Is there a facility for the C language that allows run-time struct introspection?
The context is this:
I've got a daemon that responds to external events, and for each event we carry around an execution context struct (the "context"). The context is big and messy, and contains references to all sorts of state.
Once the event has been handled, I would like to be able to run the context through a filter, and if it matches some set of criteria, drop a log message to help with debugging. However, since I hope to use this for field debugging, I won't know what criteria will be useful to filter on until run time.
My ideal solution would allow the user to, essentially, write a C-style boolean expression and have the program use that. Something like:
activate_filter context.response_time > 4.2 && context.event.event_type == foo_event
Ideas that have been tossed around so far include:
Providing a limited set of fields that we know how to access.
Wrapping all the relevant structs in some sort of macro that generates introspection tools at run time.
Writing a python script that knows where (versioned) headers live, generates C code and compiles it to a dll, which the daemon then loads and uses as a filter. Obviously this approach has some extra security considerations.
Before I start in on some crazy design goose chase, does anyone know of examples of this sort of thing in the wild? I've dome some googling but haven't come up with much.
I would also suggest tackling this issue from another angle. The key words in your question are:
The context is big and messy
And that's where the issue is. Once you clean this up, you'll probably be able to come up with a clean logging facility.
Consider redefining all the fields in your context struct in some easy, pliable format, like XML. A simple `XML schema, that lists all the members of the struct, their types, and maybe some other metadata, even a comment that documents this field.
Then, throw together a quick and dirty stylesheet that reads the XML file and generates a compilable C struct, that your code actually uses. Then, a different stylesheet that cranks out robo-generated code that enumerates each field in the struct, and generates the code to convert each field into a string.
From that, bolting on a logging facility of some kind, with a user-provided filtering string becomes an easier task. You do have to come up with some way of parsing an arbitrary filtering string. Knowledge of lex and yacc would come in handy.
Things of this nature have been done before.
The XCB library is a C client library for the X11 protocol. The protocol defines various kinds of binary messages which are essentially simple structs that the client and the server toss to each other, over a socket. The way that libxcb is implemented, is that all X11 messages and all datatypes inside them are described in an XML definition, and a stylesheet robo-generates C struct definitions, and the code to parse them out, and provide a fairly clean C API to parse and generate X11 messages.
You are probably approaching this problem from a wrong side.
Logging is typically used to facilitate debugging. The program writes all sorts of events to a log file. To extract interesting entries filtering is applied to the log file.
Sometimes a program generates just too much events; logging libraries usually address this issues by offering verbosity control. Basically a logging function takes an additional parameter telling the verbosity level of the current message. If the value is above the globally configured threshold the message gets discarded. Some libraries even allow to control verbosity level on a per-module basis (Ex: google log).
Another possible approach is to leverage the power of a debugger since the debugger has access to all sorts of meta information. One can create a conditional breakpoint testing variables in scope for arbitrary conditions. Once the program stops any information could be extracted from the scope. This can be automated using scripting facilities provided by a debugger (gdb has great ones).
Finally there are tools generating glue code to use C libraries from scripting languages. One example is SWIG. It analyzes a header file and generates code allowing a scripting language to invoke functions, access structure fields, etc.
Your filter expression will become a program in, say, Lua (other scripting languages are supported as well). You invoke this program passing in the pointer to execution context struct (the "context"). Thanks to the accessors generated by SWIG Lua program can examine any field in the structure.
I generated introspection out of SWIG-CSV parser.
Suppose the C code contains structure like the following,
class Bike {
public:
int color; // color of the bike
int gearCount; // number of configurable gear
Bike() {
// bla bla
}
~Bike() {
// bla bla
}
void operate() {
// bla bla
}
};
Then it will generate the following CSV metadata,
Bike|color|int|variable|public|
Bike|gearCount|int|variable|public|
Bike|operate|void|function|public|f().
Now it is easy to parse the CSV file with python or C/C++ if needed.
import csv
with open('bike.csv', 'rb') as csvfile:
bike_metadata = csv.reader(csvfile, delimiter='|')
# do your thing
Can I somehow generate documentation for 2 different languages with same code? Problem is that I have a C API that is also exposed trough a proprietary language that resembles VB.
So the exposed function in C is something like:
int Function (*PointerToObject)
While in VB it would be something like:
int Function (ByVal long PointerToObject)
I already opened another thread before about this same problem, but by that time I did not know anything about Doxygen. The last couple of days I have been reading the documentation and apparently it can create documentation for VB, but I have to have actual VB code for it to work and I don't. The only thing I have is the original C and the swig output also in C.
What I have in mind is some tool (doxygen, sphinx,...) that would enable me to create some kind of multi-language documentation from a single source (not valid doxygen, but explains the idea):
/*! \fn int Function(*PointerToObject)
* \brief A simple function.
* \Cparam[in] PointerToObject A pointer to the object being used.
* \VBparam[in] ByVal long PointerToObject A pointer to the object being used.
* \return An integer.
*/
It would be great if I could somehow integrate it to swig since it is swig that identifies the correct VB type, but I guess I maybe be asking too much.
It is a bit complicated, if I am not clear enough please leave a comment I will try to explain it further.
I'm not positive how useful this will be as I haven't done precisely what you're looking for (and it is a bit of a kludge), but under similar circumstances I came to the conclusion that our best bet was to generate a fluff object just for doxygen to document.
In our case we have an LDMud which has a few hundred driver-published external functions which don't exist in the LPC language the rest of the MUD is written in. We could parse it in its native C code as a separate documentation run and include the docs with our primary documentation. In our case we have fairly thorough plain-text documentation including what we should consider the definition of these functions to be, so we use this documentation instead to generate an object with dummy function definitions and parse the plaintext documentation into function-head comments in doxygen style. This obviously doesn't provide us the advantages of including code or in-code comments with the documentation, but it does allow us to generate the documentation in multiple forms, push it around in guides, make references to these functions from other documentation, etc.
I'm not directly familiar with C so I'm not sure if there's any introspective support for performing a programmatic inventory of the functions you need and generating dummy declarations from that information or not. If you don't and have a small number of functions I suspect it would be the best investment of your time to simply write the dummy declarations by hand. If you have a really large number of these functions it may be worth your time to use doxygen to parse the original code into XML documentation, and generate the dummy object(s) from the XML. Doxygen's XML can be a pain to deal with, but if all you really need is the declaration and arguments it is (relatively) simple.
As a final aside, if your documentation can really be thought of as internal and external, you might also want to use two or more configuration files to generate different sets of documentation saved to different locations and publish them separately to your internal/external audiences. It will make the task of providing the right amount of detail to each less frustrating. Along those lines you may also find the INTERNAL_DOCS option and the #internal / #endinternal commands useful.
I wanted to know more about tools that assist in writing code-generators for C. Essentially how do we achieve functionality similar to c++ templates.
Even though it's not a perfect solution and it takes some time to master it, I've used the m4 macro processor in the past for generic C code generation (kinda like C++ templates). You may want to check that out.
You are looking for a way to generate code for very similar classes, where what differs is essentially their type.
You can use a template-based code generator, where "template" means "boilerplate code" with string substitution. This is the simplest scenario. A tool like StringTemplate or CodeSmith will do the job. But there are many others. Just search around.
If you want a more serious generation scenario, where different class structures might be needed according to a set of definitions, then you should go with a fully programmable generator like AtomWeaver. There are others (MPS, Xtext) but these do not rely on templates.
a smoking pile of spaghetti just landed on my desk, and my task is to understand it (so I can refactor / reimplement it).
The code is C, and a mess of global variables, structure types and function calls.
I would like to plot graphs of the code with the information:
- Call graph
- Which struct types are used in which functions
- Which global variable is used in what function
Hopefully this would make it easier to identify connected components, and extract them to separate modules.
I have tried the following software for similar purposes:
- ncc
- ctags
- codeviz / gengraph
- doxygen
- egypt
- cflow
EDIT2:
- frama-c
- snavigator
- Understand
The shortcomings of these are either
a) requires me to be able to compile the code. My code does not compile, since portions of the source code is missing.
b) issues with preprocessor macros (like cflow, who wants to execute both branches of #if statements). Running it through cpp would mess up the line numbers.
c) I for some reason do not manage to get the software to do what I want to do (like doxygen; the documentation for call graph generation is not easy to find, and since it does not seem to plot variables/data types anyway, it is probably not worth spending more time learning about doxygen's config options). EDIT: I did follow a these Doxygen instrcutions, but it did only plot header file dependencies.
I am on Linux, so it is a huge plus if the software is for linux, and free software. Not sure my boss understands the need to buy a visualizer :-(
For example: a command line tool that lists in which functions a symbol (=function,variable,type) is referenced in would be of great help (like addr2line, but for types/variable names/functions and source code).
//T
My vote goes to gnu global. It has all the features of ctags/cscope combined as well as the possibility to generate fully indexed html which allows you to browse the code in your favorite browser. Fire it up in apache and you have a web-service that anyone can access including full search capabilities.
It integrates nicely into emacs/vim/even the bash-shell, and you can use it directly from the shell-prompt.
To see it in action on the linux kernel, visit this
Combine that with a tool for cyclomatic complexity plugin for eclipse which calculates the complexity of your code. besides the cyclomatic complexity it can handle:
McCabe's Cyclomatic Complexity
Efferent Couplings
Lack of Cohesion in Methods
Lines Of Code in Method
Number Of Fields
Number Of Levels
Number Of Locals In Scope
Number Of Parameters
Number Of Statements
Weighted Methods Per Class
...and you should have everything you need.
If you like command line ;) maybe you could try cscope, it does static analysis of code and can tell you where are referenced some symbols/variables/functions... Not the Holy Graal, but it can be pretty usefull to browse unknown source code.
There are also some GUI that can handle csope results (Vi, Emacs, JEdit...).
On the other hand, Eclipse with the CDT plugin can also help you to navigate into the spaghetti code you have to maintain.
It's not free and afaik not linux but cppDepend might be worth evaluating - at least until someone comes up with a more suitable suggestion :)
http://www.cppdepend.com/ [Demo video here]
If you'd like to know in which functions a symbol is declared or referenced you can try LXR. It's not console based, but is quite usable.
I've heard that there are some things one cannot do as a computer programmer, but I don't know what they are. One thing that occurred to me recently was: wouldn't it be nice to have a class that could make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself. Is it possible for code to write code?
If you want to learn about the limits of computability, read about the halting problem
In computability theory, the halting
problem is a decision problem which
can be stated as follows: given a
description of a program and a finite
input, decide whether the program
finishes running or will run forever,
given that input.
Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all
possible program-input pairs cannot exist
Start by looking at quines, then at Macro-Assemblers and then lex & yacc, and flex & bison. Then consider self-modifying code.
Here's a quine (formatted, use the output as the new input):
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{
char *a = "main(){char *a = %c%s%c; int b = '%c'; printf(a,b,a,b,b);}";
int b = '"';
printf(a,b,a,b,b);
}
Now if you're just looking for things programmers can't do look for the opposite of np-complete.
Sure it is. That's how a lot of viruses work!
Get your head around this: computability theory.
Yes, that's what most Lisp macros do (for just one example).
Yes it certainly is, though maybe not in the context you are referring to check out this post on t4.
If you look at Functional Programming that has many opportunities to write code that generates further code, the way that a language like Lisp doesn't differentiate between code and data is a significant part of it's power.
Rails generates the various default model and controller classes from the database schema when it's creating a new application. It's quite standard to do this kind of thing with dynamic languages- I have a few bits of PHP around that generate php files, just because it was the simplest solution to the problem I was dealing with at the time.
So it is possible. As for the question you are asking, though- that is perhaps a little vague- what environment and language are you using? What do you expect the code to do and why does it need to be added to? A concrete example may bring more directly relevant responses.
Yes it is possible to create code generators.
Most of the time they take user input and produce valid code. But there are other possibilities.
Self modifying programes are also possible. But they were more common in the dos era.
Of course you can! In fact, if you use a dynamic language, the class can change itself (or another class) while the program is still running. It can even create new classes that didn't exist before. This is called metaprogramming, and it lets your code become very flexible.
You are confusing/conflating two meanings of the word "write". One meaning is the physical writing of bytes to a medium, and the other is designing software. Of course you can have the program do the former, if it was designed to do so.
The only way for a program to do something that the programmer did not explicitly intend it to do, is to behave like a living creature: mutate (incorporate in itself bits of environment), and replicate different mutants at different rates (to avoid complete extinction, if a mutation is terminal).
Sure it is. I wrote an effect for Paint.NET* that gives you an editor and allows you to write a graphical effect "on the fly". When you pause typing it compiles it to a dll, loads it and executes it. Now, in the editor, you only need to write the actual render function, everything else necessary to create a dll is written by the editor and sent to the C# compiler.
You can download it free here: http://www.boltbait.com/pdn/codelab/
In fact, there is even an option to see all the code that was written for you before it is sent to the compiler. The help file (linked above) talks all about it.
The source code is available to download from that page as well.
*Paint.NET is a free image editor that you can download here: http://getpaint.net
In relation to artificial intelligence, take a look at Evolutionary algorithms.
make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself
You can also generate code, build it into a library instead of an executable, and then dynamically load the library without even exiting the program that is currently running.
Dynamic languages usually don't work quite as you suggest, in that they don't have a completely separate compilation step. It isn't necessary for a program to modify its own source code, recompile, and start from scratch. Typically the new functionality is compiled and linked in on the fly.
Common Lisp is a very good language to practice this in, but there are others where you can created code and run it then and there. Typically, this will be through a function called "eval" or something similar. Perl has an "eval" function, and it's generally common for scripting languages to have the ability.
There are a lot of programs that write other programs, such as yacc or bison, but they don't have the same dynamic quality you seem to be looking for.
Take a look at Langtom's loop. This is the simplest example of self-reproducing "program".
There is a whole class of such things called "Code Generators". (Although, a compiler also fits the description as you set it). And those describe the two areas of these beasts.
Most code generates, take some form of user input (most take a Database schema) and product source code which is then compiled.
More advanced ones can output executable code. With .NET, there's a whole namespace (System.CodeDom) dedicated to the create of executable code. The these objects, you can take C# (or another language) code, compile it, and link it into your currently running program.
I do this in PHP.
To persist settings for a class, I keep a local variable called $data. $data is just a dictionary/hashtable/assoc-array (depending on where you come from).
When you load the class, it includes a php file which basically defines data. When I save the class, it writes the PHP out for each value of data. It's a slow write process (and there are currently some concurrency issues) but it's faster than light to read. So much faster (and lighter) than using a database.
Something like this wouldn't work for all languages. It works for me in PHP because PHP is very much on-the-fly.
It has always been possible to write code generators. With XML technology, the use of code generators can be an essential tool. Suppose you work for a company that has to deal with XML files from other companies. It is relatively straightforward to write a program that uses the XML parser to parse the new XML file and write another program that has all the callback functions set up to read XML files of that format. You would still have to edit the new program to make it specific to your needs, but the development time when a new XML file (new structure, new names) is cut down a lot by using this type of code generator. In my opinion, this is part of the strength of XML technology.
Lisp lisp lisp lisp :p
Joking, if you want code that generates code to run and you got time to loose learning it and breaking your mind with recursive stuff generating more code, try to learn lisp :)
(eval '(or true false))
wouldn't it be nice to have a class that could make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself
There are almost no cases where that would solve a problem that cannot be solved "better" using non-self-modifying code..
That said, there are some very common (useful) cases of code writing other code.. The most obvious being any server-side web-application, which generates HTML/Javascript (well, HTML is markup, but it's identical in theory). Also any script that alters a terminals environment usually outputs a shell script that is eval'd by the parent shell. wxGlade generates code to that creates bare-bone wx-based GUIs.
See our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit. This is general purpose machinery to read and modify programs, or generate programs by assembling fragments.
This is one of the fundamental questions of Artificial Intelligence. Personally I hope it is not possible - otherwise soon I'll be out of a job!!! :)
It is called meta-programming and is both a nice way of writing useful programs, and an interesting research topic. Jacques Pitrat's Artificial Beings: the conscience of a conscious machine book should interest you a lot. It is mostly related to meta-knowledge based computer programs.
Another related term is multi-staged programming (because there are several stages of programs, each generating the next one).