I'm declaring array of pthread_rwlock_t static global.
e.g. static pthread_rwlock_t cm[255];
Inside constructor I want to initialize one of the 255 mutex( I keep track with static counter)
Now I'm confused with
1) I don't want to re-initialize lock again, that is bad!
I thought reinitialize should return some error code, but it doesn't:
#include<stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
static pthread_rwlock_t cm[2];
int main()
{
int ret;
ret = pthread_rwlock_init(&cm[0], NULL);
ret = pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&cm[0]);
printf("Ret: %d\n", ret);
ret = pthread_rwlock_init(&cm[0], NULL);
printf("Ret: %d\n", ret);
ret = pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&cm[0]);
printf("Ret: %d\n", ret);
}
Result:
Ret: 0
Ret: 0
Ret: 0
Can anyone help, 1) If this is possible, then how? 2) If not what should be alternative approach?
EDIT 1:
I'm updating from comments/answers I got:
Instead, just put the rwlocks inside the objects they protect.
So I have n # of objects getting called, and will be using that many pthread_lock .. so disadvantage is memory. Hence I'm trying to improve on that part with global array of locks. Picking 256 to get good distribution.
It's undefined behavior to call pthread_rwlock_init (or analogously any of the pthread primitive init functions) more than once on the same object, and logically there's no way it would make sense to do so anyway since (as you've demonstrated) the object is already in use. You said in the comments on 2501's answer that you can't use pthread_once, but this makes no sense. If you're able to call pthread_rwlock_init, you can instead just call pthread_once using an init function which performs the call to pthread_rwlock_init.
However I really think you're experiencing an XY problem. There is no sense in maintaining a "global pool" of rwlocks and handing them out dynamically in constructors. Instead, just put the rwlocks inside the objects they protect. If you really want to hand them out from a global pool like you're doing, you need to keep track of which ones have been handed out independently of the job of initializing them, and have the task of initializing them after obtaining one, and destroying one before giving it back to the pool, be handled by the constructor/destructor for the object using them.
If you need static initialization, use PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER on your array.
static pthread_rwlock_t cm[2] = { PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER ,
PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER} ;
This is equivalent as calling pthread_rwlock_init() on every element with attr parameter specified as NULL, except that no error checking is performed.
Related
I am currently writing a small game in C and feel like I can't get away from global variables.
For example I am storing the player position as a global variable because it's needed in other files. I have set myself some rules to keep the code clean.
Only use a global variable in the file it's defined in, if possible
Never directly change the value of a global from another file (reading from another file using extern is okay)
So for example graphics settings would be stored as file scope variables in graphics.c. If code in other files wants to change the graphics settings they would have to do so through a function in graphics.c like graphics_setFOV(float fov).
Do you think those rules are sufficient for avoiding global variable hell in the long term?
How bad are file scope variables?
Is it okay to read variables from other files using extern?
Typically, this kind of problem is handled by passing around a shared context:
graphics_api.h
#ifndef GRAPHICS_API
#define GRAPHICS_API
typedef void *HANDLE;
HANDLE init_graphics(void);
void destroy_graphics(HANDLE handle);
void use_graphics(HANDLE handle);
#endif
graphics.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "graphics_api.h"
typedef struct {
int width;
int height;
} CONTEXT;
HANDLE init_graphics(void) {
CONTEXT *result = malloc(sizeof(CONTEXT));
if (result) {
result->width = 640;
result->height = 480;
}
return (HANDLE) result;
}
void destroy_graphics(HANDLE handle) {
CONTEXT *context = (CONTEXT *) handle;
if (context) {
free(context);
}
}
void use_graphics(HANDLE handle) {
CONTEXT *context = (CONTEXT *) handle;
if (context) {
printf("width = %5d\n", context->width);
printf("height = %5d\n", context->height);
}
}
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include "graphics_api.h"
int main(void) {
HANDLE handle = init_graphics();
if (handle) {
use_graphics(handle);
destroy_graphics(handle);
}
return 0;
}
Output
width = 640
height = 480
Hiding the details of the context by using a void pointer prevents the user from changing the data contained within the memory to which it points.
How do you avoid using global variables in inherently stateful programs?
By passing arguments...
// state.h
/// state object:
struct state {
int some_value;
};
/// Initializes state
/// #return zero on success
int state_init(struct state *s);
/// Destroys state
/// #return zero on success
int state_fini(struct state *s);
/// Does some operation with state
/// #return zero on success
int state_set_value(struct state *s, int new_value);
/// Retrieves some operation from state
/// #return zero on success
int state_get_value(struct state *s, int *value);
// state.c
#include "state.h"
int state_init(struct state *s) {
s->some_value = -1;
return 0;
}
int state_fini(struct state *s) {
// add free() etc. if needed here
// call fini of other objects here
return 0;
}
int state_set_value(struct state *s, int value) {
if (value < 0) {
return -1; // ERROR - invalid argument
// you may return EINVAL here
}
s->some_value = value;
return 0; // success
}
int state_get_value(struct state *s, int *value) {
if (s->some_value < 0) { // value not set yet
return -1;
}
*value = s->some_value;
return 0;
}
// main.c
#include "state.h"
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
struct state state; // local variable
int err = state_init(&state);
if (err) abort();
int value;
err = state_get_value(&state, &value);
if (err != 0) {
printf("Getting value errored: %d\n", err);
}
err = state_set_value(&state, 50);
if (err) abort();
err = state_get_value(&state, &value);
if (err) abort();
printf("Current value is: %d\n", value);
err = state_fini(&state);
if (err) abort();
}
The only single case where global variables (preferably only a single pointer to some stack variable anyway) have to be used are signal handlers. The standard way would be to only increment a single global variable of type sig_atomic_t inside a signal handler and do nothing else - then execute all signal handling related logic from the normal flow in the rest of the code by checking the value of that variable. (On POSIX system) all other asynchronous communication from the kernel, like timer_create, that take sigevent structure, they can pass arguments to notified function by using members in union sigval.
Do you think those rules are sufficient for avoiding global variable hell in the long term?
Subjectively: no. I believe that a potentially uneducated programmer has too much freedom in creating global variables given the first rule. In complex programs I would use a hard rule: Do not use global variables. If finally after researching all other ways and all other possibilities have been exhausted and you have to use a global variables, make sure global variables leave the smallest possible memory footprint.
In simple short programs I wouldn't care much.
How bad are file scope variables?
This is opinion based - there are good cases where projects use many global variables. I believe that topic is exhausted in are global variables bad and numerous other internet resources.
Is it okay to read variables from other files using extern?
Yes, it's ok.
There are no "hard rules" and each project has it's own rules. I also recommend to read c2 wiki global variables are bad.
The first thing you have to ask yourself is: Just why did the programming world come to loath global variables? Obviously, as you noted, the way to model a global state is essentially a global (set of) variable(s). So what's the problem with that?
The Problem
All parts of the program have access to that state. The whole program becomes tightly coupled. Global variables violate the prime directive in programming, divide and conquer. Once all functions operate on the same data you can as well do away with the functions: They are no longer logical separations of concern but degrade to a notational convenience to avoid large files.
Write access is worse than read access: You'll have a hard time finding out just why on earth the state is unexpected at a certain point; the change can have happened anywhere. It is tempting to take shortcuts: "Ah, we can make the state change right here instead of passing a computation result back up three layers to the caller; that makes the code much smaller."
Even read access can be used to cheat and e.g. change behavior of some deep-down code depending on some global information: "Ah, we can skip rendering, there is no display yet!" A decision which should not be made in the rendering code but at top level. What if top level renders to a file!?
This creates both a debugging and a development/maintenance nightmare. If every piece of the code potentially relies on the presence and semantics of certain variables — and can change them! — it becomes exponentially harder to debug or change the program. The code agglomerating around the global data is like a cast, or perhaps a Boa Constrictor, which starts to immobilize and strangle your program.
Such programming can be avoided with (self-)discipline, but imagine a large project with many teams! It's much better to "physically" prevent access. Not coincidentally all programming languages after C, even if they are otherwise fundamentally different, come with improved modularization.
So what can we do?
The solution is indeed to pass parameters to functions, as KamilCuk said; but each function should only get the information they legitimately need. Of course it is best if the access is read-only and the result is a return value: Pure functions cannot change state at all and thus perfectly separate concerns.
But simply passing a pointer to the global state around does not cut the mustard: That's only a thinly veiled global variable.
Instead, the state should be separated into sub-states. Only top-level functions (which typically do not do much themselves but mostly delegate) have access to the overall state and hand sub-states to the functions they call. Third-tier functions get sub-sub states, etc. The corresponding implementation in C is a nested struct; pointers to the members — const whenever possible — are passed to functions which therefore cannot see, let alone alter, the rest of the global state. Separation of concerns is thus guaranteed.
I'm a beginner in C and in threading in particular.
I need to malloc and use dynamic array of HANDLE that later would be used in WaitForMultipleObjects.
What I do now:
int i = 0 ;
HANDLE ThreadHandlers = (HANDLE)malloc(sizeof(HANDLE)* List->logicalLength);
Then in a loop:
while(curr!= NULL)
{
ThreadHandlers[i]= createtestThread((LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)executeTest,(TestStruct*)(curr->data),ThreadIds+i);
curr = curr->next;
//ThreadHandlers[i] =
i++;
}
WaitForMultipleObjects(
List->logicalLength,
ThreadHandlers,
TRUE, /* wait until all threads finish */
INFINITE);
But when I try to compile, it I get:
IntelliSense: expression must be a pointer to a complete object type
Which from my understanding is because HANDLE is typedef void*
and I cant do logic with void*.
What workaround can be done?
What is the right way to do that kind of programming? (waiting for unknown amount of threads)
This line:
HANDLE ThreadHandlers = (HANDLE)malloc(sizeof(HANDLE)* List->logicalLength);
Should be this:
HANDLE* ThreadHandlers = (HANDLE*)malloc(sizeof(HANDLE) * List->logicalLength);
That above fix will resolve your compile problem with regards to WaitForMultipleObjects.
And while I'm here, this line looks suspicous:
ThreadHandlers[i]= createtestThread((LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)executeTest,(TestStruct*)(curr->data),ThreadIds+i);
I assume createtestthread is a wrapper for CreateThread or _beginthreadex. But if you have to explicitly cast your function explicitly to LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE, you have probably done something wrong. Remove the cast such that this line becomes:
ThreadHandlers[i]= createtestThread(executeTest,(TestStruct*)(curr->data),ThreadIds+i);
Then if that still leads to a new compiler error, fix the declaration of executeTest such that it's declared as follows:
DWORD __stdcall executeTest(void* pData);
Forcing a function of a different signature into CreateThread will lead to weird problems later on.
You've made a mistake in creation of array of handles, what you should do is:
HANDLE *ThreadHandlers = (HANDLE*)malloc(sizeof(HANDLE) * List->logicalLength);
As far as your second question goes, using WaitForMultipleObjects is the right way to wait for an unknown amount of threads. Depending on the situation, you could pass FALSE as third parameter if you want to wait only until one thread gets signaled, or pass some time-out interval as fourth argument if you want to stop waiting after a certain period.
I am understanding and implementing the concept of threading in my application. Since now things are going good. But I have few questions still unanswered and they are making me slow now. I would appreciate if anyone replies to even any of them
In Createthread(), can we only take 1 argument? as I have seen in MSDN website and all other examples that I have seen I saw only 1 argument, LPVOID.
The other thing is , what does the return value DWORD WINAPI means as a return value? Can we have only DWORD , int or any other return type. I suppose it has something to do with HANDLE (may be)
I want to use the array of the thread, hence I learn the array to functions, and (as I have understood) threads are itself just a function called by CreateThread() routine, hence I tried to implement that concept there but could not because of the return type DWORD WINAPI was not allowing me to do so?
I have one single thread for saving files, now I want its array so that I can save multiple files at the same time (not exaclty the same starting time, but sort of parallel file saving). How can I do that?
Thanks
Shan
Indeed, you can only take one argument, of type void * (LPVOID).
However, since it can point to anything, it can point to a struct
or object (usually allocated on the heap for lifetime reasons).
WINAPI is not part of the return value, it's the function's calling
convention. The function must return a DWORD or anything that fit
in it. It must NOT return a pointer, because a pointer can't fit a
DWORD in Win64.
I don't understand, please elaborate what you're
trying to do.
Usually for this you need a single thread function,
passed several times to CreateThread() with a different argument
each time. Don't forget to keep the thread handles (which you'll
likely save in an array) until you stop needing them and close them
with CloseHandle().
for the point number three I guess I understood and will try differently. I was using
DWORD WINAPI save_uwpi_file0( LPVOID )
{
while(1)
{
if(release == 1 && flag_oper1 == 1)
{
int w_cnt = 0; FILE *opfile;
char fname[30] = "txt_file0.txt";
//opening file for write
opfile = fopen(fname , "w");
printf("assigning memory for file 1 \n");
ssint *Lmem = (ssint *)malloc( sizeof(ssint)*size_of_memory);
memcpy(Lmem, pInDMA, sizeof(ssint)*size_of_memory);
release = 0;
printf("relseaing for second file saving\n");
for( int nbr = 0; nbr < size_of_memory; nbr++){
fprintf(opfile , "%hi\n", Lmem[nbr] );
}
printf("aligned free 1\n");
free(Lmem);
fclose(opfile);
printf("File saved 1\n\n");
return 1;
} //if statement ends
}
}
and I was using following to make the pointer to (thread) function
DWORD WINAPI (* save_uwpi_file0)(LPVOID);
I guess I should try something like
DWORD (* save_uwpi_file0)(LPVOID);
I will do it and post the result here
I have a legacy C Linux application that I need to reuse . This application uses a lot of global variables. I want to reuse this application's main method and invoke that in a loop. I have found that when I call the main method( renamed to callableMain) in a loop , the application behavior is not consistent as the values of global variables set in previous iteration impact the program flow in the new iteration.
What I would like to do is to reset all the global variables to the default value before the execution of the the new iteration.
for example , the original program is like this
OriginalMain.C
#include <stdio.h>
int global = 3; /* This is the global variable. */
void doSomething(){
global++; /* Reference to global variable in a function. */
}
// i want to rename this main method to callableMain() and
// invoke it in a loop
int main(void){
if(global==3) {
printf(" All Is Well \n");
doSomething() ;
}
else{
printf(" Noooo\n");
doNothing() ;
}
return 0;
}
I want to change this program as follows:
I changed the above file to rename the main() to callableMain()
And my new main methods is as follows:
int main(){
for(int i=0;i<20;i++){
callableMain();
// this is where I need to reset the value of global vaiables
// otherwise the execution flow changes
}
}
Is this possible to reset all the global variables to the values before main() was invoked ?
The short answer is that there is no magical api call that would reset global variables. The global variables would have to be cached and reused.
I would invoke it as a subprocess, modifying its input and output as needed. Let the operating system do the dirty work for you.
The idea is to isolate the legacy program from your new program by relegating it to its own process. Then you have a clean separation between the two. Also, the legacy program is reset to a clean state every time you run it.
First, modify the program so that it reads the input data from a file, and writes its output in a machine-readable format to another file, with the files being given on the command line.
You can then create named pipes (using the mkfifo call) and invoke the legacy program using system, passing it the named pipes on the command line. Then you feed it its input and read back its output.
I am not an expert on these matters; there is probably a better way of doing the IPC. Others here have mentioned fork. However, the basic idea of separating out the legacy code and invoking it as a subprocess is probably the best approach here.
fork() early?
You could fork(2) at some early point when you think the globals are in a good state, and then have the child wait on a pipe or something for some work to do. This would require writing any changed state or at least the results back to the parent process but would decouple your worker from your primary control process.
In fact, it might make sense to fork() at least twice, once to set up a worker controller and save the initialized (but not too initialized :-) global state, and then have this worker controller fork() again for each loop you need run.
A simpler variation might be to just modify the code so that the process can start in a "worker mode", and then use fork() or system() to start the application at the top, but with an argument that puts it in to the slave mode.
There is a way to do this on certain platforms / compilers, you'd basically be performing the same initialization your compiler performs before calling main().
I have done this for a TI DSP, in that case I had the section with globals mapped to a specific section of memory and there were linker directives available that declared variables pointing to the start and end of this section (so you can memset() the whole area to zero before starting initialization). Then, the compiler provided a list of records, each of which comprised of an address, data length and the actual data to be copied into the address location. So you'd just loop through the records and do memcpy() into the target address to initialize all globals.
Very compiler specific, so hopefully the compiler you're using allows you to do something similar.
In short, no. What I would do in this instance is create definitions, constants if you will, and then use those to reset the global variables with.
Basically
#define var1 10
int vara = 10
etc... basic C right?
You can then go ahead and wrap the reinitialization in a handy function =)
I think you must change the way you see the problem.
Declare all the variables used by callableMain() inside callableMain()'s body, so they are not global anymore and are destroyed after the function is executed and created once again with the default values when you call callableMain() on the next iteration.
EDIT:
Ok, here's what you could do if you have the source code for callableMain(): in the beginning of the function, add a check to verify if its the first time the function its being called. Inside this check you will copy the values of all global variables used to another set of static variables (name them as you like). Then, on the function's body replace all occurences of the global variables by the static variables you created.
This way you will preserve the initial values of all the global variables and use them on every iteration of callableMain(). Does it makes sense to you?
void callableMain()
{
static bool first_iter = true;
if (first_iter)
{
first_iter = false;
static int my_global_var1 = global_var1;
static float my_global_var2 = global_var2;
..
}
// perform operations on my_global_var1 and my_global_var2,
// which store the default values of the original global variables.
}
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
int saved_var1 = global_var1;
char saved_var2 = global_var2;
double saved_var3 = global_var3;
callableMain();
global_var1 = saved_var1;
global_var2 = saved_var2;
global_var3 = saved_var2;
}
Or maybe you can find out where global variables start memcpy them. But I would always cringe when starting a loop ...
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
static unsigned char global_copy[SIZEOFGLOBALDATA];
memcpy(global_copy, STARTOFGLOBALDATA, SIZEOFGLOBALDATA);
callableMain();
memcpy(STARTOFGLOBALDATA, global_copy, SIZEOFGLOBALDATA);
}
If you don't want to refactor the code and encapsulate these global variables, I think the best you can do is define a reset function and then call it within the loop.
Assuming we are dealing with ELF on Linux, then the following function to reset the variables works
// these extern variables come from glibc
// https://github.com/ysbaddaden/gc/blob/master/include/config.h
extern char __data_start[];
extern char __bss_start[];
extern char _end[];
#define DATA_START ((char *)&__data_start)
#define DATA_END ((char *)&__bss_start)
#define BSS_START ((char *)&__bss_start)
#define BSS_END ((char *)&_end)
/// first call saves globals, subsequent calls restore
void reset_static_data();
// variable for quick check
static int pepa = 42;
// writes to memory between global variables are reported as buffer overflows by asan
ATTRIBUTE_NO_SANITIZE_ADDRESS
void reset_static_data()
{
// global variable, ok to leak it
static char * x;
size_t s = BSS_END - DATA_START;
// memcpy is always sanitized, so access memory as chars in a loop
if (x == NULL) { // store current static variables
x = (char *) malloc(s);
for (size_t i = 0; i < s; i++) {
*(x+i) = *(DATA_START + i);
}
} else { // restore previously saved static variables
for (size_t i = 0; i < s; i++) {
*(DATA_START + i) = *(x+i);
}
}
// quick check, see that pepa does not grow in stderr output
fprintf(stderr, "pepa: %d\n", pepa++);
}
The general approach is based on answer in How to get the data and bss address space in run time (In Unix C program), see the linked ysbaddaden/gc GitHub repo for macOS version of the macros.
To test the above code, just call it a few times and note that the incremented global variable pepa still keeps the value of 42.
reset_static_data();
reset_static_data();
reset_static_data();
Saving current state of the globals is convenient in that it does not require rerunning __attribute__((constructor)) functions which would be necessary if I set everything in .bss to zero (which is easy) and everything in .data to the initial values (which is not so easy). For example, if you load libpython3.so in your program, it does do run-time initialization which is lost by zeroing .bss. Calling into Python then crashes.
Sanitizers
Writing into areas of memory immediately before or after a static variable will trigger buffer-overflow warning from Address Sanitizer. To prevent this, use the ATTRIBUTE_NO_SANITIZE_ADDRESS macro the way the code above does. The macro is defined in sanitizer/asan_interface.h.
Code coverage
Code coverage counters are implemented as global variables. Therefore, resetting globals will cause coverage information to be forgotten. To solve this, always dump the coverage-to-date before restoring the globals. There does not seem to be a macro to detect whether code coverage is enabled or not in the compiler, so use your build system (CMake, ...) to define suitable macro yourself, such as QD_COVERAGE below.
// The __gcov_dump function writes the coverage counters to gcda files
// and the __gcov_reset function resets them to zero.
// The interface is defined at https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/7501eec65c60701f72621d04eeb5342bad2fe4fb/libgcc/libgcov-interface.c
extern "C" void __gcov_reset();
extern "C" void __gcov_dump();
void flush_coverage() {
#if defined(QD_COVERAGE)
__gcov_dump();
__gcov_reset();
#endif
}
What's the best way to create a singleton in C? A concurrent solution would be nice.
I am aware that C isn't the first language you would use for a singleton.
First, C is not suitable for OO programming. You'd be fighting all the way if you do. Secondly, singletons are just static variables with some encapsulation. So you can use a static global variable. However, global variables typically have far too many ills associated with them. You could otherwise use a function local static variable, like this:
int *SingletonInt() {
static int instance = 42;
return &instance;
}
or a smarter macro:
#define SINGLETON(t, inst, init) t* Singleton_##t() { \
static t inst = init; \
return &inst; \
}
#include <stdio.h>
/* actual definition */
SINGLETON(float, finst, 4.2);
int main() {
printf("%f\n", *(Singleton_float()));
return 0;
}
And finally, remember, that singletons are mostly abused. It is difficult to get them right, especially under multi-threaded environments...
You don't need to. C already has global variables, so you don't need a work-around to simulate them.
It's the same as the C++ version pretty much. Just have a function that returns an instance pointer. It can be a static variable inside the function. Wrap the function body with a critical section or pthread mutex, depending on platform.
#include <stdlib.h>
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
};
struct A* getObject()
{
static struct A *instance = NULL;
// do lock here
if(instance == NULL)
{
instance = malloc(sizeof(*instance));
instance->a = 1;
instance->b = 2;
}
// do unlock
return instance;
};
Note that you'd need a function to free up the singleton too. Especially if it grabs any system resources that aren't automatically released on process exit.
EDIT: My answer presumes the singleton you are creating is somewhat complex and has a multi-step creation process. If it's just static data, go with a global like others have suggested.
A singleton in C will be very weird . . . I've never seen an example of "object oriented C" that looked particularly elegant. If possible, consider using C++. C++ allows you to pick and choose which features you want to use, and many people just use it as a "better C".
Below is a pretty typical pattern for lock-free one-time initialization. The InterlockCompareExchangePtr atomically swaps in the new value if the previous is null. This protects if multiple threads try to create the singleton at the same time, only one will win. The others will delete their newly created object.
MyObj* g_singleton; // MyObj is some struct.
MyObj* GetMyObj()
{
MyObj* singleton;
if (g_singleton == NULL)
{
singleton = CreateNewObj();
// Only swap if the existing value is null. If not on Windows,
// use whatever compare and swap your platform provides.
if (InterlockCompareExchangePtr(&g_singleton, singleton, NULL) != NULL)
{
DeleteObj(singleton);
}
}
return g_singleton;
}
DoSomethingWithSingleton(GetMyObj());
Here's another perspective: every file in a C program is effectively a singleton class that is auto instantiated at runtime and cannot be subclassed.
Global static variables are your private class members.
Global non static are public (just declare them using extern in some header file).
Static functions are private methods
Non-static functions are the public ones.
Give everything a proper prefix and now you can use my_singleton_method() in lieu of my_singleton.method().
If your singleton is complex you can write a generate_singleton() method to initialize it before use, but then you need to make sure all the other public methods check if it was called and error out if not.
I think this solution might be the simplest and best for most use cases...
In this example, I am creating a single instance global dispatch queue, which you'd definitely do, say, if you were tracking dispatch source events from multiple objects; in that case, every object listening to the queue for events could be notified when a new task is added to the queue. Once the global queue is set (via queue_ref()), it can be referenced with the queue variable in any file in which the header file is included (examples are provided below).
In one of my implementations, I called queue_ref() in AppDelegate.m (main.c would work, too). That way, queue will be initialized before any other calling object attempts to access it. In the remaining objects, I simply called queue. Returning a value from a variable is much faster than calling a function, and then checking the value of the variable before returning it.
In GlobalQueue.h:
#ifndef GlobalQueue_h
#define GlobalQueue_h
#include <stdio.h>
#include <dispatch/dispatch.h>
extern dispatch_queue_t queue;
extern dispatch_queue_t queue_ref(void);
#endif /* GlobalQueue_h */
In GlobalQueue.c:
#include "GlobalQueue.h"
dispatch_queue_t queue;
dispatch_queue_t queue_ref(void) {
if (!queue) {
queue = dispatch_queue_create_with_target("GlobalDispatchQueue", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL, dispatch_get_main_queue());
}
return queue;
}
To use:
#include "GlobalQueue.h" in any Objective-C or C implementation source file.
Call queue_ref() to use the dispatch queue. Once queue_ref() has been called, the queue can be used via the queue variable in all source files
Examples:
Calling queue_ref():
dispatch_queue_t serial_queue_with_queue_target = dispatch_queue_create_with_target("serial_queue_with_queue_target", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL, **queue_ref()**);
Calling queue:
dispatch_queue_t serial_queue_with_queue_target = dispatch_queue_create_with_target("serial_queue_with_queue_target", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL, **queue**));]
Just do
void * getSingleTon() {
static Class object = (Class *)malloc( sizeof( Class ) );
return &object;
}
which works in a concurrent environment too.