How can I create a function object in C - c

I would like to create a wrapper for c functions, so that I can convert a function call of the form ret = function(arg1,arg2,arg3); into the form /*void*/ function_wrapper(/*void*/);. That is similar to function objects in C++ and boost bind.
Is this possible? how can I do it?
Update:
To explain in more details what I am looking for:
We start with this function:
int f(int i){
//do stuff
return somevalue;
}
Obvioulsy, it is called like this:
// do stuff
int x = 0;
ret = f(0);
// do more stuff.
I would like to do some magic that will wrap the function into void function(void)
struct function_object fo;
fo.function_pointer = &f;
fo.add_arg(x, int);
fo.set_ret_pointer(&ret);
fo.call();
Note: I saw that there was a vote for closing this question and marking it as unclear. Please do not do that. I have a legitimate need to get this question answered. If you need explanation, ask and I will be glad to elaborate.

I came up with a better code that might allow you to do what you want. First I'll explain how it works, show the code and explain why I still don't think it's a good idea to use it (though the code might open doors for improvements that addresses those issues).
Functionality:
Before you start using the "function objects", you have to call an initialization function (FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize();), which will initialize the mutexes on every data structure used in the library.
After initializing, every time you want to call one of those "function objects", without using the parameters, you will have to set it up first. This is done by creating a FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t pointer and calling get_function_handler(). This will search for a free FUNCTIONOBJ_handler data structure that can be used at the moment.
If none is found (all FUNCTIONOBJ_handler data structures are busy, being used by some function call) NULL is returned.
If get_function_handler() does find a FUNCTIONOBJ_handler data structure it will try to lock the FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder data structure, that holds the ID of the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler of the function about to be called.
If FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder is locked already, get_function_handler() will hang until it's unlocked by the thread using it.
Once FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder is locked, the ID of the grabbed FUNCTIONOBJ_handler is wrote on it and the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler pointer is returned by get_function_handler.
With the pointer in hand, the user can set the pointer to the arguments and the return variable with set_args_pointer and set_return_pointer, which both take a void * as arguments.
Finally, you can call the function you want. It has to:
1 - Grab the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler ID from the FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder data structure and use it to get a pointer to the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler itself.
2 - Use the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler to access the arguments.
3 - Return by using one of the return function (on the example we have ret_int, which will return an integer and unlock the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler)
Below is a simplified mind map describing a bit of what is going on:
Finally, the code:
funcobj.h:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS 1024
typedef struct {
//Current ID about to be called
int current_id;
//Mutex
pthread_mutex_t id_holder_mutex;
} FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder_t;
typedef struct {
//Attributes
void *arguments;
void *return_pointer;
//Mutex
pthread_mutex_t handler_mutex;
} FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t;
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS];
FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder_t FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder;
void set_return_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer);
void set_args_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer);
void ret_int(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, int return_value);
void FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize(void);
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *get_function_handler(void);
funcobj.c:
#include "funcobj.h"
void set_return_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer){
this->return_pointer = pointer;
}
void set_args_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer){
this->arguments = pointer;
}
void ret_int(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, int return_value){
if(this->return_pointer){
*((int *) (this->return_pointer)) = return_value;
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(this->handler_mutex));
}
void FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize(void){
for(int i = 0; i < MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS; ++i){
pthread_mutex_init(&FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[i].handler_mutex, NULL);
}
pthread_mutex_init(&FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.id_holder_mutex, NULL);
}
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *get_function_handler(void){
int i = 0;
while((0 != pthread_mutex_trylock(&FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[i].handler_mutex)) && (i < MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS)){
++i;
}
if(i >= MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS){
return NULL;
}
//Sets the ID holder to hold this ID until the function is called
pthread_mutex_lock(&FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.id_holder_mutex);
FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.current_id = i;
return &FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[i];
}
main.c:
#include "funcobj.h"
#include <string.h>
//Function:
void print(void){
//First the function must grab the handler that contains all its attributes:
//The FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder is mutex locked, so we can just access its value and
//then free the lock:
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this = &FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.current_id];
//We dont need the id_holder anymore, free it!
pthread_mutex_unlock(&FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.id_holder_mutex);
//Do whatever the function has to do
printf("%s\n", (char *) this->arguments);
//Return the value to the pointed variable using the function that returns an int
ret_int(this, 0);
}
void *thread_entry_point(void *data){
int id = (int) data;
char string[100];
snprintf(string, 100, "Thread %u", id);
int return_val;
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this;
for(int i = 0; i < 200; ++i){
do {
this = get_function_handler();
} while(NULL == this);
set_args_pointer(this, string);
set_return_pointer(this, &return_val);
print();
}
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv){
//Initialize global data strucutres (set up mutexes)
FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize();
//testing with 20 threads
pthread_t thread_id[20];
for(int i = 0; i < 20; ++i){
pthread_create(&thread_id[i], NULL, &thread_entry_point, (void *) i);
}
for(int i = 0; i < 20; ++i){
pthread_join(thread_id[i], NULL);
}
return 0;
}
To compile: gcc -o program main.c funcobj.c -lpthread
Reasons to avoid it:
By using this, you are limiting the number of "function objects" that can be running simultaneously. That's because we need to use global data structures to hold the information required by the functions (arguments and return pointer).
You will be seriously slowing down the program when using multiple threads if those use "function objects" frequently: Even though many functions can run at the same time, only a single function object can be set up at a time. So at least for that fraction of time it takes for the program to set up the function and actually call it, all other threads trying to run a function will be hanging waiting the the data structure to be unlocked.
You still have to write some non-intuitive code at the beginning and end of each function you want to work without arguments (grabbing the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler structure, unlocking the FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder structure, accessing arguments through the pointer you grabbed and returning values with non-built-in functions). This increases the chances of bugs drastically if care is not taken, specially some nasty ones:
Increases the chances of deadlocks. If you forget to unlock one of the data structures in any point of your code, you might end up with a program that works fine at some moments, but randomly freeze completely at others (because all function calls without arguments will be hanging waiting for the lock to be freed). That is a risk that happens on multithreaded programs anyways, but by using this you are increasing the amount of code that requires locks unnecessarily (for style purposes).
Complicates the use of recursive functions: Every time you call the function object you'll have to go through the set up phrase (even when inside another function object). Also, if you call the recursive function enough times to fill all FUNCTIONOBJ_handler structures the program will deadlock.
Amongst other reasons I might not notice at the moment :p

Related

pthread_mutex_init result in Segmentation Fault

I'm a college student learning how to deal with threads and databases.
Overall, I'm trying to make a function that will take a list of locks, see if the current lock the program is handling is in the list, and mutex lock that lock.
Currently, I am having issues initializing the *locks, but every time I do so, I get a segmentation error (core dump).
I already try using the different ways of initializing the mutex lock:
&locks->lock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
as well as using : pthread_mutex_init(&locks->lock, NULL);
on the .h file, it contains
typedef struct {
char *table;
pthrad_mutex_t lock;} TableLock;
main file:
static pthread_mutex_t lock_on_locks;
static int active_tables = 0;
static TableLock *locks = NULL;
// Table locking functions
void sudba_lock(char *table) {
sleep(2);
if (locks == NULL) {
my_realloc(locks, sizeof(TableLock));
}
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock_on_locks);
char table_name[strlen(table) + 1];
table_name[strlen(table)] = '\0';
sprintf(table_name, "%s", table);
if (active_tables == 0) {
pthread_mutex_init(&locks->lock, NULL);
pthread_mutex_lock(&locks->lock);
locks[active_tables].table = table_name;
active_tables++;
}
the my_realloc function is this:
void *my_realloc(void *ptr, size_t size) {
void *result = malloc(size);
if(!result) abort();
return result
}
Any help is appreciated
Your crash has nothing to do with pthread_mutex_lock; it's just that you're passing a null pointer to it because you didn't save the result of realloc. Where you have:
my_realloc(locks, sizeof(TableLock));
it should be:
locks = my_realloc(locks, sizeof(TableLock));
But I'm not clear why you're allocating it anyway since this looks like a single-instance lock. Normally locks either have static storage duration or exist inside some structure you're allocating (whose contents they'll protect). Allocating an individual lock by itself is a code smell.
There are a lot of other things that look wrong with your code too, independent of the crash.

Modified struct in some functions changes pointer and causes free() to fail

Pardon me for running multiple statements on one line, but this is what I don't understand. I have three functions named function1, function2 and function3 and each call makeblock, makeblock2, and makeblock3 respectively. See code below. I was trying to get them all to produce the same result on the screen. makeblock function works properly and the result after calling function1 is:
1 A
2 B
function2 and function3 do not work properly and produce a segmentation fault when attempting to free the memory pointer. I suspect it has to do with how the pointer is handled in makeblock2 and makeblock3 functions respectively.
So basically, I'm looking for a shortcut to making the data accessible without returning a modified address value back to the caller. Something shorter than block* dat=*datain;block** data=&dat; would be ideal provided it works yet my attempts in makeblock2 and makeblock3 have failed.
This is my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct{int a;char b;} block;
void printdata(block* data){
while(data->a != 0){printf("%d %c\n",data->a,data->b);data++;}
}
void makeblock3(block** datain){
block** data=&(*datain);
(**data).a=1;(**data).b='A';(*data)++;
(**data).a=2;(**data).b='B';(*data)++;
}
void makeblock2(block** datain){
block** data=datain;
(**data).a=1;(**data).b='A';(*data)++;
(**data).a=2;(**data).b='B';(*data)++;
}
void makeblock(block** datain){
block* dat=*datain;block** data=&dat;
(**data).a=1;(**data).b='A';(*data)++;
(**data).a=2;(**data).b='B';(*data)++;
}
void function1(){block* data=calloc(1,100000);makeblock(&data);printdata(data);free(data);}
void function3(){block* data=calloc(1,100000);makeblock3(&data);printdata(data);free(data);}
void function2(){block* data=calloc(1,100000);makeblock2(&data);printdata(data);free(data);}
int main(){function3();return 0;}
Simple solution: don't pass by reference
void makeblock(block* data){
data->a=1; data->b='A'; data++;
data->a=2; data->b='B'; data++;
}
If you really want to pass by reference but don't want the referred object to change (which is contrary to the usual reason to pass by reference), then make a copy of the referred-to object:
void makeblock(block** data_p){
block* data = *data_p;
data->a=1; data->b='A'; data++;
data->a=2; data->b='B'; data++;
}

Pthreads and shared memory in C

Can anyone tell me why my shared memory data structure (implemented using sys/shm.h) is not being read correctly by pthreads? This is an edited version of my question, with a reduced amount of code. Hopefully its easier to navigate.
Initially, the structure being referenced is created in shared memory space, so two different applications can read and write to it. The aim: to have one application update the shared structure, and the other read it using pthreads. So far everything things are working to an extent. Both applications can read and write to the shared memory, except the pthreads. they don't seem to pick up the modified shared structure?
An overview of the code is below. It is based on a basic runtime system, however, it is not overly complicated. The function executed within the pthreads is:
void* do_work(void *p)
The shared structure is:
typedef struct WL_CTRL_T
Currently all i am trying do is print out the elements of the array. Initially all elements are set to true. Halfway through the execution, using GDB to halt the process, i update the structure from outside, using the other application, by changing elements 0 and 1 to false, then continue to the process. At this i also print out the state of the array from each application via the sequential code, and the print out is correct. However, when the threads are set off, they print the original state of the array, all true...
The structure contains an array of structs, where the active bool field is read by the pthread
I have tried many ways to try and correct this problem, but no joy.
Any advice appreciated, thanks :-)
/*controller api.h*/
typedef struct WL_CTRL_T
{
int targetNumThreads;
int sizeBuf;
int numEntries;
int nextIdx;
thread_state_control_t volatile thread_state_control[THREAD_NUM];
mon_entry_t buffer[];
} wl_ctrl_t;
typedef struct THREADPOOL_T
{
int num_threads;
int qsize;
pthread_t *threads;
todo_t *qhead;
todo_t *qtail;
pthread_mutex_t qlock;
pthread_cond_t q_not_empty;
pthread_cond_t q_empty;
int shutdown;
int dont_accept;
}threadpool_t;
typedef struct TODO_T
{
void (*routine) (void*);
void * arg;
int lock;
struct todo_t* next;
} todo_t;
The function assigned to the pthread
/********************************************************************
*
* do_work:
*
* this is the reusable thread, assigned work via the dispatch
* function.
*
********************************************************************/
void* do_work(void *p)
{
int c = 0;
thread_args_t *thread_args = (thread_args_t*)p;
threadpool_t *pool = thread_args->threadpool;
todo_t* workload;
wl_ctrl_t volatile *wcc = thread_args->wl_ctrl;
while(1)
{
pool->qsize = pool->qsize;
/* while work que is empty, spinlock */
while( pool->qsize == 0)
{
if(c<1)
printf("thread: %d spin-lock \n", thread_args->thread_id);
c++;
}
/* update the threadpool, minus current workload */
workload = pool->qhead;
pool->qsize--;
if(pool->qsize == 0)
{
pool->qhead = NULL;
pool->qtail = NULL;
}
else
{
pool->qhead = workload->next;
}
/* execute workload */
(workload->routine) (workload->arg);
free(workload);
/* check this threads wait state */
printf("In thread: %d\n",wcc->thread_state_control[thread_args->thread_id].active);
}
}

C/Multithreading /Segmentation fault / (May be) Issue with queue for the threads

I am trying to create thread library.For this I am trying to implement queue to store the pending threads to be executed.
#include <ucontext.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct {
ucontext_t context;
}MyThread;
#define MAX 20
MyThread queue[MAX];
int rear=0,front=0;
void addToQueue(MyThread t)
{
if(rear==MAX)
{
printf("Queue is full!");
return;
}
queue[front]=t;
front+=1;
}
MyThread* removeFromQueue()
{
if(front==rear)
return NULL;
rear=rear+1;
return &(queue[rear-1]);
}
MyThread umain;
void MyThreadInit (void(*start_funct)(void *), void *args)
{
getcontext(&(umain.context));
char p[64000];
umain.context.uc_stack.ss_sp =(char *)p;
umain.context.uc_stack.ss_size = sizeof(p);
umain.context.uc_link =NULL;
makecontext(&umain.context,(void(*)(void))start_funct,1,args);
setcontext(&(umain.context));
}
MyThread MyThreadCreate (void(*start_funct)(void *), void *arg)
{
MyThread newthread;
char args[10000];
getcontext(&(newthread.context));
newthread.context.uc_stack.ss_sp =(char *)args;
newthread.context.uc_stack.ss_size = sizeof(args);
newthread.context.uc_link =NULL;
makecontext(&newthread.context,(void(*)(void))start_funct,1,arg);
addToQueue(newthread);
return newthread;
}
void MyThreadYield(void)
{
MyThread* a=removeFromQueue();
MyThread save;
if(a != NULL)
{
printf("Before yielding the context \n");
getcontext(&(save.context));
addToQueue(save);
//swapcontext(&umain.context,&(a->context));
setcontext(a);
printf("After the swapping the context \n");
}
else
{ printf("NULL!!! \n");
}
}
void func1(void *arg)
{
printf("func1started \n");
MyThreadYield();
}
void func2(void *arg)
{
printf("func2started \n");
MyThreadYield();
}
void func12(void *arg)
{
printf("func12started \n");
MyThreadCreate(func1,arg);
MyThreadCreate(func2,arg);
MyThreadYield();
}
int main(void)
{
int i=0;
printf("inside the main function \n");
MyThreadInit(func12,&i);
return 0;
}
Output :
inside the main function
func12started
Before yielding the context
func1started
Before yielding the context
func2started
Before yielding the context
func1started
Before yielding the context
Segmentation fault
The reason I mentioned the queue because i tried experimenting by removing below code from 'MyThreadYield' function and it workes fine but doesnt do the intended functionality.
getcontext(&(save.context));
addToQueue(save);
For one, your queue implementation is not thread-safe at this point. Your question strongly suggests that this code will be used in a multi-threaded environment. Having a non thread-safe queue will give you wrong results, and weird things can happen (like removeFromQueue() returning the same thing to two different threads, or addToQueue() inserting two items in the same position).
Aside from that, your queue implementation would never work. You are not using front and rear correctly. Look carefully at the insert function:
void addToQueue(MyThread t)
{
if (rear==MAX)
{
printf("Queue is full!");
return;
}
queue[front]=t;
front+=1;
}
You check if rear is MAX, yet, you write into queue[front] and increment front. What if I just keep adding items to the queue, eventually reaching the buffer's limit? rear will always be 0, front will grow indefinitely, and your function will write beyond the limits of queue. That's probably the cause of your segmentation fault errors.
I think you wanted to check for front instead:
void addToQueue(MyThread t)
{
if (front == MAX)
{
printf("Queue is full!");
return;
}
queue[front]=t;
front+=1;
}
The code for removeFromQueue() looks superficially ok, as long as queue is a global array (since you're returning a pointer, and can't return pointers to local variables). However, the single, most important fact you have to take out of this answer, is that your queue implementation will not scale in the long-term. An array-based queue is a terrible choice. What do you do when you run out of space in the array? What if I insert MAX elements, then remove 2 or 3, and try to insert more? Your code will say the queue is full, because it only ever allows you to insert MAX elements in total. You could shift every element in the queue to the left when an element is removed, but that's crazy, and extremely inefficient. Or you could increment front modulo MAX, allowing rear to be ahead of front, as long as you know that no more than MAX elements can be inserted. That would be better, but it would break the logic in removeFromQueue(), since the pointers returned earlier will possibly point to a different thread struct as you manipulate the queue - total disaster. Definitely not what you want.
A much, much better approach would be to implement this with a linked list where you keep a pointer to the head and a pointer to the tail. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queue_(abstract_data_type)#Queue_implementation

Using Windows slim read/write lock

/*language C code*/
#include "windows.h"
typedef struct object_s
{
SRWLOCK lock;
int data;
} object_t, *object_p; /*own and pointer type*/
void thread(object_p x)
{
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
//...do something that could probably change x->data value to 0
if(x->data==0)
free(x);
else
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
}
void main()
{
int i;
object_p object=(object_p)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
InitializeSRWLock(&object->lock);
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
CreateThread(0,0,thread,object,0);
}
As you can figure out in the codes above, what I have to accomplish is to let one thread conditionally free the object on which the other two may block. Codes above are obviously flawed because if object is set free along with the lock, all blocking threads give us nowhere but wrong.
A solution below
/*language C code*/
#include "windows.h"
typedef struct object_s
{
/*change: move lock to stack in main()*/
int data;
} object_t, *object_p; /*own and pointer type*/
void thread(void * x)
{
struct {
PSRWLOCK l;
object_p o;
} * _x=x;
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(_x->l);
//...do something that could probably change x->data value to 0
if(_x->o->data==0)
free(_x->o);
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
}
void main()
{
int i;
SRWLOCK lock; /*lock over here*/
object_p object=(object_p)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
InitializeSRWLock(&lock);
/*pack for thread context*/
struct
{
PSRWLOCK l;
object_p o;
} context={&lock, object};
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
CreateThread(0,0,thread,&context,0);
}
works in this case but not applicable however, in my final project because there is actually a dynamic linked list of objects. By applying this solution it means that there must be a list of locks accordingly, each lock for an object and moreover, when a certain object is set free, its lock must be set free at the same time. There is nothing new compared with the first code section.
Now I wonder if there is an alternative solution to this. Thank you very much!
The solution is to not allocate the lock together with the data. I would suggest that you move the data out of that struct and replace it with a pointer to the data. Your linked list can then free the data first, and then the node, without any problems. Here's some pseudo code:
typedef struct
{
lock_t lock;
int* data_ptr;
} something_t;
void init_something (something_t* thing, ...)
{
thing->lock = init_lock();
thing->data_ptr = malloc(...); // whatever the data is supposed to be
}
void free_something (somthing_t* thing)
{
lock(thing->lock);
free(thing->data_ptr);
thing->data_ptr = NULL;
unlock(thing->lock);
}
...
void linked_list_delete_node (...)
{
free_something(node_to_delete->thing);
free(node_to_delete);
}
...
void thread (void* x)
{
lock(x->lock);
//...do something that could probably change x->data_ptr->data... to 0
if(x->data_ptr->data == 0)
{
free_something(x->data_ptr->data);
}
unlock(x->lock);
}
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(lock);
if(_x->o->data==0)
free(_x);
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(lock);
As a sidenote, a C program for Windows can never return void. A hosted C program must always return int. Your program will not compile on a C compiler.
Also, CreateThread() expects a function pointer to a function returning a 32-bit value and taking a void pointer as parameter. You pass a different kind of function pointer, function pointer casts aren't allowed in C, nor am I sure what sort of madness Windows will execute if it gets a different function pointer than what it expects. You invoke undefined behavior. This can cause your program to crash or behave in unexpected or random ways.
You need to change your thread function to DWORD WINAPI thread (LPVOID param);

Resources