This is just to meet the so-called Misra C 2012 specification rule 15.5. I have to make only one return statement in my function, but I want to do the parameter check of the function. When the parameter check fails, it can end directly. With this function, there is no need to execute the following code. The code that does not meet the specification is as follows:
int32_t func(struct st *p, uint8_t num)
{
if ((NULL == P) || (num > MAX_NUM)) {
perror("print some error info");
return -1;
}
// do something
return 0;
}
How to improve it?
Generally when writing MISRA-C compliant code you'd start your function with something like
int32_t result = OK; // whatever "OK" means in your context
Then you change it to an error code if something goes wrong and return it at the end.
Notably, your code would benefit from enum named error codes instead of magic numbers 0, -1 etc. When we have an enum error code type we can make every single function in our API return that same type, then document which return values that are possible per function. Very user-friendly and makes it way more pleasant to write error handles in the calling application.
Now regarding the specific MISRA-C rule, I've been giving this particular one some pretty sour critique over the years, see this. And rightly so if you follow the chain of sources they give as rationale for the rule... So the sound solution might just be to create a permanent deviation against the rule in your coding standard. As noted in comments to that link, the rule was demoted from Required to Advisory in MISRA-C:2012 so you don't even need a formal deviation.
Personally I go with this rule:
Functions should only have one single return statement unless multiple return statements make the code more readable.
You'll need to store the return code as a separate variable and put the code following the if block into an else:
int32_t func(struct st *p, uint8_t num)
{
int32_t rval;
if ((NULL == P) || (num > MAX_NUM)) {
perror("print some error info");
rval = -1;
} else {
// do something
rval = 0;
}
return rval;
}
MISRA C Rule 15.5 is an Advisory rule.
This means that you do not require a "formal" deviation to justify violations, although you should still document it. The justification of "Code Quality - readability" is appropriate (see MISRA Compliance)
Alternatively, you could use a forward GOTO, although this too breaches an Advisory rule.
So what I'm saying is that, while MISRA makes some recommendations, there are appropriate mechanisms to follow if you feel you need to violate one of those Rules - and you can get appropriate sign-off, and as long as you are fully aware of the consequences..
Blind adherence to a Rule can result in poorer-quality code than controlled violation!
[See profile for affiliation]
#include <stdatomic.h>
void request_number(request_t *request)
{
static atomic_int counter;
request->id = atomic_fetch_add_explicit(&counter, 1, memory_order_relaxed);
printf("Request assigned ID %u\n" request->id);
}
In the above C snippet, I believe it's ok to use memory_order_relaxed, because even without memory fences the compiler will not re-arrange the call to printf and fetch of request->id, before the store of the value for request->id.
Is this correct? I'm fairly certain it is but wanted to be absolutely sure in case there were other things that need to be taken into account with atomics.
You are doing only one atomic operation and when you return from it you have your value. Everything else is done with the "normal" memory model as it would be for sequential code, like it always has been.
The ; at the end of the assignment is a sequence point. So your approach is perfectly fine. Indeed, the only thing that you need from your atomic operation here is that it is undivided, you don't need the sequencing guarantees of the "normal" atomic operations.
I want to use atomic compare and swap, but instead of equal to, I want to swap only if the memory location is not equal to the old value. Is it possible in C?
How about this:
void compare_and_swap_if_not_equal(word_t const required_non_value, word_t const new_value, word_t* ptr_to_shared_variable) {
for (;;) {
word_t const snapshot_value = *ptr_to_shared_variable;
if (required_non_value == snapshot_value) {
break;
// or (sleep and) 'continue;', if you want to wait for the stored value to be different
// -- but you might of course miss a transient change to a different state and back.
} else {
if (compare_and_swap_if_equal(ptr_to_shared_variable, snapshot_value, new_value)) {
// we know the stored value was different; if this 'theory' still matches reality: swap! done!
break;
}
}
}
}
Untested. Uncompiled. The 'const' used because I like it that way :). 'word_t' is a type placeholder, I don't know what the real type should be. And I don't know how what 'compare_and_swap_if_equal' is called in stdatomic.h.
(added) atomic_compare_exchange_weak() is the ticket. For some reason, it takes a pointer to the 'expected' argument, so you'll have to modify above code to
if (atomic_compare_exchange_weak(ptr_to_shared_variable, &snapshot_value, new_value)) ...
The 'weak' version should work in the above code; returning 'false' spuriously will only add another trip around the loop. Still uncompiled, untested; don't rely on this code at home.
It depends on your architecture, but in general it is not possible to do this in C.
Typically compare and swap is implemented with an instruction that atomically loads from a location in memory and stores a value to that location if the location in memory matches some existing value that you specify.
At least on x86 there is no provision for only doing this load if the values don't match. Also it's not clear why you would want to do something like that. Perhaps another architecture would support something like this, but that would be architecture dependent, not something that could be done in C in a portable way.
Greetings and salutations,
I am looking for information regrading design patterns for working with a large number of functions in C99.
Background:
I am working on a complete G-Code interpreter for my pet project, a desktop CNC mill. Currently, commands are sent over a serial interface to an AVR microcontroller. These commands are then parsed and executed to make the milling head move. a typical example of a line might look like
N01 F5.0 G90 M48 G1 X1 Y2 Z3
where G90, M48, and G1 are "action" codes and F5.0, X1, Y2, Z3 are parameters (N01 is the optional line number and is ignored). Currently the parsing is coming along swimmingly, but now it is time to make the machine actually move.
For each of the G and M codes, a specific action needs to be taken. This ranges from controlled motion to coolant activation/deactivation, to performing canned cycles. To this end, my current design features a function that uses a switch to select the proper function and return a pointer to that function which can then be used to call the individual code's function at the proper time.
Questions:
1) Is there a better way to resolve an arbitrary code to its respective function than a switch statement? Note that this is being implemented on a microcontroller and memory is EXTREMELY tight (2K total). I have considered a lookup table but, unfortunately, the code distribution is sparse leading to a lot of wasted space. There are ~100 distinct codes and sub-codes.
2) How does one go about function pointers in C when the names (and possibly signatures) may change? If the function signatures are different, is this even possible?
3) Assuming the functions have the same signature (which is where I am leaning), is there a way to typedef a generic type of that signature to be passed around and called from?
My apologies for the scattered questioning. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
1) Perfect hashing may be used to map the keywords to token numbers (opcodes) , which can be used to index a table of function pointers. The number of required arguments can also be put in this table.
2) You don's want overloaded / heterogeneous functions. Optional arguments might be possible.
3) your only choice is to use varargs, IMHO
I'm not an expert on embedded systems, but I have experience with VLSI. So sorry if I'm stating the obvious.
The function-pointer approach is probably the best way. But you'll need to either:
Arrange all your action codes to be consecutive in address.
Implement an action code decoder similar to an opcode decoder in a normal processor.
The first option is probably the better way (simple and small memory footprint). But if you can't control your action codes, you'll need to implement a decoder via another lookup table.
I'm not entirely sure on what you mean by "function signature". Function pointers should just be a number - which the compiler resolves.
EDIT:
Either way, I think two lookup tables (1 for function pointers, and one for decoder) is still going to be much smaller than a large switch statement. For varying parameters, use "dummy" parameters to make them all consistent. I'm not sure what the consequences of force casting everything to void-pointers to structs will be on an embedded processor.
EDIT 2:
Actually, a decoder can't be implementated with just a lookup table if the opcode space is too large. My mistake there. So 1 is really the only viable option.
Is there a better way ... than a switch statement?
Make a list of all valid action codes (a constant in program memory, so it doesn't use any of your scarce RAM), and sequentially compare each one with the received code. Perhaps reserve index "0" to mean "unknown action code".
For example:
// Warning: untested code.
typedef int (*ActionFunctionPointer)( int, int, char * );
struct parse_item{
const char action_letter;
const int action_number; // you might be able to get away with a single byte here, if none of your actions are above 255.
// alas, http://reprap.org/wiki/G-code mentions a "M501" code.
const ActionFunctionPointer action_function_pointer;
};
int m0_handler( int speed, int extrude_rate, char * message ){ // M0: Stop
speed_x = 0; speed_y = 0; speed_z = 0; speed_e = 0;
}
int g4_handler ( int dwell_time, int extrude_rate, char * message ){ // G4: Dwell
delay(dwell_time);
}
const struct parse_item parse_table[] = {
{ '\0', 0, unrecognized_action } // special error-handler
{ 'M', 0, m0_handler }, // M0: Stop
// ...
{ 'G', 4, g4_handler }, // G4: Dwell
{ '\0', 0, unrecognized_action } // special error-handler
}
ActionFunctionPointer get_action_function_pointer( char * buffer ){
char letter = get_letter( buffer );
int action_number = get_number( buffer );
int index = 0;
ActionFunctionPointer f = 0;
do{
index++;
if( (letter == parse_table[index].action_letter ) and
(action_number == parse_table[index].action_number) ){
f = parse_table[index].action_function_pointer;
};
if('\0' == parse_table[index].action_letter ){
index = 0;
f = unrecognized_action;
};
}while(0 == f);
return f;
}
How does one go about function pointers in C when the names (and
possibly signatures) may change? If the function signatures are
different, is this even possible?
It's possible to create a function pointer in C that (at different times) points to functions with more or less parameters (different signatures) using varargs.
Alternatively, you can force all the functions that might possibly be pointed to by that function pointer to all have exactly the same parameters and return value (the same signature) by adding "dummy" parameters to the functions that require fewer parameters than the others.
In my experience, the "dummy parameters" approach seems to be easier to understand and use less memory than the varargs approach.
Is there a way to typedef a generic type of that signature
to be passed around and called from?
Yes.
Pretty much all the code I've ever seen that uses function pointers
also creates a typedef to refer to that particular type of function.
(Except, of course, for Obfuscated contest entries).
See the above example and Wikibooks: C programming: pointers to functions for details.
p.s.:
Is there some reason you are re-inventing the wheel?
Could maybe perhaps one of the following pre-existing G-code interpreters for the AVR work for you, perhaps with a little tweaking?
FiveD,
Sprinter,
Marlin,
Teacup Firmware,
sjfw,
Makerbot,
or
Grbl?
(See http://reprap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_RepRap_Firmwares ).
Many times I need to do things TWICE in a for loop. Simply I can set up a for loop with an iterator and go through it twice:
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
// Do stuff
}
Now I am interested in doing this as SIMPLY as I can, perhaps without an initializer or iterator? Are there any other, really simple and elegant, ways of achieving this?
This is elegant because it looks like a triangle; and triangles are elegant.
i = 0;
here: dostuff();
i++; if ( i == 1 ) goto here;
Encapsulate it in a function and call it twice.
void do_stuff() {
// Do Stuff
}
// .....
do_stuff();
do_stuff();
Note: if you use variables or parameters of the enclosing function in the stuff logic, you can pass them as arguments to the extracted do_stuff function.
If its only twice, and you want to avoid a loop, just write the darn thing twice.
statement1;
statement1; // (again)
If the loop is too verbose for you, you can also define an alias for it:
#define TWICE for (int _index = 0; _index < 2; _index++)
This would result into that code:
TWICE {
// Do Stuff
}
// or
TWICE
func();
I would only recommend to use this macro if you have to do this very often, I think else the plain for-loop is more readable.
Unfortunately, this is not for C, but for C++ only, but does exactly what you want:
Just include the header, and you can write something like this:
10 times {
// Do stuff
}
I'll try to rewrite it for C as well.
So, after some time, here's an approach that enables you to write the following in pure C:
2 times {
do_something()
}
Example:
You'll have to include this little thing as a simple header file (I always called the file extension.h). Then, you'll be able to write programs in the style of:
#include<stdio.h>
#include"extension.h"
int main(int argc, char** argv){
3 times printf("Hello.\n");
3 times printf("Score: 0 : %d\n", _);
2 times {
printf("Counting: ");
9 times printf("%d ", _);
printf("\n");
}
5 times {
printf("Counting up to %d: ", _);
_ times printf("%d ", _);
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
Features:
Simple notation of simple loops (in the style depicted above)
Counter is implicitly stored in a variable called _ (a simple underscore).
Nesting of loops allowed.
Restrictions (and how to (partially) circumvent them):
Works only for a certain number of loops (which is - "of course" - reasonable, since you only would want to use such a thing for "small" loops). Current implementation supports a maximum of 18 iterations (higher values result in undefined behaviour). Can be adjusted in header file by changing the size of array _A.
Only a certain nesting depth is allowed. Current implementation supports a nesting depth of 10. Can be adjusted by redefining the macro _Y.
Explanation:
You can see the full (=de-obfuscated) source-code here. Let's say we want to allow up to 18 loops.
Retrieving upper iteration bound: The basic idea is to have an array of chars that are initially all set to 0 (this is the array counterarray). If we issue a call to e.g. 2 times {do_it;}, the macro times shall set the second element of counterarray to 1 (i.e. counterarray[2] = 1). In C, it is possible to swap index and array name in such an assignment, so we can write 2[counterarray] = 1 to acchieve the same. This is exactly what the macro times does as first step. Then, we can later scan the array counterarray until we find an element that is not 0, but 1. The corresponding index is then the upper iteration bound. It is stored in variable searcher. Since we want to support nesting, we have to store the upper bound for each nesting depth separately, this is done by searchermax[depth]=searcher+1.
Adjusting current nesting depth: As said, we want to support nesting of loops, so we have to keep track of the current nesting depth (done in the variable depth). We increment it by one if we start such a loop.
The actual counter variable: We have a "variable" called _ that implicitly gets assigned the current counter. In fact, we store one counter for each nesting depth (all stored in the array counter. Then, _ is just another macro that retrieves the proper counter for the current nesting depth from this array.
The actual for loop: We take the for loop into parts:
We initialize the counter for the current nesting depth to 0 (done by counter[depth] = 0).
The iteration step is the most complicated part: We have to check if the loop at the current nesting depth has reached its end. If so, we have do update the nesting depth accordingly. If not, we have to increment the current nesting depth's counter by 1. The variable lastloop is 1 if this is the last iteration, otherwise 0, and we adjust the current nesting depth accordingly. The main problem here is that we have to write this as a sequence of expressions, all separated by commata, which requires us to write all these conditions in a very non-straight-forward way.
The "increment step" of the for loop consists of only one assignment, that increments the appropriate counter (i.e. the element of counter of the proper nesting depth) and assigns this value to our "counter variable" _.
What about this??
void DostuffFunction(){}
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 2; ++i, DostuffFunction());
Regards,
Pablo.
What abelenky said.
And if your { // Do stuff } is multi-line, make it a function, and call that function -- twice.
Many people suggest writing out the code twice, which is fine if the code is short. There is, however, a size of code block which would be awkward to copy but is not large enough to merit its own function (especially if that function would need an excessive number of parameters). My own normal idiom to run a loop 'n' times is
i = number_of_reps;
do
{
... whatever
} while(--i);
In some measure because I'm frequently coding for an embedded system where the up-counting loop is often inefficient enough to matter, and in some measure because it's easy to see the number of repetitions. Running things twice is a bit awkward because the most efficient coding on my target system
bit rep_flag;
rep_flag = 0;
do
{
...
} while(rep_flag ^= 1); /* Note: if loop runs to completion, leaves rep_flag clear */
doesn't read terribly well. Using a numeric counter suggests the number of reps can be varied arbitrarily, which in many instances won't be the case. Still, a numeric counter is probably the best bet.
As Edsger W. Dijkstra himself put it : "two or more, use a for". No need to be any simpler.
Another attempt:
for(i=2;i--;) /* Do stuff */
This solution has many benefits:
Shortest form possible, I claim (13 chars)
Still, readable
Includes initialization
The amount of repeats ("2") is visible in the code
Can be used as a toggle (1 or 0) inside the body e.g. for alternation
Works with single instruction, instruction body or function call
Flexible (doesn't have to be used only for "doing twice")
Dijkstra compliant ;-)
From comment:
for (i=2; i--; "Do stuff");
Use function:
func();
func();
Or use macro (not recommended):
#define DO_IT_TWICE(A) A; A
DO_IT_TWICE({ x+=cos(123); func(x); })
If your compiler supports this just put the declaration inside the for statement:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
{
// Do stuff
}
This is as elegant and efficient as it can be. Modern compilers can do loop unrolling and all that stuff, trust them. If you don't trust them, check the assembler.
And it has one little advantage to all other solutions, for everybody it just reads, "do it twice".
Assuming C++0x lambda support:
template <typename T> void twice(T t)
{
t();
t();
}
twice([](){ /*insert code here*/ });
Or:
twice([]()
{
/*insert code here*/
});
Which doesn't help you since you wanted it for C.
Good rule: three or more, do a for.
I think I read that in Code Complete, but I could be wrong. So in your case you don't need a for loop.
This is the shortest possible without preprocessor/template/duplication tricks:
for(int i=2; i--; ) /*do stuff*/;
Note that the decrement happens once right at the beginning, which is why this will loop precisely twice with the indices 1 and 0 as requested.
Alternatively you can write
for(int i=2; i--; /*do stuff*/) ;
But that's purely a difference of taste.
If what you are doing is somewhat complicated wrap it in a function and call that function twice? (This depends on how many local variables your do stuff code relies on).
You could do something like
void do_stuff(int i){
// do stuff
}
do_stuff(0);
do_stuff(1);
But this may get extremely ugly if you are working on a whole bunch of local variables.
//dostuff
stuff;
//dostuff (Attention I am doing the same stuff for the :**2nd** time)
stuff;
First, use a comment
/* Do the following stuff twice */
then,
1) use the for loop
2) write the statement twice, or
3) write a function and call the function twice
do not use macros, as earlier stated, macros are evil.
(My answer's almost a triangle)
What is elegance? How do you measure it? Is someone paying you to be elegant? If so how do they determine the dollar-to-elegance conversion?
When I ask myself, "how should this be written," I consider the priorities of the person paying me. If I'm being paid to write fast code, control-c, control-v, done. If I'm being paid to write code fast, well.. same thing. If I'm being paid to write code that occupies the smallest amount of space on the screen, I short the stock of my employer.
jump instruction is pretty slow,so if you write the lines one after the other,it would work faster,than writing a loop. but modern compilers are very,very smart and the optimizations are great (if they are allowed,of course). if you have turned on your compiler's optimizations,you don't care the way,you write it - with loop or not (:
EDIT : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/compiler_optimizations just take a look (:
Close to your example, elegant and efficient:
for (i = 2; i; --i)
{
/* Do stuff */
}
Here's why I'd recommend that approach:
It initializes the iterator to the number of iterations, which makes intuitive sense.
It uses decrement over increment so that the loop test expression is a comparison to zero (the "i;" can be interpreted as "is i true?" which in C means "is i non-zero"), which may optimize better on certain architectures.
It uses pre-decrement as opposed to post-decrement in the counting expression for the same reason (may optimize better).
It uses a for loop instead of do/while or goto or XOR or switch or macro or any other trick approach because readability and maintainability are more elegant and important than clever hacks.
It doesn't require you to duplicate the code for "Do stuff" so that you can avoid a loop. Duplicated code is an abomination and a maintenance nightmare.
If "Do stuff" is lengthy, move it into a function and give the compiler permission to inline it if beneficial. Then call the function from within the for loop.
I like Chris Case's solution (up here), but C language doesn't have default parameters.
My solution:
bool cy = false;
do {
// Do stuff twice
} while (cy = !cy);
If you want, you could do different things in the two cycle by checking the boolean variable (maybe by ternary operator).
void loopTwice (bool first = true)
{
// Recursion is your friend
if (first) {loopTwice(false);}
// Do Stuff
...
}
I'm sure there's a more elegant way, but this is simple to read, and pretty simply to write. There might even be a way to eliminate the bool parameter, but this is what I came up with in 20 seconds.