I am currently working on a combination software and Arduino project that has the following general structure:
User inputs a string of commands through a terminal program such as CoolTerm
Commands are sent to Arduino through USB Serial
First command is parsed, along with included arguments
Function associated with first command is executed
Second command is parsed, along with included arguments
Function associated with second command is executed
Etc. until all commands have been parsed and executed
So far, all of this works as I would expect it to. However, the project I am working on requires very precise timing, and having to parse each individual command creates a considerable amount of processing time (not sure if this is the right term) between each command execution.
For example, in a user input string that contains three commands, between the first command being parsed and the last command being executed, there is an additional 5.8 milliseconds of processing time from start to finish.
To be clear, all parts of my program are functional, including user input, string parsing, and function execution as described above. I need to improve on my existing code, not correct errors.
Ideally, I imagine that the program will parse each command, "set aside" the function that is associated with the command, and execute all commands sequentially once they have all been "set aside." This will shorten the processing time significantly by getting rid of the need to continue parsing commands between each function execution. I am not sure how to accomplish this, or if it is even possible.
To illustrate my ideas in very basic C++ pseudocode:
(assuming example user input is "A, B, C")
loop() {
// Example user input received: "A, B, C" corresponds to:
// functionA, functionB, functionC
String userInput = receiveInput();
// Parse user input
parse(userInput);
// Execute functions specified by user input
executeFunctions();
}
/*Parsing separates "A, B, C" to functionA, functionB, functionC
Functions are "set aside" to be executed sequentially,
the next beginning directly after the last ends*/
executeFunctions{
// Example functions to be executed
functionA();
functionB();
functionC();
}
Question:
I need a way to create a function based on user input, or based on another function. I have never heard of such a concept through the extensive research I have done, and I am not sure if it exists. If possible, this is the method I would like to use to proceed with my project, as I believe it will require the least amount of restructuring of my code.
Edit:
This project requires compatibility with Arduino hardware and the Arduino IDE. Standard C++ will not work.
You could use a Command Pattern.
Basically, make your parser to put a different command object for each user input into some sort of queue. You can use a basic function object for this:
struct Command {
virtual ~Command() {}
virtual void operator()(); // this will execute the command
};
class FirstCommand : public Command {
// some private data + constructor
public:
virtual void operator()() { /* do stuff for this user input */ }
};
class SecondCommand : public Command {
// some private data + constructor
public:
virtual void operator()() { /* do stuff for this user input */ }
};
A parser would create either FirstCommand or SecondCommand, and store them in the std::queue<Command*> or something more sophisticated. Your consumer code would then execute every command by doing something like:
while (!q.empty() {
Command* command = q.front();
(*command)();
q.pop();
}
With thread-safe queues, the consumer code can even be run in parallel to your parser.
You could use a queue of simple pointers to functions instead of command objects, but if you do, their signatures will have to be the same, while a constructor for a specific command can be arbitrary.
You could create a map of functions. Like this:
typedef void (*ftype)(void);
map<string, ftype> function_map;
Now you map all your functions to a command:
function_map["A"] = functionA;
function_map["B"] = functionB;
function_map["C"] = functionC;
Now after you take the user input and parse it, you can just do:
//foreach command
function_map[command]();
Here's a short code demo with primitive parsing
Could be an alternative, not exact answer. Write a computer program that parses input and sends the commands in binary through the serial. This way serial read (which is quite slow even at 115200) and parsing would be averted. As a bonus, your application has the possibility of being more user-friendly compared to a terminal.
Related
I have a C program which calculates f(x) for some x values (main.c). I need to get a line of c code from file and that code is my function to execute (function.dot). For example function.dot will contain:
pow((1-x), 0.333);
I need to read this file, get that function and execute in my code (main.c). How can I do that?
Basic steps would be:
Read the line from the file.
Generate a new source file which wraps the line of code inside appropriate code.
Invoke a compiler to compile that code into a shared object/dll.
Load the library.
Call the function in the library.
If the single line of code in the file could be any language, it would be far easier to use something like Lua that can be linked into your main executable.
I will provide some options:
Switch to another interpreted language including python, ruby, perl, ...
If you are working on small project, I recommend this option.
Implement your own interpreter in C.
Parse your input, analyze it, execute it. You might find open source implementations: one choice is slang
http://www.jedsoft.org/slang/doc/html/slang.html
Call C compiler and dynamically link it.
It depends on your operating system but system or exec functions help you to call your compiler to handle your input file. If you are using Linux, dlsym can open a shared-object compiled from your input file.
You might need to convert your input file into C program.
Very slow to compile but fastest to run.
You have several options I can think of:
1) Switch to any number of interpreted langauges (python, perl, etc.) which support this as an easy mechanism. (Example: in python
data = open("function.dot").read()
x = 5
eval(data) #note that this is unsafe if you can't trust data, and you might also need to play with environment
)
2) You could wrap the code in it's own c file... something like (but with more error checking etc... you probably don't want to do this)
void generate_c_program(char *line)
{
FILE *fp = fopen("myfile.c","wt");
fprintf(fp,"#include <math.h>\nint main(char *argv, int argc) {\n double x = atof(argv[1]); printf(\"%f\",(%s));}\n");",line); //this is also unsafe if you can't trust data
fclose(fp);
//now execute gcc myfile.c
//now execute a.out
//optionally cleanup by deleting a.out and myfile.c
}
3) Effectively write your own compiler / parser (which may be fairly easy IF you've done this before and the number of functions / operations you need to support is small or may be a much bigger deal and will rather not fit in this answer)... the extensible way would be to use LEX/YACC or similar)
I have the following use case which I had previously solved in Java, but am now required to port the program to C.
I had a method A which called a method do_work() belonging to an abstract class Engine. Each concrete implementation of the class was constructed as follows:
users would submit the definition of the do_work() method . If this definition was correct, the programmer would construct a concrete implementation of the Engine class using the Java Compiler API. (code for this is included for reference below).
How can I do something similar in C:
I now have a structure Engine, with a function pointer to the do_work() method. I want users to be able to submit this method at run time (note: this only occurs once, on startup, once the Engine structure has been constructed, I do not want to change it) via command line.
How could I go about this? I've read around suggestions stating that I would have to use assembly to do this, others stating that this was not possible, but none of them giving a good explanation or references. Any help would be appreciated.
The solution doesn't need to be compatible with 32/64 bits machines, as the program this is written for is only for 64 bits machines.
For reference, the Java Code:
JavaCompiler compiler = ToolProvider.getSystemJavaCompiler();
StandardJavaFileManager stdFileManager = compiler
.getStandardFileManager(null, Locale.getDefault(), null);
Iterable<? extends JavaFileObject> compilationUnits = null;
String[] compileOptions = new String[] { "-d", "bin" };
Iterable<String> compilationOptions = Arrays.asList(compileOptions);
SimpleJavaFileObject fileObject = new DynamicJavaSourceCodeObject(
"package.adress",getCode());
JavaFileObject javaFileObjects[] = new JavaFileObject[] { fileObject };
compilationUnits = Arrays.asList(javaFileObjects);
}
DiagnosticCollector<JavaFileObject> diagnostics = new DiagnosticCollector<JavaFileObject>();
CompilationTask compilerTask = compiler.getTask(null, stdFileManager,
diagnostics, compilationOptions, null, compilationUnits);
boolean status = compilerTask.call();
if (!status) {// If compilation error occurs
/* Iterate through each compilation problem and print it */
String result = "";
for (Diagnostic diagnostic : diagnostics.getDiagnostics()) {
result = String.format("Error on line %d in %s",
diagnostic.getLineNumber(), diagnostic);
}
Exception e = new Exception(result);
throw e;
}
stdFileManager.close();// Close the file manager
/*
* Assuming that the Policy has been successfully compiled, create a new
* instance
*/
Class newEngine = Class
.forName("package.name");
Constructor[] constructor = newPolicy.getConstructors();
constructor[0].setAccessible(true);
etc.
}
In C all code must be compiled to native one before usage, so the only way for you is to use command line compiler to build code submitted by users. It may be GNU C++ compiler for example, or Visual C++ compiler (but for Visual C++ I don't know what about legal problems, is it permitted by license to do that).
So, first of all, select your compiler, probably GNU one.
Next, you can compile it as executable program or as DLL (assuming your software is for
Windows). If you decide to compile it to DLL, you have to use Win32 function LoadLibrary to load new built DLL into your process, and after that you can use GetProcAddress function to get method address and call it dynamically from C++ (you must implement a function wrapper and make it public in DLL).
If you decide to compile it as EXE file, you have to use CreateProcess function to run your code, send parameters via command line and receive data, may be, with pipe (see CreatePipe function), or may be with temporary file, or any other interprocess communication way available in Windows.
I think in your situation it is better to compile to EXE file, because in DLL if user code is buggy your main program may crash.
I write my own C function for Postgresql which have bytea parameter. This function is defined as followed
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION putDoc(entity_type int, entity_id int,
doc_type text, doc_data bytea) RETURNS text
AS 'proj_pg', 'call_putDoc'
LANGUAGE C STRICT;
My function call_putDoc, written on C, reads doc_data and pass its data to another function like file_magic to determine mime-type of the data and then pass data to appropriate file converter.
I call this postgresql function from php script which loads file content to last parameter. So, I should pass file contents with pg_escape_bytea.
When data are passed to call_putDoc C function, does its data already unescaped and if not - how to unescape them?
Edit: As I found, no, data, passed to C function, is not unescaped. How to unescape it?
When it comes to programming C functions for PostgreSQL, the documentation explains some of the basics, but for the rest it's usually down to reading the source code for the PostgreSQL server.
Thankfully the code is usually well structured and easy to read. I wish it had more doc comments though.
Some vital tools for navigating the source code are either:
A good IDE; or
The find and git grep commands.
In this case, after having a look I think your bytea argument is being decoded - at least in Pg 9.2, it's possible (though rather unlikely) that 8.4 behaved differently. The server should automatically do that before calling your function, and I suspect you have a programming error in how you are calling your putDoc function from SQL. Without sources it's hard to say more.
Try calling it putDoc from psql with some sample data you've verified is correctly escape encoded for your 8.4 server
Try setting a breakpoint in byteain to make sure it's called before your function
Follow through the steps below to verify that what I've said applies to 8.4.
Set a breakpoint in your function and step through with gdb, using the print function as you go to examine the variables. There are lots of gdb tutorials that'll teach you the required break, backtrace, cont, step, next, print, etc commands, so I won't repeat all that here.
As for what's wrong: You could be double-encoding your data - for example, given your comments I'm wondering if you've base64 encoded data and passed it to Pg with bytea_output set to escape. Pg would then decode it ... giving you a bytea containing the bytea representation of the base64 encoding of the bytes, not the raw bytes themselves. (Edit Sounds like probably not based on comments).
For correct use of bytea see:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-client.html
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-binary.html
To say more I'd need source code.
Here's what I did:
A quick find -name bytea\* in the source tree locates src/include/utils/bytea.h. A comment there notes that the function definitions are in utils/adt/varlena.c - which turns out to actually be src/backend/util/adt/varlena.c.
In bytea.h you'll also notice the definition of the bytea_output GUC parameter, which is what you see when you SHOW bytea_output or SET bytea_output in psql.
Let's have a look at a function we know does something with bytea data, like bytea_substr, in varlena.c. It's so short I'll include one of its declarations here:
Datum
bytea_substr(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
PG_RETURN_BYTEA_P(bytea_substring(PG_GETARG_DATUM(0),
PG_GETARG_INT32(1),
PG_GETARG_INT32(2),
false));
}
Many of the public functions are wrappers around private implementation, so the private implementation can be re-used with functions that have differing arguments, or from other private code too. This is such a case; you'll see that the real implementation is bytea_substring. All the above does is handle the SQL function calling interface. It doesn't mess with the Datum containing the bytea input at all.
The real implementation bytea_substring follows directly below the SQL interface wrappers in this partcular case, so read on in varlena.c.
The implementation doesn't seem to refer to the bytea_output GUC, and basically just calls DatumGetByteaPSlice to do the work after handling some border cases. git grep DatumGetByteaPSlice shows us that DatumGetByteaPSlice is in src/include/fmgr.h, and is a macro defined as:
#define DatumGetByteaPSlice(X,m,n) ((bytea *) PG_DETOAST_DATUM_SLICE(X,m,n))
where PG_DETOAST_DATUM_SLICE is
#define PG_DETOAST_DATUM_SLICE(datum,f,c) \
pg_detoast_datum_slice((struct varlena *) DatumGetPointer(datum), \
(int32) (f), (int32) (c))
so it's just detoasting the datum and returning a memory slice. This leaves me wondering: has the decoding been done elsewhere, as part of the function call interface? Or have I missed something?
A look at byteain, the input function for bytea, shows that it's certainly decoding the data. Set a breakpoint in that function and it should trip when you call your function from SQL, showing that the bytea data is really being decoded.
For example, let's see if byteain gets called when we call bytea_substr with:
SELECT substring('1234'::bytea, 2,2);
In case you're wondering how substring(bytea) gets turned into a C call to bytea_substr, look at src/catalog/pg_proc.h for the mappings.
We'll start psql and get the pid of the backend:
$ psql -q regress
regress=# select pg_backend_pid();
pg_backend_pid
----------------
18582
(1 row)
then in another terminal connect to that pid with gdb, set a breakpoint, and continue execution:
$ sudo -u postgres gdb -q -p 18582
Attaching to process 18582
... blah blah ...
(gdb) break bytea_substr
Breakpoint 1 at 0x6a9e40: file varlena.c, line 1845.
(gdb) cont
Continuing.
In the 1st terminal we execute in psql:
SELECT substring('1234'::bytea, 2,2);
... and notice that it hangs without returning a result. Good. That's because we tripped the breakpoint in gdb, as you can see in the 2nd terminal:
Breakpoint 1, bytea_substr (fcinfo=0x1265690) at varlena.c:1845
1845 PG_RETURN_BYTEA_P(bytea_substring(PG_GETARG_DATUM(0),
(gdb)
A backtrace with the bt command doesn't show bytea_substr in the call path, it's all SQL function call machinery. So Pg is decoding the bytea before it's passing it to bytea_substr.
You can now detach the debugger with quit. This won't quit the Pg backend, only detach and quit the debugger.
I am looking for a method of having console auto complete - such that given an application like:
int main (int argc, char ** argv)
{
if (argc == 1) return EXIT_FAILURE;
if (strcmp(argv[1], "good")==0) printf("good\n");
if (strcmp(argv[1], "bad")==0) printf("bad\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
When running it, I would like pressing [tab] after the command, such that it would give me one of the possible useful options.
Example:
./a.out g[tab]
would auto complete to
./a.out good
I don't want to edit /etc/bash-completion.d/, I was hoping for a much stronger auto-complete, something like a function in the executable itself that would be called - perhaps so it could query a database for the list of possible options. Or perhaps output a message letting you know what the options are.
If you think this is simply totally impossible, let me know!
Completions are a property of the shell you run the application from. You will have to provide completion functions for all the shells you want to support (bash, zsh, tcsh and fish have customizable completions). A completion function can call your application (e.g. run you_application --list-possible-arguments) or do whatever it chooses to generate the completions — it's already a “strong” completion in your terminology.
In bash, you declare completions with the complete built-in. Look in /etc/completion.d for examples (gpg is a fairly simple example; git is a rather involved one).
If you are using BASH then have a look at this similar post:
Auto-complete command line arguments
================================
If you want to provide your own command line then have a look at the Readline library:
The GNU Readline library provides a
set of functions for use by
applications that allow users to edit
command lines as they are typed in.
Both Emacs and vi editing modes are
available. The Readline library
includes additional functions to
maintain a list of previously-entered
command lines, to recall and perhaps
reedit those lines, and perform
csh-like history expansion on previous
commands.
Is it possible to open a program using another program? For example:
I want to make a command line application in C that will prompt the user to type in the name of a program (lets say Microsoft Word.app), and that program will launch. Would I do something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
char programName[1000];
printf("Type in the name of the program you would like to open: ");
scanf("%s", programName);
popen(programName);
}
However, popen() asks me for another char. How would I go about using popen() to open the program?
EDIT: The following code works!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
char programName[1000];
char app[100] = ".app";
char openApp[100] = "open /Applications/";
printf("Type in the name of the program you would like to open: ");
scanf("%s", programName);
strcat(openApp, programName);
strcat(openApp, app);
system(openApp);
}
popen lets you launch a program and get a file descriptor to its input or output, much like fopen works for files. For instance, if you wanted to read the output of your program, you'd use popen("program", "r"). On the other hand, if you want to write to its input, you would use popen("program", "w"). Mac OS X also allows for r+, which lets you read the output and write to the input but this capability isn't standard and shouldn't be relied on for cross-platform code.
If you just want to launch a program, you might as well use the system function, which does that and waits until the program exits, at which point it returns the status code. system actually invokes the shell to work, so arguments will undergo expansion (environment variables, ~, etc).
EDIT Following your comment that system("Microsoft Word.app") doesn't work as you'd expect: there are several reasons for this, actually. Starting with the message you get: this is because what you wrote is equivalent to opening a terminal window and typing Microsoft Word.app. In other words, it tries to find a program called "Microsoft", then pass it the argument "Word.app". You would need to either quote the program name or escape spaces to have the shell understand it's a whole program name and not a program name then an argument: system("Microsoft\ Word.app")
Now, this should complain saying that the shell can't find the program "Microsoft Word.app", which is already a step forward.
This is because on Mac OS, app files aren't executable files: they're folders that the Finder displays as a single file. You can verify that by ctrl+clicking (or right-clicking) an app and selecting "Show package contents" (this will open the app folder). The actual executable for Microsoft Word.app must be somewhere along the path of Microsoft Word.app/Contents/MacOS/Microsoft Word.
As you can see, this is getting kind of complex. Luckily enough, Apple provides the open executable, which can use a bunch of OS services to figure out those details. It allows to launch applications in the following fashion:
open -a Microsoft\ Word
This should launch Word. (Notice how you still need to escape the spaces.) In pure C code, that would get you something like this:
system("open -a Microsoft\\ Word");
If you choose to use Objective-C and Cocoa, however, there is a very simple way to open applications:
NSString* appName = #"Microsoft Word"; // no escape!
[[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] launchApplication:appName];
NSString objects can be created from C string easily enough:
NSString* appName = [[NSString alloc] initWithCString:programName encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
[[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] launchApplication:appName];
[appName release];
It would be better to use system(3) for this purpose.
The popen(3) function establishes a pipeline that can be read or written by the caller. But GUI applications do not use standard input and standard output, they connect to the graphical interface server, sometimes called the "window server". This server is already running and already has decided what its keyboard input will be, and it is always writing its output to the video device.
To start a .app you should actually run the open(1) program, so try something like:
system("open /Applications/MacVim.app");