I'm working on a project where I need to use one variable declared in a certain file (say mylib.c) in the main function using 'extern'. All headers are included with guard words to avoid multiple inclusions.
The variable is a structure(defined in mylib.h) which members are only floats and integers.It's initialized at the beginning of the main function.
After entering the main's loop, and doing some work, some members that aren't concerned get random values.
So,I removed extern from the declaration in main, and instead placed it in the declaration in mylib.c. And it worked.
Sim808.h
#ifndef _SIM808_H
#define _SIM808_H
typedef struct{
uint8_t GPRS_Active;
float gsm_latitude;
float gsm_longitude;
}SIM808;
void sendCmd(const char cmd[]);
void sim808_init(void);
void parse_gsm_location(uint8_t* line);
#endif
Sim808.c
#include "sim808.h"
SIM808 sim808;
void parse_gsm_location(uint8_t* line)
{
uint8_t commas=0,index=0;
uint16_t err;
if((err=atoi((const char*)line+12))!=0)
{
printf("No coordinates received\n");
if(err==404 || err==601)
sim808.GPRS_Active=0;
return;
}
while (line[index]!= '\0' && index <50)
{
if(line[index]==',')
{
commas++;
switch (commas)
{
case 1:
sim808.gsm_longitude=atof((const char*)(line+index+1));
printf("Long:%f\n",sim808.gsm_longitude);
break;
case 2:
sim808.gsm_latitude=atof((const char*)(line +index+1));
printf("Longitude%f Latitude%f\n",sim808.gsm_longitude,sim808.gsm_latitude);
break;
case 3:
sscanf((const char*)(line+index+1),"%4d/%2d/%2d", (int*)&sim808.gsmDate.year,(int*)&sim808.gsmDate.month,
(int*)&sim808.gsmDate.day);
break;
case 4:
sscanf((const char*)(line+index+1),"%2d/%2d/%2d",
(int*)&sim808.gsmTime.hours,(int*)&sim808.gsmTime.minutes,(int*)&sim808.gsmTime.seconds);
break;
}
}
index++;
}
}
main.c
#include "sim808.h"
extern SIM808 sim808;
int main(void)
{
uint8_t response[150];
//init functions
while(1)
{
if(sim808.GPRS_Active==1)
{
sendCmd("AT+CIPGSMLOC=1,1\r\n");
HAL_UART_Receive(&huart4,response,2,60000);//max response time is 1 min
HAL_UART_Receive(&huart4,response,150,1000);//we dont need first 2 chars
parse_gsm_location(response);
memset((void*)response,0,150);
}
else
sim808_init();
}
}
As you can see,the member GPRS_Active can only receive 1 or 0 in my code.
Using printf, it turned to become 242 after the first iteration.
Can someone explain? Can this be a compiler bug?
Thanks.
The chance it is a compiler issue is really small. More likely is that your variable is modified by some part of your code. Try to avoid using global variables as they have the largest scope.
Do you use somewhere local variable with same name?
Have you checked map file or in debugger where it is placed?
You can use debugger feature datawatch where you break if data at certain address changes to help you track this issue.
When I use global variables, I do not declare them in the .h file to avoid issues of multiple inclusions. You can of course find some tricks to declare them in the .h, but I think it makes things so complicated. So try this:
In mylib.c:
int myGlobalVariable;
In main.c
extern int myGlobalVariable;
int main(void)
{
myGlobalVariable = 5;
}
If you still have issues, try to increase the size of your stack. If the stack is not big enough, it could be overwritten by other data.
If you use memset or memcpy in any of your code, make sure that the length parameter is correct. memset and memcpy are quite dangerous and you could easily write in some part of the memory that you don't really want.
Related
I am dealing with a issue with switch cases.
Explanation of the program:
main(argc,argv).
argv leads to cases in a switch statement. Depending on the input, the according case will be entered and the corresponding function will be executed. -> Output is always a struct, with different content. More than one input (i.e. main.c case1 case3) is allowed-> executed both cases.
my problem is dealing with the passing of these data's and save it in a global variable, in order to print the collection. Inside of a case, I am passing the local results to the global variable, but after the break statement of the case, the global starts with NULL again and doesn't contain the info's of the executed case.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include "m.h"
output* print;
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
output_g* global; // global_struct
if(argc > 1)
{
global= create_global(argc-1); // allocation for global struct
for(int j = 0; j < argc; j++)
{
switch (atoi(argv[i]))
{
case 123:
{
output* print= 123();
if(print== NULL)
{
return 0;
}
global = fill_global(global ,print); // hands over the current struct to the global struct
delete(print); // free function
}
break;
case 456:
{
output* print= 456();
if(print== NULL)
{
return 0;
}
global = fill_global(global ,print); // hands over the current struct to the global struct
delete(print); // free function
}
break;
case 789:
{
lfnr++;
output_1* print_liste = 789();
if(print== NULL)
{
return 0;
}
global = fill_global(global ,print); // hands over the current struct to the global struct
delete(print); // free function
}
break;
default:
break;
}
print_global_struct(file,globale_liste);
delete_global(globale_liste);
}//End for-Schleife
}// End If
return 0;
}
a) If I understood you correctly, you don't understand the switch statement :)
A switch statement is similar to nested if statements.
so..
int x = 10;
switch (x)
case 1:
//does not happen, x is not 1
case 10:
//happens ...
after all that x is still 10, unless you changed it in the case statements explicitly. The cases just check to see IF x is a value, it does not SET a value. The same is true for any other variable in your code, the above code would not modify y either, unless you explicitly assign it inside a case it won't change.
b) it is best if you DO NOT declare locals in a case statement. They can become very wonky. The standard c++ rules work: variables declared inside {} pairs are scoped to inside that {} pair, so proper use of them will properly give the correct scope for each case. So it will work as expected if you apply braces. You should NOT declare a local in one case and use it in another, even if you can get it working (you can) it is error prone in that editing the code later can break things, the code can be confusing to read and work with, and its just generally a bad idea.
an example:
int main()
{
int x = 3;
switch(x)
{
case 1: int y;
case 2: y = 3;
case 3: y = 5;
cout << y << endl;
};
}
that compiled and ran for me, printing 5.
It worked fine -- I did not expect that, using g++ c17 options.
I still think it is a bad thing to do as far as reading and following the intent.
if you put {} around the int y statement, it does NOT compile anymore.
If you put breaks after the case 1 and case 2, it does NOT compile anymore.
so it is 'fragile' to being edited, at the very least, to do this.
c) run time won't lose anything. Ive had programs that ran for months on end. Being in a case has no effect on this either. The risk of losing variables is the 'ram' risk that all programs face... if a long running program is killed by power outage or malfunction etc you lose anything not saved to a file and have to start over. Long running programs should save their state periodically to protect against this.
I've been reading here a lot but never posted until now.
My problem is that I'm stuck with some code. What I'm trying to do is receive a value through UART from Matlab and assign to a single variable that is gonna stick through the entire program.
This is the test code I'm running:
void start_comm(){
//Stuck in loop untill Matlab gives signal
// Spams character 'A' while waiting
while (!uart_is_rx_ready (CONF_UART)){
printf("%c\n",'A');
delay_ms(100);
}
// Start reading data sent from Matlab
// P,I,D & samplingstime data
uint8_t p_char, i_char, d_char, samp_char1, samp_char2;
while (!uart_is_rx_ready (CONF_UART)){};
uart_read(CONF_UART, &p_char);
// Print out everything out again for testing
printf("%c\n", p_char);
}
This code works, everything prints out fine. What I need is to be able to use the value in p_char in other functions and I need it to be the same value as the one sent from Matlab i.e. if it's 5 then I could printf in another function and it would print a 5.
I've tried return p_char to a different variable but it would just revert to 0 at the start of the loop. I've also tried the following test code where I try to set the variable as static:
**file1.h**
extern int a;
**file1.c**
#include file1.h
void function(){
static int a;
scanf("%i", &a);
}
**main.c**
#include file1.h
int main() {
function();
while(1){
printf("%i", a);
}
}
Looking over the code, I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong with the static and extern, but I'm lost.
EDIT: Figured out the problem, it was indeed Matlab code. I needed to add a delay to it to account for the time it took to communicate with the microcontroller.
Update your file1.c to read:
#include file1.h
int a;
void function(){
scanf("%i", &a);
}
This puts a in the global scope. If you keep extern int a in your .h file, C files that include that header will know about it.
I have a project, and a case where I have a few often-changed preprocessor #defines that control how it works--ex:
void myfunction(int num, mystruct* content) {
doSomethingTo(content);
//...
#ifdef FEATURE_X
feature_x(content);
#endif
}
This works fine, although it does have to be recompiled each time, so it's in the "stuff that has to be recompiled each time" file. I would like to push it into a [static] library instead. I'm ok with changing how it's called (already have a function pointer for picking myFunction), so I'd like that to turn into
void myfunction(int num, mystruct* content) {
doSomethingTo(content);
//...
}
void myfunction_featureX(int num, mystruct* content) {
doSomethingTo(content);
//...
feature_x(content);
}
I need to do this in a couple places, so using a separate library (one with and one without -D FEATURE_X) for each isn't an acceptable option. I could do it with copy/paste, but that results in code reuse that carries a risk of fixing a bug in one copy but not the other.
Have the featureX versions of functions call the mainline functions. In your example myfunction_featureX would call myfunction and then do its own thing.
Surely, this is the point at which you change the activation of Feature X from a compile time issue into a run-time issue:
void myfunction(int num, mystruct* content)
{
doSomethingTo(content);
//...
if (FeatureX_Enabled())
feature_x(content);
}
The FeatureX_Enabled() test might be a full function, or it might be simply test an appropriately scoped variable that is defined outside the function — a static variable in the file, or an external variable. This avoids having to futz with the function pointers; it's the same function called as now. Changing a table of function pointers is equivalent to changing a single variable — it involves changing the value of something stored outside the function to change the behaviour of the function.
Would it help if you put myfeature_x in a function table instead?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef struct {
int x,y;
} mystruct;
typedef void (*fn_ptr)(mystruct* content);
fn_ptr vtable[10];
#define FEATURE_X_INDEX 0
void feature_x(mystruct *content)
{
printf("y: %d\n", content->y);
}
void myfunction(int num, mystruct* content) {
printf("x: %d\n", content->x);
//...
if (vtable[FEATURE_X_INDEX]) {
vtable[FEATURE_X_INDEX](content);
}
}
int main(void)
{
bzero(vtable, sizeof(vtable));
mystruct s;
s.x = 1;
s.y = 2;
myfunction(0, &s);
if (1) {
//Of course you'd use a more sensible condition.
vtable[FEATURE_X_INDEX] = feature_x;
}
myfunction(0, &s);
return 0;
}
Output:
x: 1
x: 1
y: 2
Then all you need to do is populate the virtual function table with NULLs if that feature is not to be used, and with function pointers if it is to be used. This you can do from wherever you want - your static library for example.. or you can compile feature_x into a dynamic library, load it at runtime and if the loading succeeded populate the function table, and clear the table when the dynamically linked library is unloaded.
I think the only benefit this really gives you over Jonathan Leffler's method is that the code for feature_x doesn't actually need to be linked into the same binary as your other code. If all you need is a runtime switch to turn the feature on or off, a simple if statement should do the trick, as Jonathan Leffler suggested. (Incidentally, there's an if here, too - it checks the function table's content :) )
I'm sure some variation of this question has been asked before but all other, similar questions on SO seem to be much more complex, involving passing arrays and other forms of data. My scenario is much simpler so I hope there is a simple/elegant solution.
Is there a way that I can create an anonymous function, or pass a line of code as a function pointer to another function?
In my case, I have a series of diverse operations. Before and after each line of code, there are tasks I want to accomplish, that never change. Instead of duplicating the beginning code and ending code, I'd like to write a function that takes a function pointer as a parameter and executes all of the code in the necessary order.
My problem is that it's not worth defining 30 functions for each operation since they are each one line of code. If I can't create an anonymous function, is there a way that I can simplify my C code?
If my request isn't entirely clear. Here's a bit of pseudo-code for clarification. My code is much more meaningful than this but the code below gets the point accross.
void Tests()
{
//Step #1
printf("This is the beginning, always constant.");
something_unique = a_var * 42; //This is the line I'd like to pass as an anon-function.
printf("End code, never changes");
a_var++;
//Step #2
printf("This is the beginning, always constant.");
a_diff_var = "arbitrary"; //This is the line I'd like to pass as an anon-function.
printf("End code, never changes");
a_var++;
...
...
//Step #30
printf("This is the beginning, always constant.");
var_30 = "Yup, still executing the same code around a different operation. Would be nice to refactor..."; //This is the line I'd like to pass as an anon-function.
printf("End code, never changes");
a_var++;
}
Not in the traditional sense of anonymous functions, but you can macro it:
#define do_something(blah) {\
printf("This is the beginning, always constant.");\
blah;\
printf("End code, never changes");\
a_var++;\
}
Then it becomes
do_something(something_unique = a_var * 42)
No, you cannot. Anonymous functions are only available in functional languages (and languages with functional subsets), and as we all know, c is dysfunctional ;^)
In C and pre-0x C++, no.
In C++0x, yes, using lambda functions.
The best way to simplify your code would probably to put a for loop around a switch statement.
int a_var;
for ( a_var = 0; a_var <= 30; a_var++ )
{
starteroperations();
switch (a_var)
{
case 0:
operation0(); break;
case ...:
operationx(); break;
case 30:
...
}
closingoperations();
}
If you can use Clang, you can take advantage of blocks. To learn blocks, you can use Apple's documentation, Clang's block language specification and implementation notes, and Apple's proposal to the ISO C working group to add blocks to the standard C language, as well as a ton of blog posts.
Using blocks, you could write:
/* Block variables are declared like function pointers
* but use ^ ("block pointer") instead of * ("normal pointer"). */
void (^before)(void) = void ^(void) { puts("before"); };
/* Blocks infer the return type, so you don't need to declare it
* in the block definition. */
void (^after)(void) = ^(void) { puts("after"); };
/* The default arguments are assumed to be void, so you could even
* just define after as
*
* ^{ puts("after"); };
*/
before();
foo = bar + baz*kablooie;
after();
This example gives the anonymous blocks names by assigning to a block variable. You can also define and call a block directly:
^{ puts("!"); } ();
/*| definition | invocation of anonymous function |*/
This also makes defining "struct-objects" (OOP in C using structs) very simple.
Both Clang and GCC support inner/nested functions as an extension to standard C. This would let you define the function immediately before taking its address, which might be an alternative if your control flow structure allows it: inner function pointers cannot be allowed to escape from their immediate scope. As the docs say:
If you try to call the nested function through its address after the containing function has exited, all hell will break loose. If you try to call it after a containing scope level has exited, and if it refers to some of the variables that are no longer in scope, you may be lucky, but it's not wise to take the risk. If, however, the nested function does not refer to anything that has gone out of scope, you should be safe.
Using nested functions, you could write:
/* Nested functions are defined just like normal functions.
* The difference is that they are not defined at "file scope"
* but instead are defined inside another function. */
void before(void) { puts("before"); };
void after(void) { puts("after"); };
before();
foo = bar + baz*kablooie;
after();
Either you go the case way suggested by #dcpomero, or you do the following:
typedef void job(int);
job test1; void test1(int a_var) { something_unique = a_var * 42; }
job test2; void test2(int a_var) { a_diff_var = "arbitrary"; }
job test3; void test3(int a_var) { var_30 = "Yup, still executing the same code around a different operation. Would be nice to refactor..."; }
job * tests[] = { test1, test2, test3, testn };
void Tests()
{
int i;
for (i=0; i < sizeof tests/sizeof tests[0]; i++) {
printf("This is the beginning, always constant.");
tests[i](a_var);
printf("End code, never changes");
a_var++;
}
}
I am working on an embedded application where the device is controlled through a command interface. I mocked the command dispatcher in VC and had it working to my satisfaction; but when I then moved the code over to the embedded environment, I found out that the compiler has a broken implementation of pointer-to-func's.
Here's how I originally implemented the code (in VC):
/* Relevant parts of header file */
typedef struct command {
const char *code;
void *set_dispatcher;
void *get_dispatcher;
const char *_description;
} command_t;
#define COMMAND_ENTRY(label,dispatcher,description) {(const char*)label, &set_##dispatcher, &get_##dispatcher, (const char*)description}
/* Dispatcher data structure in the C file */
const command_t commands[] = {
COMMAND_ENTRY("DH", Dhcp, "DHCP (0=off, 1=on)"),
COMMAND_ENTRY("IP", Ip, "IP Address (192.168.1.205)"),
COMMAND_ENTRY("SM", Subnet, "Subunet Mask (255.255.255.0)"),
COMMAND_ENTRY("DR", DefaultRoute, "Default router (192.168.1.1)"),
COMMAND_ENTRY("UN", Username, "Web username"),
COMMAND_ENTRY("PW", Password, "Web password"),
...
}
/* After matching the received command string to the command "label", the command is dispatched */
if (pc->isGetter)
return ((get_fn_t)(commands[i].get_dispatcher))(pc);
else
return ((set_fn_t)(commands[i].set_dispatcher))(pc);
}
Without the use of function pointers, it seems like my only hope is to use switch()/case statements to call functions. But I'd like to avoid having to manually maintain a large switch() statement.
What I was thinking of doing is moving all the COMMAND_ENTRY lines into a separate include file. Then wraps that include file with varying #define and #undefines. Something like:
/* Create enum's labels */
#define COMMAND_ENTRY(label,dispatcher,description) SET_##dispatcher, GET_##dispatcher
typedef enum command_labels = {
#include "entries.cinc"
DUMMY_ENUM_ENTRY} command_labels_t;
#undefine COMMAND_ENTRY
/* Create command mapping table */
#define COMMAND_ENTRY(label,dispatcher,description) {(const char*)label, SET_##dispatcher, GET_##dispatcher, (const char*)description}
const command_t commands[] = {
#include "entries.cinc"
NULL /* dummy */ };
#undefine COMMAND_ENTRY
/*...*/
int command_dispatcher(command_labels_t dispatcher_id) {
/* Create dispatcher switch statement */
#define COMMAND_ENTRY(label,dispatcher,description) case SET_##dispatcher: return set_##dispatcher(pc); case GET_##dispatcher: return get_##dispatcher(pc);
switch(dispatcher_id) {
#include "entries.cinc"
default:
return NOT_FOUND;
}
#undefine COMMAND_ENTRY
}
Does anyone see a better way to handle this situation? Sadly, 'get another compiler' is not a viable option. :(
--- Edit to add:
Just to clarify, the particular embedded environment is broken in that the compiler is supposed to create a "function-pointer table" which is then used by the compiler to resolve calls to functions through a pointer. Unfortunately, the compiler is broken and doesn't generate a correct function-table.
So I don't have an easy way to extract the func address to invoke it.
--- Edit #2:
Ah, yes, the use of void *(set|get)_dispatcher was my attempt to see if the problem was with the typedefine of the func pointers. Originally, I had
typedef int (*set_fn_t)(cmdContext_t *pCmdCtx);
typedef int (*get_fn_t)(cmdContext_t *pCmdCtx);
typedef struct command {
const char *code;
set_fn_t set_dispatcher;
get_fn_t get_dispatcher;
const char *_description;
} command_t;
You should try changing your struct command so the function pointers have the actual type:
typedef struct command {
const char *code;
set_fn_t set_dispatcher;
get_fn_t get_dispatcher;
const char *_description;
} command_t;
Unfortunately, function pointers are not guaranteed to be able to convert to/from void pointers (that applies only to pointers to objects).
What's the embedded environment?
Given the information posted in the updates to the question, I see that it's really a bugged compiler.
I think that your proposed solution seems pretty reasonable - it's probably similar to what I would have come up with.
A function pointer isn't actually required to fit in a void*. You could check to make sure that the value you're calling is actually the address of the function. If not, use a function pointer type in the struct: either get_fn_t, or IIRC void(*)(void) is guaranteed to be compatible with any function pointer type.
Edit: OK, assuming that calling by value can't be made to work, I can't think of a neater way to do what you need than auto-generating the switch statement. You could maybe use an off-the-shelf ASP-style preprocessor mode for ruby/python/perl/php/whatever prior to the C preprocessor. Something like this:
switch(dispatcher_id) {
<% for c in commands %>
case SET_<% c.dispatcher %>: return set_<% c.dispatcher %>(pc);
case GET_<% c.dispatcher %>: return get_<% c.dispatcher %>(pc);
<% end %>
default:
return NOT_FOUND;
}
might be a bit more readable than the macro/include trick, but introducing a new tool and setting up the makefiles is probably not worth it for such a small amount of code. And the line numbers in the debug info won't relate to the file you think of as the source file unless you do extra work in your preprocessor to specify them.
Can you get the vendor to fix the compiler?
To what extent is the pointer-to-function broken?
If the compiler allows you to get the address of a function (I'm from C++, but &getenv is what I mean), you could wrap the calling convention stuff into assembler.
As said, I'm a C++ssie, but something in the way of
; function call
push [arg1]
push [arg2]
call [command+8] ; at the 4th location, the setter is stored
ret
If even that is broken, you could define an array of extern void* pointers which you define, again, in assembly.
try this syntax:
return (*((get_fn_t)commands[i].get_dispatcher))(pc);
It's been awhile since I've done C & function pointers, but I believe the original C syntax required the * when dereferencing function pointers but most compilers would let you get away without it.
Do you have access to the link map?
If so, maybe you can hack your way around the wonky function-pointer table:
unsigned long addr_get_dhcp = 0x1111111;
unsigned long addr_set_dhcp = 0x2222222; //make these unique numbers.
/* Relevant parts of header file */
typedef struct command {
const char *code;
unsigned long set_dispatcher;
unsigned long get_dispatcher;
const char *_description;
} command_t;
#define COMMAND_ENTRY(label,dispatcher,description) {(const char*)label,
addr_set_##dispatcher, addr_get_##dispatcher, (const char*)description}
Now compile, grab the relevant addresses from the link map, replace the constants, and recompile. Nothing should move, so the map ought to stay the same. (Making the original constants unique should prevent the compiler from collapsing identical values into one storage location. You may need a long long, depending on the architecture)
If the concept works, you could probably add a post-link step running a script to do the replacement automagically. Of course, this is just a theory, it may fail miserably.
Maybe, you need to look into the structure again:
typedef struct command {
const char *code;
void *set_dispatcher; //IMO, it does not look like a function pointer...
void *get_dispatcher; //more like a pointer to void
const char *_description;
} command_t;
Let say your dispatchers have the following similar function definition:
//a function pointer type definition
typedef int (*genericDispatcher)(int data);
Assume that the dispatchers are like below:
int set_DhcpDispatcher(int data) { return data; }
int get_DhcpDispatcher(int data) { return 2*data; }
So, the revised structure will be:
typedef struct command {
const char *code;
genericDispatcher set_dispatcher;
genericDispatcher get_dispatcher;
const char *_description;
} command_t;
Your macro will be:
#define COMMAND_ENTRY(label,dispatcher,description) \
{ (const char*)label, \
set_##dispatcher##Dispatcher, \
get_##dispatcher##Dispatcher, \
(const char*)description }
Then, you can set your array as usual:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int value1 = 0, value2 = 0;
const command_t commands[] = {
COMMAND_ENTRY("DH", Dhcp, "DHCP (0=off, 1=on)")
};
value1 = commands[0].set_dispatcher(1);
value2 = commands[0].get_dispatcher(2);
printf("value1 = %d, value2 = %d", value1, value2);
return 0;
}
Correct me, if I am wrong somewhere... ;)