Passing uint8_t instead of uint32_t into a function (in C) - c

Going over some code (written in the C language) I have stumbled upon the following:
//we have a parameter
uint8_t num_8 = 4;
//we have a function
void doSomething(uint32_t num_32) {....}
//we call the function and passing the parameter
doSomething(num_8);
I have trouble understanding if this a correct function calling or not. Is this a casting or just a bug?
In general, I know that in the C / C++ languages only a copy of the variable is passed into the function, however, I am not sure what is actually happening. Does the compiler allocates 32 bits on the stack (for the passed parameter), zeros all the bits and just after copies the parameter?
Could anyone point me to the resource explaining the mechanics behind the passing of parameter?

As the function declaration includes a parameter type list, the compiler knows the type of the expected parameter. It can then implicitely cast the actual parameter to the expected type. In fact the compiler processes the function call as if it was:
doSomething((uint32_t) num_8);
Old progammers that once used the (not so) good K&R C can remember that pre-ansi C only had identifier lists and the type of parameters was not explicitely declared. In those day, we had to explicitely cast the parameters, and when we forgot, we had no compile time warnings but errors at execution time.
The way the cast and the call is precisely translated in assembly language or machine instruction is just an implementation detail. What matters is that everything must happen as if the compiler had declared a temporary uint32_t variable had coerced the uint8_t value into the temporary and had passed the temporary to the function. But optimizing compilers often use a register to pass a single integer parameter. Depending on the processor, it could zero the accumulator, load the single byte in the low bits and call the function.

Related

C address of function parameter?

Is it guaranteed safe/portable to use the address of a function parameter on a C89/C99-compliant compiler?
As an example, the AAPCS for 32-bit ARM uses registers r0-r3 for parameter passing if the function parameters meet specific size and alignment requirements. I would assume that using the address of a parameter passed through a register would yield unexpected results, but I ran a test on the ARM compiler I'm using and it appears to relocate these parameters to the stack if the code attempts to reference the addresses of these parameter. While it would appear safe in my particular application, I'm wondering if this is guaranteed across architectures (with an ANSI/ISO-compliant compiler) that can utilize registers directly to pass function parameters.
Do the standards define this behavior?
In C, the only lvalues you cannot take addresses of are bitfields (which cannot appear in function parameters) and variables or function parameters of register storage class. It is perfectly safe to take the address of a parameter, but keep in mind that arguments are passed by value, thus you must make sure that you don't use the address of a local variable or parameter once its life time ends.
Generally, the compiler has a pass where it checks which local variables and parameters are operands to unary & operators. These are then copied to a suitable piece of RAM when appropriate. The calling convention does not affect this.

Run-time parameters in gcc (inverse va_args/varargs)

I'm trying to make some improvements to a interpreter for microcontrollers that I'm working on. For executing built-in functions I currently have something like this (albeit a bit faster):
function executeBuiltin(functionName, functionArgs) {
if (functionName=="foo") foo(getIntFromArg(functionArgs[0]));
if (functionName=="bar") bar(getIntFromArg(functionArgs[0]),getBoolFromArg(functionArgs[1]),getFloatFromArg(functionArgs[2]));
if (functionName=="baz") baz();
...
}
But it is for an embedded device (ARM) with very limited resources, and I need to cut down on the code size drastically. What I'd like to do is to have a general-purpose function for calling other functions with different arguments - something like this:
function executeBuiltin(functionName, functionArgs) {
functionData = fast_lookup(functionName);
call_with_args(functionData.functionPointer, functionData.functionArgumentTypes, functionArgs);
}
So I want to be able to call a standard C function and pass it whatever arguments it needs (which could all be of different types). For this, I need a call_with_args function.
I want to avoid re-writing every function to take argc+argv. Ideally each function that was called would be an entirely standard C function.
There's a discussion about this here - but has anything changed since 1993 when that post was written? Especially as I'm running on ARM where arguments are in registers rather than on the stack. Even if it's not in standard C, is there anything GCC specific that can be done?
UPDATE: It seems that despite behaviour being 'undefined' according to the spec, it looks like because of the way C calls work, you can pass more arguments to a function than it is expecting and everything will be fine, so you can unpack all the arguments into an array of uint32s, and can then just pass each uint32 to the function.
That makes writing 'nice' code for calls much easier, and it appears to work pretty well (on 32 bit platforms). The only problem seems to be when passing 64 bit numbers and compiling for 64bit x86 as it seems to do something particularly strange in that case.
Would it be possible to do at compile time with macros?
Something along the lines of:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-March/msg00730.html
If runtime was required, perhaps __buildin_apply_args() could be leveraged.
from this document, section 5.5, Parameter Passing, it seems like parameters are passed both in registers and in stack, as with most of today platforms.
With "non standard C" I am thinking to pack the parameters and call the function following the documentation with some asm(). However you need a minimal information about the signature of the function being called anyway (I mean, how many bits for each argument to be passed).
From this point of view I would prefer to prepare an array of function names, an array of function pointers and an array of enumerated function signatures (in the number of bits of each argument... you don't need to differentiate void* from char* for example) and a switch/case on the signatures, and a switch/case on the last one. So I have reported two answers here.
You can do a very simple serialization to pass arbitrary arguments. Create an array and memcpy sizeof(arg) bytes into it for each passed argument.
Or you can create structs for function arguments.
Every function takes a char* or a void*. Then you pass either a pointer to a struct with that functions parameters, or you define a set of macros or functions to encode and decode arbitrary data from an array and pass the pointer to that array.

How does the warning of implicit declaration of any function affect my code ?

See I have made a library which has several .h & several .c files.
Now under some circumstances I have not removed a warning that says
warning: implicit declaration of function ‘getHandle’
Now I want to ask you, does this cause any problem in the binary of my library?
Will it negatively affect the execution of my library on embedded platforms or anywhere else?
In C90, a call to a function with no visible declaration creates an implicit declaration of a function returning int and taking the promoted types of the arguments. If your getHandle function returns a pointer, for example, then the compiler will generate code assuming that it returns an int. Assigning the result to a pointer object should at least trigger another warning. It might work ok (if int and the pointer type are the same size, and int and pointer function results are returned in the same way), or it could go badly wrong (if, for example, int is 32 bits and pointers are 64 bits, or if pointer results are returned in 68K-style address registers).
The C99 standard removed implicit int from the language. Calling a function with no visible declaration is a constraint violation, requiring a diagnostic and possibly causing your program to be rejected.
And if you just fix the problem, you don't have to waste time figuring out how and whether it will work if you don't fix it.
In such a case the compiler cannot verify that the usage of getHandle is proper - that is, whether the return value and the arguments are of the right type and count. It will just accept the way you call it without any explicit statement that this is the right way.
Adding a prototype of the function is a way to tell the compiler that this is the intended usage of the function and it will be a compile-time error not to comply to that.
It may cause some nasty bugs in case there is a mismatch between the way it's called and the way the function expects its arguments. The most likely effect will be a corruption of the stack.
If there isn't a mismatch, it won't make any difference at runtime.

implicit declaration of function

GCC typically yields this warning when the proper header file is not included. This link --> www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_19.html says that because the function declaration is implicit (rather than explicitly declared via a header) the wrong argument types could actually be passed to the function, yielding incorrect results. I don't understand this. Does this mean the compiler generates code that pushes something, of the machine's word size, onto the stack for the callee to consume, and hopes for the best?
Detail is appreciated.
If the compiler doesn't have specific information about how the argument should be passed, such as when there's no prototype or for arguments that are passed where the prototype have an ellipsis ('...'), the compiler follows certain rules for passing the arguments. These rule basically follow what occurred in pre-standard (or K&R) C - before prototypes were used. Paraphrased from C99 6.5.2.2/6 "Function calls":
* the integer promotions are applied
* if the argument has float type it's promoted to double
After these default argument promotions are applied, the argument is simply copied to wherever the compiler normally copies arguments (generally, the stack). So a struct argument would be copied to the stack.
If the actual function implementation doesn't match how the compiler creates the parameters, then you get undefined behavior (with exceptions for signed/unsigned mismatch if the value can be represented or pointers to char and pointers to void can be mixed/matched).
Also in C90, if the function is implicitly declared (which C99 doesn't permit, though it does permit functions without prototypes), the return value is defaulted as int. Once again, the the actual function returns something else, undefined behavior results.
In classic K&R C, that's pretty much what happened; there were default coercions (anything smaller than (int) was promoted to (int), for example), and for backwards compatibility any function without a prototype is still called that way, but by and large the only indication you got for passing the wrong type was a weird result or maybe a core dump. Which is where you get in trouble, as when the function has a prototype the exact (not coerced/promoted) value is pushed. So if you're passing a (char), if there's a prototype in scope then a single byte is pushed by the caller, otherwise 4 bytes (on most current platforms). If the caller and callee disagree about this, Bad Things happen.

Function pointer cast to different signature

I use a structure of function pointers to implement an interface for different backends. The signatures are very different, but the return values are almost all void, void * or int.
struct my_interface {
void (*func_a)(int i);
void *(*func_b)(const char *bla);
...
int (*func_z)(char foo);
};
But it is not required that a backends supports functions for every interface function. So I have two possibilities, first option is to check before every call if the pointer is unequal NULL. I don't like that very much, because of the readability and because I fear the performance impacts (I haven't measured it, however). The other option is to have a dummy function, for the rare cases an interface function doesn't exist.
Therefore I'd need a dummy function for every signature, I wonder if it is possible to have only one for the different return values. And cast it to the given signature.
#include <stdio.h>
int nothing(void) {return 0;}
typedef int (*cb_t)(int);
int main(void)
{
cb_t func;
int i;
func = (cb_t) nothing;
i = func(1);
printf("%d\n", i);
return 0;
}
I tested this code with gcc and it works. But is it sane? Or can it corrupt the stack or can it cause other problems?
EDIT: Thanks to all the answers, I learned now much about calling conventions, after a bit of further reading. And have now a much better understanding of what happens under the hood.
By the C specification, casting a function pointer results in undefined behavior. In fact, for a while, GCC 4.3 prereleases would return NULL whenever you casted a function pointer, perfectly valid by the spec, but they backed out that change before release because it broke lots of programs.
Assuming GCC continues doing what it does now, it will work fine with the default x86 calling convention (and most calling conventions on most architectures), but I wouldn't depend on it. Testing the function pointer against NULL at every callsite isn't much more expensive than a function call. If you really want, you may write a macro:
#define CALL_MAYBE(func, args...) do {if (func) (func)(## args);} while (0)
Or you could have a different dummy function for every signature, but I can understand that you'd like to avoid that.
Edit
Charles Bailey called me out on this, so I went and looked up the details (instead of relying on my holey memory). The C specification says
766 A pointer to a function of one type may be converted to a pointer to a function of another type and back again;
767 the result shall compare equal to the original pointer.
768 If a converted pointer is used to call a function whose type is not compatible with the pointed-to type, the behavior is undefined.
and GCC 4.2 prereleases (this was settled way before 4.3) was following these rules: the cast of a function pointer did not result in NULL, as I wrote, but attempting to call a function through a incompatible type, i.e.
func = (cb_t)nothing;
func(1);
from your example, would result in an abort. They changed back to the 4.1 behavior (allow but warn), partly because this change broke OpenSSL, but OpenSSL has been fixed in the meantime, and this is undefined behavior which the compiler is free to change at any time.
OpenSSL was only casting functions pointers to other function types taking and returning the same number of values of the same exact sizes, and this (assuming you're not dealing with floating-point) happens to be safe across all the platforms and calling conventions I know of. However, anything else is potentially unsafe.
I suspect you will get an undefined behaviour.
You can assign (with the proper cast) a pointer to function to another pointer to function with a different signature, but when you call it weird things may happen.
Your nothing() function takes no arguments, to the compiler this may mean that he can optimize the usage of the stack as there will be no arguments there. But here you call it with an argument, that is an unexpected situation and it may crash.
I can't find the proper point in the standard but I remember it says that you can cast function pointers but when you call the resulting function you have to do with the right prototype otherwise the behaviour is undefined.
As a side note, you should not compare a function pointer with a data pointer (like NULL) as thee pointers may belong to separate address spaces. There's an appendix in the C99 standard that allows this specific case but I don't think it's widely implemented. That said, on architecture where there is only one address space casting a function pointer to a data pointer or comparing it with NULL, will usually work.
You do run the risk of causing stack corruption. Having said that, if you declare the functions with extern "C" linkage (and/or __cdecl depending on your compiler), you may be able to get away with this. It would be similar then to the way a function such as printf() can take a variable number of arguments at the caller's discretion.
Whether this works or not in your current situation may also depend on the exact compiler options you are using. If you're using MSVC, then debug vs. release compile options may make a big difference.
It should be fine. Since the caller is responsible for cleaning up the stack after a call, it shouldn't leave anything extra on the stack. The callee (nothing() in this case) is ok since it wont try to use any parameters on the stack.
EDIT: this does assume cdecl calling conventions, which is usually the default for C.
As long as you can guarantee that you're making a call using a method that has the caller balance the stack rather than the callee (__cdecl). If you don't have a calling convention specified the global convention could be set to something else. (__stdcall or __fastcall) Both of which could lead to stack corruption.
This won't work unless you use implementation-specific/platform-specific stuff to force the correct calling convention. For some calling conventions the called function is responsible for cleaning up the stack, so they must know what's been pushed on.
I'd go for the check for NULL then call - I can't imagine it would have any impact on performance.
Computers can check for NULL about as fast as anything they do.
Casting a function pointer to NULL is explicitly not supported by the C standard. You're at the mercy of the compiler writer. It works OK on a lot of compilers.
It is one of the great annoyances of C that there is no equivalent of NULL or void* for function pointers.
If you really want your code to be bulletproof, you can declare your own nulls, but you need one for each function type. For example,
void void_int_NULL(int n) { (void)n; abort(); }
and then you can test
if (my_thing->func_a != void_int_NULL) my_thing->func_a(99);
Ugly, innit?

Resources