I've got some C code that runs on JenOS, a proprietary OS used on some NXP microcontrollers to manage ZigBee communication. This OS has a specific syntax to define tasks, that reads as follows:
OS_TASK(APP_ZPR_Light_Task)
{
...
}
Where OS_TASK is defined as:
#define OS_TASK(a) void os_v##a(void)
Obviously, these are not recognized as standard C functions, and thus are not displayed in the outline tab of Eclipse. Is there a way to include those in the outline without having to hack the source (I don't want to go there for obvious reasons)?
I don't know a way to change the pattern which Eclipse uses to recognize functions, so I suggest a workaround: Define the functions using your own pattern like:
void os_vAPP_ZPR_Light_Task(void) /*TASK*/
Now you can write a small utility which filters the file and replaces this line with the pattern which JenOS expects before you pass it to the original build tools.
Or maybe you can look at the Makefile; there should be a step where a tool analyzes the C sources for OS_TASK(...). Maybe you can hook in there to feed it the data in a different form.
Related
Specifically, my issue is that I have CUDA code that needs <curand_kernel.h> to run. This isn't included by default in NVRTC. Presumably then when creating the program context (i.e. the call to nvrtcCreateProgram), I have to send in the name of the file (curand_kernel.h) and also the source code of curand_kernel.h? I feel like I shouldn't have to do that.
It's hard to tell; I haven't managed to find an example from NVIDIA of someone needing standard CUDA files like this as a source, so I really don't understand what the syntax is. Some issues: curand_kernel.h also has includes... Do I have to do the same for each of these? I am not even sure the NVRTC compiler will even run correctly on curand_kernel.h, because there are some language features it doesn't support, aren't there?
Next: if you've sent in the source code of a header file to nvrtcCreateProgram, do I still have to #include it in the code to be executed / will it cause an error if I do so?
A link to example code that does this or something like it would be appreciated much more than a straightforward answer; I really haven't managed to find any.
You have to send the "filename" and the source of each header separately.
When the preprocessor does its thing, it'll use any #include filenames as a key to find the source for the header, based on the collection that you provide.
I suspect that, in this case, the compiler (driver) doesn't have file system access, so you have to give it the source in much the same way that you would for shader includes in OpenGL.
So:
Include your header's name when calling nvrtcCreateProgram. The compiler will, internally, generate the equivalent of a std::map<string,string> containing the source of each header indexed by the given name.
In your kernel source, use #include "foo.cuh" as usual.
The compiler will use foo.cuh as an index or key into its internal map (created when you called nvrtcCreateProgram), and will retrieve the header source from that collection
Compilation proceeds as normal.
One of the reasons that nvrtc provides only a "subset" of features is that the compiler plays in a somewhat sandboxed environment, without necessarily having all of the supporting tools and utilities lying around that you have with offline compilation. So, you have to manually handle a lot of the stuff that the normal nvcc + (gcc | MSVC| clang) combination provides.
A possible, but non-ideal, solution would be to preprocess the file that you need in your IDE, save the result and then #include that. However, I bet there is a better way to do that. if you just want curand, consider diving into the library and extracting the part you need (blech) or using another GPU-friendly rand implementation. On older CUDA versions, I just generated a big array of random floats on the host, uploaded it to the GPU, and sampled it in the kernels.
This related link may be helpful.
You do not need to load curand_kernel.h yourself and add it to the include "aliases" mechanism.
Instead, you can simply add the CUDA include directory to your (set of) include paths, e.g. by adding --include-path=/usr/local/cuda/include to your NVRTC compiler options.
(I do this in my GPU-kernel-runner test harness, by default, to be on the safe side.)
Is there a facility for the C language that allows run-time struct introspection?
The context is this:
I've got a daemon that responds to external events, and for each event we carry around an execution context struct (the "context"). The context is big and messy, and contains references to all sorts of state.
Once the event has been handled, I would like to be able to run the context through a filter, and if it matches some set of criteria, drop a log message to help with debugging. However, since I hope to use this for field debugging, I won't know what criteria will be useful to filter on until run time.
My ideal solution would allow the user to, essentially, write a C-style boolean expression and have the program use that. Something like:
activate_filter context.response_time > 4.2 && context.event.event_type == foo_event
Ideas that have been tossed around so far include:
Providing a limited set of fields that we know how to access.
Wrapping all the relevant structs in some sort of macro that generates introspection tools at run time.
Writing a python script that knows where (versioned) headers live, generates C code and compiles it to a dll, which the daemon then loads and uses as a filter. Obviously this approach has some extra security considerations.
Before I start in on some crazy design goose chase, does anyone know of examples of this sort of thing in the wild? I've dome some googling but haven't come up with much.
I would also suggest tackling this issue from another angle. The key words in your question are:
The context is big and messy
And that's where the issue is. Once you clean this up, you'll probably be able to come up with a clean logging facility.
Consider redefining all the fields in your context struct in some easy, pliable format, like XML. A simple `XML schema, that lists all the members of the struct, their types, and maybe some other metadata, even a comment that documents this field.
Then, throw together a quick and dirty stylesheet that reads the XML file and generates a compilable C struct, that your code actually uses. Then, a different stylesheet that cranks out robo-generated code that enumerates each field in the struct, and generates the code to convert each field into a string.
From that, bolting on a logging facility of some kind, with a user-provided filtering string becomes an easier task. You do have to come up with some way of parsing an arbitrary filtering string. Knowledge of lex and yacc would come in handy.
Things of this nature have been done before.
The XCB library is a C client library for the X11 protocol. The protocol defines various kinds of binary messages which are essentially simple structs that the client and the server toss to each other, over a socket. The way that libxcb is implemented, is that all X11 messages and all datatypes inside them are described in an XML definition, and a stylesheet robo-generates C struct definitions, and the code to parse them out, and provide a fairly clean C API to parse and generate X11 messages.
You are probably approaching this problem from a wrong side.
Logging is typically used to facilitate debugging. The program writes all sorts of events to a log file. To extract interesting entries filtering is applied to the log file.
Sometimes a program generates just too much events; logging libraries usually address this issues by offering verbosity control. Basically a logging function takes an additional parameter telling the verbosity level of the current message. If the value is above the globally configured threshold the message gets discarded. Some libraries even allow to control verbosity level on a per-module basis (Ex: google log).
Another possible approach is to leverage the power of a debugger since the debugger has access to all sorts of meta information. One can create a conditional breakpoint testing variables in scope for arbitrary conditions. Once the program stops any information could be extracted from the scope. This can be automated using scripting facilities provided by a debugger (gdb has great ones).
Finally there are tools generating glue code to use C libraries from scripting languages. One example is SWIG. It analyzes a header file and generates code allowing a scripting language to invoke functions, access structure fields, etc.
Your filter expression will become a program in, say, Lua (other scripting languages are supported as well). You invoke this program passing in the pointer to execution context struct (the "context"). Thanks to the accessors generated by SWIG Lua program can examine any field in the structure.
I generated introspection out of SWIG-CSV parser.
Suppose the C code contains structure like the following,
class Bike {
public:
int color; // color of the bike
int gearCount; // number of configurable gear
Bike() {
// bla bla
}
~Bike() {
// bla bla
}
void operate() {
// bla bla
}
};
Then it will generate the following CSV metadata,
Bike|color|int|variable|public|
Bike|gearCount|int|variable|public|
Bike|operate|void|function|public|f().
Now it is easy to parse the CSV file with python or C/C++ if needed.
import csv
with open('bike.csv', 'rb') as csvfile:
bike_metadata = csv.reader(csvfile, delimiter='|')
# do your thing
I want a program that C program with a C++ form application using together in the same project.
for example:
When I clicked a button send entered text to C program. entered text to inside textBox in a C++ form app.
C program will save the text to computer with file operations.
so simply example:
textBox1="hello world"
button=clicked
string^ message = textBox->Text;
writerFunction(message);
void writerFunction(char m[50])
{
FILE *fp;
fp = fopen("text.txt","a");
fprintf(fp,"%s",m);
fclose(fp);
}
It looks like you are using C++ .NET (managed c++)
I'm guessing this from pointer operator. In standard c++
you would use '*' instead of '^'.
Please correct my if I'm wrong there.
Two options.
you are using managed c++ so you can call Win32 API but you will make your work harder. If you still intrested please check this link. It will get you started.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/9714/Win-API-C-to-NET
But I'd suggest you to use c++ .NET approach to save the string in file. Google will find many examples for you.
One to start:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/19czdak8.aspx
if you want to use old style c++ you can mix c and c++ without any problems. You will need to import libs to your project.
Libraries:
C
- stdio.h examples here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_file_input/output)
C++
-ofstream: Stream class to write on files
-ifstream: Stream class to read from files
-fstream: Stream class to both read and write from/to files.
More details here: http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/files/
Windows API
- you can use win32 API by importing header
Windows.h
Few examples here (http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/c/threads/31282/windows-api-functions-to-read-and-write-files-in-c)
Good luck. If you need more info please let me know.
The simplest way is just embed your C code in C++. It should work, unless any platform specific thing barrier you.
If you do need to have two (or more) programs and if they should run as two different processes in the OS, you should use a proper inter process communication technique. I know nothing about .Net stuff. However, you may use pipes, shared memory, memory mapped files and even sockets work too.
Or else, you can create a dynamic library based on C and call the function in your C++ form application.
I am developing a program for analyzing time series under gnu/linux. To analyze a time window, I want to be able to specify start/end times on the command line. Parsing dates using strptime is simple enough, however I would like to use the flexible 'natural language' format as it is used by the unix ''date'' command. There, this is done using the parse_datetime function.
I have the source of the coreutils, but would like to avoid copying over the code and all attached header files.
My question is: is there a standard library under Unix/Linux which gives access to the full power of parse_datetime().
The function you refer to is not part of any standard, nor any stock utility library. However, it is available as a semi-standalone component as part of gnulib, namely the parse-datetime module. You will need to take it and incorporate it into your program; the gnulib distribution has tools for that. Be aware that if you do this you have to GPL your entire program (this is not a big deal if the program is only for your personal use -- the GPL's requirements only kick in when you start giving the compiled program to other people).
A possible alternative is g_date_set_parse from GLib, but I can't speak to how clever it is.
I'm working on an embedded C project that depends on some external HW. I wish to stub out the code accessing these parts, so I can simulate the system without using any HW. Until now I have used some macros but this forces me to change a little on my production code, which I would like to avoid.
Example:
stub.h
#ifdef _STUB_HW
#define STUB_HW(name) Stub_##name
#else /*_STUB_HW*/
#define STUB_HW(name) name
#endif /*_STUB_HW*/
my_hw.c
WORD STUB_HW(clear_RX_TX)()
{ /* clear my rx/tx buffer on target HW */ }
test_my_hw.c
#ifdef _STUB_HW
WORD clear_RX_TX()
{ /* simulate clear rx/tx buffer on target HW */ }
With this code I can turn on/off the stubbing with the preprocessor tag _STUB_HW
Is there a way to acomplish this without having to change my prod code, and avoiding a lot of ifdefs. And I won't mix prod and test code in the same file if I can avoid it. I don't care how the test code looks as long as I can keep as much as possible out of the production code.
Edit:
Would be nice if it was posible to select/rename functions without replacing the whole file. Like take all functions starting on nRF_## and giving then a new name and then inserting test_nRF_## to nRF_## if it is posible
I just make two files ActualDriver.c and StubDriver.c containing exactly the same function names. By making two builds linking the production code against the different objects there is no naming conflicts. This way the production code contains no testing or conditional code.
As Gerhard said, use a common header file "driver.h" and separate hardware layer implementation files containing the actual and stubbed functions.
In eclipse, I have two targets and I "exclude from build" the driver.c file that is not to be used and make sure the proper one is included in the build. Eclipse then generates the makefile at build time.
Another issue to point out is to ensure you are defining fixed size integers so your code behaves the same from an overflow perspective. (Although from your code sample I can see you are doing that.)
I agree with the above. The standard solution to this is to define an opaque abstracted set of function calls that are the "driver" to the hw, and then call that in the main program. Then provide two different driver implementations, one for hw, one for sw. The sw variant will simulate the IO effect of the hw in some appropriate way.
Note that if the goal is at a lower level, i.e., writing code where each hardware access is to be simulated rather than entire functions, it might be a bit tricker. But here, different "write_to_memory" and "read_from_memory" functions (or macros, if speed on target is essential) could be defined.
There is no need in either case to change the names of functions, just have two different batch files, make files, or IDE build targets (depending on what tools you are using).
Finally, in many cases a better technical solution is to go for a full-blown target system simulator, such as Qemu, Simics, SystemC, CoWare, VaST, or similar. This lets you run the same code all the time, and instead you build a model of the hardware that works like the actual hardware from the perspective of the software. It does take a much larger up-front investment, but for many projects it is well worth the effort. It basically gets rid of the nasty issue of having different builds for target and host, and makes sure you always use your cross-compiler with deployment build options. Note that many embedded compiler suites come with some basic such simulation ability built in.