I’m currently working on a reporting library as part of a large project. It contains a collection of logging and system message functions. I’m trying to utilize preprocessor macros to strip out a subset of the functions calls that are intended strictly for debugging, and the function definitions and implementations themselves, using conditional compilation and function like macros defined to nothing (similar to the way that assert() calls are removed if DEBUG is defined). I’m running into a problem. I prefer to fully qualify namespaces, I find it improves readability; and I have my reporting functions wrapped in a namespace. Because the colon character can’t be part of a macro token I am unable to include the namespace in the stripping of the function calls. If I defined the functions alone to nothing I end up with Namespace::. I've considered just using conditional compilation to block the function code for those functions, but I am worried that the compiler might not competently optimize out the empty functions.
namespace Reporting
{
const extern std::string logFileName;
void Report(std::string msg);
void Report(std::string msg, std::string msgLogAdd);
void Log(std::string msg);
void Message(std::string msg);
#ifdef DEBUG
void Debug_Log(std::string message);
void Debug_Message(std::string message);
void Debug_Report(std::string message);
void Debug_Assert(bool test, std::string message);
#else
#define Debug_Log(x);
#define Debug_Message(x);
#define Debug_Report(x);
#define Debug_Assert(x);
#endif
};
Any idea on how to deal with the namespace qualifiers with the preprocessor?
Thoughts on, problems with, just removing the function code?
Any other ways to accomplish my goal?
This is how I did it when I wrote a similar library several months back. And yes, your optimizer will remove empty, inline function calls. If you declare them out-of-line (not in the header file), your compiler will NOT inline them unless you use LTO.
namespace Reporting
{
const extern std::string logFileName;
void Report(std::string msg);
void Report(std::string msg, std::string msgLogAdd);
void Log(std::string msg);
void Message(std::string msg);
#ifdef DEBUG
inline void Debug_Log(std::string message) { return Log(message); }
inline void Debug_Message(std::string message) { return Message(message); }
inline void Debug_Report(std::string message) { return Report(message); }
inline void Debug_Assert(bool test, std::string message) { /* Not sure what to do here */ }
#else
inline void Debug_Log(std::string) {}
inline void Debug_Message(std::string) {}
inline void Debug_Report(std::string) {}
inline void Debug_Assert(std::string) {}
#endif
};
Just as a side note, don't pass strings by value unless you need to make a copy anyways. Use a const reference instead. It prevents an expensive allocation + strcpy on the string for EVERY function call.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, just use a const char*. Looking at the assembly, it's a LOT faster, especially for empty function bodies.
GCC optimizes this out at -O1, I don't think there's much of an issue with this:
clark#clark-laptop /tmp $ cat t.cpp
#include <cstdio>
inline void do_nothing()
{
}
int main()
{
do_nothing();
return 0;
}
clark#clark-laptop /tmp $ g++ -O1 -S t.cpp
clark#clark-laptop /tmp $ cat t.s
.file "t.cpp"
.text
.globl main
.type main, #function
main:
.LFB32:
.cfi_startproc
movl $0, %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE32:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (Gentoo 4.5.0 p1.2, pie-0.4.5) 4.5.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",#progbits
After a bit of tweaking, it seems that this will only be a FULL removal if you use const char*, NOT std::string or const std::string&. Here's the assembly for the const char*:
clark#clark-laptop /tmp $ cat t.cpp
inline void do_nothing(const char*)
{
}
int main()
{
do_nothing("test");
return 0;
}
clark#clark-laptop /tmp $ g++ -O1 -S t.cpp
clark#clark-laptop /tmp $ cat t.s
.file "t.cpp"
.text
.globl main
.type main, #function
main:
.LFB1:
.cfi_startproc
movl $0, %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (Gentoo 4.5.0 p1.2, pie-0.4.5) 4.5.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",#progbits
And here's with const std::string&...
.file "t.cpp"
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",#progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "test"
.text
.globl main
.type main, #function
main:
.LFB591:
.cfi_startproc
subq $24, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 32
leaq 14(%rsp), %rdx
movq %rsp, %rdi
movl $.LC0, %esi
call _ZNSsC1EPKcRKSaIcE
movq (%rsp), %rdi
subq $24, %rdi
cmpq $_ZNSs4_Rep20_S_empty_rep_storageE, %rdi
je .L11
movl $_ZL22__gthrw_pthread_cancelm, %eax
testq %rax, %rax
je .L3
movl $-1, %eax
lock xaddl %eax, 16(%rdi)
jmp .L4
.L3:
movl 16(%rdi), %eax
leal -1(%rax), %edx
movl %edx, 16(%rdi)
.L4:
testl %eax, %eax
jg .L11
leaq 15(%rsp), %rsi
call _ZNSs4_Rep10_M_destroyERKSaIcE
.L11:
movl $0, %eax
addq $24, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE591:
.size main, .-main
[Useless stuff removed...]
.ident "GCC: (Gentoo 4.5.0 p1.2, pie-0.4.5) 4.5.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",#progbits
Huge difference, eh?
I am not sure if I fully understand your problem. Would the following help?
namespace X
{
namespace{int dummy;}
void debug_check(int);
}
#ifdef DEBUG
#define DEBUG_CHECK(ARG) debug_check(ARG)
#else
#define DEBUG_CHECK(ARG) dummy // just ignore args
#endif
int main()
{
X::DEBUG_CHECK(1);
}
This solution might not work, because it can generate a "statement without effect" warning. A potentially better solution would be to gobble the namespace prefix up in a function declaration:
// debug_check and "#ifdef DEBUG" part omitted
namespace X
{
typedef void dummy_type;
}
namespace Y
{
typedef void dummy_type;
}
typedef void dummy_type;
#define DEBUG(X) dummy_type dummy_fn();
int main()
{
X::DEBUG(1);
Y::DEBUG(2);
X::DEBUG(3);
Y::DEBUG(4);
DEBUG(5);
DEBUG(6);
};
As long as any definition of dummy_type yields the same type, this should legal, because typedefs are not distinct types.
you could just have your logging function replaced by a function that does nothing, no?
I know that this questions has been answered since ages, but I came across this problem when I put a log macro into a namespace. You were suggesting empty functions and optimization levels. Clark Gaebles made me think, because of the different results using const char*or const std::string&. The following code gives me no reasonable changes in assembly with no optimization levels enabled:
#include <iostream>
#undef _DEBUG // undefine to use __NOJOB
namespace Debug
{
typedef void __NOJOB;
class Logger
{
public:
static void Log( const char* msg, const char* file, int line )
{
std::cout << "Log: " << msg << " in " <<
file << ":" << line << std::endl;
}
};
}
#ifdef _DEBUG
#define Log( msg ) Logger::Log( msg, __FILE__, __LINE__ );
#else
#define Log( msg )__NOJOB(0);
#endif
int main()
{
Debug::Log( "please skip me" );
return 0;
}
created assembly by http://assembly.ynh.io/:
main:
.LFB972:
.cfi_startproc
0000 55 pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
0001 4889E5 movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6 // <- stack main
// no code for void( 0 ) here
0004 B8000000 movl $0, %eax // return
00
0009 5D popq %rbp // -> end stack main
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
000a C3 ret
Maybe I made an mistake or understood something wrong? Would be nice to hearing from you.
Related
I am confused by the function pointer of the template function.
See
#include <cstdio>
class A
{
public:
A(){}
~A(){}
void command()
{
printf("Cmd");
}
};
template<class T>
void cmd_create()
{
T t;
t.command();
};
int main()
{
typedef void(*Funcptr)();
Funcptr f1 = &cmd_create<A>;
f1();
return 0;
}
The program output Cmd.
The assembly (-O3) shows that
.file "test.cpp"
.text
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",#progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "Cmd"
.section .text.startup,"ax",#progbits
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, #function
main:
.LFB38:
.cfi_startproc
leaq .LC0(%rip), %rsi
subq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
movl $1, %edi
xorl %eax, %eax
call __printf_chk#PLT
xorl %eax, %eax
addq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE38:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04) 7.5.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",#progbits
Obviously, &cmd_create<A> returns the A::command.
The cmd_create is defined as an empty return (void), however, the code still gets the A::command in such a weird way.
Thank you for your answer!
Obviously, &cmd_create returns the A::command.
I am not fluent with assembly, but obviously you misunderstand the code ;).
&cmd_create<A> is a pointer to the function cmd_create<A>. This function pointer is assigned to f1. The pointer is of type void(*)(), pointer to function returning void and no arguments. No function in the code returns anything (if we do not count printf or main).
f1(); calls the function pointed to by f1. That is: cmd_create<A>. The function creates an object of type A and calls its command member function which prints the output you see on the screen.
Enabling optimizations means that the compiler emits something that has the same observable behavior. It could emit the same as it would for int main() { printf("Cmd"); }.
I'm stuck with a problem which is illustrated by the following g++ code:
frob.hpp:
template<typename T> T frob(T x);
template<> inline int frob<int>(int x) {
asm("1: nop\n"
".pushsection \"extra\",\"a\"\n"
".quad 1b\n"
".popsection\n");
return x+1;
}
foo.cpp:
#include "frob.hpp"
extern int bar();
int foo() { return frob(17); }
int main() { return foo() + bar(); }
bar.cpp:
#include "frob.hpp"
int bar() { return frob(42); }
I'm doing these quirky custom section things as a way to mimick the mechanism here in the linux kernel (but in a userland and C++ way).
My problem is that the instantiation of frob<int> is recognized as a weak symbol, which is fine, and one of the two is eventually elided by the linker, which is fine too. Except that the linker is not disturbed by the fact that the extra section has references to that symbol (via .quad 1b), and the linker want to resolve them locally. I get:
localhost /tmp $ g++ -O3 foo.cpp bar.cpp
localhost /tmp $ g++ -O0 foo.cpp bar.cpp
`.text._Z4frobIiET_S0_' referenced in section `extra' of /tmp/ccr5s7Zg.o: defined in discarded section `.text._Z4frobIiET_S0_[_Z4frobIiET_S0_]' of /tmp/ccr5s7Zg.o
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
(-O3 is fine because no symbol is emitted altogether).
I don't know how to work around this.
would there be a way to tell the linker to also pay attention to symbol resolution in the extra section too ?
perhaps one could trade the local labels for .weak global labels ? E.g. like in:
asm(".weak exception_handler_%=\n"
"exception_handler_%=: nop\n"
".pushsection \"extra\",\"a\"\n"
".quad exception_handler_%=\n"
".popsection\n"::);
However I fear that if I go this way, distinct asm statements in distinct compilation units may get the same symbol via this mechanism (may they ?).
Is there a way around that I've overlooked ?
g++ (5,6, at least) compiles an inline function with external linkage - such as
template<> inline int frob<int>(int x) - at a weak global
symbol in a [COMDAT] [function-section] in
its own section-group. See:-
g++ -S -O0 bar.cpp
bar.s
.file "bar.cpp"
.section .text._Z4frobIiET_S0_,"axG",#progbits,_Z4frobIiET_S0_,comdat
.weak _Z4frobIiET_S0_
.type _Z4frobIiET_S0_, #function
_Z4frobIiET_S0_:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
movl %edi, -4(%rbp)
#APP
# 8 "frob.hpp" 1
1: nop
.pushsection "extra","a"
.quad 1b
.popsection
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
movl -4(%rbp), %eax
addl $1, %eax
popq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
...
...
The relevant directives are:
.section .text._Z4frobIiET_S0_,"axG",#progbits,_Z4frobIiET_S0_,comdat
.weak _Z4frobIiET_S0_
(The compiler-generated #APP and #NO_APP delimit your inline assembly).
Do as the compiler does by making extra likewise a COMDAT section in
a section-group:
frob.hpp (fixed)
template<typename T> T frob(T x);
template<> inline int frob<int>(int x) {
asm("1: nop\n"
".pushsection \"extra\", \"axG\", #progbits,extra,comdat" "\n"
".quad 1b\n"
".popsection\n");
return x+1;
}
and the linkage error will be cured:
$ g++ -O0 foo.cpp bar.cpp
$ ./a.out; echo $?
61
This question already has answers here:
How to convert C++ Code to C [closed]
(6 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Suppose I where to take a c++ program and compile it into an assembly (.S) file.
Then I take that assembly file and "dissassemble" that into C, would that code be recompileable on a different platform?
The reason I ask this is that the platform I am trying to develop on does not have a c++ compiler by it does have a c compiler.
Yes, it's indeed possible in the way you describe. No, it won't be portable to any CPU architecture, OS, and compiler triplet other than yours.
Let's see why. Take some basic C++ code...
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
return 0;
}
Let's turn this into assembler using g++, on a x86-64 Linux box (I turned optimizations on, and discarded debug symbols, in purpose)...
$ g++ -o test.s -O3 -S test.cpp
And the result is...
.file "test.cpp"
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",#progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "Hello, world!\n"
.section .text.unlikely,"ax",#progbits
.LCOLDB1:
.section .text.startup,"ax",#progbits
.LHOTB1:
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, #function
main:
.LFB1027:
.cfi_startproc
subq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
movl $.LC0, %esi
movl $_ZSt4cout, %edi
call _ZStlsISt11char_traitsIcEERSt13basic_ostreamIcT_ES5_PKc
xorl %eax, %eax
addq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1027:
.size main, .-main
.section .text.unlikely
.LCOLDE1:
.section .text.startup
.LHOTE1:
.section .text.unlikely
.LCOLDB2:
.section .text.startup
.LHOTB2:
.p2align 4,,15
.type _GLOBAL__sub_I_main, #function
_GLOBAL__sub_I_main:
.LFB1032:
.cfi_startproc
subq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
movl $_ZStL8__ioinit, %edi
call _ZNSt8ios_base4InitC1Ev
movl $__dso_handle, %edx
movl $_ZStL8__ioinit, %esi
movl $_ZNSt8ios_base4InitD1Ev, %edi
addq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
jmp __cxa_atexit
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1032:
.size _GLOBAL__sub_I_main, .-_GLOBAL__sub_I_main
.section .text.unlikely
.LCOLDE2:
.section .text.startup
.LHOTE2:
.section .init_array,"aw"
.align 8
.quad _GLOBAL__sub_I_main
.local _ZStL8__ioinit
.comm _ZStL8__ioinit,1,1
.hidden __dso_handle
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 5.3.1 20151207 (Red Hat 5.3.1-2)"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",#progbits
That mess is the price we pay for exception handling, templates, and namespaces. Let's disassemble this into C by hand, discarding the exception handling tables for a cleaner view...
/* std::ostream */
typedef struct
{
/* ... */
} _ZSo;
/* extern operator<<(std::basic_ostream&, const char*); */
extern _ZStlsIst11char_traitsIcEERSt13basic_ostreamIcT_ES5_PKc();
/* namespace std { extern ostream cout; } */
extern _ZSo _ZSt4cout;
/* Our string, of course! */
static const char* LC0 = "Hello, world!\n";
int main()
{
_ZStlsIst11char_traitsIcEERSt13basic_ostreamIcT_ES5_PKc(&_ZSt4cout, LC0);
return 0;
}
Seems unreadable, yet portable, right? Right now, it is. But, this code won't work! You need to define _ZSo (std::ostream) yet in C struct's terms, not to mention including all the exception handling stuff.
Things get near impossible to get portable once you start using try/throw/catch. I mean, there's absolutely no way that __cxa_allocate_exception or __cxa_throw will ever be portable! Your only way around this is to rewrite all your program (and that includes all libraries you use, even the standard library!) to use the slower setjmp/longjmp approach to exceptions instead of zero-cost exception handling.
Finally, but not least, a non-human disassembler will most likely fail at doing this properly, even at the simplest of inputs. Remember that, at the lowest levels of stuff (a.k.a machine code and assembly language), there's no concept of types. You can't never know if a register is a signed integer, and unsigned integer, or basically anything else, for instance. The compiler can also play with the stack pointer at its will, worsening the job.
Once compilation is over, the compiler, not expecting any future disassembling, wipes out all this precious information, because you normally don't need it at run-time. In most cases, disassembling is really not worth it, if even possible, and most likely you're seeking for a different solution. Translating from a higher-middle-level language to a lower-level language to a lower-middle-level language takes this to an extreme, and approaches the limits of what can be translated to what else.
Suppose I have a class setup like the following:
class A {
public:
virtual void foo() { printf("default implementation\n"); }
};
class B : public A {
public:
void foo() override { printf("B implementation\n"); }
};
class C : public B {
public:
inline void foo() final { A::foo(); }
};
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
auto c = new C();
c->foo();
}
In general, can the call to c->foo() be devirtualized and inlined down to the printf("default implementation") call? Is this guaranteed, for example in gcc? My intuition is that A::foo() is non-virtual because the class is specified explicitly, and so the printf will always be inlined.
You're asking about optimizations, so in general we have to pick a compiler and try it. We can look at the assembly output to determine if the compiler is optimizing the way you want.
Let's try GCC 5.2:
.LC0:
.string "B implementation"
B::foo():
movl $.LC0, %edi
jmp puts
.LC2:
.string "default implementation"
A::foo():
movl $.LC2, %edi
jmp puts
C::foo():
movl $.LC2, %edi
jmp puts
main:
subq $8, %rsp
movl $8, %edi
call operator new(unsigned long)
movl $.LC2, %edi
call puts
xorl %eax, %eax
addq $8, %rsp
ret
And let's try out Clang 3.6:
main: # #main
pushq %rax
movl $.Lstr, %edi
callq puts
xorl %eax, %eax
popq %rdx
retq
.Lstr:
.asciz "default implementation"
In both cases you can see that pretty clearly that all of the virtual functions have been inlined.
"Is this guaranteed, for example in gcc?"
If the compiler is confident about what the actual type of an object is, then I suspect this optimization will always happen. I don't have anything to back up this claim though.
I've seen a few tools like Pin and DynInst that do dynamic code manipulation in order to instrument code without having to recompile. These seem like heavyweight solutions to what seems like it should be a straightforward problem: retrieving accurate function call data from a program.
I want to write something such that in my code, I can write
void SomeFunction() {
StartProfiler();
...
StopProfiler();
}
and post-execution, retrieve data about what functions were called between StartProfiler() and StopProfiler() (the whole call tree) and how long each of them took.
Preferably I could read out debug symbols too, to get function names instead of addresses.
Here's one interesting hint at a solution I discovered.
gcc (and llvm>=3.0) has a -pg option when compiling, which is traditionally for gprof support. When you compile your code with this flag, the compiler adds a call to the function mcount to the beginning of every function definition. You can override this function, but you'll need to do it in assembly, otherwise the mcount function you define will be instrumented with a call to mcount and you'll quickly run out of stack space before main even gets called.
Here's a little proof of concept:
foo.c:
int total_calls = 0;
void foo(int c) {
if (c > 0)
foo(c-1);
}
int main() {
foo(4);
printf("%d\n", total_calls);
}
foo.s:
.globl mcount
mcount:
movl _total_calls(%rip), %eax
addl $1, %eax
movl %eax, _total_calls(%rip)
ret
compile with clang -pg foo.s foo.c -o foo. Result:
$ ./foo
6
That's 1 for main, 4 for foo and 1 for printf.
Here's the asm that clang emits for foo:
_foo:
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
subq $16, %rsp
movl %edi, -8(%rbp) ## 4-byte Spill
callq mcount
movl -8(%rbp), %edi ## 4-byte Reload
...