besides the fact that I need to unwrap the float as a double due to std::any's type promotion, the unwrapping function itself looks exactly the same:
void BattleObject::SET_RATE(ScriptArg args) {
UNWRAP(rate, double);
set_rate(rate);
}
I'm still not sure if there's a more efficient way to handle this, but it's overall the simplest method I could find for storing future function arguments without needing to know their quantities and type until they were actually called, which was my end goal. Sorry for not making that more clear in the initial question, but I appreciate you all steering me in the right direction and away from va_lists. Thanks!
I am writing an adapter to combine two APIs (one in C and another in C++).
If a function is called on the one API I need to pass the callers ID and the function's arguments to an adapter and call the according function with this information passed.
Now aparently they can not be mapped directly as one interface requires C++ compilation and the name mangling would screw the other so that is why I am using a set of adapters in the first place.
As the number of arguments varies, I looked up variadic functions and found the idea pretty useful, however I am operating on POD only and have to deal with structs, enums and a lot of different arguments per call, which might need to be put back into a struct before feeding it to the target function.
Every example I stumbled upon was far simpler and involved mostly arithmetic operations like summing stuff up , finding largest numbers or printing. Mostly done with for loops on the var_list.
Maybe I got stuck on the idea and it won't work at all, but I am just curious...
Say I wanted to assign the arguments from the list to my target functions parameters (the order of the arguments passed is the correct one), what would be a good way?
BOOL Some_Function(
/* in */ CallerId *pObjectId,
/* in */ someDataType argument1 )
{
BOOL ret = Adapter_Call(pFunction, pObjectId, argument1);
return ret;
}
and so once I made it to the right adapter I want to do
BOOL Adapter_Call(*pFunction, *pObjectId, argument1, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, argument1);
/*go over list and do `var_list[i] = pFunctionArgList[i]` which is
of whatever type so I can use it as input for my function */
va_end(args);
pObjectId.pFunction(arg1,...,argn);
}
Can I access the input parameters of a function to perform assignments like this?
Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a conceptual mistake in my thinking?
All I found on the net was this, http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/extracting-function-parameter-and-return/240000586but due to the use of templates I am not sure if it wouldn't create another problem and so in the end implementing an adapter for each and every single functioncall may be simpler to do.
A SO search only returned this: Dynamic function calls at runtime (va_list)
First, you should heed Kerrek's advice about extern "C". This is C++'s mechanism for giving an identifier C linkage, meaning that the name won't be mangled by the C++ compiler.
Sometimes, and adapter still needs to be written for a C++ interface, because it manipulates objects that do not map to a C POD. So, the adapter gives the C interface a POD or opaque pointer type to manipulate, but the implementation of that interface converts that into an C++ object or reference and then calls the C++ interface. For example, suppose you wanted to provide a C interface for C++ std::map<int, void *>, you would have a common header file in C and C++ that would contain:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
struct c_map_int_ptr;
// ...
// return -1 on failure, otherwise 0, and *data is populated with result
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *, int key, void **data);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Then, the C++ code could implement the function like:
typedef std::map<int, void *> map_int_ptr;
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *cmap, int key, void **data) {
map_int_ptr &map = *static_cast<map_int_ptr *>(cmap);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map.find(key);
if (i != map.end()) {
*data = i->second;
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
Thus, there is no need to pass the arguments passed via the C interface through a variable argument adapter. And so, there is no need for the C++ code to tease out the arguments from a variable argument list. The C code calls directly into the C++ code, which knows what to do with the arguments.
I suppose if you are trying to implement some kind of automated C adapter code generator by parsing C++ code, you could think that using variable arguments would provide a regular mechanism to communicate arguments between the generated C code interface and the generated C++ adapter code that would call the original C++ interface. For such a scenario, the code for the above example would look something like this:
// C interface
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr c_map_int_ptr;
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_iterator;
//...
c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_find (c_map_int_ptr *map, int key) {
c_map_int_ptr_iterator result;
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(__func__, map, key, &result);
return result;
}
// C++ code:
struct cpp_adapter {
virtual ~cpp_adapter () {}
virtual void execute (va_list) {}
};
void cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(const char *func, ...) {
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, func);
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup(func).execute(ap);
va_end(ap);
}
//...
struct cpp_map_int_ptr_find_adapter : cpp_adapter {
void execute (va_list ap) {
map_int_ptr *map = va_arg(ap, map_int_ptr *);
int key = va_arg(ap, int);
c_map_int_ptr_iterator *c_iter = va_arg(ap, c_map_int_ptr_iterator *);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map->find(key);
//...transfer result to c_iter
}
};
Where cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup() returns an appropriate cpp_adapter instance based on a table lookup.
Short version: How can I pass the contents represented by ... in a variable argument function to another function without first parsing it into a va_list?
Long version:
Below are two functions in a class of mine. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the first four lines of each function are identical. And I have a half dozen other functions in this class with the same first four lines.
void cyclOps::Logger::warn(char* szFile, char* szFunction, int iLine, char* szFormat, ...) {
va_list vaArguments;
va_start(vaArguments, szFormat);
char szOutput[10000];
_vsnprintf_s(szOutput, CYCLOPSSIZEOF(szOutput), _TRUNCATE, szFormat, vaArguments);
this->log("WARNING: %s [%s - %s(%d)]", szOutput, szFile, szFunction, iLine);
}
void cyclOps::Logger::info(char* szFormat, ...) {
va_list vaArguments;
va_start(vaArguments, szFormat);
char szOutput[10000];
_vsnprintf_s(szOutput, CYCLOPSSIZEOF(szOutput), _TRUNCATE, szFormat, vaArguments);
this->log("INFO: %s", szOutput);
}
I would like to put these four identical lines in a single function called summarizeVariableArguments() and call it something like this...
void cyclOps::Logger::info(char* szFormat, ...) {
std::string strOutput = this->summarizeVariableArguments(/* TBD */);
this->log("INFO: %s", strOutput.c_str());
}
...where the contents of strOutput would be the same as the contents of szOutput in the two previous functions. But how do I pass the ... parameter to another function?
You cannot do that portably (or perhaps at compile time, with horrible C++2011 variadic template tricks).
If you want to call at runtime a variadic function, you may want to use the libffi.
Details are operating system, compiler, processor and ABI specific. (but libffi is trying to abstract them).
That's what perfect forwarding is all about + variadic templates.
template<typename ...Args>
void cyclOps::Logger::info(char* szFormat, Args &&...args) {
std::string strOutput = this->summarizeVariableArguments(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
this->log("INFO: %s", strOutput.c_str());
}
You make another function that accepts va_list to do the job like so:
void cyclOps::Logger::vLog(const char* format, va_list args)
{
std::string logMessage = vFormat<10000>(format, args);
// Do what you want with logMessage
}
template <size_t BufferSize>
std::string cyclOps::Logger::vFormat(const char* format, va_list args)
{
char buffer[BufferSize];
vsprintf(buffer, format, args);
return std::string(buffer);
}
I have tested this on MSVC and GCC for my project. All I can say is it works for me.
Here's a working example. This solution works for C++03 and I believe should work with C++11.
I'm wrapping the Windows API, and I wish to make error checking easy to use, and helpful. Currently, I have a global error object, with a function set to handle a new error. The set function takes four arguments: bool Error::set (const int code, const char * file, const char * const function, const int line); The function uses the file, function, and line arguments to display them in a nicely formatted message.
To ease the setting of errors, there is a macro #define setError() error.set (GetLastError(), __FILE__, __FUNCTION__, __LINE__); This way I'm able to use setError() at any time to respond to an error that an API function has set by adding it after I call that API function.
Unfortunately, this causes the code to look something like this:
SomeAPIFunction();
setError();
AnotherAPIFunction();
setError();
There is also a problem with constructors:
MyClass:MyClass()
: a (SomeAPIFunction), b (AnotherAPIFunction)
{
setError(); //what if both functions set an error?
}
As you can see, by using member initializer syntax, I'm actually limiting myself.
One way to fix this would be to wrap every API function:
int someAPIFunction()
{
int ret = SomeAPIFunction();
setError();
return ret;
}
The function portion of the error message would tell me which function originated the error. Of course, that has to be the worst possible way of dealing with this.
The solution, it seems, is to use variadic templates. The problem is, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing to get them working for this. I'd imagine the final code looks something like one of the following:
wrap<int, SomeAPIFunction (5)>();
wrap<int, SomeAPIFunction, 5>();
wrap<int, SomeAPIFunction> (5);
I've read things on beginning variadic templates, but they've all left me clueless of how to set up something like this. Could anyone point me in the right direction?
I found the following on a similar question:
#include <iostream>
template<void f(void)>
struct Wrap {
void operator()() const {
std::cout << "Pre call hook" << std::endl;
f();
}
};
namespace {
void test_func() {
std::cout << "Real function" << std::endl;
}
}
const Wrap<&test_func> wrapped_test_func = {};
int main() {
wrapped_test_func();
return 0;
}
The respondent noted that variadic templates would be a necessity to make this generic enough. It's a start, but I'm lost and grateful of any help on the matter.
I think you'll be able to make it work with this syntax:
wrap(&SomeAPIFunction, arg1, arg2);
The key is to let the compiler use type deduction to determine the template type parameters, since they get pretty messy in a hurry.
The code should look something like:
template<typename TRet, typename... TArgs>
TRet wrap( TRet(WINAPI *api)(TArgs...), TArgs... args )
{
return api(args...);
}
Naturally, you'll want to use a macro to hide the address-of-function operator, use stringizing to store the function name, and store the filename and line number also, passing all of that to the actual variadic function. You'll need variadic macros for that. In fact, could you do all of this just with variadic macros and no templates?
So I have a series of global functions, say:
foo_f1(int a, int b, char *c);
foo_f2(int a);
foo_f3(char *a);
I want to make a C++ wrapper around these, something like:
MyFoo::f1(int a, int b, char* c);
MyFoo::f2(int a);
MyFoo::f3(char* a);
There's about 40 functions like this, 35 of them I just want to pass through to the global function, the other 5 I want to do something different with.
Ideally the implementation of MyFoo.cpp would be something like:
PASSTHRU( f1, (int a, int b, char *c) );
PASSTHRU( f2, (int a) );
MyFoo::f3(char *a)
{
//do my own thing here
}
But I'm having trouble figuring out an elegant way to make the above PASSTHRU macro.
What I really need is something like the mythical X getArgs() below:
MyFoo::f1(int a, int b, char *c)
{
X args = getArgs();
args++; //skip past implicit this..
::f1(args); //pass args to global function
}
But short of dropping into assembly I can't find a good implementation of getArgs().
You could use Boost.Preprocessor to let the following:
struct X {
PASSTHRU(foo, void, (int)(char))
};
... expand to:
struct X {
void foo ( int arg0 , char arg1 ) { return ::foo ( arg0 , arg1 ); }
};
... using these macros:
#define DO_MAKE_ARGS(r, data, i, type) \
BOOST_PP_COMMA_IF(i) type arg##i
#define PASSTHRU(name, ret, args) \
ret name ( \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(DO_MAKE_ARGS, _, args) \
) { \
return ::name ( \
BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(args), arg) \
); \
}
At 40-odd functions, you could type the wrappers out by hand in an hour. The compiler will check the correctness of the result. Assume an extra 2 minutes for each new function that needs wrapping, and an extra 1 minute for a change in signature.
As specified, and with no mention of frequent updates or changes, it doesn't sound like this problem requires a cunning solution.
So, my recommendation is to keep it simple: do it by hand. Copy prototypes into source file, then use keyboard macros (emacs/Visual Studio/vim) to fix things up, and/or multiple passes of search and replace, generating one set of definitions and one set of declarations. Cut declarations, paste into header. Fill in definitions for the non-passing-through functions. This won't win you any awards, but it'll be over soon enough.
No extra dependencies, no new build tools, works well with code browsing/tags/intellisense/etc., works well with any debugger, and no specialized syntax/modern features/templates/etc., so anybody can understand the result. (It's true that nobody will be impressed -- but it will be the good kind of unimpressed.)
Slightly different syntax but...
#include <boost/preprocessor.hpp>
#include <iostream>
void f1(int x, int y, char* z) { std::cout << "::f1(int,int,char*)\n"; }
#define GENERATE_ARG(z,n,unused) BOOST_PP_CAT(arg,n)
#define GET_ARGS(n) BOOST_PP_ENUM(n, GENERATE_ARG, ~)
#define GENERATE_PARAM(z,n,seq) BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(n,seq) GENERATE_ARG(z,n,~)
#define GENERATE_PARAMS(seq) BOOST_PP_ENUM( BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(seq), GENERATE_PARAM, seq )
#define PASSTHROUGH(Classname, Function, ArgTypeSeq) \
void Classname::Function( GENERATE_PARAMS(ArgTypeSeq) ) \
{ \
::Function( GET_ARGS( BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(ArgTypeSeq) ) ); \
}
struct test
{
void f1(int,int,char*);
};
PASSTHROUGH(test,f1,(int)(int)(char*))
int main()
{
test().f1(5,5,0);
std::cin.get();
}
You could get something closer to yours if you use tuples, but you'd have to supply the arg count to the base function (you can't derive a size from a tuple). Sort of like so:
PASSTHROUGH(test,f1,3,(int,int,char*))
That about what you're looking for? I knew it could be done; took about a half hour to solve. You seem to expect that there's an implicit 'this' that has to be gotten rid of but I don't see why...so maybe I misunderstand the problem. At any rate, this will let you quickly make default "passthrough" member functions that defer to some global function. You'll need a DECPASSTHROUGH for the class declaration if you want to skip having to declare them all...or you could modify this to make inline functions.
Hint: Use BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE((XX)) to test the output of preprocessor metafunctions.
My initial thought, and this probably won't work or others would have stated this, is to put all your base functions together in a class as virtual. Then, write the functionality improvements into inherited classes and run with it. It's not a macro wrapper, but you could always call the global functions in the virtual classes.
With some assembly trickery, you could probably do exactly what you'd want, but you would lose portability more than likely. Interesting question and I want to hear other's answers as well.
You may want to use a namespace if you want to not deal with class stuff, like this. You could also use static member methods in a class, but I think that people don't like that anymore.
#ifndef __cplusplus
#define PASSTHRU(type, prefix, func, args) type prefix##_##func args
#else
#define PASSTHRU(type, prefix, func, args) type prefix::func args
#endif
Or
#ifndef __cplusplus
#define PASSTHRU(type, prefix, func, ...) type prefix##_##func(__VA_ARGS__)
...
Perfect forwarding relies on rvalue references. STL has a blog entry on it at Link and you would want to choose a compiler that supported the feature to take this approach. He's discussing Visual C++ 2010.