I have come across the line of code shown below.
I think it may be a cast to a function pointer that returns void and takes a void pointer. Is that correct?
(void (*)(void *))SGENT_1_calc
Yes, it is correct. I find that not very readable, so I suggest declaring the signature of the function to be pointed:
typedef void sigrout_t(void*);
I also have the coding convention that types ending with rout_t are such types for functions signatures. You might name it otherwise, since _t is a suffix reserved by POSIX.
Later on I am casting, perhaps to call it like
((sigrout_t*) SGENT_1_calc) (someptr);
Yes, it is. The function should be looking like this
void func(void*);
But the statement is missing a target, since a cast to nothing is useless. So it should be like
func = (void (*)(void *))SGENT_1_calc;
None of the existing answers show it in direct usage, that is, taking a function pointer and casting it in order to call the function. I was playing with this to show the content of my object as json, accessing both the function and the data through anonymous pointers:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct box1_s{
int a;
char b[50];
}box1_t;
void box1_t_print(void* ptr){
box1_t* box = (box1_t*)ptr;
printf("{\"a\": %i, \"b\": \"%s\"}", box->a, box->b);
}
int main(){
void* print = (void*)box1_t_print;
box1_t mybox = {3, "Hi folks, it's me!"};
void* ptr = &mybox;
printf("mybox = ");
((void (*)(void*))print)(ptr);
return 0;
}
Output of the program:
mybox = {"a": 3, "b": "Hi folks, it's me!"}
Yes, this is a function pointer cast.
Function pointer casts
To help you with casting functions to pointers, you can define an alias for a function pointer type as follows:
typedef void void_to_void_fct(void*);
You can also define a type for a function that takes and returns values:
typedef int math_operator(int, int);
Later, you can store a function into a function pointer type like this:
void mystery(void* arg) {
// do something nasty with the given argument
};
int add(int a, int b) {
return a + b;
}
void_to_void *ptr1 = mystery;
math_operator *ptr2 = add;
Sometimes, you have a function like print_str :
void print_str(char* str) {
printf("%s", str);
}
and you want to store it in your function pointer that is agnostic to the argument type. You can then use a cast like this:
(void (*)(void *))print_str
or
(void_to_void_fct*)print_str
Why do we use function pointers?
Function pointers allow you to "store a function" inside a variable (indeed, you store the address of the function). This is very convenient when you want to allow some code to have diferent behavior depending on user input.
For exemple, suppose we have some data and some way to decode it. We could have the following structure to keep this information:
typedef char* decoder_type(char*);
struct encoded_data {
char* data;
decoder_type *decoder_fct;
};
char* decoding_function_1(char* data) {
//...
char* decoding_function_2(char* data) {
//...
This allows storing both the data and the function to later use them together to decode the data.
Related
In short, my question is: does the C standard allow for an arbitrary function pointer type similar to void * being an arbitrary data pointer type?
It is common to define call-back function types with a void * parameter to pass on an arbitrary data package whose format is known to the call-back function, but not to the caller.
For example:
typedef void (* EventFunctionType)(void *data);
void RegisterEventFunction(EventFunctionType function, void *data);
An "EventFunction" can then be registered with a data pointer which will be passed to the function when it is called.
Now suppose we want to pass a function pointer to the call-back. The function could have any prototype which would be known to the specific call-back function, just like the arbitrary data structure above.
A void * cannot hold a function pointer, so which type could be used?
Note: An obvious solution to this problem would be to wrap the function pointer in a data structure with the correct function pointer type, but the question is if the function pointer could be passed on directly in a generic form which the call-back could then cast to a pointer with the correct prototype?
There are no function pointer type that works the same as/similar to to void-pointer.
But function pointers has another characteristic that can be used. It's already referenced in the answer linked in this question:
In the C11 draft standard N1570, 6.3.2.3 ยง8:
A pointer to a function of one type may be converted to a pointer to a function of another type and back again.
This mean that you can use any function pointer type as your "arbitrary function pointer type". It doesn't matter as long as you know how to get back to the real/original type (i.e. know the original type so that you can cast correctly).
For instance:
typedef void (*func_ptr_void)(void);
and then use func_ptr_void as your "arbitrary function pointer type".
But notice that unlike conversion between void* and other object pointer types, the conversion between function pointers will always require an explicit cast. The code example below shows this difference:
#include <stdio.h>
typedef void (*func_ptr_void)(void);
typedef int (*f_int)(int);
int bar(int n)
{
return n * n;
}
int test(func_ptr_void f, int y)
{
f_int fc = (f_int)f; // Explicit cast
return fc(y);
}
int foo(void* p)
{
int* pi = p; // Explicit cast not needed
return *pi;
}
int main(void)
{
int x = 42;
void* pv = &x; // Explicit cast not needed
printf("%d \n", foo(pv));
func_ptr_void fpv = (func_ptr_void)bar; // Explicit cast
printf("%d \n", test(fpv, 5));
return 0;
}
does the C standard allow for an arbitrary function pointer type similar to void * being an arbitrary data pointer type?
No. Two function pointers are only compatible if their return types and parameters (including qualifiers) match.
However, pointer conversions between any two function pointers by means of a cast are well-defined (6.3.2.3/8) as long as you don't invoke the function through the wrong pointer type. This means that you can use any function pointer type as a "generic function pointer" as long as you keep track of what function that pointer actually points at. Such as using an extra enum for that purpose.
Generally when using function pointers, we don't do that however, but instead define a common interface. For example like the callbacks to bsearch/qsort which use the form int (*)(const void*, const void*).
Here's an example of "keep track of type using enum", which is not something I particularly recommend but otherwise perfectly well-defined:
#include <stdio.h>
static int intfunc (int x)
{
printf("%d\n", x);
return x;
}
static double doublefunc (double x)
{
printf("%f\n", x);
return x;
}
typedef enum
{
INTFUNC,
DOUBLEFUNC
} functype_t;
typedef void generic_func_t (void);
typedef int int_func_t (int);
typedef int double_func_t (double);
typedef struct
{
generic_func_t* fptr;
functype_t type;
} func_t;
void func_call (const func_t* f)
{
switch(f->type)
{
case INTFUNC: ((int_func_t*)f->fptr ) (1); break;
case DOUBLEFUNC: ((double_func_t*)f->fptr) (1.0); break;
}
}
int main (void)
{
func_t f1 = { (generic_func_t*)intfunc, INTFUNC };
func_t f2 = { (generic_func_t*)doublefunc, DOUBLEFUNC };
func_call(&f1);
func_call(&f2);
}
That's "old school" C, but it is not recommended since it is clunky, brittle and not really type safe. In modern C programming we wouldn't write that kind of code however, but replace that whole mess with something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
static int intfunc (int x)
{
printf("%d\n", x);
return x;
}
static double doublefunc (double x)
{
printf("%f\n", x);
return x;
}
#define func_call(obj) \
_Generic((obj), \
int: intfunc, \
double: doublefunc) (obj) \
int main (void)
{
func_call(1);
func_call(1.0);
}
Following code works fine, however I was wondering if this is valid use of rule that void* is compatible with any other pointer
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
int foo;
} SomeStruct_t;
typedef void(*SomeFunction_t)(void* ptr);
void bar(SomeStruct_t* str) {
printf("%d\n", str->foo);
}
void teddy(void* anyPtr) {
SomeStruct_t* str = (SomeStruct_t*)anyPtr;
printf("%d\n", str->foo);
}
int main()
{
SomeFunction_t functPtr = (SomeFunction_t)bar;
SomeStruct_t data = {.foo = 33};
functPtr(&data);
functPtr = teddy;
functPtr(&data);
return 0;
}
Question is, should I use bar or teddy variant? I prefer bar but I'm not sure if for some corner cases this might lead to hard to detect problem.
This is not valid:
SomeFunction_t functPtr = (SomeFunction_t)bar;
Because you're casing a function pointer of type void (*)(SomeStruct_t*) to type void (*)(void*) and subsequently calling it though the casted type. The function pointer types are not compatible because the parameters are not compatible. This triggers undefined behavior.
While a SomeStruct_t * can be converted to a void *, that conversion can't happen because the casted function pointer prevents it. There's no guarantee that SomeStruct_t * and void * have the same representation.
Using the function teddy which matches the function pointer type is safe. Also, you don't need to cast the parameter to SomeStruct_t * inside the function because conversions to/from void * don't require one in most cases.
I'm not sure if the question has asked before, but I couldn't find any similar topics.
I'm struggeling with the following piece of code. The idea is to extend r any time later on without writing lots of if-else statements. The functions (func1, func2...) either take zero or one arguments.
void func1() {
puts("func1");
}
void func2(char *arg){
puts("func2");
printf("with arg %s\n", arg);
}
struct fcall {
char name[16];
void (*pfunc)();
};
int main() {
const struct fcall r[] = {
{"F1", func1},
{"F2", func2}
};
char param[] = "someval";
size_t nfunc = RSIZE(r); /* array size */
for(;nfunc-->0;) {
r[nfunc].pfunc(param);
}
return 0;
}
The code above assumes that all functions take the string argument, which is not the case. The prototype for the pointer function is declared without any datatype to prevent the incompatible pointer type warning.
Passing arguments to functions that do not take any parameters usually results in too few arguments. But in this case the compiler doesn't 'see' this ahead, which also let me to believe that no optimization is done to exclude these unused addresses from being pushed onto the stack. (I haven't looked at the actual assemble code).
It feels wrong someway and that's usually a recipe for buffer overflows or undefined behaviour. Would it be better to call functions without parameters separately? If so, how much damage could this do?
The way to do it is typedef a function with 1 argument, so the compiler could verify if you pass the correct number of arguments and that you do not pass something absolutely incompatible (e.g. a struct by value). And when you initialize your array, use this typedef to cast function types.
void func1(void) { ... }
void func2(char *arg) { ... }
void func3(int arg) { ... }
typedef uintptr_t param_t;
typedef void (*func_t)(param_t);
struct fcall {
char name[16];
func_t pfunc;
};
const struct fcall r[] = {
{"F1", (func_t) func1},
{"F2", (func_t) func2}
{"F3", (func_t) func3}
};
...
r[0].pfunc((param_t) "foo");
r[1].pfunc((param_t) "bar");
r[2].pfunc((param_t) 1000);
Here param_t is defined as uintpr_t. This is an integer type big enough to store a pointer value. For details see here: What is uintptr_t data type.
The caveat is that the calling conventions for param_t should be compatible with the function arguments you use. This is normally true for all integer and pointer types. The following sample is going to work, all the type conversions are compatible with each other in terms of calling conventions:
// No problem here.
void ptr_func(struct my_struct *ptr) {
...
}
...
struct my_struct struct_x;
((func_t) &ptr_func)((param_t) &struct_x);
But if you are going to pass a float or double argument, then it might not work as expected.
// There might be a problem here. Depending on the calling
// conventions the value might contain a complete garbage,
// as it might be taken from a floating point register that
// was not set on the call site.
void float_func(float value) {
...
}
...
float x = 1.0;
((func_t) &float_func)((param_t) x);
In this case you might need to define a function like this:
// Problem fixed, but only partially. Instead of garbage
// there might be rounding error after the conversions.
void float_func(param_t param) {
float value = (float) param;
...
}
...
float x = 1.234;
((func_t) &float_func)((param_t) x);
The float is first being converted to an integer type and then back. As a result the value might be rounded. An obvious solution would be to take an address of x and pass it to modified a function float_func2(float *value_ptr). The function would dereference its pointer argument and get the actual float value.
But, of course, being hardcore C-programmers we do not want to be obvious, so we are going to resort to some ugly trickery.
// Problem fixed the true C-programmer way.
void float_func(param_t param) {
float value = *((float *) ¶m);
...
}
...
float x = 1.234;
((func_t) &float_func)(*((param_t *) &x));
The difference of this sample compared to passing a pointer to float, is that on the architecture (like x86-64) where parameters are passed on registers rather than on the stack, a smart enough compiler can make float_func do its job using registers only, without the need to load the parameter from the memory.
One option is for all the functions accept a char * argument, and your calling code to always pass one. The functions that don't need an argument need not use the argument they receive.
To be clean (and avoid undefined behaviour), if you must have some functions that accept no argument and some functions that accept an argument, use two lists and register/call each type of function separately.
If the behaviour is undefined there's no telling how much damage could be caused.
It might blow up the planet. Or it might not.
So just don't do it, OK?
if I have a structure that has a pointer to a function like this
struct str{
int some_element;
char other_element;
int (*my_pointer_to_a_function)(int);
};
struct str my_struct;
int my_function(int);
and I asign values to it
my_struct.some_element = 1;
my_struct.other_element = 'a';
my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function = my_function;
how do I call the function that the pointer is pointing to (using the pointer)?
My initial guess is this:
my_struct.(*my_pointer_to_a_function)(value);
or should it be
*my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function(value);
?
Thank you.
Pointers to functions can be used as-is, without any dereference:
my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function(value)
But if you insist in dereferencing it you have to use parenthesis this way:
(*my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function)(value)
They both are totally equivalent, so I recommend the first one, that is simpler.
About you first try:
my_struct.(*my_pointer_to_a_function)(value); //Error!
That won't work because the expression in parenthersis has to be evaluated first: *my_pointer_to_a_function, but that alone means nothing.
And your second:
*my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function(value); //Error!
The operator precedence rules evaluates first the ., then the function call, and lastly the *:
*(my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function(value)); //Error!
So the function would be called, but the result of the call, an int, would be dereferenced, hence the error.
Suppose you have pointer to function as you struct member like:
struct newtype{
int a;
char c;
int (*f)(struct newtype*);
} var;
int fun(struct newtype* v){
return v->a;
}
You can call it as follows:
int main(){
var.f=fun;
var.f(&var);
// ^.....^..... have to pass `var` as an argument to f() :( :(
}
//Comment: here in var.f(&var); I miss this pointer and C++,
So for your case it should be just my_struct.my_pointer_to_a_function(value);
Additionally points:
Important to note in my example even you wants to access members of same structure variable you have to pass that. (its quite dissimilar than c++ object!)
virtual functions in C++ classes. They are implemented in a similar fashion under the hood.
Here is a project that will help you to use: Function pointers inside structures
Use this:
#define function mystruct.my_pointer_to_a_function
Then you can call the function :
int i = function(value);
Is it possible to declare some function type func_t which returns that type, func_t?
In other words, is it possible for a function to return itself?
// func_t is declared as some sort of function pointer
func_t foo(void *arg)
{
return &foo;
}
Or would I have to use void * and typecasting?
No, you cannot declare recursive function types in C. Except inside a structure (or an union), it's not possible to declare a recursive type in C.
Now for the void * solution, void * is only guaranteed to hold pointers to objects and not pointers to functions. Being able to convert function pointers and void * is available only as an extension.
A possible solution with structs:
struct func_wrap
{
struct func_wrap (*func)(void);
};
struct func_wrap func_test(void)
{
struct func_wrap self;
self.func = func_test;
return self;
}
Compiling with gcc -Wall gave no warnings, but I'm not sure if this is 100% portable.
You can't cast function pointers to void* (they can be different sizes), but that's not a problem since we can cast to another function pointer type and cast it back to get the original value.
typedef void (*fun2)();
typedef fun2 (*fun1)();
fun2 rec_fun()
{
puts("Called a function");
return (fun2)rec_fun;
}
// later in code...
fun1 fp = (fun1)((fun1)rec_fun())();
fp();
Output:
Called a function
Called a function
Called a function
In other words, is it possible for a function to return itself?
It depends on what you mean by "itself"; if you mean a pointer to itself then the answer is yes! While it is not possible for a function to return its type a function can return a pointer to itself and this pointer can then be converted to the appropriate type before calling.
The details are explained in the question comp.lang.c faq: Function that can return a pointer to a function of the same type.
Check my answer for details.
Assume the function definition
T f(void)
{
return &f;
}
f() returns a value of type T, but the type of the expression &f is "pointer to function returning T". It doesn't matter what T is, the expression &f will always be of a different, incompatible type T (*)(void). Even if T is a pointer-to-function type such as Q (*)(void), the expression &f will wind up being "pointer-to-function-returning-pointer-to-function", or Q (*(*)(void))(void).
If T is an integral type that's large enough to hold a function pointer value and conversion from T (*)(void) to T and back to T (*)(void) is meaningful on your platform, you might be able to get away with something like
T f(void)
{
return (T) &f;
}
but I can think of at least a couple of situations where that won't work at all. And honestly, its utility would be extremely limited compared to using something like a lookup table.
C just wasn't designed to treat functions like any other data item, and pointers to functions aren't interchangeable with pointers to object types.
what about something like this:
typedef void* (*takesDoubleReturnsVoidPtr)(double);
void* functionB(double d)
{
printf("here is a function %f",d);
return NULL;
}
takesDoubleReturnsVoidPtr functionA()
{
return functionB;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
takesDoubleReturnsVoidPtr func = functionA();
func(56.7);
return 0;
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef void *(*fptr)(int *);
void *start (int *);
void *stop (int *);
void *start (int *a) {
printf("%s\n", __func__);
return stop(a);
}
void *stop (int *a) {
printf("%s\n", __func__);
return start(a);
}
int main (void) {
int a = 10;
fptr f = start;
f(&a);
return 0;
}
It is not possible for a function to return itself by value. However it is possible itself to return by a pointer.
C allows to define function types that take undefined number of parameters and those those types are compatible with function types that take defined parameters.
For example:
typedef void fun_t();
void foo(int);
fun_t *fun = foo; // types are fine
Therefore the following function would work.
void fun(void (**ptr)()) {
*ptr = &fun;
}
And below you can find the exemplary usage:
#include <stdio.h>
void fun(void (**ptr)()) {
puts("fun() called");
*ptr = &fun;
}
int main() {
void (*fp)();
fun(&fp); /* call fun directly */
fp(&fp); /* call fun indirectly */
return 0;
}
The code compiles in pedantic mode with no warnings for C89 standard.
It produces the expected output:
fun() called
fun() called
There's a way, you just try this:
typedef void *(*FuncPtr)();
void *f() { return f; }
int main() {
FuncPtr f1 = f();
FuncPtr f2 = f1();
FuncPtr f3 = f2();
return 0;
}
If you were using C++, you could create a State object type (presuming the state machine example usage) wherein you declare an operator() that returns a State object type by reference or pointer. You can then define each state as a derived class of State that returns each appropriate other derived types from its implementation of operator().