Okay, Allow me to re-ask the question, as none of the answers got at what I was really interested in (apologies if whole-scale editing of the question like this is a faux-paus).
A few points:
This is offline analysis with a different compiler than the one I'm testing, so SIZEOF() or similar won't work for what I'm doing.
I know it's implementation-defined, but I happen to know the implementation that is of interest to me, which is below.
Let's make a function called pack, which takes as input an integer, called alignment, and a tuple of integers, called elements. It outputs another integer, called size.
The function works as follows:
int pack (int alignment, int[] elements)
{
total_size = 0;
foreach( element in elements )
{
while( total_size % min(alignment, element) != 0 ) { ++total_size; }
total_size += element;
}
while( total_size % packing != 0 ) { ++total_size; }
return total_size;
}
I think what I want to ask is "what is the inverse of this function?", but I'm not sure whether inversion is the correct term--I don't remember ever dealing with inversions of functions with multiple inputs, so I could just be using a term that doesn't apply.
Something like what I want (sort of) exists; here I provide pseudo code for a function we'll call determine_align. The function is a little naive, though, as it just calls pack over and over again with different inputs until it gets an answer it expects (or fails).
int determine_align(int total_size, int[] elements)
{
for(packing = 1,2,4,...,64) // expected answers.
{
size_at_cur_packing = pack(packing, elements);
if(actual_size == size_at_cur_packing)
{
return packing;
}
}
return unknown;
}
So the question is, is there a better implementation of determine_align?
Thanks,
Alignment of struct members in C/C++ is entirely implementation-defined. There are a few guarantees there, but I don't see how they would help you.
Thus, there's no generic way to do what you want. In the context of a particular implementation, you should refer to the documentation of that implementation that covers this (if it is covered).
When choosing how to pack members into a struct an implementation doesn't have to follow the sort of scheme that you describe in your algorithm although it is a common one. (i.e. minimum of sizeof type being aligned and preferred machine alignment size.)
You don't have to compare overall size of a struct to determine the padding that has been applied to individual struct members, though. The standard macro offsetof will give the byte offset from the start of the struct of any individual struct member.
I let the compiler do the alignment for me.
In gcc,
typedef struct _foo
{
u8 v1 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
u16 v2 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
u32 v3 __attribute__((aligned(8)));
u8 v1 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
} foo;
Edit: Note that sizeof(foo) will return the correct value including any padding.
Edit2: And offsetof(foo, v2) also works. Given these two functions/macros, you can figure out everything you need to know about the layout of the struct in memory.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do, and I'm probably completely misunderstanding what you're looking for, but if you want to simply determine what the alignment requirement of a struct is, the following macro might be helpful:
#define ALIGNMENT_OF( t ) offsetof( struct { char x; t test; }, test )
To determine the alignment of your foo structure, you can do:
ALIGNMENT_OF( foo);
If this isn't what you're ultimately tring to do, it might be possible that the macro might help in whatever algorithm you do come up with.
You need to pad based on the alignment of the next field and then pad the last element based on the maximum alignment you've seen in the struct. Note that the actual alignment of a field is the minimum of its natural alignment and the packing for that struct. I.e., if you have a struct packed at 4 bytes, a double will be aligned to 4 bytes, even though its natural alignment is 8.
You can make your inner loop faster with total_size+= total_size % min(packing, element.size); You can optimize it further if packing and element.size is a power of two.
If the problem is just that you want to guarantee a particular alignment, that is easy. For a particular alignment=2^n:
void* p = malloc( sizeof( _foo ) + alignment -1 );
p = (void*) ( ( (char*)(p) + alignment - 1 ) & ~alignment );
I've neglected to save to original p returned from malloc. If you intend to free this memory, you need to save that pointer somewhere.
I'm not sure what you want to achieve here. As Pavel Minaev said, alignment is handled by a compiler which in turn is constrained by a platform's Application Binary Interface for data that is made accessible to code compiled by a different compiler. The following paper discusses the problem in the context of a compiler that needs to implement calling conventions:
Christian Lindig and Norman Ramsey. Declarative Composition of Stack Frames. In Evelyn Duesterwald, editors, Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Compiler Construction, Springer, LNCS 2985, 2004.
Related
I often see structures in the code, at the end of which there is a memory reserve.
struct STAT_10K4
{
int32_t npos; // position number
...
float Plts;
Pxts;
float Plto [NUM];
uint32_t reserv [(NUM * 3)% 2 + 1];
};
Why do they do this?
Why are some of the reserve values dependent on constants?
What can happen if you do not make such reserves? Or make a mistake in their size?
This is a form of manual padding of a class to make its size a multiple of some number. In your case:
uint32_t reserv [(NUM * 3)% 2 + 1];
NUM * 3 % 2 is actually nonsensical, as it would be equivalent to NUM % 2 (not considering overflow). So if the array size is odd, we pad the struct with one additional uint32_t, on top of + 1 additional ones. This padding means that STAT_10K4's size is always a multiple of 8 bytes.
You will have to consult the documentation of your software to see why exactly this is done. Perhaps padding this struct with up to 8 bytes makes some algorithm easier to implement. Or maybe it has some perceived performance benefit. But this is pure speculation.
Typically, the compiler will pad your structs to 64-bit boundaries if you use any 64-bit types, so you don't need to do this manually.
Note: This answer is specific to mainstream compilers and x86. Obviously this does not apply to compiling for TI-calculators with 20-bit char & co.
This would typically be to support variable-length records. A couple of ways this could be used will be:
1 If the maximum number of records is known then a simple structure definition can accomodate all cases.
2 In many protocols there is a "header-data" idiom. The header will be a fixed size but the data variable. The data will be received as a "blob". Thus the structure of the header can be declared and accessed by a pointer to the blob, and the data will follow on from that. For example:
typedef struct
{
uint32_t messageId;
uint32_t dataType;
uint32_t dataLenBytes;
uint8_t data[MAX_PAYLOAD];
}
tsMessageFormat;
The data is received in a blob, so a void* ptr, size_t len.
The buffer pointer is then cast so the message can be read as follows:
tsMessageFormat* pMessage = (psMessageFormat*) ptr;
for (int i = 0; i < pMessage->dataLenBytes; i++)
{
//do something with pMessage->data[i];
}
In some languages the "data" could be specified as being an empty record, but C++ does not allow this. Sometimes you will see the "data" omitted and you have to perform pointer arithmetic to access the data.
The alternative to this would be to use a builder pattern and/or streams.
Windows uses this pattern a lot; many structures have a cbSize field which allows additional data to be conveyed beyond the structure. The structure accomodates most cases, but having cbSize allows additional data to be provided if necessary.
There was a similar question here, but the user in that question seemed to have a much larger array, or vector. If I have:
bool boolArray[4];
And I want to check if all elements are false, I can check [ 0 ], [ 1 ] , [ 2 ] and [ 3 ] either separately, or I can loop through it. Since (as far as I know) false should have value 0 and anything other than 0 is true, I thought about simply doing:
if ( *(int*) boolArray) { }
This works, but I realize that it relies on bool being one byte and int being four bytes. If I cast to (std::uint32_t) would it be OK, or is it still a bad idea? I just happen to have 3 or 4 bools in an array and was wondering if this is safe, and if not if there is a better way to do it.
Also, in the case I end up with more than 4 bools but less than 8 can I do the same thing with a std::uint64_t or unsigned long long or something?
As πάντα ῥεῖ noticed in comments, std::bitset is probably the best way to deal with that in UB-free manner.
std::bitset<4> boolArray {};
if(boolArray.any()) {
//do the thing
}
If you want to stick to arrays, you could use std::any_of, but this requires (possibly peculiar to the readers) usage of functor which just returns its argument:
bool boolArray[4];
if(std::any_of(std::begin(boolArray), std::end(boolArray), [](bool b){return b;}) {
//do the thing
}
Type-punning 4 bools to int might be a bad idea - you cannot be sure of the size of each of the types. It probably will work on most architectures, but std::bitset is guaranteed to work everywhere, under any circumstances.
Several answers have already explained good alternatives, particularly std::bitset and std::any_of(). I am writing separately to point out that, unless you know something we don't, it is not safe to type pun between bool and int in this fashion, for several reasons:
int might not be four bytes, as multiple answers have pointed out.
M.M points out in the comments that bool might not be one byte. I'm not aware of any real-world architectures in which this has ever been the case, but it is nevertheless spec-legal. It (probably) can't be smaller than a byte unless the compiler is doing some very elaborate hide-the-ball chicanery with its memory model, and a multi-byte bool seems rather useless. Note however that a byte need not be 8 bits in the first place.
int can have trap representations. That is, it is legal for certain bit patterns to cause undefined behavior when they are cast to int. This is rare on modern architectures, but might arise on (for example) ia64, or any system with signed zeros.
Regardless of whether you have to worry about any of the above, your code violates the strict aliasing rule, so compilers are free to "optimize" it under the assumption that the bools and the int are entirely separate objects with non-overlapping lifetimes. For example, the compiler might decide that the code which initializes the bool array is a dead store and eliminate it, because the bools "must have" ceased to exist* at some point before you dereferenced the pointer. More complicated situations can also arise relating to register reuse and load/store reordering. All of these infelicities are expressly permitted by the C++ standard, which says the behavior is undefined when you engage in this kind of type punning.
You should use one of the alternative solutions provided by the other answers.
* It is legal (with some qualifications, particularly regarding alignment) to reuse the memory pointed to by boolArray by casting it to int and storing an integer, although if you actually want to do this, you must then pass boolArray through std::launder if you want to read the resulting int later. Regardless, the compiler is entitled to assume that you have done this once it sees the read, even if you don't call launder.
You can use std::bitset<N>::any:
Any returns true if any of the bits are set to true, otherwise false.
#include <iostream>
#include <bitset>
int main ()
{
std::bitset<4> foo;
// modify foo here
if (foo.any())
std::cout << foo << " has " << foo.count() << " bits set.\n";
else
std::cout << foo << " has no bits set.\n";
return 0;
}
Live
If you want to return true if all or none of the bits set to on, you can use std::bitset<N>::all or std::bitset<N>::none respectively.
The standard library has what you need in the form of the std::all_of, std::any_of, std::none_of algorithms.
...And for the obligatory "roll your own" answer, we can provide a simple "or"-like function for any array bool[N], like so:
template<size_t N>
constexpr bool or_all(const bool (&bs)[N]) {
for (bool b : bs) {
if (b) { return b; }
}
return false;
}
Or more concisely,
template<size_t N>
constexpr bool or_all(const bool (&bs)[N]) {
for (bool b : bs) { if (b) { return b; } }
return false;
}
This also has the benefit of both short-circuiting like ||, and being optimised out entirely if calculable at compile time.
Apart from that, if you want to examine the original idea of type-punning bool[N] to some other type to simplify observation, I would very much recommend that you don't do that view it as char[N2] instead, where N2 == (sizeof(bool) * N). This would allow you to provide a simple representation viewer that can automatically scale to the viewed object's actual size, allow iteration over its individual bytes, and allow you to more easily determine whether the representation matches specific values (such as, e.g., zero or non-zero). I'm not entirely sure off the top of my head whether such examination would invoke any UB, but I can say for certain that any such type's construction cannot be a viable constant-expression, due to requiring a reinterpret cast to char* or unsigned char* or similar (either explicitly, or in std::memcpy()), and thus couldn't as easily be optimised out.
I want to use and store "Handles" to data in an object buffer to reduce allocation overhead. The handle is simply an index into an array with the object. However I need to detect use-after-reallocations, as this could slip in quite easily. The common approach seems to be using bit fields. However this leads to 2 problems:
Bit fields are implementation defined
Bit shifting is not portable across big/little endian machines.
What I need:
Store handle to file (file handler can manage either integer types (byte swapping) or byte arrays)
Store 2 values in the handle with minimum space
What I got:
template<class T_HandleDef, typename T_Storage = uint32_t>
struct Handle
{
typedef T_HandleDef HandleDef;
typedef T_Storage Storage;
Handle(): handle_(0){}
private:
const T_Storage handle_;
};
template<unsigned T_numIndexBits = 16, typename T_Tag = void>
struct HandleDef{
static const unsigned numIndexBits = T_numIndexBits;
};
template<class T_Handle>
struct HandleAccessor{
typedef typename T_Handle::Storage Storage;
typedef typename T_Handle::HandleDef HandleDef;
static const unsigned numIndexBits = HandleDef::numIndexBits;
static const unsigned numMagicBits = sizeof(Storage) * 8 - numIndexBits;
/// "Magic" struct that splits the handle into values
union HandleData{
struct
{
Storage index : numIndexBits;
Storage magic : numMagicBits;
};
T_Handle handle;
};
};
A usage would be for example:
typedef Handle<HandleDef<24> > FooHandle;
FooHandle Create(unsigned idx, unsigned m){
HandleAccessor<FooHandle>::HandleData data;
data.idx = idx;
data.magic = m;
return data.handle;
}
My goal was to keep the handle as opaque as possible, add a bool check but nothing else. Users of the handle should not be able to do anything with it but passing it around.
So problems I run into:
Union is UB -> Replace its T_Handle by Storage and add a ctor to Handle from Storage
How does the compiler layout the bit field? I fill the whole union/type so there should be no padding. So probably the only thing that can be different is which type comes first depending on endianess, correct?
How can I store handle_ to a file and load it from a possible different endianess machine and still have index and magic be correct? I think I can store the containing Storage 'endian-correct' and get correct values, IF both members occupy exactly half the space (2 Shorts in an uint) But I always want more space for the index than for the magic value.
Note: There are already questions about bitfields and unions. Summary:
Bitfields may have unexpected padding (impossible here as whole type occupied)
Order of "members" depend on compiler (only 2 possible ways here, should be save to assume order depends entirely on endianess, so this may or may not actually help here)
Specific binary layout of bits can be achieved by manual shifting (or e.g. wrappers http://blog.codef00.com/2014/12/06/portable-bitfields-using-c11/) -> Is not an answer here. I need also a specific layout of the values IN the bitfield. So I'm not sure what I get, if I e.g. create a handle as handle = (magic << numIndexBits) | index and save/load this as binary (no endianess conversion) Missing a BigEndian machine for testing.
Note: No C++11, but boost is allowed.
Answer is pretty simple (based on another question I forgot the link to and comments by #Jeremy Friesner ):
As "numbers" are already an abstraction in C++ one can be sure to always have the same bit representation when the variable is in a CPU register (when it is used for anything calculation like) Also bit shifts in C++ are defined in an endian-independent way. This means x << 1 is always equal x * 2 (and hence big-endian)
Only time one get endianess problems is when saving to file, send/recv over network or accessing it from memory differently (e.g. via pointers...)
One cannot use C++ bitfields here, as one cannot be 100% sure about the order of the "entries". Bitfield containers might be ok, if they allow access to the data as a "number".
Savest is (still) using bitshifts, which are very simple in this case (only 2 values) During storing/serialization the number must then be stored in an endian-agnostic way.
int valueToWrite = 0xFFFFFFFF;
static char buffer2[256];
int* writePosition = (int* ) &buffer2[5];
*writePosition = valueToWrite;
//OR
* ((int*) &buffer2[10] ) = valueToWrite;
Now, I ask you guys which one do you find more readable. The 2 step technique involving a temporary variable or the one step technique?
Do not worry about optimization, they both optimize to the same thing, as you can see here.
Just tell me which one is more readable for you.
or DWORD PTR ?buffer2#?1??main##9#4PADA+5, -1
or DWORD PTR ?buffer2#?1??main##9#4PADA+10, -1
int* writePosition = (int* ) &buffer2[5]
Or
*((int*) &buffer2[10] ) = valueToWrite;
Are both incorrect because on some platforms access to unaligned values (+5 +10) may cost hundreds of CPU cycles and on some (like older ARM) it would cause an illegal operation.
The correct way is:
memcpy( buffer+5, &valueToWrite, sizeof(valueToWrite));
And it is more readable.
Once you encapsulate it inside a class, it does not really matter which technique you use. The method name will provide the description as to what the code is doing. Thus, in most cases you will not have to delve into the actual impl. to see what is going on.
class Buffer
{
char buffer2[256];
public:
void write(int pos, int value) {
int* writePosition = (int*) &buffer2[pos];
*writePosition = value;
}
}
If I was forced to choose, I'd say 1. However, I'll note the code as presented is very C like either way; I'd shy away from either and re-examine the the problem. Here's a simple one that is more C++-y
const char * begin = static_cast<char*>(static_cast<void*>(&valueToWrite));
std::copy(begin, begin+sizeof(int), &buffer2[5]);
The first example is more readable purely on the basis that your brain doesn't have to decipher the pointer operations globed together.
This will reduce the time a developer looking at the code for the first time needs to understand what's actually going. In my experience this loosely correlates to reducing the probability of introducing new bugs.
I find the second, shorter one easier to read.
I suspect, however, that this rather depends on whether you are the type of person that can easily 'get' pointers.
The type casting from char* to int* is a little awkward, though. I presume there is a good reason this needs to be done.
Watch out -- this code probably won't work due to alignment issues! Why not just use memset?
#include <string.h>
memset(buffer2+10, 0xFF, 4);
If you can afford to tie yourself to a single compiler (or do preprocessor hacks around compatiblity issues), you can use a packed-structs option to get symbolic names for the values you're writing. For example, on GCC:
struct __attribute__ ((__packed__)) packed_struct
{
char stuff_before[5]
int some_value;
}
/* .... */
static char buffer2[256];
struct packed_struct *ps = buffer2;
ps->some_value = valueToWrite;
This has a number of advantages:
Your code more clearly reflects what you're doing, if you name your fields well.
Since the compiler knows if the platform you're on supports efficient unaligned access, it can automatically choose between native unaligned access, or appropriate workarounds on platforms that don't support unaligned access.
But again, has the major disadvantage of not having any standardized syntax.
Most readable would be either variant with a comment added on what you're doing there.
That being said, I despise variables introduced simply for the purpose of a one-time use a couple of lines later. Doing most of my work in the maintenance area, getting dozens of variable names pushed in my face that are poor efforts not having to write an explanatory comment sets me on edge.
Definitely:
* ((int*) &buffer2[10] ) = valueToWrite;
I parse it not in one but few steps, and that is why it is more readable: I have all steps in one line.
From the readability perspective, the behaviour of your code should be clear, but "clear" is not how I would describe either of these alternatives. In fact, they are the opposite of "clear", as they are non-portable.
On top of alignment issues, there's integer representation (the size varies from system to system, as does sign representation, endianness and padding to throw into the soup). Thus, the behaviour of your code from system to system is erratic.
If you want to be clear about what your algorithm is supposed to do, you should explicitly put each byte into its correct place. For example:
void serialise_uint_lsb(unsigned char *destination, unsigned source) {
destination[0] = source & 0xff; source >>= 8;
destination[1] = source & 0xff; source >>= 8;
assert(source == 0);
}
void deserialise_uint_lsb(unsigned *destination, unsigned char *source) {
*destination = 0;
*destination <<= 8; *destination += source[1];
*destination <<= 8; *destination += source[0];
}
Serialisation and deserialisation are idiomatic concepts for programmers... *printf and *scanf are forms of serialisation/deserialisation, for example, except it's idiomatically instilled into your head that the most significant (decimal) digit goes first... which is the problem with your code; your code doesn't tell your system the direction of the integer, how many bytes there are, etc... bad news.
Use a serialisation/deserialisation function. Programmers will understand that best.
I am working on refactoring some old code and have found few structs containing zero length arrays (below). Warnings depressed by pragma, of course, but I've failed to create by "new" structures containing such structures (error 2233). Array 'byData' used as pointer, but why not to use pointer instead? or array of length 1? And of course, no comments were added to make me enjoy the process...
Any causes to use such thing? Any advice in refactoring those?
struct someData
{
int nData;
BYTE byData[0];
}
NB It's C++, Windows XP, VS 2003
Yes this is a C-Hack.
To create an array of any length:
struct someData* mallocSomeData(int size)
{
struct someData* result = (struct someData*)malloc(sizeof(struct someData) + size * sizeof(BYTE));
if (result)
{ result->nData = size;
}
return result;
}
Now you have an object of someData with an array of a specified length.
There are, unfortunately, several reasons why you would declare a zero length array at the end of a structure. It essentially gives you the ability to have a variable length structure returned from an API.
Raymond Chen did an excellent blog post on the subject. I suggest you take a look at this post because it likely contains the answer you want.
Note in his post, it deals with arrays of size 1 instead of 0. This is the case because zero length arrays are a more recent entry into the standards. His post should still apply to your problem.
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/26/220873.aspx
EDIT
Note: Even though Raymond's post says 0 length arrays are legal in C99 they are in fact still not legal in C99. Instead of a 0 length array here you should be using a length 1 array
This is an old C hack to allow a flexible sized arrays.
In C99 standard this is not neccessary as it supports the arr[] syntax.
Your intution about "why not use an array of size 1" is spot on.
The code is doing the "C struct hack" wrong, because declarations of zero length arrays are a constraint violation. This means that a compiler can reject your hack right off the bat at compile time with a diagnostic message that stops the translation.
If we want to perpetrate a hack, we must sneak it past the compiler.
The right way to do the "C struct hack" (which is compatible with C dialects going back to 1989 ANSI C, and probably much earlier) is to use a perfectly valid array of size 1:
struct someData
{
int nData;
unsigned char byData[1];
}
Moreover, instead of sizeof struct someData, the size of the part before byData is calculated using:
offsetof(struct someData, byData);
To allocate a struct someData with space for 42 bytes in byData, we would then use:
struct someData *psd = (struct someData *) malloc(offsetof(struct someData, byData) + 42);
Note that this offsetof calculation is in fact the correct calculation even in the case of the array size being zero. You see, sizeof the whole structure can include padding. For instance, if we have something like this:
struct hack {
unsigned long ul;
char c;
char foo[0]; /* assuming our compiler accepts this nonsense */
};
The size of struct hack is quite possibly padded for alignment because of the ul member. If unsigned long is four bytes wide, then quite possibly sizeof (struct hack) is 8, whereas offsetof(struct hack, foo) is almost certainly 5. The offsetof method is the way to get the accurate size of the preceding part of the struct just before the array.
So that would be the way to refactor the code: make it conform to the classic, highly portable struct hack.
Why not use a pointer? Because a pointer occupies extra space and has to be initialized.
There are other good reasons not to use a pointer, namely that a pointer requires an address space in order to be meaningful. The struct hack is externalizeable: that is to say, there are situations in which such a layout conforms to external storage such as areas of files, packets or shared memory, in which you do not want pointers because they are not meaningful.
Several years ago, I used the struct hack in a shared memory message passing interface between kernel and user space. I didn't want pointers there, because they would have been meaningful only to the original address space of the process generating a message. The kernel part of the software had a view to the memory using its own mapping at a different address, and so everything was based on offset calculations.
It's worth pointing out IMO the best way to do the size calculation, which is used in the Raymond Chen article linked above.
struct foo
{
size_t count;
int data[1];
}
size_t foo_size_from_count(size_t count)
{
return offsetof(foo, data[count]);
}
The offset of the first entry off the end of desired allocation, is also the size of the desired allocation. IMO it's an extremely elegant way of doing the size calculation. It does not matter what the element type of the variable size array is. The offsetof (or FIELD_OFFSET or UFIELD_OFFSET in Windows) is always written the same way. No sizeof() expressions to accidentally mess up.