I'm working on a program and I keep getting "undefined reference to 'dosell' " and I can't quite figure out what is going on. Here's the declaration of the function:
void dosell(int *cash, int *numchips);
The use of the function:
choice = menu();
// Execute the appropriate choice.
if (choice == 1) {
dobuy(&cash, &numchips);
}
else if (choice == 2) {
dosell(&cash, &numchips);
}
And the function itself:
void dosell(int *cash, int *numchips) {
int numsell;
// Determine the number of chips to be sold.
printf("How many chips do you want to sell?\n");
scanf("%d", &numsell);
// Print out the error message if this is too much.
if (numsell > *numchips)
printf("Sorry, you do not have that many chips. No chips sold.\n");
// Execute the transaction.
else {
(*cash) += sellchips(numsell);
(*numchips) -= numsell;
}}}
Put a declaration of the function at the beginning of the file i.e. before the main function and after the includes and defines:
void dosell(int *cash, int *numchips) ;
Transferring key comments into an answer
Is dosell() in the same file as the call to it? If not, are you linking both (all) the files to create the program?
What's with the }}} at the end of dosell(); it looks like a syntax error, unless you've accidentally managed to use a GCC extension — nested functions.
It actually takes quite a bit of effort to make GCC give you a warning about a nested function. You can do it by specifying a standard such as -std=c11 and -pedantic. However, you should not plan on using nested functions, especially not by accident.
I took a look at the }}} and what turns out is one of those was misplaced. One of brackets should have been at the end of the dobuy() function, which is immediately before the dosell() function. Because of this, it included dosell() within dobuy(), so it was as if I hadn't even written the dosell() function.
I observe that if your code had been indented by an automatic indenter, you would have seen that the start line for dosell() was indented, which would perhaps have tipped you off that there was something amiss. The symptoms you describe are exactly consistent with a nested function.
Related
I want to write a function in C and to put a condition in it. If the condition isn't met the program gives and error and prevents the user (developer) from compiling the code.
For example:
void func(int x)
{
if (x > 0)
{
//do stuff
}
else
{
//give an error and stops the code from compiling
}
}
prevents the user (developer) from compiling the code.
There's a problem there. You can decide on the user's behaviour, but you can't decide on the compilation of the program. If the code is right (right in the language sense, so it makes sense to the compiler), it will compile, else it won't. You can't make up new arbitrary rules for the compiler.
Before you can even run a program written in C, the compilation needs to be fulfilled.
Functions are called at run-time and so are the parameter values determined at run-time, too.
You can't make the compilation of your code dependent upon the variable x in C.
What you're trying to achieve is basically completely impossible.
Let's take an example. Assume that you want to manufacture an elevator, and you set the weight limit to 800 kilograms. You could build in something that makes the elevator stop if the weight exceeds the limit.
So take the scenario where we program the elevator so that it does not move if the weight limit is exceeded. That would typically be done with an assert() or something like that.
You could also in various way try to prevent this from happening, like making the elevator very small so that you cannot fit too many people. But that is not a fail safe option. We have restricted the volume, but nothing prevents a person from bringing a big chunk of solid gold into the elevator.
The point here is that you can measure the weight before moving the elevator, since this is done at runtime. But preventing someone from even trying to exceed the limit is virtually impossible.
In the general case, what you're asking for is completely impossible. What you can do is something like this:
void func(int x)
{
assert(x>0);
/* Do stuff */
}
And a slightly related thing that is possible is to create a test that is a part of the build process. You cannot prevent compilation the way you want, but you can use it to fail the whole build process. An example.
// main.c
int add(int x, int y)
{
return x+y;
}
bool test()
{
if(add(4,5) != 9) return false;
return true;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if(strcmp(argv[1], "--test") == 0) {
if(!test()) {
printf("Test failed\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
// More tests
printf("All tests passed\n");
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
/* Rest of the main function */
}
Then you create a Makefile that compiles main.c and then calls ./a.out --test as a part of the build process. The above example is a very simple case, and for a more realistic case I would have made it a bit more sophisticated, but it shows how it can be done. Also, there are libraries that can take care of this kind of stuff, but this is a way to do it without having to use that.
I'm working with a large SDK codebase glommed together from various sources of varying quality / competence / sanity from Linus Torvalds to unidentified Elbonian code slaves.
There are an assortment of styles of code, some clearly better than others, and it's proving an interesting opportunity to expand my knowledge / despair for the future of humanity in alternate measures.
I've just come across a pile of functions which repeatedly use a slightly odd (to me) style, namely:
void do_thing(foo)
{
do {
if(this_works(foo) != success)
break;
return(yeah_cool);
} while (0);
return(failure_shame_death);
}
There's nothing complicated being done in this code (I haven't cut 10,000 lines of wizardry out for this post), they could just as easily do:
if(this_works(foo) == success)
return(yeah_cool);
else
return(failure_shame_death);
Which would seem somehow nicer / neater / more intuitive / easier to read.
So I'm now wondering if there is some (good) reason for doing it the other way, or is it just the way they always do it in the Elbonian Code Mines?
Edit: As per the "possible duplicate" links, this code is not pre-processed in any sort of macro, it is just in the normal code. I can believe it might be due to a coding style rule about error checking, as per this answer.
Another guess: maybe you didn't quote the original code correctly? I have seen the same pattern used by people who want to avoid goto: they use a do-while(0) loop which at the end returns a success value. They can also break out of the loop for the error handling:
int doXandY() {
do {
if (!x()) {
break;
}
if (!y()) {
break;
}
return 0;
} while( 0 );
/* Error handling code goes here. */
globalErrorFlag = 12345;
return -1;
}
In your example there's not much point to it because the loop is very short (i.e. just one error case) and the error handling code is just a return, but I suspect that in the real code it can be more complex.
Some people use the do{} while(0); construct with break; inside the loop to be compliant in some way with MISRA rule 14.7. This rule says that there can be only single enter and exit point in the function. This rule is also required by safety norm ISO26262. Please find an example function:
int32_t MODULE_some_function(bool first_condition,bool second_condition)
{
int32_t ret = -1 ;
do
{
if(first_condition)
{
ret = 0 ;
break ;
}
/* some code here */
if(second_condition)
{
ret = 0 ;
break ;
}
/* some code here */
} while(0) ;
return ret ;
}
Please note however that such a construct as I show above violates different MISRA rule which is rule 14.6. Writing such a code you are going to be compliant with one MISRA rule, and as far as I know people use such a construct as workaround against using multiple returns from function.
In my opinion practical usage of the do{}while(0); construct truely exist in the way you should construct some types of macros.Please check below question, it was very helpful for me :
Why use apparently meaningless do-while and if-else statements in macros?
It's worth notice also that in some cases do{}while(0); construct is going to be completely optimized away if you compile your code with proper optimization option.
Hm, the code might be preprocessed somehow. The do { } while(0) is a trick used in preprocessor macros; you can define them like this:
#define some_macro(a) do { whatever(); } while(0)
The advantage being that you can use them anywhere, because it is allowed to put a semicolon after the while(0), like in your code above.
The reason for this is that if you write
#define some_macro(a) { whatever(); }
if (some_condition)
some_macro(123);
else
printf("this can cause problems\n");
Since there is an extra semicolon before the else statement, this code is invalid. The do { ... } while(0) will work anywhere.
do {...} while(0) arranged with "break" is some kind of "RAII for Plain C".
Here, "break" is treated as abnormal scope exit (kind of "Plain C exceptions"), so you can be sure that there is only one place to deallocate a resource: after a "while(0)". It seems slightly unusual, but actually it's very common idiom in the world of plain C.
I would guess that this code was originally written with gotos for error handling:
void do_thing(foo)
{
if(this_works(foo) != success)
goto error;
return(yeah_cool);
error:
return(failure_shame_death);
}
But at some point an edict came down from on high "thou shalt not use goto", so someone did a semi-automatic translation from goto style to loop-break style (perhaps with simple script). Probably when the code was merged/moved from one project to another.
i was practicing my C Prog Language
and i decided to create a salon with cashier features
it looks messy,
though i'm still learning
posted here: http://pastebin.com/B2XaaCYV
it say runtime error with variable "menu", but i tried to recheck it around 5x and i don't see any error with it.
the code is really simple
like xy[0][1] = default 0 = meaning not yet purchased. its value will be 0/1 only. it will be 1 when you actually purchase it after picking the hairstyle.
then of course
xy[1][i] means price of xy[0][i]
i tried using other techniques like removing of breaks and changing variable name, but still it says runtime error with variable menu
no idea what makes the error. so i wish someone can help me with this
scanf("%1s",&menu);
No! A char isn't a string at all. You want to get a single character, so use either getchar() or scanf("%c",&menu);.
A related error is in your core_return, where you try to read 3 characters into a single character. Also, don't call your main in a sub-routine. Instead return from the sub-routine and put a loop in your main. By the way, 'yes' and 'no' aren't valid. If you want to compare strings, you have to use strcmp:
// returns 1 if the user wants to go again
int another_menu(void)
{
char tmp[20];
printf("Do you want another service?");
for(;;){
scanf("%3s",tmp);
if(strcmp("y",tmp) || strcmp("yes",tmp))
return 0;
else if(strcmp("n",tmp) || strcmp("no",tmp))
return 1;
printf("Please specify either 'no' or 'yes': ");
}
}
Use compiler warnings in order to find your errors quicker (GCC: -Wall -Wextra).
I have a function with an absurd number of return points, and I don't want to caveman each one, and I don't want to next through the function. Is there any way I can do something like finish, except have it stop on the return statement?
You can try reverse debugging to find out where function actually returns. Finish executing current frame, do reverse-step and then you should stop at just returned statement.
(gdb) fin
(gdb) reverse-step
There is already similar question
I think you're stuck setting breakpoints. I'd write a script to generate the list of breakpoint commands to run and paste them into gdb.
Sample script (in Python):
lines = open(filename, 'r').readlines()
break_lines = [line_num for line_num, line in enumerate(lines) if 'return' in line and
line_num > first and line_num <= last]
break_cmds = ['b %s:%d' % (filename, line_num) for line_num in break_lines]
print '\n'.join(break_cmds)
Set filename to the name of the file with the absurd function, first to the first line of the function (this is a quick script, not a C parser) and last to the number of the last line of the function. The output ought to be suitable for pasting into gdb.
Kind of a stretch, but the catch command can stop on many kinds of things (like forking, exiting, receiving a signal). You may be able to use catch catch (which breaks for exceptions) to do what you want in C++ if you wrap the function in try/finally. For that matter, if you break on a line inside the finally you can probably single-step through the return after that (although how much that will tell you about where it came from is highly dependent on optimization: common return cases are often folded by gcc).
How about taking this opportunity to break up what seems to be clearly a too-large function?
This question's come up before on SO. My answer from there:
Obviously you ought to refactor this function, but in C++ you can use this simple expedient to deal with this in five minutes:
class ReturnMarker
{
public:
ReturnMarker() {};
~ReturnMarker()
{
dummy += 1; //<-- put your breakpoint here
}
static int dummy;
}
int ReturnMarker::dummy = 0;
and then instance a single ReturnMarker at the top of your function. When it returns, that instance will go out of scope, and you'll hit the destructor.
void LongFunction()
{
ReturnMarker foo;
// ...
}
I am writing a large C program for embedded use. Every module in this program has an init() function (like a constructor) to set up its static variables.
The problem is that I have to remember to call all of these init functions from main(). I also have to remember to put them back if I have commented them out for some reason.
Is there anything clever I do to make sure that all of these functions are getting called? Something along the lines of putting a macro in each init function that, when you call a check_inited() function later, sends a warning to STDOUT if not all the functions are called.
I could increment a counter, but I'd have to maintain the correct number of init functions somewhere and that is also prone to error.
Thoughts?
The following is the solution I decided on, with input from several people in this thread
My goal is to make sure that all my init functions are actually being called. I want to do
this without maintaining lists or counts of modules across several files. I can't call
them automatically as Nick D suggested because they need to be called in a certain order.
To accomplish this, a macro included in every module uses the gcc constructor attribute to
add the init function name to a global list.
Another macro included in the body of the init function updates the global list to make a
note that the function was actually called.
Finally, a check function is called in main() after all of the inits are done.
Notes:
I chose to copy the strings into an array. This not strictly necessary because the
function names passed will always be static strings in normal usage. If memory was short
you could just store a pointer to the string that was passed in.
My reusable library of utility functions is called "nx_lib". Thus all the 'nxl' designations.
This isn't the most efficient code in the world but it's only called a boot time so that
doesn't matter for me.
There are two lines of code that need to be added to each module. If either is omitted,
the check function will let you know.
you might be able to make the constructor function static, which would avoid the need to give it a name that is unique across the project.
this code is only lightly tested and it's really late so please check carefully before trusting it.
Thank you to:
pierr who introduced me to the constructor attribute.
Nick D for demonstrating the ## preprocessor trick and giving me the framework.
tod frye for a clever linker-based approach that will work with many compilers.
Everyone else for helping out and sharing useful tidbits.
nx_lib_public.h
This is the relevant fragment of my library header file
#define NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE 20
typedef struct _nxl_function_element{
char func[NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE];
BOOL called;
} nxl_function_element;
void nxl_func_run_check_add(char *func_name);
BOOL nxl_func_run_check(void);
void nxl_func_run_check_hit(char *func_name);
#define NXL_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_ADD(function_name) \
void cons_ ## function_name() __attribute__((constructor)); \
void cons_ ## function_name() { nxl_func_run_check_add(#function_name); }
nxl_func_run_check.c
This is the libary code that is called to add function names and check them later.
#define MAX_CHECKED_FUNCTIONS 100
static nxl_function_element m_functions[MAX_CHECKED_FUNCTIONS];
static int m_func_cnt = 0;
// call automatically before main runs to register a function name.
void nxl_func_run_check_add(char *func_name)
{
// fail and complain if no more room.
if (m_func_cnt >= MAX_CHECKED_FUNCTIONS) {
print ("nxl_func_run_check_add failed, out of space\r\n");
return;
}
strncpy (m_functions[m_func_cnt].func, func_name,
NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE);
m_functions[m_func_cnt].func[NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE-1] = 0;
m_functions[m_func_cnt++].called = FALSE;
}
// call from inside the init function
void nxl_func_run_check_hit(char *func_name)
{
int i;
for (i=0; i< m_func_cnt; i++) {
if (! strncmp(m_functions[i].func, func_name,
NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE)) {
m_functions[i].called = TRUE;
return;
}
}
print("nxl_func_run_check_hit(): error, unregistered function was hit\r\n");
}
// checks that all registered functions were called
BOOL nxl_func_run_check(void) {
int i;
BOOL success=TRUE;
for (i=0; i< m_func_cnt; i++) {
if (m_functions[i].called == FALSE) {
success = FALSE;
xil_printf("nxl_func_run_check error: %s() not called\r\n",
m_functions[i].func);
}
}
return success;
}
solo.c
This is an example of a module that needs initialization
#include "nx_lib_public.h"
NXL_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_ADD(solo_init)
void solo_init(void)
{
nxl_func_run_check_hit((char *) __func__);
/* do module initialization here */
}
You can use gcc's extension __attribute__((constructor)) if gcc is ok for your project.
#include <stdio.h>
void func1() __attribute__((constructor));
void func2() __attribute__((constructor));
void func1()
{
printf("%s\n",__func__);
}
void func2()
{
printf("%s\n",__func__);
}
int main()
{
printf("main\n");
return 0;
}
//the output
func2
func1
main
I don't know how ugly the following looks but I post it anyway :-)
(The basic idea is to register function pointers, like what atexit function does.
Of course atexit implementation is different)
In the main module we can have something like this:
typedef int (*function_t)(void);
static function_t vfunctions[100]; // we can store max 100 function pointers
static int vcnt = 0; // count the registered function pointers
int add2init(function_t f)
{
// todo: error checks
vfunctions[vcnt++] = f;
return 0;
}
...
int main(void) {
...
// iterate vfunctions[] and call the functions
...
}
... and in some other module:
typedef int (*function_t)(void);
extern int add2init(function_t f);
#define M_add2init(function_name) static int int_ ## function_name = add2init(function_name)
int foo(void)
{
printf("foo\n");
return 0;
}
M_add2init(foo); // <--- register foo function
Why not write a post processing script to do the checking for you. Then run that script as part of your build process... Or better yet, make it one of your tests. You are writing tests, right? :)
For example, if each of your modules has a header file, modX.c. And if the signature of your init() function is "void init()"...
Have your script grep through all your .h files, and create a list of module names that need to be init()ed. Then have the script check that init() is indeed called on each module in main().
If your single module represents "class" entity and has instance constructor, you can use following construction:
static inline void init(void) { ... }
static int initialized = 0;
#define INIT if (__predict_false(!initialized)) { init(); initialized = 1; }
struct Foo *
foo_create(void)
{
INIT;
...
}
where "__predict_false" is your compiler's branch prediction hint. When first object is created, module is auto-initialized (for once).
Splint (and probably other Lint variants) can give a warning about functions that are defined but not called.
It's interesting that most compilers will warn you about unused variables, but not unused functions.
Larger running time is not a problem
You can conceivably implement a kind of "state-machine" for each module, wherein the actions of a function depend on the state the module is in. This state can be set to BEFORE_INIT or INITIALIZED.
For example, let's say we have module A with functions foo and bar.
The actual logic of the functions (i.e., what they actually do) would be declared like so:
void foo_logic();
void bar_logic();
Or whatever the signature is.
Then, the actual functions of the module (i.e., the actual function declared foo()) will perform a run-time check of the condition of the module, and decide what to do:
void foo() {
if (module_state == BEFORE_INIT) {
handle_not_initialized_error();
}
foo_logic();
}
This logic is repeated for all functions.
A few things to note:
This will obviously incur a huge penalty performance-wise, so is
probably not a good idea (I posted
anyway because you said runtime is
not a problem).
This is not a real state-machine, since there are only two states which are checked using a basic if, without some kind of smart general logic.
This kind of "design-pattern" works great when you're using separate threads/tasks, and the functions you're calling are actually called using some kind of IPC.
A state machine can be nicely implemented in C++, might be worth reading up on it. The same kind of idea can conceivably be coded in C with arrays of function pointers, but it's almost certainly not worth your time.
you can do something along these lines with a linker section. whenever you define an init function, place a pointer to it in a linker section just for init function pointers. then you can at least find out how many init functions have been compiled.
and if it does not matter what order the init functions are called, and the all have the same prototype, you can just call them all in a loop from main.
the exact details elude my memory, but it works soemthing like this::
in the module file...
//this is the syntax in GCC..(or would be if the underscores came through in this text editor)
initFuncPtr thisInit __attribute((section(.myinits)))__= &moduleInit;
void moduleInit(void)
{
// so init here
}
this places a pointer to the module init function in the .myinits section, but leaves the code in the .code section. so the .myinits section is nothing but pointers. you can think of this as a variable length array that module files can add to.
then you can access the section start and end address from the main. and go from there.
if the init functions all have the same protoytpe, you can just iterate over this section, calling them all.
this, in effect, is creating your own static constructor system in C.
if you are doing a large project and your linker is not at least this fully featured, you may have a problem...
Can I put up an answer to my question?
My idea was to have each function add it's name to a global list of functions, like Nick D's solution.
Then I would run through the symbol table produced by -gstab, and look for any functions named init_* that had not been called.
This is an embedded app so I have the elf image handy in flash memory.
However I don't like this idea because it means I always have to include debugging info in the binary.