I have an array of structs and some of the struct members are constant
I would like to make a deep copy of the array.
The copy will also have the same members of the struct be constants.
How do I initialize the values into the new array without violating the const directive.
Below is an excerpt of my code. The actual program is quite long but I think I've included all the relevant code. In this example keys is declared as a global variable that I would like to make new instances from. I'm treating it sort of like a template with preset values.
When I try to compile this in Debian with gcc I get the following error:
main.c:216:9: error: assignment of read-only location ‘*(new_keys + (unsigned int)((unsigned int)index * 540u))’make: *** [main.o] Error 1
The makefile is using the following qualifier:
CFLAGS=-c -g -std=gnu99 -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700
Interestingly. I can compile the same code in Xcode without an error or warning even with Xcode set for C Language Dialect GNU99[-std=gnu99]
I can make my code work simply by getting rid of the const keywords. But these values truly should be const. Once these arrays are initialized they will never change. I would like to understand how to do this properly and also I would like to know why this works in Xcode and not gcc.
Header File
typedef struct {
char * name;
char * alias;
int number;
} pair_int_t;
typedef struct {
const char * const name;
const kind_t kind; // kind is enum type
const pair_int_t * const enum_array;
bool received;
const char * const alias;
} key_descriptor_t;
typedef key_descriptor_t keys_descriptor_t[_END_OF_KEYS+1];
body of .c program before main()
const pair_int_t command_list[] = {
{.name = "numeric data response", .alias = "num", .number = RES_NUMERIC_DATA},
{.name = "read attribute", .alias = "readat", .number = CMD_READ_ATTR},
//..
}
// declare a global variable *keys* with constants assigned to it
key_descriptor_t keys[] = {
[_COMMAND] = {.name = "command", .kind = ENUMERATED, .alias = "com", .enum_array = command_list},
[_RESPONSE] = {.name = "response", .kind = ENUMERATED, .alias = "res", .enum_array = command_list},
[_UNIT] = {.name = "unit number", .kind = NUMBER, .alias = "uni", .enum_array = NULL},
//..
}
int initialize_new_keys(keys_descriptor_t new_keys) {
int index;
for (index = _FIRST_KEY; index <= _END_OF_KEYS; index++){
new_keys[index] = keys[index]; // line 216, keys is a global variable
}
return index;
}
main program
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]){
keys_descriptor_t 2nd_set_of_keys;
initialize_new_keys(2nd_set_of_keys);
}
You can only initialize const variables at the time you define them. Creating an array with const members, sending it to a function, and then trying to assign to those members signifies that you didn't really mean const in the first place. There's no syntax in C for "const except for the first assignment".
A reasonable alternative is to make an opaque type, encapsulate the definition in a separate translation unit, and then access all the members purely through an interface of functions. That way, even though things may not be const, they still can't be changed (except through deliberate subversion, which is at least no better than not calling things const in the first place) because no code that uses them has access to the definition of the struct, or therefore to the members.
EDIT: In response to the question in the comment, "is there a way to create and initialize one complex constant variable to the value of another existing constant variable of the same type?", there sure is - just initialize it normally:
struct mystruct {
const int a;
const int b;
};
static const struct mystruct m = {1, 2};
int main(void) {
struct mystruct n = m;
return 0;
}
Obviously the more complex your struct is, the more complex this may become.
"2nd_set_of_keys" is a struct, it should be a static array (or can be a pointer and reserve memory dynamically), the same problem occurs with the "new_keys" parameter.
Although a little weird, you can copy data to const variables (overriding the const verification) by using memcpy().
Related
I like to create scenarios in my code where I declare a static global struct inside a .c file that everyone will share, it contains configuration stuff. Right underneath the declaration, I'll create a constant pointer to this struct and put this in the .h file so that everyone can get access to it.
Sometimes, within a .c file, I like to have a global pointer to the specific configuration that that .c file cares about, that way I don't have constantly keep referencing the global struct, because sometimes I'll get this configuration from a different source on different projects.
The issue that I have is that I can't define this "local global" pointer because the initializer element is not constant. Here is an example.
typedef struct
{
int Value;
} mystruct_t, *pmystruct_t;
static const mystruct_t GlobalStruct;
const pmystruct_t pGlobalStruct = &GlobalStruct;
const int *ValuePtr = &pGlobalStruct->Value;
int main()
{
*ValuePtr = 10;
return 0;
}
I tried reading on the const keywords for pointer in C, and I thought I understood it, but apparently it's still a mystery to me. The line of code that I tried, and may gotten me closer to that piece of code to compile is
const mystruct_t const *pGlobalStruct = &GlobalStruct;
However, it still doesn't compile because ValuePtr initializer element is not constant (the error I get).
The end goal here is to have ValuePtr be a constant, where no one can change where it is pointing to, but allow change the elements of the struct that it is pointing to.
EDIT: I want ValuePtr to use pGlobalStruct
The definition
const pmystruct_t pGlobalStruct = &GlobalStruct;
makes the variable (the pointer itself) pGlobalStruct constant, not the structure that it points to.
This is only one of the many flaws that hiding pointers behind type-aliases have.
And to make the definition of ValuePtr valid as well, then you need to make both the pointer variable as well as the structure it points to constant:
const mystruct_t * const pGlobalStruct = &GlobalStruct;
Now pGlobalStruct is a constant pointer to a constant mystruct_t object.
Do not hide pointers behind the typedefs.
If your pointer is referencing constant object you cant assign it with the value. You can only initialize the object.
const int x = 10; //initialization
cosnt int *ptr = &x;
How do I get a const pointer to a const struct?
All possible combinations below:
struct str
{
int x;
float b;
};
struct str a;
const struct str b;
const struct str *c;
struct str * const d;
const struct str * const e;
a - not const structure
b - const structure
c - not const pointer to const structure
d - const pointer to not const structure
e - const pointer to const structure
In your case
const mystruct_t * const pGlobalSttruct = &GlobalStruct;
In .h file
typedef enum
{A1,A2}struct_A;
typedef struct
{const struct_A G;} struct_B;
typedef struct
{const struct_B * F;} struct_C;
typedef struct
{const struct_C *E;} struct_D;
In .c file
const struct_D temp;
How to set/change value of:
temp->E[i].F[0].G
The only way to set value to const structure is to initialize it while declaring it. So,the solution would be:
struct_B B = {A1};
struct_C C = {&B};
struct_D temp = {&C};
However, I haven't come across any scenario where such nested const structures would be required.
At first: If we see something qualified as const we should take it seriously and avoid to cast away the constness. If you cast away the const qualifier of global or static data then you get undefined behavior and you are going to get a segmentation fault in linux.
In general, the correct way is the one pointed by Suven Pandey in the other answer.
However, there are valid cases to cast away const. Your case may qualify as as one of the exceptions in https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/EXP05-C.+Do+not+cast+away+a+const+qualification
EXP05-C-EX3: Because const means "read-only," and not "constant," it is sometimes useful to declare struct members as (pointer to) const objects to obtain diagnostics when the user tries to change them in some way other than via the functions that are specifically designed to maintain that data type. Within those functions, however, it may be necessary to strip off the const qualification to update those members.
We can cast away const when your data is in a mutable region of memory like the stack or heap. We need to be careful, anyway, as that is likely to produce unexpected behavior if the code relays on that data being immutable and we change it.
So, this is what you asked for:
typedef enum {A1, A2} enum_A;
typedef struct { const enum_A G; } struct_B;
typedef struct { const struct_B * F; } struct_C;
typedef struct { const struct_C *E; } struct_D;
int main() {
const struct_B b = {A1};
const struct_C c = {&b};
const struct_D temp = {&c};
enum_A *pointer_to_non_const_A = &temp.E[0].F[0].G;
*pointer_to_non_const_A = A2;
}
But that depends on where temp is defined and is going to cause compilation warning. If temp is a global that is going to crash. Here are the cases when it works, but shall not be used, and when it crashes:
#include <stdlib.h>
const int global_in_data_segment = 0;
int main() {
const int in_stack = 0;
static const int static_in_data_segment = 0;
const int *in_heap = malloc(sizeof(int));
int *works;
works = &in_stack; *works = 1;
works = in_heap; *works = 2;
int *crashes;
crashes = &global_in_data_segment; *crashes = 3;
crashes = &static_in_data_segment; *crashes = 4;
}
For completeness, c++ has const_cast: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/const_cast
I'm trying to initialize a structure member that needs to point to an array of pointers. The idea is to declare the array of structures statically to avoid initialization overhead since all the data is fixed and known at compile time.
Unfortunately, I cannot get the code to compile under Visual Studio 2015. The code listed below produces the following error: C2099: initializer is not a constant. Which seems odd because list is only initialized with a fixed sized list of string literals.
#define DATA_LIST { \
L"some", \
L"example", \
L"data", \
L"in a list", \
NULL \
}
#define INFO_LIST { \
L"another", \
L"list", \
L"with", \
L"some", \
L"info", \
NULL \
}
typedef struct data {
unsigned int flag;
const wchar_t **list;
} dataset, *pdataset;
static dataset somedata[] = {
{ .flag = 2,
.list = (const wchar_t *[])DATA_LIST // C2099
},
{ .flag = 4,
.list = (const wchar_t *[])INFO_LIST // C2099
}
};
I've also tried to use a pointer to a flexible array (const wchar_t *list[];). Not the ideal solution because somedata will no longer be able to be declared as an array of structures. Next to that, it will also produce a warning (C4200: nonstandard extension used: zero-sized array in struct/union).
typedef struct data {
unsigned int flag;
const wchar_t *list[]; // C4200 (somedata can no longer be an array of structures)
} dataset, *pdataset;
static dataset somedata = {
.flag = 2,
.list = DATA_LIST
};
Another idea was to define list as a pointer to a fixed size array of pointers. But this requires the dataset structure to be defined with a list member that is large enough to hold the largest list. Also not ideal when there are lots of small lists and one single large list.
typedef struct data {
unsigned int flag;
const wchar_t *list[sizeof (wchar_t *[])INFO_LIST / sizeof *(wchar_t *[])INFO_LIST];
} dataset, *pdataset;
static dataset somedata[] = {
{ .flag = 2,
.list = DATA_LIST
},
{ .flag = 4,
.list = INFO_LIST
}
};
Maybe I'm overseeing something or is there some language extension feature available that can provide an elegant solution? Any suggestions are welcome.
Note: even though the visual-c++ tag is added, the code is compiled as C code.
Another interesting thing to add which might be related, is that when somedata is declared as non-static (thus without the static keyword), the compiler will produce some warnings but is able to compile the code. By declaring somedata as non-static, the constraint is removed that forces the data used for initializing somedata to be known at compile time.
As indicated by the compilation warnings, it seems that the compiler temporarily stores the address of the list of string literals in an automatic variable before initializing the list member with it. This remains speculation, though. Maybe someone experienced can shed some light on what is actually happening here.
typedef struct data {
unsigned int flag;
const wchar_t **list;
} dataset, *pdataset;
// C4221: nonstandard extension used: 'list': cannot be initialized using
// address of automatic variable '$S1'
// C4204: nonstandard extension used: non-constant aggregate initializer
dataset somedata = {
.flag = 2,
.list = (const wchar_t *[])DATA_LIST // note: see declaration of '$S1'
};
Last but not least, when using a temporary variable initialized with the address of the list of string literals to initialize the list member, the code finally compiles fine without any warnings or errors.
static const wchar_t *temp[] = DATA_LIST;
static dataset somedata = {
.flag = 2,
.list = temp
};
But when declaring temp as a pointer to a pointer and typecasting the list of string literals, the code can no longer be compiled as the expression that initializes list becomes marked as an active error: expression must have a constant value
static const wchar_t **temp = (const wchar_t *[])DATA_LIST;
static dataset somedata = {
.flag = 2,
.list = temp // marked as active error
};
If I then decide to make somedata non-static again, the expression is no longer marked as an active error. But when trying to compile the code, the following error comes back up again: C2099: initializer is not a constant
I'm wondering if Visual Studio 2017 behaves the same way and if there is an alternative method available to organize and process the data by similar means.
MSVC has poor compliance to the C Standard. As a workaround you can use named objects instead of compound literals:
static const wchar_t *x_data_list[] = DATA_LIST;
static const wchar_t *x_info_list[] = INFO_LIST;
static dataset somedata[] = {
{ .flag = 2,
.list = x_data_list
},
{ .flag = 4,
.list = x_info_list
}
};
I'm not sure whether you intentionally made your lists non-const, but if you are not planning to write to x_data_list at runtime then you can make it const and give the .list member the type const wchar_t * const *.
I am really not able to solve this issue.
error: initializer element is not constant
error: (near initialization for tca6507_leds1.leds.num_leds)
I think the problem is related to struct led_info *leds inside led_platform_data. Is this somehow not a const since it is a pointer? I am particularly baffled since led_platform_data and led_info are part of the linux kernel. tca6507_platform_data is also a part of a driver that is included in the kernel source.
Here is my initialization:
static struct led_info tca6507_led_infos[] = {
{
.name = "left_blue",
.default_trigger = "heartbeat",
},
};
static struct led_platform_data tca6507_leds2 = {
.leds = tca6507_led_infos,
};
struct tca6507_platform_data tca6507_leds1 = {
.leds = tca6507_leds1
};
All the structs are defined in header files that I did not write.
struct led_info {
const char *name;
const char *default_trigger;
int flags;
};
struct led_platform_data {
int num_leds;
struct led_info *leds;
};
struct tca6507_platform_data {
struct led_platform_data leds;
#ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB
int gpio_base;
void (*setup)(unsigned gpio_base, unsigned ngpio);
#endif
};
The problem is right in the middle of this three line bit:
struct tca6507_platform_data tca6507_leds1 = {
.leds = tca6507_leds1
};
What is the (compile time) value of tca6507_leds1? Note that it is a structure, not an array.
Compare that with the (valid):
static struct led_platform_data tca6507_leds2 = {
.leds = tca6507_led_infos,
};
What is the (compile time) value of tca6507_led_infos? (Note that it is an array, and the "value" of an array is the address of its first element.) And most importantly (perhaps I should not have buried the lede :-) ), compare with the (also valid):
static struct led_info tca6507_led_infos[] = {
{
.name = "left_blue",
.default_trigger = "heartbeat",
},
};
Note that instead of using the value of a variable, the initializer here is a brace-enclosed list of items. This (like the failing case) is an instance of struct led_info, which must contain one actual struct led_platform_data instance (not a pointer to one-or-more, as is used in struct led_platform_data).
(The above is meant as an exercise. The answer is, the value of a structure is the value of the structure—but that is not a compile-time constant. Moreover, you are trying to use the value of the structure that you have not yet finished initializing in the first place. You need X to set X but you have to find X first, which you do by finding X, and there's no end to the recursion.)
Can someone tell me the difference between these two versions of a declaration of a structure?
struct S
{
uint8_t a;
};
and
const struct S
{
uint8_t a;
}
Followed by:
void main(void)
{
struct S s = {1};
s.a++;
}
Hint, i've tried both versions for S in Visual Studio C++ 2010 Express so I know that both compile with errors.
Is the "const struct" doing nothing at all? "const struct S s = {1};" certainly does, but that's not the issue at the moment.
Regards
Rich
/********************************************/
I've just worked out what
const struct <typename> <{type}> <variable instances a, b, .., z>;
is doing:
When const is present before the "struct", all variable instances are const, as though they'd be defined with:
const struct <typename> a, b, z;
So it does do something, but not when there's no instance definitions in-line with the struct declaration.
Rich
A declaration of structure just defines the data type.
const qualifier appies to a variable not a data type. So adding const preceeding a struct declaration should be redundant at the most.
With:
const struct S
{
uint8_t a;
};
The const qualifier there is nonsense, and may even cause a compilation error with some C compilers. gcc issues a warning.
The intent appears to be to declare the data type struct S. In this case, the proper syntax is:
struct S
{
uint8_t a;
};
const struct S
{
uint8_t a;
};
is not a valid construct.
This
const struct S
{
uint8_t a;
} x;
could possibly be valid as you're declaring a variable x that is now const, meaning it cannot change.
The const qualifier applies to variables or members.
To instantiate a const variable, just specify const during instantiation.
What const does, is:
during compilation, verify that only reads are performed on the const variables
if the const variable is created with a value which can be resolved during compilation, put the variable in the program memory
When const is applied to members, like in:
struct T {
int const i;
int j;
};
You can only (legally) assign the value i during the creation of the structure.
You may be able to modify a const value (if the program memory sits in RAM and not ROM) by casting it to a non-const type (const-cast) but this is something you shouldn't do.
The typical usage of const-cast is when you use a library which does not specify the constness in function declarations, and your code does. At this point if you want to use it you have to trust it and cast parameters before calling its functions.
It is nonsense to use const keyword before struct.
If you are using gcc compiler, it shows you the following warning:
warning: useless type qualifier in empty declaration [enabled by default]
This is the only use I can think of:
const struct S {
int a;
int b;
} s;
This declares a struct and immediately creates an instance for it named s and at this point, a and b in s are initialized to 0 (please note that at this point s is a global variable in the translation unit which it has been declared in and can be externally linked to).
printf("a = %d\t b = %d\n", s.a, s.b); // a = 0 b = 0
If you try to set members of s, you will fail:
s.a = 1; //error: assignment of member ‘a’ in read-only object
So, s is not really useful here...unless you do something like:
const struct S {
int a;
int b;
} s = { 1, 2 };
Now let's create another instance of the same struct (declaration is still same as above):
struct S other;
other.a = 1;
other.b = 2;
printf("a = %d\t b = %d\n", other.a, other.b); // a = 1 b = 2
The compiler will not complain anymore as other is not const! only s is const!
Now, what that const do, you may ask? let's try to change s:
s = other; // error: assignment of read-only variable ‘s’
That is all to it. If you did not need the compiler to allocate storage for s at the point of declaration and still needed an instance of s to be const you would just add const at the point of instantiating struct S (note the capital S!!)
Bonus 1
const struct S {
int a;
int b;
};
note that there is no small s anymore. At this point, GCC will warn you that const qualifier does not do anything!!!!
Bonus 2
If you want every instance of the struct to be const, that is its members can only be initialized at the point of definition you can do like (using typedef):
typedef const struct S {
int a;
int b;
} s;
// The wrong way
s thisIsAnS;
thisIsAnS.a = 1; //error: assignment of member ‘a’ in read-only object
// The correct way
s thisIsAnS = { 1 , 2 }; //compiles fine, but you can not change a or b anymore
Conclusion
To me, this is just syntactic sugar and only adds unnecessary complexity to the code. But who am I to judge...
When you declare
const var;
then it allocate the some memory space for it but
struct var;
it was just an declaration compiler does not allocate any space for it.
so it shows the error and in const struct you didn't declare any varible see the code so it shows error.