Static array initialization in C - c

Consider the following statements
typedef struct {
int member1;
int member2;
}Custom_t;
void ISR(void)
{
static Custom_t struct1[SOME_CONSTANT];
......
......
}
How can I initialize all member2 variable to a single value in C programming?
If I iniatilize the structure like the one shown below, then there is chance of somebody changing the "SOME_CONSTANT" in a header file and forgetting to update the list.
Another solution would be to give the structure a global scope for the current file. But the only function which uses the structure is the ISR().
void ISR(void)
{
static Custom_t struct1[SOME_CONSTANT] = {
{0, 3},
{0, 3},
......
......
};
......
......
}
Is there any method to solve this problem in C?

You can use Designated Initializers and do it in this way:
#include <stdio.h>
#define SOME_CONSTANT 30
typedef struct {
int member1;
int member2;
} Custom_t;
int main(void)
{
static Custom_t struct1[SOME_CONSTANT] =
{
[0 ... SOME_CONSTANT - 1].member2 = 30
};
printf("%d\n", struct1[25].member2);
printf("%d\n", struct1[19].member2);
printf("%d\n", struct1[0].member2);
return 0;
}

How about to add hard-coded compiling time checking against SOME_CONSTANT in the .c file (e.g. right before the initializer)?
#if SOME_CONSTANT != <some_hard_code_value>
#error "SOME_CONSTANT is not equal to <some_hard_code_value>"
#endif
The rational of this "hard-code" is whenever the SOME_CONSTANT is changed, the initializer need be updated, as well as the compiling time checking.

You don't need to specify the array size in advance, you can compute it later:
static Custom_t struct1[] = {
{0, 3},
{0, 3},
{13,3},
};
#define SOME_CONSTANT (sizeof struct1 /sizeof struct1[0])
or: use __LINE__ to compute the number of elements.

I've had to do something like this with projects with a configurable number of sensors :
[custom_t.h]
typedef struct {
int member1;
int member2;
}Custom_t;
#define MAX_CUSTOM_T 4
Custom_t *new_Custom_t (int member1, int member2);
[custom_t.c]
#include "custom_t.h"
static Custom_t g_Customt[MAX_CUSTOM_T];
static uint8 g_numCustom_t = 0;
Custom_t *new_Custom_t (int member1, int member2)
{
if ( g_numCustom_t < MAX_CUSTOM_T )
{
Custom_t *new_obj = &g_Customt[g_numCustom_t++];
new_obj->member1 = member1;
new_obj->member1 = member2;
return new_obj;
}
else
{
// throw exception?
// or go into while(1)?
// or software breakpoint if debug?
// or just...
return NULL;
}
}
[main.c]
#include "custom_t.h"
Custom_t *myCustom1;
Custom_t *myCustom2;
Custom_t *myCustom3;
somefunc()
{
myCustom1 = new_Custom_t (0,3);
myCustom2 = new_Custom_t (1,3);
myCustom3 = new_Custom_t (2,3);
// do stuff
}
It means if you want to create a new one, you may or may not need to update MAX_CUSTOM_T depending on its size already, but will just have to add a new line call to new_Custom_t(int,int). A Disadvantage though is it is slightly complex for what you might need, and if you ever want to add more members to initialize, you'll need to update the parameters passed into the new_ function to suit. This can be done instead with a sending a single separate structure for parameters rather than multiple parameters (a bit like MPLAB harmony).

Related

initialize flexible array members at compile time

I'm trying to optimize boot-time and run-time of an embedded application, and to do that, I'd like to initialize some constant flexible array members at compile time. I've found a few posts that say you must use malloc, but theoretically, it should be possible to do this without...
As an example, say I have:
typedef struct _foo_t {
foo_t *next;
int num_bars;
bar_t bars[];
} foo_t __attribute((__packed__));
And I have literally have several million instances of foo_t. I then have a script to generate a header file with all the information. So I might have something like this:
const foo_t foo1 = {.next = &foo2, .num_bars = 2};
const bar_t foo1_bar1 = {...};
const bar_t foo1_bar2 = {...};
foo_t *const first_foo = &foo1;
But, the problem with this is that the compiler spec does not guarantee that &foo1_bar1 is not guaranteed to be at &foo1.bars[0]. I'm wondering if there's any trickery anyone knows to force the fooX_barY members to be placed in the correct locations in memory.
Note that my goals are:
reduce boot time by avoiding unnecessary mallocs
reduce memory thrashing by having the bar's typically in the same cache pages as corresponding foos
reduce memory requirements by not having pointers to bars
If anyone knows of any good tricks to do this, I'd love to hear them
GCC and clang seem to support standard initializers for flexible arrays so if you can restrict yourself to these compilers, you only need to add casts for const removal. The initializer does not have to use designated members, classic intializers work fine at least for clang.
This extension is actually quite consistent with the C syntax for array initializers where the length of the array can be omitted if it can be determined from the initializer.
For compilers that do not support this syntax, here is a trick to achieve what you want:
//----------------
// you can move these to foo.h
typedef int bar_t;
typedef struct foo_t {
struct foo_t *next;
char name[8];
int num_bars;
bar_t bars[];
} foo_t;
extern foo_t * const first_foo;
extern foo_t * const second_foo;
//----------------
// The definitions can be generated automatically into a separate module
// disable warnings cf: https://stackoverflow.com/a/55877109/4593267
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wcast-qual"
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wcast-qual"
// Trick for VLA initialization
#define foo_t(n) struct { foo_t *next; char name[8]; int num_bars; bar_t bars[n]; }
// using a classic structure initializers
static const foo_t(2) foo2 = { 0, "foo2", 2, { 1, 2 }};
static const foo_t(1) foo1 = { (foo_t *)&foo2, "foo1", 1, { 42 }};
foo_t * const first_foo = (foo_t *)&foo1;
// using a compound literal
foo_t * const second_foo = (foo_t *)&(foo_t(3)){ 0, "foo3", 3, { 10, 20, 30 }};
// using gcc / clang flexible array initializer
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wgnu-flexible-array-initializer"
static foo_t third_foo = { 0, "foo4", 2, { 1, 2 }};
//----------------
// Test framework
#include <stdio.h>
void foo_print(const char *name, foo_t *p) {
printf("%s: {\n", name);
for (; p; p = p->next) {
printf(" { \"%s\", %d, { ", p->name, p->num_bars);
for (int i = 0; i < p->num_bars; i++)
printf("%d, ", p->bars[i]);
printf("}},\n");
}
printf("}\n");
}
int main() {
foo_print("first_foo", first_foo);
foo_print("second_foo", second_foo);
foo_print("third_foo", &third_foo);
return 0;
}
Output:
first_foo: {
{ "foo1", 1, { 42, }},
{ "foo2", 2, { 1, 2, }},
}
second_foo: {
{ "foo3", 3, { 10, 20, 30, }},
}
third_foo: {
{ "foo4", 2, { 1, 2, }},
}
Your attempts using certain ordering of the related variables is prone to error as the compiler does not need to allocate the variables at the place you want.
The only way to use static variables instead of dynamically allocated memory is to add the members of that flexible array directly into the initializer of your variable:
const foo_t foo1 =
{
.next = &foo2,
.num_bars = 2,
.bars =
{ [0] = {...},
[1] = {...}
}
};
Dedicated initializers are optional.
At least for GCC this should work.
Unfortunately it is not possible to use the common (sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0])) trick to get the number of elements in an array:
foo_t foo1 =
{
.next = &foo2,
.bars =
{ [0] = 1,
[1] = 2
},
.num_bars = sizeof(foo1.bars)/sizeof(foo1.bars[0]),
};
test.c:21:21: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘bar_t[]’ {aka ‘int[]’}
21 | .num_bars = sizeof(foo1.bars)/sizeof(foo1.bars[0]),
| ^

Trouble Including Externally Declared Enumeration - C Code

Update: The issue is resolved. Here is code that compiles properly.
---instruction.h---
#ifndef INSTRUCTION_H
#define INSTRUCTION_H
typedef enum OPCODE {ADD = 0x20,ADDI = 0x8,SUB = 0x22,MULT = 0x18,BEQ = 0x4,LW = 0x23,SW = 0x2B} opcode;
/*opcode is OPCODEs alias*/
typedef struct INSTRUCTION {
opcode op;
int rs;
int rt;
int rd;
int Imm;
} inst;
/*inst is INSTRUCTIONs alias*/
#endif // INSTRUCTION_H
---parser.c---
#include <stdio.h>
#include "instruction.h"
void parser(char *instruction)
{
/*Parse character string into instruction components*/
inst set1 = {LW,0,1,2,0};
printf("parsing");
};
int main()
{
char *instruction;
instruction = NULL;
parser(instruction);
};
/*pass in pointer for instruction being passed in*/
/*pointing to address of instruction being passed in*/
/*Parser return type is struct inst*/
I cannot seem to get my enumeration type "opcode" to be recognized in my main c file. I included the header file. I am fairly new to C, so haven't made much ground on the issue for some time now and wanted to see if anyone knew why I was getting the error messages below. My guess is the linking the header file is not working properly. Any help is much appreciated.
---instruction.h----
#ifndef INSTRUCTION_H
#define INSTRUCTION_H
typedef enum {add = 32,addi = 8,sub = 34,mult = 24,beq = 4,lw = 35,sw = 43}opcode;
extern opcode oper;
typedef struct {
opcode op;
int rs;
int rt;
int rd;
int Imm;
}inst;
#endif // INSTRUCTION_H
---Parser.c---
#include <stdio.h>
#include "instruction.h"
void parser(char *inst)
{
/*Parse character string into instruction components*/
struct inst{lw,0,1,2,0};
};
int main()
{
char *instruction;
instruction = NULL;
parser(instruction);
};
struct inst{lw,0,1,2,0};
This looks like it's supposed to be a variable declaration, but I don't see a name for the variable. Try:
struct inst name_of_the_variable = {lw,0,1,2,0};
As a side note, enum values are global constants, so it's probably not a good idea to give them names like lw that can be confused for variables. Standard practice would be to use all-caps for the names and give them a prefix… say, OPCODE_ADD, OPCODE_LW, etc.
This is not a valid variable definition:
struct inst{lw,0,1,2,0};
There's no struct inst defined, only inst, there's no variable name, and you need = to use an initializer. To create a variable of this type an initialize it, you need:
inst myinst = {lw,0,1,2,0};
Also, your function has a parameter named inst which masks the type inst. You need to give it a different name:
void parser(char *instruction)

Cmocka: checking a structure passed as a parameter

Let's say that I declare a C struct called foo, which has an int field called bar and a char * called baz.
How do I use the Cmocka expect_ and check_expected macros to check that the structure passed was correct and both fields have the expected values? If there is an example in the documentation, I missed it.
[Update] Perhaps I can use expect_check()? But I can't find an example :-(
Use expect_memory(...) and check_expected(...):
Example:
I assume you have a function under test fut which calls a subfunction subfunc. Your struct looks like this:
typedef struct foo_s {
int bar;
int baz;
} foo;
And your test driving function could look like this:
void test(void **state) {
foo myfoo = {
.bar = 42,
.baz = 13,
};
expect_memory(subfunc, param, &myfoo, sizeof(foo));
fut();
}
And the subfunctions could look like this:
void subfunc(foo *param){
check_expected(param);
}
Comparing the memory of the struct might work in most cases, however if your compiler puts some filler bytes in there, you have some bytes which you have no controll over and might have random values. This means that your test might not alway yield the same result, which can lead to very annoying debugging session.
For example if you have a struct like this:
typedef struct {
uint8_t c;
uint32_t i;
} tSomeStruct
You might think that the c and i are put right next to each other and sizeof( tSomeStruct ) returns 5. However if you try this out you would be surprised that it is more likely that sizeof( tSomeStruct ) actually returns 8. This is because of the mentioned filler bytes. You do not know what the values of these other bytes are. You can work around this by memsetting your structs to 0 before using them, however this is a little bit hacky and does not work in every case.
To compare structs in a clean way cmocka you can use expect_check( ... ) and check_expected( ... ). This gives you the possibility to write your own comparisson function.
Here is an example on how to use this ( Modified this example: Cmocka Gitlab )
typedef struct {
char c;
int i;
} tSomeStruct;
void mock_function( tSomeStruct* param )
{
check_expected(param)
}
/* return 1 = true, return 0 = false */
int my_int_equal_check(const LargestIntegralType value,
const LargestIntegralType check_value_data)
{
tSomeStruct* cast_value = ( tSomeStruct* ) value;
tSomeStruct* cast_check_value_data = ( tSomeStruct* ) check_value_data;
if ( ( cast_value->c == cast_check_value_data->c )
&& ( cast_value->i == cast_check_value_data->i ) ) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
void mytest(void **state)
{
tSomeStruct struct = {
.c = 'c',
.i = 'i',
}
expect_check(mock_function, param, my_int_equal_check, &struct);
}
I am not sure however if this is possible, if you do not pass your struct as a pointer to your function, as the check function only takes LargestIntegralType.
I recently found out that you can use the struct members inside the check_expected and expect_value:
typedef struct
{
int a;
float b;
} SomeStruct_t;
void mocked_function(SomeStruct_t* s)
{
check_expected(s->a);
check_expected(s->b);
}
void someTest(void **state)
{
expect_value(mocked_function, s->a, 3);
expect_value(mocked_function, s->b, 7.2);
// ...
}

1 struct with 2 different definitions (or dynamic structs)

I'm implementing a little program in C which uses a shared library called "libhelper.so".
The "libhelper.so" defines a struct in it's h-file, but sadly depending on the target-system those definitions are different (libhelper.so is always provided by the system and not by myself):
System A:
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
struct config config; // only in System A
int foo; // in both systems
int bar; // only in System A
};
System B:
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
int foo; // in both systems
int foobar; // only in system B
};
In my program, I thought I just define that struct by myself like this:
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
struct config config; // only in System A
int foo; // in both systems
int foobar; // only in system B
int bar; // only in System A
};
As the result of a call to a function in "libhelper.so" I got an instance of "theStruct" and now I though I can just check if "theStructInstance->bar" or "theStructInstance->foobar" is filled with a valid value to detect which implementation has been used by the library.
But it seems that I get just values like 1...6 which looks like the position of the field in the struct.
Has anyone an idea how I can do this?
No, this won't work.
First of all, all the definitions of the structure must be the same, otherwise you get the infamous Undefined Behaviour.
Second, look at the memory layout. What should be the offset to bar from the beginning of the structure? The first and the third definitions don't agree on this (the fields are most likely to be located consecutively).
Maybe you can try a union?
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
struct config config;
int foo; // in both systems
union {
int bar; // only in System A
int foobar; // only in system B
};
};
If you choose this, you should use only bar on System A and only foobar on System B.
If the two systems are incompatible, and the actual type needed for bar is not available on System B (and vice versa), you can do with the following code:
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
struct config config;
int foo; // in both systems
#ifdef SYSTEM_A
int bar; // only in System A
#else
#ifdef SYSTEM_B
int foobar; // only in system B
#else
#pragma error(either SYSTEM_A or SYSTEM_B must be enabled)
#endif
#endif
};
This way you will be always working with either with code compiled for System A or for System B, so you'll need to have different executables (which seems to be unavoidable anyway if you are compiling for the systems so much different).
You'll need to wrap parts of your code accessing the fields into #ifdefs:
#ifdef SYSTEM_A
s.bar = 5;
#endif
-- otherwise you'll get compile errors on System B.
Another possible solution would be to write platform dependent code to handle each of the individual structs, and then load their data into a common struct. This would then allow you to deal with the same members of the struct, no matter the code path, rather than always referencing one of the two union members based on the system:
struct mystruct;
mystruct.member1 = theStruct.member1; //the common part of the struct
mystruct.member2 = theStruct.member2;
#ifdef platform1
mystruct.member3 = theStruct.p1member; //specific to platform1
mystruct.member4 = -1;
#else
mystruct.member3 = -1;
mystruct.member4 = theStruct.p2member; //specific to platform2
#endif
Here is an approach to think about.
A bit of background about the assumptions I am making first.
It sounds like you have some function libraryFunction () that returns a pointer to a struct theStruct. However the actual layout of the struct theStruct depends on the particular system on which your application is running. In this struct is some information that you need to access. You do not specify the calling arguments or signature of the library function and if the pointer to the struct theStruct is returned as a function value or a pointer to a pointer is part of the argument list. I will assume it is a function return value.
Create a struct you define for the information that you want. Create two files each of which has a function that takes a void pointer and a pointer to your new struct and then fills in your struct with the data you want from the library supplied struct. Each of these two files will be compiled with a particular system target specified (SystemA or SystemB) so that your conversion function will interpret the struct provided by the library function depending on the target system and fill in your struct with the data you want.
file 1 for System A
// copy of the struct used in System A which is in the library header file
// put here for reference only as should be in the header file
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
struct config config; // only in System A
int foo; // in both systems
int bar; // only in System A
};
// my struct that contains the data from struct theStruct that I want
// would be in a header file included into each of these files but here for reference
struct myConvertStruct {
int foo;
};
void convert2SystemA (void *structPtr, struct *myStruct)
{
myStruct->foo = ((struct theStruct *)structPtr)->foo;
}
file 2 for System B
// copy of the struct used in System B which is in the library header file
// put here for reference only as should be in the header file
struct theStruct {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
int foo; // in both systems
int foobar; // only in system B
};
// my struct that contains the data from struct theStruct that I want
// would be in a header file included into each of these files but here for reference
struct myConvertStruct {
int foo;
};
void convert2SystemB (void *structPtr, struct *myStruct)
{
myStruct->foo = ((struct theStruct *)structPtr)->foo;
}
file 3 using the conversion functions
// my struct that contains the data from struct theStruct that I want
// would be in a header file included into each of these files but here for reference
struct myConvertStruct {
int foo;
};
{
struct myConvertStruct myStruct;
// some function body and now we come to the library call
if (mySystem == SystemA) {
void *pStruct = libraryFunction (......);
convert2SystemA (pStruct, &myStruct);
} else if (mySystem == SystemB) {
void *pStruct = libraryFunction (......);
convert2SystemB (pStruct, &myStruct);
} else {
// some error conditions
}
// now use the data that you have pulled as you want to use it
}
The reason why your proposal won't work is that the offset to the foo member is different for System A and System B. You say that you can only figure out what System you are using at runtime. So, when System B sets foo, it will likely end up setting something inside of config instead.
enum system { SystemUnknown, SystemA, SystemB };
struct theStructSystemA {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
struct config config; // only in System A
int foo; // in both systems
int bar; // only in System A
};
struct theStructSystemB {
int fd;
unsigned int flags;
int foo;
int foobar;
};
struct myStruct {
union {
struct theStructSystemA a;
struct theStructSystemB b;
} u;
enum system sys;
};
struct myStruct s = { 0 };
Now, you can set bar to some invalid value: s.u.a.bar = -1, for example. Now, when you call into your library, you can check:
s.u.a.bar = -1;
some_libhelper_call((void *)&s);
if (s.u.a.bar != -1) s.sys = SystemA;
else s.sys = SystemB;
So now, after s.sys is known, you can switch to a different code path that deals entirely with a known system version.

Initializing structure by named members

I'm trying to wrap my head around the syntax provided in http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxpcomp/v7v91/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.vacpp7l.doc%2Flanguage%2Fref%2Fclrc03strin.htm :
struct
{
int a[5], b;
} game[] =
{
[0].a = { 1 },
[1].a[0] = 2
};
Ideally, I'd find some way to do the following:
struct
{
int a, b;
} foo =
{
.a = 4,
.b = 5
};
My reason for wanting to have a by-name initialization of a structure is that my own stucture has many members, so I want better clarity. I shouldn't just initialize them in separate statements because this is a performance-sensitive embedded application where the members are actually bitfields, so a single struct init generates fewer instructions than multiple member initializations.
Which C standard allows for by-name member init like that?
It's not immediately clear what you're asking, but with a c99 compiler, your first attempt could be written as
struct
{
int a[5], b;
} game[] =
{
[0] = {.a = { 1 }},
[1] = {.a[0] = 2}
};
I'm doing something similar in an embedded app under C99. I have a variable called phaseInstill that is "assigned" to a struct:
phaseInstill = (PhaseVolumeStatus)
{
.complete = false,
.ticksInstilled = 0,
.volumeInstilled = 0,
.volumeRemaining = instillVolume
};
Where PhaseVolumeStatus is defined as:
typedef struct
{
Value volumeRemaining; /*!> ml */
Value volumeInstilled; /*!> ml */
Value ticksInstilled; /*!> ticks */
bool complete;
} PhaseVolumeStatus;
I don't have a bitfield example handy, but I don't recall it working any differently in any other of my uses.

Resources