I'm trying to construct some Ada code, but to do so, I have to understand some C.
In net-snmp-5.8.1.pre2/apps/snmpbulkwalk.c and probably others, there is an if statement which I am trying to understand what is happening and to separate it out, thus:
if ((vars->name_length < rootlen) || (memcmp(root, vars->name, rootlen * sizeof(oid))) != 0) {
/*
* not part of this subtree
*/
running = 0;
continue;
}
I get name_length < rootlen, I also get that memcpy always returns a pointer and never fails. From my poor eyesight it seems to say that if the < fails, it will then try the memcpy which always succeeds and then execute the contents of the IF block. But no... If that were the case, you could just put the memcpy inside the block.
No matter how I separate out the if statement, I can never get it to work the way it is already coded.
Your if does "short circuit" evaluation. It is basically of the form:
if (expression_A || expression_B)
do_something;
It evaluates expression_A, if it is true, expression_B is not evaluated. And, the if is taken (i.e. do_something is executed)
If expression_A is false, then expression_B is evaluated. If it is true, the if is taken
Restating the actual if code:
if (vars->name_length < rootlen) {
/*
* not part of this subtree
*/
running = 0;
continue;
}
if (memcmp(root, vars->name, rootlen * sizeof(oid)) != 0) {
/*
* not part of this subtree
*/
running = 0;
continue;
}
Restating the general case:
if (expression_A)
do_something;
else {
if (expression_B)
do_something;
}
Related
I would like to write a loop with the following pattern, where spin_lock's return type is void:
while(workersAvailable() && spin_lock(workQueueLock) && (!list_empty(workQueue) || spin_unlock(workQueueLock)) ) {
...
spin_unlock(workQueueLock);
//long taking work, with no need for a lock
}
Reasoning:
I want to hold the lock as short as possible and don't need it for workersAvailable()
I know i can write a function int f() {spin_lock(workQueueLock); return !list_empty(workQueue) || spin_unlock(workQueueLock);}, however I feel that there should be a better way
I do understand that && void can not work since && needs two operands
I tried , and it would not compile, besides I am not sure if , gurantess ordering of the operations.
Question: Is there any way to achieve this without an extra function and without moving control logic inside the loop body (i.e. spin_lock(workQueueLock); if(list_empty(workQueue)) { || spin_unlock(workQueueLock); break;})?
If you really want to do this, you can use the , operator, it will discard all the left operands evaluating only the last one
while(workersAvailable() &&
(spin_lock(workQueueLock), 1) &&
(!list_empty(workQueue) || spin_unlock(workQueueLock)))
But in my opinion, you should write the function, it's clearer.
What is wrong with some simplicity?
while(workersAvailable() && spin_lock(workQueueLock) ) {
if (list_empty(workQueue)) {
spin_unlock(workQueueLock);
continue;
}
// critical section ...
spin_unlock(workQueueLock);
// non-critical section
// long taking work, with no need for a lock
// You *could* break out of the loop here
}
UPDATE: (I misread the question, and thought that spin_unlock() was void)
while(workersAvailable() ) {
spin_lock(workQueueLock);
if (list_empty(workQueue)) {
spin_unlock(workQueueLock);
continue;
}
// critical section here ...
spin_unlock(workQueueLock);
// non-critical section
// long taking work, with no need for a lock
// You *could* break out of the loop here
}
I'm trying to make the below code both readable and performant. I want to avoid any unnecessary call to getFlagB() while also not repeating anything. Below I have written two methods, each which satisfies exactly one of these criteria.
Assume getFlagB() cannot be altered in any way. Is there a way to meet both these requirements simultaneously in C, without creating additional flags?
// Method 1 - doesn't repeat code blocks but calls getFlagB even when it may not need to
void foo(int flagA)
{
int flagB;
getFlagB(&flagB);
if(flagA & flagB)
{
// Code block 0
}
else
{
// Code block 1
}
}
// Method 2 - doesn't no extra call to getFlagB, but repeats code block 1
void foo(int flagA)
{
int flagB;
if(flagA)
{
getFlagB(&flagB);
if(flagB)
{
// Code block 0
}
else
{
// Code block 1
}
}
else
{
// Code block 1
}
}
You can do this:
void foo(int flagA)
{
int flagB;
if(flagA)
{
getFlagB(&flagB);
if(flagB)
{
// Code block 0
return ;
}
}
// code block 1
}
Wrap getFlagB() in another method, then let the compiler sort it out for you.
int myGetFlagB() { int b; getFlagB(&b); return b; }
void foo(int flagA)
{
/* note: assume you mean && and not &, otherwise there is no way
* to short circuit - you always need to call getFlagB for a
* bitwise AND.
*/
if(flagA && myGetFlagB())
{
// Code block 0
}
else
{
// Code block 1
}
}
Compute the condition explicitly before the if.
_Bool condition = flagA;
if ( flagA ) { /* First decide what to do. */
_Bool flagB;
GetFlagB( & flagB );
condition = flagA && flagB; /* Prefer && over &. */
}
if ( condition ) { /* Then do it. */
Code1();
} else {
Code2();
}
If you really do not want to either encapsulate the getFlagB call or split your if, you can abuse the comma operator:
if(flagA && (getFlagB(&flagB), flagB)) {
Even though it does not look nice, it does precisely what you want.
EDIT
You can also do the following, so long as flagB is initialized to 0. This avoids a bug in the code I posted earlier that assumes the flags aren't modified inside code block 0, which can cause both code blocks 0 and 1 to execute. I'd recommend this new one only because you may at some point want to modify the flags inside foo():
int flagB = 0;
if (flagA)
getFlagB(&flagB);
if (flagA && flagB) {
// code block 0
} else {
// code block 1
}
Yes, flagA is tested twice. You have a ternary condition, but you're asking for a binary set of outcomes. Without using sequence points as one person mentioned, you must test twice or duplicate code or unnecessarily call a function or add extra function call overhead if flagA happens to be set.
They're all valid solutions IMHO. It is just a matter of how readable and how well performing you want the code to be, not to mention avoiding code duplication... Nobody likes that! :-)
Happy coding!
I cannot definitively say anything because I have not seen any actual code but it seems to me the flagA is irrelevant and can be ignored. While flagB must be evaluated because it is relevant and causes the code to change.
void foo()
{
getFlagB(&flagB)
if(flagB)
{
//Code 1
}
else
{
//Code 0
}
}
But I am assuming that you do not have an unnecessary flag in your program. So I would recommend doing the seconded one it is more efficient and elegant even thought it does not seem that way.
I am confused by the for(;;) construct. I think it is a form of shorthand for an unlimited for loop but I can't be sure.
Here is the code:
for(;;)
{
//whatever statements
}
Your guess is correct; it's an infinite loop.* This is a common C idiom, although many people (including me) believe the following to be less cryptic:
while (1) { whatever statements; }
* It's infinite assuming there are no break/return/etc. statements inside the loop body.
It's an un-terminated loop. It is sometimes written with a while:
while (1)
or even better:
while (true)
I would expect to see a break or return inside any such loop, no matter whether it is written with for or while. There has to be some abnormal control flow or it really will be an infinite loop.
Yes, that's the for C syntax with blank fields for initialization expression, loop condition and increment expression.
The for statement can also use more than one value, like this sample :
for (i=0, j=100, k=1000; j < 500 || i<50 || k==5000; i++, j+=2, k*=6) {};
Maybe one step beyond in for understanding ? =)
Yes, the expressions in the for loop are just optional. if you omit them, you will get an infinite loop. The way to get out is break or exit or so.
This statement is basically equal to:
while(1) {}
There is no start, no condition and no step statement.
As I understand it, for(;;) creates a deliberate non-exiting loop. Your code is expected to exit the loop based on one or more conditions. It was once provided to me as a purer way to have a do while false loop, which was not considered good syntax. Based on the exit condition, it is easier to dispatch to a function to handle the result, failure, warning, or success, for example.
My explanation may not be the reason someone used that construct, but I'll explain in greater detail what it means to me. This construct may be someone's "Pure C" way of having a loop in which you can serially perform multiple steps, whose completion mean something like your application has performed all steps of initialization.
#define GEN_FAILURE -99
#define SUCCESS 0
/* perform_init_step1() and perform_init_step2() are dummy
place-holder functions that provide a complete example.
You could at least have one of them return non-zero
for testing. */
int perform_init_step1();
int perform_init_step2();
int perform_init_step1()
{
return 0;
}
int perform_init_step2()
{
return 0;
}
int ret_code = GEN_FAILURE;
for(;;)
{
if(SUCCESS != perform_init_step1())
{
ret_code = -1;
break;
}
if(SUCCESS != perform_init_step2())
{
ret_code = -2;
break;
}
break;
}
If part of the initialization fails, the loop bails out with a specific error code.
I arrived at using C having done a lot of firmware work, writing in assembly language. Good assembly language programmers taught me to have a single entry point and single exit. I took their advice to heart, because their creed helped them and me immensely when debugging.
Personally, I never liked the for(;;) construct, because you can have an infinite loop if you forget to break; out at the end.
Someone I worked with came up with do..until(FALSE), but the amount of proper C furvor this caused was not to be believed.
#define GEN_FAILURE -99
#define SUCCESS 0
/* perform_init_step1() and perform_init_step2() are dummy
place-holder functions that provide a complete example.
You could at least have one of them return non-zero
for testing. */
int perform_init_step1();
int perform_init_step2();
int perform_init_step1()
{
return 0;
}
int perform_init_step2()
{
return 0;
}
int ret_code = GEN_FAILURE;
do
{
if(SUCCESS != perform_init_step1())
{
ret_code = -1;
break;
}
if(SUCCESS != perform_init_step2())
{
ret_code = -2;
break;
}
}
until (FALSE);
This runs once, no matter what.
I'm trying to learn C by writing a simple parser / compiler. So far its been a very enlightening experience, however coming from a strong background in C# I'm having some problems adjusting - in particular to the lack of exceptions.
Now I've read Cleaner, more elegant, and harder to recognize and I agree with every word in that article; In my C# code I avoid throwing exceptions whenever possible, however now that I'm faced with a world where I can't throw exceptions my error handling is completely swamping the otherwise clean and easy-to-read logic of my code.
At the moment I'm writing code which needs to fail fast if there is a problem, and it also potentially deeply nested - I've settled on a error handling pattern whereby "Get" functions return NULL on an error, and other functions return -1 on failure. In both cases the function that fails calls NS_SetError() and so all the calling function needs to do is to clean up and immediately return on a failure.
My issue is that the number of if (Action() < 0) return -1; statements that I have is doing my head in - it's very repetitive and completely obscures the underlying logic. I've ended up creating myself a simple macro to try and improve the situation, for example:
#define NOT_ERROR(X) if ((X) < 0) return -1
int NS_Expression(void)
{
NOT_ERROR(NS_Term());
NOT_ERROR(Emit("MOVE D0, D1\n"));
if (strcmp(current->str, "+") == 0)
{
NOT_ERROR(NS_Add());
}
else if (strcmp(current->str, "-") == 0)
{
NOT_ERROR(NS_Subtract());
}
else
{
NS_SetError("Expected: operator");
return -1;
}
return 0;
}
Each of the functions NS_Term, NS_Add and NS_Subtract do a NS_SetError() and return -1 in the case of an error - its better, but it still feels like I'm abusing macros and doesn't allow for any cleanup (some functions, in particular Get functions that return a pointer, are more complex and require clean-up code to be run).
Overall it just feels like I'm missing something - despite the fact that error handling in this way is supposedly easier to recognize, In many of my functions I'm really struggling to identify whether or not errors are being handled correctly:
Some functions return NULL on an error
Some functions return < 0 on an error
Some functions never produce an error
My functions do a NS_SetError(), but many other functions don't.
Is there a better way that I can structure my functions, or does everyone else also have this problem?
Also is having Get functions (that return a pointer to an object) return NULL on an error a good idea, or is it just confusing my error handling?
It's a bigger problem when you have to repeat the same finalizing code before each return from an error. In such cases it is widely accepted to use goto:
int func ()
{
if (a() < 0) {
goto failure_a;
}
if (b() < 0) {
goto failure_b;
}
if (c() < 0) {
goto failure_c;
}
return SUCCESS;
failure_c:
undo_b();
failure_b:
undo_a();
failure_a:
return FAILURE;
}
You can even create your own macros around this to save you some typing, something like this (I haven't tested this though):
#define CALL(funcname, ...) \
if (funcname(__VA_ARGS__) < 0) { \
goto failure_ ## funcname; \
}
Overall, it is a much cleaner and less redundant approach than the trivial handling:
int func ()
{
if (a() < 0) {
return FAILURE;
}
if (b() < 0) {
undo_a();
return FAILURE;
}
if (c() < 0) {
undo_b();
undo_a();
return FAILURE;
}
return SUCCESS;
}
As an additional hint, I often use chaining to reduce the number of if's in my code:
if (a() < 0 || b() < 0 || c() < 0) {
return FAILURE;
}
Since || is a short-circuit operator, the above would substitute three separate if's. Consider using chaining in a return statement as well:
return (a() < 0 || b() < 0 || c() < 0) ? FAILURE : SUCCESS;
One technique for cleanup is to use an while loop that will never actually iterate. It gives you goto without using goto.
#define NOT_ERROR(x) if ((x) < 0) break;
#define NOT_NULL(x) if ((x) == NULL) break;
// Initialise things that may need to be cleaned up here.
char* somePtr = NULL;
do
{
NOT_NULL(somePtr = malloc(1024));
NOT_ERROR(something(somePtr));
NOT_ERROR(somethingElse(somePtr));
// etc
// if you get here everything's ok.
return somePtr;
}
while (0);
// Something went wrong so clean-up.
free(somePtr);
return NULL;
You lose a level of indentation though.
Edit: I'd like to add that I've nothing against goto, it's just that for the use-case of the questioner he doesn't really need it. There are cases where using goto beats the pants off any other method, but this isn't one of them.
You're probably not going to like to hear this, but the C way to do exceptions is via the goto statement. This is one of the reasons it is in the language.
The other reason is that goto is the natural expression of the implementation of a state machine. What common programming task is best represented by a state machine? A lexical analyzer. Look at the output from lex sometime. Gotos.
So it sounds to me like now is the time for you to get chummy with that parriah of language syntax elements, the goto.
Besides goto, standard C has another construct to handle exceptional flow control setjmp/longjmp. It has the advantage that you can break out of multiply nested control statements more easily than with break as was proposed by someone, and in addition to what goto provides has a status indication that can encode the reason for what went wrong.
Another issue is just the syntax of your construct. It is not a good idea to use a control statement that can inadvertibly be added to. In your case
if (bla) NOT_ERROR(X);
else printf("wow!\n");
would go fundamentally wrong. I'd use something like
#define NOT_ERROR(X) \
if ((X) >= 0) { (void)0; } \
else return -1
instead.
THis must be thought on at least two levels: how your functions interact, and what you do when it breaks.
Most large C frameworks I see always return a status and "return" values by reference (this is the case of the WinAPI and of many C Mac OS APIs). You want to return a bool?
StatusCode FooBar(int a, int b, int c, bool* output);
You want to return a pointer?
StatusCode FooBar(int a, int b, int c, char** output);
Well, you get the idea.
On the calling function's side, the pattern I see the most often is to use a goto statement that points to a cleanup label:
if (statusCode < 0) goto error;
/* snip */
return everythingWentWell;
error:
cleanupResources();
return somethingWentWrong;
What about this?
int NS_Expression(void)
{
int ok = 1;
ok = ok && NS_Term();
ok = ok && Emit("MOVE D0, D1\n");
ok = ok && NS_AddSub();
return ok
}
The short answer is: let your functions return an error code that cannot possibly be a valid value - and always check the return value. For functions returning pointers, this is NULL. For functions returning a non-negative int, it's a negative value, commonly -1, and so on...
If every possible return value is also a valid value, use call-by-reference:
int my_atoi(const char *str, int *val)
{
// convert str to int
// store the result in *val
// return 0 on success, -1 (or any other value except 0) otherwise
}
Checking the return value of every function might seem tedious, but that's the way errors are handled in C. Consider the function nc_dial(). All it does is checking its arguments for validity and making a network connection by calling getaddrinfo(), socket(), setsockopt(), bind()/listen() or connect(), finally freeing unused resources and updating metadata. This could be done in approximately 15 lines. However, the function has nearly 100 lines due to error checking. But that's the way it is in C. Once you get used to it, you can easily mask the error checking in your head.
Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with multiple if (Action() == 0) return -1;. To the contrary: it is usually a sign of a cautious programmer. It's good to be cautious.
And as a final comment: don't use macros for anything but defining values if you can't justify their use while someone is pointing with a gun at your head. More specifically, never use control flow statements in macros: it confuses the shit out of the poor guy who has to maintain your code 5 years after you left the company. There's nothing wrong with if (foo) return -1;. It's simple, clean and obvious to the point that you can't do any better.
Once you drop your tendency to hide control flow in macros, there's really no reason to feel like you're missing something.
A goto statement is the easiest and potentially cleanest way to implement exception style processing. Using a macro makes it easier to read if you include the comparison logic inside the macro args. If you organize the routines to perform normal (i.e. non-error) work and only use the goto on exceptions, it is fairly clean for reading. For example:
/* Exception macro */
#define TRY_EXIT(Cmd) { if (!(Cmd)) {goto EXIT;} }
/* My memory allocator */
char * MyAlloc(int bytes)
{
char * pMem = NULL;
/* Must have a size */
TRY_EXIT( bytes > 0 );
/* Allocation must succeed */
pMem = (char *)malloc(bytes);
TRY_EXIT( pMem != NULL );
/* Initialize memory */
TRY_EXIT( initializeMem(pMem, bytes) != -1 );
/* Success */
return (pMem);
EXIT:
/* Exception: Cleanup and fail */
if (pMem != NULL)
free(pMem);
return (NULL);
}
It never occurred to me to use goto or do { } while(0) for error handling in this way - its pretty neat, however after thinking about it I realised that in many cases I can do the same thing by splitting the function out into two:
int Foo(void)
{
// Initialise things that may need to be cleaned up here.
char* somePtr = malloc(1024);
if (somePtr = NULL)
{
return NULL;
}
if (FooInner(somePtr) < 0)
{
// Something went wrong so clean-up.
free(somePtr);
return NULL;
}
return somePtr;
}
int FooInner(char* somePtr)
{
if (something(somePtr) < 0) return -1;
if (somethingElse(somePtr) < 0) return -1;
// etc
// if you get here everything's ok.
return 0;
}
This does now mean that you get an extra function, but my preference is for many short functions anyway.
After Philips advice I've also decided to avoid using control flow macros as well - its clear enough what is going on as long as you put them on one line.
At the very least Its reassuring to know that I'm not just missing something - everyone else has this problem too! :-)
Use setjmp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setjmp.h
http://aszt.inf.elte.hu/~gsd/halado_cpp/ch02s03.html
http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/longjump_try_trow_catch.html
#include <setjmp.h>
#include <stdio.h>
jmp_buf x;
void f()
{
longjmp(x,5); // throw 5;
}
int main()
{
// output of this program is 5.
int i = 0;
if ( (i = setjmp(x)) == 0 )// try{
{
f();
} // } --> end of try{
else // catch(i){
{
switch( i )
{
case 1:
case 2:
default: fprintf( stdout, "error code = %d\n", i); break;
}
} // } --> end of catch(i){
return 0;
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
#define TRY do{ jmp_buf ex_buf__; if( !setjmp(ex_buf__) ){
#define CATCH } else {
#define ETRY } }while(0)
#define THROW longjmp(ex_buf__, 1)
int
main(int argc, char** argv)
{
TRY
{
printf("In Try Statement\n");
THROW;
printf("I do not appear\n");
}
CATCH
{
printf("Got Exception!\n");
}
ETRY;
return 0;
}
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Simultaneous execution of both if and else blocks
Is it possible to put some condition, so that both if and else part in an if ...else control statement can be executed without any warning or error ??
Do not use! ;-)
Yes, by forking.
if ( fork() ) {
printf("if\n");
}
else {
printf("else\n");
}
There are no real use cases to prefer the above code, unless it is for parallel execution.
No, there's no way to write a Schrödinger if clause.
You might be able to execute both with a goto, but it would never pass a code review.
Yes, it's possible:
#include <stdio.h>
#define else if (1)
int main(void)
{
int test = 1;
if (test == 1)
{
printf("if\n");
}
else
{
printf("else\n");
}
return 0;
}
#undef else
A note for newbies: Never do this in real life! Instead, think about your problem again...
What you probably wanted is :
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int one_condition = 1;
int other_condition = 2;
if ((one_condition == 1) || (other_condition == 2))
{
printf("if\n");
}
if ((one_condition != 1) || (other_condition == 2))
{
printf("quasi-else\n");
}
return 0;
}
You can replace the else-path by having another if-clause with negated conditions. This gives you the possibility to override it with a second condition.
No, that is not possible (inside the same process).
Maybe you've misunderstood your problem.
If you want a code block to execute regardless of the condition, take it out of the if...else statement.
void foofunc(int n)
{
a = 44*n;
if(a == 484)
{
//do something
}
else
{
//do something if a DOES NOT equal 484
}
//do something regardless of the outcome of the test.
}
In this example, ridiculous though it is, the last line is outside the condition statement, so will execute whether a == 484 or not, which seems to me to be the same as making c trigger your else block regardless of the if test succeeds.
Of course, else blocks are not mandatory, so if you don't care what happens if your condition fails, then simply don't have an else block.
void foofunc(int n)
{
a = 44*n;
if(a == 484)
{
//do something
}
//do something regardless of the outcome of the test.
}
I assume you're trying to have both branches of this sort of statement execute?
Dim X As Boolean
X = False
If X = True Then
...
Else
...
End If
You could get it to execute using GoTo ... but that goes against good programming practice.
Dim X As Boolean
X = False
If X = True Then
...
Goto ElseStuff
Else
ElseStuff:
...
End If
Instead of that you should write separate procedures / functions to accomplish the behavior you'd like to have execute in both statements ... or simply put the code which should execute in all cases outside of the If block.
That would be functionally equivalent to using the GoTo, plus it makes it clear to anybody else.