I'm building a driver in C++ which relies heavily on another dll (surprise!). This dll comes with a header which contains a huge list of defines. Each define represents different return, message and error codes.
Each of these sets of defines has a prefix which differentiates it from the others. Something like:
MSG_GOOD... MSG_BAD... MSG_INDIFFERENT...
RETURN_OK... RETURN_OMG.. RETURN_WHAT...
But hundreds of them. This makes things rather hard to debug.
Ideally, I'd like to find a way to get some kind of reasonable log output with plain text. I was thinking it might be possible to parse the H file at run time, but a less complex compile time option would be much better.
I think you'll have to parse the .h file at one point or another, because once compiled, the #defines won't be anywhere in the code anymore. Parsing .h files just for the #defines isn't too hard though - just read in full lines (mind the backslash at the end), ltrim them, and if they begin with "#define " then split the remainder at the first whitespace, trim both parts, stuff them in a key/value container and you're essentially done. Shouldn't be too hard even in C++.
Related
Given the offset of an element in a C++ struct, how can I find its name/type without manual counting? This would be especially useful when decoding ASM code where such offsets are regularly used. Ideally the tool would parse a C(++) header file and then give the answer from that. Thanks for any pointers :)
One such tool might be the compiler itself (using the same ABI-relevant flags as used to generate the code). Create a small program which includes the header file, then prints the result of offsetofapplied to each struct's members. You'll then have a suitable look-up table which you could refer to manually, or use as input to another tool you might write.
It may be possible (depending on the complexity of the headers) to auto-generate the program above (you'll probably want to run the header through the C preprocessor first, to expand macros and select the correct branch of conditionals).
There is probably a very obvious answer to this, but I was wondering how the compiler knows which line of code my error is on. In some cases it even knows the column.
The only way I can think to do this is to tokenize the input string into a 2D array. This would store [lines][tokens].
C/C++ could be tokenized into 1 long 1D array which would probably be more efficient. I am wondering what the usual parsing method would be that would keep line information.
actually most of it is covered in the dragon book.
Compilers do Lexing/Parsing i.e.: transforming the source code into a tree representation.
When doing so each keyword variable etc. is associated with a line and column number.
However during parsing the exact origin of the failure might get lost and the information might be off.
This is the first step in the long, complicated path towards "Engineering a Compiler" or Compilers Theory
The short answer to that is: there's a module called "front-end" that usually takes care of many phases:
Scanning
Parsing
IR generator
IR optimizer ...
The structure isn't fixed so each compiler will have its own set of modules but more or less the steps involved in the front-end processing are
Scanning - maps character streams into words (also ignores whitespaces/comments) or tokens
Parsing - this is where syntax and (some) semantic analysis take place and where syntax errors are reported
To make this up to you: the compiler knows the location of your error because when something doesn't fit into a structure called "abstract syntax tree" (i.e. it cannot be constructed) or doesn't follow any of the syntax-directed translation rules, well.. there's something wrong and the compiler indicates the location where this didn't happen. If there's a grammar error on just one word/token then even a precise column location can be returned since nothing matched a terminal keyword: a basic token like the if keyword in the C/C++ language.
If you want to know more about this topic my suggestion is to start with the classic academic approach of the "Compiler Book" or "Dragon Book" and then, later on, possibly study an open-source front-end like Clang
I was doing some research on line counters for C++ projects and I'm very interested in algorithms they use. Does anyone know where can I look at some implementation of such algorithms?
There's cloc, which is a free open-source source lines of code counter. It has support for many languages, including C++. I personally use it to get the line count of my projects.
At its sourceforge page you can find the perl source code for download.
Well, if by line counters, you mean programs which count lines, then the
algorithm is pretty trivial: just count the number of '\n' in the
code. If, on the other hand, you mean programs which count C++
statements, or produce other metrics... Although not 100% accurate,
I've gotten pretty good results in the past just by counting '}' and
';' (ignoring those in comments and string and character literals, of
course). Anything more accurate would probably require parsing the
actual C++.
You don't need to actually parse the code to count line numbers, it's enough to tokenise it.
The algorithm could look like:
int lastLine = -1;
int lines = 0;
for each token {
if (isCode(token) && lastLine != token.line) {
++lines;
lastLine = token.line;
}
}
The only information you need to collect during tokenisation is:
what type of a token it is (an operator, an identifier, a comment...) You don't need to get very precise here actually, as you only need to distinguish "non-code tokens" (comments) and "code tokens" (anything else)
at which line in the file the token occures.
On how to tokenise, that's for you to figure out, but hand-writting a tokeniser for such a simple case shouldn't be hard. You could use flex but that's probably redundant.
EDIT
I've mentioned "tokenisation", let me describe it for you quickly:
Tokenisation is the first stage of compilation. The input of tokenisation is text (multi-line program), and the output is a sequence of "tokens", as in: symbols with some meaning. For instance, the following program:
#include "something.h"
/*
This is my program.
It is quite useless.
*/
int main() {
return something(2+3); // this is equal to 5
}
could look like:
PreprocessorDirective("include")
StringLiteral("something.h")
PreprocessorDirectiveEnd
MultiLineComment(...)
Keyword(INT)
Identifier("main")
Symbol(LeftParen)
Symbol(RightParen)
Symbol(LeftBrace)
Keyword(RETURN)
Identifier("something")
Symbol(LeftParen)
NumericLiteral(2)
Operator(PLUS)
NumericLiteral(3)
Symbol(RightParen)
Symbol(Semicolon)
SingleLineComment(" this is equal to 5")
Symbol(RightBrace)
Et cetera.
Tokens, depending on their type, may have arbitrary meta-data attached to them (i.e. the symbol type, the operator type, the identifier text, or perhaps the number of the line where the token was found).
Such stream of tokens is then fed to the parser, which uses grammar production rules written in terms of these tokens, for instance, to build a syntax tree.
Doing a full parser that would give you a complete syntax tree of code is challenging, and especially challenging if it's C++ we're talking about. However, tokenising (or "lexing" or "lexical analysis") is easier, esp. when you're not concerned about much details, and you should be able to write a tokeniser yourself using a Finite state machine.
On how to actually use the output to count lines of code (i.e. lines in which at least "code" token, i.e. any token except comment, starts) - see the algorithm I've described earlier.
I think part of the reason people are having so much trouble understanding your problem is because "Count the lines of c++" is itself an algorithm. Perhaps what you're trying to ask is "How do I identify a line of c++ in a file?" That is an entirely different question which Kos seems to have done a pretty good job trying to explain.
I'm attempting to construct a “heatmap” from a multi-year history stored in a git repository where the unit of granularity is individual functions. Functions should grow hotter as they change more times, more frequently, and with more non-blank lines changed.
As a start, I examined the output of
git log --patch -M --find-renames --find-copies-harder --function-context -- *.c
I looked at using Language.C from Hackage, but it seems to want a complete translation unit—expanded headers and all—rather being able to cope with a source fragment.
The --function-context option is new since version 1.7.8. The foundation of the implementation in v1.7.9.4 is a regex:
PATTERNS("cpp",
/* Jump targets or access declarations */
"!^[ \t]*[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*:.*$\n"
/* C/++ functions/methods at top level */
"^([A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*([ \t*]+[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*([ \t]*::[ \t]*[^[:space:]]+)?){1,}[ \t]*\\([^;]*)$\n"
/* compound type at top level */
"^((struct|class|enum)[^;]*)$",
/* -- */
"[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
"|[-+0-9.e]+[fFlL]?|0[xXbB]?[0-9a-fA-F]+[lL]?"
"|[-+*/<>%&^|=!]=|--|\\+\\+|<<=?|>>=?|&&|\\|\\||::|->"),
This seems to recognize boundaries reasonably well but doesn’t always leave the function as the first line of the diff hunk, e.g., with #include directives at the top or with a hunk that contains multiple function definitions. An option to tell diff to emit separate hunks for each function changed would be really useful.
This isn’t safety-critical, so I can tolerate some misses. Does that mean I likely have Zawinski’s “two problems”?
I realise this suggestion is a bit tangential, but it may help in order to clarify and rank requirements. This would work for C or C++ ...
Instead of trying to find text blocks which are functions and comparing them, use the compiler to make binary blocks. Specifically, for every C/C++ source file in a change set, compile it to an object. Then use the object code as a basis for comparisons.
This might not be feasible for you, but IIRC there is an option on gcc to compile so that each function is compiled to an 'independent chunk' within the generated object code file. The linker can pull each 'chunk' into a program. (It is getting pretty late here, so I will look this up in the morning, if you are interested in the idea. )
So, assuming we can do this, you'll have lots of functions defined by chunks of binary code, so a simple 'heat' comparison is 'how much longer or shorter is the code between versions for any function?'
I am also thinking it might be practical to use objdump to reconstitute the assembler for the functions. I might use some regular expressions at this stage to trim off the register names, so that changes to register allocation don't cause too many false positive (changes).
I might even try to sort the assembler instructions in the function bodies, and diff them to get a pattern of "removed" vs "added" between two function implementations. This would give a measure of change which is pretty much independent of layout, and even somewhat independent of the order of some of the source.
So it might be interesting to see if two alternative implementations of the same function (i.e. from different a change set) are the same instructions :-)
This approach should also work for C++ because all names have been appropriately mangled, which should guarantee the same functions are being compared.
So, the regular expressions might be kept very simple :-)
Assuming all of this is straightforward, what might this approach fail to give you?
Side Note: This basic strategy could work for any language which targets machine code, as well as VM instruction sets like the Java VM Bytecode, .NET CLR code, etc too.
It might be worth considering building a simple parser, using one of the common tools, rather than just using regular expressions. Clearly it is better to choose something you are familiar with, or which your organisation already uses.
For this problem, a parser doesn't actually need to validate the code (I assume it is valid when it is checked in), and it doesn't need to understand the code, so it might be quite dumb.
It might throw away comments (retaining new lines), ignore the contents of text strings, and treat program text in a very simple way. It mainly needs to keep track of balanced '{' '}', balanced '(' ')' and all the other valid program text is just individual tokens which can be passed 'straight through'.
It's output might be a separate file/function to make tracking easier.
If the language is C or C++, and the developers are reasonably disciplined, they might never use 'non-syntactic macros'. If that is the case, then the files don't need to be preprocessed.
Then a parser is mostly just looking for a the function name (an identifier) at file scope followed by ( parameter-list ) { ... code ... }
I'd SWAG it would be a few days work using yacc & lex / flex & bison, and it might be so simple that their is no need for the parser generator.
If the code is Java, then ANTLR is a possible, and I think there was a simple Java parser example.
If Haskell is your focus, their may be student projects published which have made a reasonable stab at a parser.
I have an XML (assuming it is valid) and I must parse it and store it in a tree.
What is the best approach to parse it, without using other libraries, just basic manipulation of strings?
Keep in mind that I don't have to validate it, just parse and memorize it into a tree.
The basic structure of XML is quite simple:
<tagname [attribute[="value"] ...]>content</tagname>
where the content may contain both normal text and more XML structures, or the special form
<tagname [attribute[="value"] ...]/>
which is equivalent to
<tagname [attribute[="value"] ...]></tagname>
that is,. empty content.
So if you don't need to interpret a DTD or do other fancy things, you can do the following:
Check that the first non-whitespace character is <. If not, you don't have XML and can just give an error and exit.
Now follows the tag name, until the first whitespace, or the / or the > character. Store that.
If the next non-whitespace character is /, check that it is followed by >. If so, you've finished parsing and can return your result. Otherwise, you've got malformed XML, and can exit with an error.
If the character is >, then you've found the end of the begin tag. Now follows the content. Continue at step 6.
Otherwise what follows is an argument. Parse that, store the result, and continue at step 3.
Read the content until you find a < character.
If that character is followed by /, it's the end tag. Check that it is followed by the tag name and >, and if yes, return the result. Otherwise, throw an error.
If you get here, you've found the beginning of a nested XML. Parse that with this algorithm, and then continue at 6.
Reading XML looks simple but doing it correctly involves a few complexities you don't really want to deal with. Indeed, writing a simple XML parser effectively amounts to creating yet another XML library. I have done it and an incomplete version of this is sitting somewhere on my disk. Even if you don't need to validate your XML structure:
whether you validate or not, you need to deal with entity references like < and the variety of character entity references like A and
the plain body of an XML document is relatively simple but the header a major pain to deal with in particular the DTD: there are two versions thereof which are slightly different and you probably need to process the inline DTD
even the body isn't entirely trivial because of these annoying character data segments
even without validation you may need to support external entity references
the characters to be accepted and/or rejected for various parts of XML are also somewhat interesting
note that XML is defined in terms of Unicode and proper handling of this isn't entirely trivial either: just using char or wchar_t just doesn't cut it.
The first version I implemented was a nice little iterator intended to pop out all the elements encountered. This allowed for the nice feature of easily stopping and continuing the parsing at the choice of the iterator user. Unfortunately, I didn't get it to fly when trying to copy with the various entity references. It would parse simple XML files nice and fast but some quirks in the specification I just didn't get right.
What worked best for me was creating a simple recursive decent parser combined with a suitable stack of buffers to somewhat transparently deal with entity references. However, to finish this completely I still need to deal with some encoding issues and in the end I just had higher priority projects to work on (in my spare time, that is).
In summary: it can be done, obviously, as others did. It is probably a somewhat pointless exercise unless you have a really bright idea which makes your implementation uniquely better suited than the alternatives.
The best and only approach is to re-implement such a library from scratch without using any other libraries...
You're welcome to use existing libraries like pugixml, for example. It's installation is as simple as adding the files to your project and start using it. It's lightweight compared to other validating parsers, such as Xerces.