I am passing queues like these between source files a.c and b.c
File : a.c
sq[a]=new_queue();
pthread_create(&st[a],NULL,sendPacket,sq[a]);
File : b.c
void *sendPacket(void *queue){
/* here i need to know which queue has come ,determine
the index of queue how can I do it? */
}
Create a more high-level representation of your queue. It seems the queue can be a void * (you're not showing its actual type, i.e. what does the new_queue() call return?), so embed that in a structure while adding the additional parameters:
struct queue_state {
void *queue;
int index;
};
Then instantiate a structure, and pass a pointer to it to the thread function:
struct queue_state qsa = malloc(sizeof *qsa);
if(qsa != NULL)
{
qsa->queue = new_queue();
qsa->index = 4711; /* or whatever */
pthread_create(&st[a], NULL, sendPacket, qsa);
}
Then the thread function can use the struct declaration to access all the fields. Of course, the declaration needs to be in a shared header (say queue.h) which is included from both C files.
Your question description is very rough. But at least from what I understand, you actually need to pass 2 parameters to your function: the (pointer to) queue (which seems an array for me), and the index within this queue.
You may not pack both your parameters in a single variable of type void*. What you may do is declare a struct with all the needed parameters, fill it, and pass a pointer to it to your thread.
Like this (error handling omitted):
struct Params
{
queue* m_Queue;
size_t m_Idx;
};
// ...
Params* pParams = new Params;
pParams->m_Queue = sq;
pParams->m_Idx = a;
pthread_create(&st[a],NULL,sendPacket, pParams);
void *sendPacket(void *pPtr)
{
Params* pParams = (Params*) pPtr;
// ...
delete pParams;
}
Probably it is easier if you just pass the index to the function:
void *sendPacket(int queue_idx) {
queue_t *queue = &sq[queue_idx];
}
If in b.c you have access to sq, you can just pass the index to the queue. Otherwise you can pass a struct containing the actual queue and the index
Related
I'm working on a high-reliance implementation of an algorithm for an embedded system.
in main.c:
//.. in main()
int queue_buffer[QUEUE_LEN + 1] = { 0 };
Queue queue;
queue_init(&queue, QUEUE_LEN, queue_buffer);
do_things_on_queue(&queue);
//.. in main()
in queue.c:
void queue_init(Queue *q, int len, int *data) {
q->head = 0;
q->tail = 0;
q->len = len;
q->data = data; // an array of length `len + 1`
}
in queue.h:
typedef struct queue {
int head;
int tail;
int len;
int *data;
} Queue;
I would like to 1. have main.c to not know about Queue; and 2. not use malloc for intializing queue_buffer_ but rather do it statically.
this implies that ideally main.c would be:
//.. in some function
Queue *queue = queue_init(something_eventually);
do_things_with_queue(queue);
//.. in some function
Is it possible to modify queue_init in queue.cto achieve this in C99? If so, what's the best approach?
Tentative Solutions
I am aware of the technique discussed in this post yet they seems unfeasible without using malloc. I know for sure that I will simultaneously have 4 queues at most. This makes me think that I could declare a memory pool for the queues as a static global array of queues of size 4. Is it ok to use global variables in this case?
#KamilKuk suggested to just have queue_init to return the structure itself since QUEUE_LEN is known at compile time. This requires the following:
in queue.c:
Queue queue_init(void) {
Queue q;
q.head = 0;
q.tail = 0;
q.len = QUEUE_LEN;
for (int i=0; i < QUEUE_LEN; i++)
q.data[i] = 0;
return q;
}
in queue.h:
typedef struct queue {
int head;
int tail;
int len;
int data[QUEUE_LEN];
} Queue;
Queue queue_init(void);
This appears to greatly simplify the structure initialization.
However this does not solve the privacy problem, since main.c should know about Queue to initialize this struct.
Thank you.
I would like to 1. have main.c to not know about Queue; and 2. not use
malloc for intializing queue_buffer_ but rather do it statically.
this implies that ideally main.c would be:
//.. in some function
Queue queue = queue_init(something_eventually);
do_things_with_queue(&queue);
//.. in some function
No, your objectives do not imply a solution as described. You cannot declare or use an object of type Queue anywhere that the definition of that type is not visible. That follows directly from the language's rules, but if you want a more meaningful justification then consider that even if main does not access any of the members of Queue, it still needs the definition simply to know how much space to reserve for one.
It's not obvious to me that it serves a useful purpose to make type Queue opaque in main.c (or anywhere), but if that's what you want then in that scope you can forward declare it, never define it, and work only with pointers to it:
typedef struct queue Queue;
// ...
Queue *queue = queue_init(something_eventually);
do_things_with_queue(queue);
For that to work without dynamic memory allocation, the pointed-to Queue objects must have static storage duration, but that does not mean that they need to be globals -- either in the sense of being accessible via a name with external linkage, or in the sense of being declared at file scope.
Additionally, you have the option of allocating the data arrays automatically, as in your example code, so as to not tie up that memory in queues when they are not in use. If you prefer, you can wrap that up in a macro or two for a bit of additional ease of use (left as an exercise).
For example,
queue.h
typedef struct queue Queue;
Queue *queue_init(int queue_size, int queue_data[]);
void queue_release(Queue *queue);
queue.c
#include "queue.h"
struct queue {
int head;
int tail;
int len;
int *data;
};
Queue *queue_init(int queue_len, int queue_data[]) {
// queue_pool has static storage duration and no linkage
static Queue queue_pool[4] = {{0}};
// Find an available Queue, judging by the data pointers
for (Queue *queue = queue_pool;
queue < queue_pool + sizeof(queue_pool) / sizeof(*queue_pool);
queue++) {
if (queue->data == NULL) {
// This one will do. Initialize it and return a pointer to it.
queue->head = 0;
queue->tail = 0;
queue->len = queue_len;
queue->data = queue_data;
return queue;
}
}
// no available Queue
return NULL;
}
void queue_release(Queue *queue) {
if (queue) {
queue->data = NULL;
}
}
main.c
// ... in some function
int queue_data[SOME_QUEUE_LENGTH];
Queue *queue = queue_init(SOME_QUEUE_LENGTH, queue_data);
do_things_with_queue(queue);
queue_release(queue);
// ...
Of course, if you prefer, you can put the queue data directly into the queue structure, as in your tentative solution, and maybe provide a flag there to indicate whether the queue is presently in use. That would relieve users of any need to provide storage, at the cost of tying up the storage for all the elements of all the queues for the whole duration of the program.
The best way to do this is to pass a buffer and its size to the init function, exactly as you already have.
It is a very bad idea to worry about calling a function versus having the data fixed at compile time. Both the execution time and code size for a tiny initialization like this is negligible. Making your code interface awkward just to save a few instructions at startup is not just a waste of effort, it makes the code hard to maintain and risks introducing bugs.
There are a number of embedded systems or libraries that provide a macro which declares both the storage array and the control structure in one go and gives them a name which is known only to the library, and then you have to use a macro to generate the name every time you access the item. For an example of this you might look at osMailQDef in CMSIS-OS. I don't really recommend this method though. It is too easy to get wrong, whereas doing it the usual way is easy to read and any reviewer will be able to spot a mistake straight away.
I would typically do:
// queue.h
#define QUEUE_INIT(data, len) { .len = len, .data = data }
#define QUEUE_INIT_ON_STACK(len) QUEUE_INIT((char[len]){0}, len)
// main.c
static Queue queue = QUEUE_INIT_ON_STACK(QUEUE_LEN + 1);
As for PIMPL idiom, it's easy to implement with descriptors just like file descriptors in LINUX, especially when the count is static.
// queue.h
typedef Queue int;
void do_things_with_queue(Queue);
// queue.c
struct RealQueue { stuff; };
static struct RealQeueue arr[4] = { stuff };
static struct RealQeueue *get_RealQueue(Queue i) {
assert(0 <= i && i < sizeof(arr)/sizeof(*arr));
return &arr[i];
}
void do_things_with_queue(Queue i) {
struct RealQueue *queue = get_RealQueue(i);
}
// main.c
static Queue queue = 1;
// etc.
Or you can break all hell and synchronize alignment between source and header file:
// queue.h
struct Queue {
// This has to be adjusted __for each compiler and environment__
alignas(60) char data[123];
};
#define QUEUE_INIT() { 0xAA, 0xBB, etc.. constant precomputed data }
// queue.c
struct RealQeueue { stuff; };
static_assert(alingof(struct RealQueue) == alignof(struct Queue), "");
static_assert(sizeof(struct RealQueue) == sizeof(struct Queue), "");
void do_things_with_queue(Queue *i) {
struct RealQueue *queue = (struct RealQueue*)i->data;
}
I don't have much experience in Object oriented programming.I am trying to create an object in c which will have its own methods.
I have declared structure which have pointers to function. All instance of this variable are going to point same function. But currently I need to initialize every instance of variable as in main (Line 1 and Line 2). So is there any method that will initialize its default value when I declare it?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct serialStr Serial;
struct serialStr
{
void(*init)(Serial*);
void(*open)();
void(*close)();
};
void open()
{
printf("Open Port Success\n");
return;
}
void close()
{
printf("Close port Success\n");
return;
}
void init(Serial* ptr)
{
ptr->open = open;
ptr->close = close;
}
int main()
{
Serial serial,serial_2;
serial.init = init;
serial.init(&serial); // Line1
serial_2.init = init;
serial_2.init(&serial_2); // Line2
serial.open();
//rest of code
serial.close();
serial_2.open();
serial_2.close();
return 0;
}
In C, the standard way would be to declare an initializer macro:
#define SERIAL_INITIALIZER { .init = init, .open = open, /* and others */ }
Serial serial = SERIAL_INITIALIZER;
In most cases in C there is simply no need for dynamic intialization of variables. You only need it for malloced objects.
C++ add some automatization by calling constructor/destructor. In pure C is no way to do so. You should do all steps manually: create and initialize object (call constructor-like function for structure), call functions by pointers from the structure instance, call destructor (it should destroy the instance and free related resources).
If is no polymorphism in your task then use simple way - without pointers to functions, but each function (method) should take pointer to the object.
Common case example:
struct MyStruct
{
// data
};
struct MyStruct* createMyStruct(/* maybe some input */)
{
// create, init and return the structure instance
}
void destoyMyStruct(struct MyStruct* obj)
{
// free resources and delete the instance
}
void doSomeAction(struct MyStruct* obj /* , some other data */)
{
// ...
}
int main()
{
struct MyStruct* object = createMyStruct();
doSomeAction(object);
destoyMyStruct(object);
return 0;
}
Edit 1: macro is only for very simple cases and error-prone way.
Typically, you would do this through "opaque type". Meaning that you declare an object of incomplete type in your header:
typedef struct Serial Serial;
And then in the C file, you place the actual struct definition. This will hide the contents of the struct to the caller (private encapsulation). From your constructor, you could then set up private member functions:
struct Serial
{
void(*init)(void);
void(*open)(void);
void(*close)(void);
};
// private member functions:
static void open (void);
...
// constructor:
Serial* SerialCreate (void)
{
Serial* s = malloc(sizeof (*s));
...
s->open = open;
return s;
}
This means that if you wish to inherit the class, you will only need to change the constructor.
Though of course, if you wish to implement true polymorphism, you don't want to change any code. You could solve this by passing the init function as parameter to the constructor.
header file:
typedef void init_func_t (void);
c file:
// constructor:
Serial* SerialCreate (init_func_t* init)
{
Serial* s = malloc(sizeof (*s));
...
init();
return s;
}
And then from the init function in the inherited class, set all private member functions.
static struct dll_wifi_state **dll_states;
enum dll_type {
DLL_UNSUPPORTED,
DLL_ETHERNET,
DLL_WIFI
};
struct dll_state {
enum dll_type type;
union {
struct dll_eth_state *ethernet;
struct dll_wifi_state *wifi;
} data;
};
static struct dll_state *dll_states = NULL;
struct dll_wifi_state {
int link;
// A pointer to the function that is called to pass data up to the next layer.
up_from_dll_fn_ty nl_callback;
bool is_ds;
};
This is the method whose pointer is being passed in the dll_wifi_state struct.
static void up_from_dll(int link, const char *data, size_t length)
{
//some code here
}
In other file, I am calling this method
void reboot_accesspoint()
{
// We require each node to have a different stream of random numbers.
CNET_srand(nodeinfo.time_of_day.sec + nodeinfo.nodenumber);
// Provide the required event handlers.
CHECK(CNET_set_handler(EV_PHYSICALREADY, physical_ready, 0));
// Prepare to talk via our wireless connection.
CHECK(CNET_set_wlan_model(my_WLAN_model));
// Setup our data link layer instances.
dll_states = calloc(nodeinfo.nlinks + 1, sizeof(struct dll_state));
for (int link = 0; link <= nodeinfo.nlinks; ++link) {
switch (linkinfo[link].linktype) {
case LT_LOOPBACK:
dll_states[link].type = DLL_UNSUPPORTED;
break;
case LT_WAN:
dll_states[link].type = DLL_UNSUPPORTED;
break;
case LT_LAN:
dll_states[link].type = DLL_ETHERNET;
dll_states[link].data.ethernet = dll_eth_new_state(link, up_from_dll);
break;
case LT_WLAN:
dll_states[link].type = DLL_WIFI;
dll_states[link].data.wifi = dll_wifi_new_state(link,
up_from_dll,
true /* is_ds */);
break;
}
}
// printf("reboot_accesspoint() complete.\n");
}
It works fine like this, but I want to add another argument i.e. up_from_dll((int link, const char *data, size_t length, int seq). And as soon as I add this argument, following error starts coming up
ap.c:153: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘dll_wifi_new_state’ from incompatible pointer type
Is there a way of adding another argument to that method without getting error ??? I am really bad with pointers :(
Any help would be much appreciated.
Line 153 :
dll_states[link].data.wifi = dll_wifi_new_state(link,
up_from_dll,
true /* is_ds */);
And method
struct dll_wifi_state *dll_wifi_new_state(int link,
up_from_dll_fn_ty callback,
bool is_ds)
{
// Ensure that the given link exists and is a WLAN link.
if (link > nodeinfo.nlinks || linkinfo[link].linktype != LT_WLAN)
return NULL;
// Allocate memory for the state.
struct dll_wifi_state *state = calloc(1, sizeof(struct dll_wifi_state));
// Check whether or not the allocation was successful.
if (state == NULL)
return NULL;
// Initialize the members of the structure.
state->link = link;
state->nl_callback = callback;
state->is_ds = is_ds;
return state;
}
I haven't changed anything else apart from adding the new parameter to up_from_dll.
The second parameter to dll_wifi_new_state is up_from_dll_fn_ty callback.
It's not in your code listing right now, but up_from_dll_fn_ty is a typedef saying that the up_from_dll_fn_ty is a function pointer with specific parameters (which don't include int seq)
When you updated up_from_dll with different parameters, it no longer matches the type specified by up_from_dll_fn_ty and expected as the second parameter for dll_wifi_new_state. You'll need to add the parameter to up_from_dll_fn_ty and you should be good.
If you post the definition of up_from_dll_fn_ty, it would make the question have all the information and allow me to help you more if you still need it.
You're looking for something like:
typedef void (*up_from_dll_fn_ty)(int link, const char *data, size_t length);
and change it to
typedef void (*up_from_dll_fn_ty)(int link, const char *data, size_t length, int seq);
Here's a link to a question that has good information about creating typedefs for function pointers:
Understanding typedefs for function pointers in C
/*language C code*/
#include "windows.h"
typedef struct object_s
{
SRWLOCK lock;
int data;
} object_t, *object_p; /*own and pointer type*/
void thread(object_p x)
{
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
//...do something that could probably change x->data value to 0
if(x->data==0)
free(x);
else
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
}
void main()
{
int i;
object_p object=(object_p)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
InitializeSRWLock(&object->lock);
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
CreateThread(0,0,thread,object,0);
}
As you can figure out in the codes above, what I have to accomplish is to let one thread conditionally free the object on which the other two may block. Codes above are obviously flawed because if object is set free along with the lock, all blocking threads give us nowhere but wrong.
A solution below
/*language C code*/
#include "windows.h"
typedef struct object_s
{
/*change: move lock to stack in main()*/
int data;
} object_t, *object_p; /*own and pointer type*/
void thread(void * x)
{
struct {
PSRWLOCK l;
object_p o;
} * _x=x;
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(_x->l);
//...do something that could probably change x->data value to 0
if(_x->o->data==0)
free(_x->o);
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
}
void main()
{
int i;
SRWLOCK lock; /*lock over here*/
object_p object=(object_p)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
InitializeSRWLock(&lock);
/*pack for thread context*/
struct
{
PSRWLOCK l;
object_p o;
} context={&lock, object};
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
CreateThread(0,0,thread,&context,0);
}
works in this case but not applicable however, in my final project because there is actually a dynamic linked list of objects. By applying this solution it means that there must be a list of locks accordingly, each lock for an object and moreover, when a certain object is set free, its lock must be set free at the same time. There is nothing new compared with the first code section.
Now I wonder if there is an alternative solution to this. Thank you very much!
The solution is to not allocate the lock together with the data. I would suggest that you move the data out of that struct and replace it with a pointer to the data. Your linked list can then free the data first, and then the node, without any problems. Here's some pseudo code:
typedef struct
{
lock_t lock;
int* data_ptr;
} something_t;
void init_something (something_t* thing, ...)
{
thing->lock = init_lock();
thing->data_ptr = malloc(...); // whatever the data is supposed to be
}
void free_something (somthing_t* thing)
{
lock(thing->lock);
free(thing->data_ptr);
thing->data_ptr = NULL;
unlock(thing->lock);
}
...
void linked_list_delete_node (...)
{
free_something(node_to_delete->thing);
free(node_to_delete);
}
...
void thread (void* x)
{
lock(x->lock);
//...do something that could probably change x->data_ptr->data... to 0
if(x->data_ptr->data == 0)
{
free_something(x->data_ptr->data);
}
unlock(x->lock);
}
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(lock);
if(_x->o->data==0)
free(_x);
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(lock);
As a sidenote, a C program for Windows can never return void. A hosted C program must always return int. Your program will not compile on a C compiler.
Also, CreateThread() expects a function pointer to a function returning a 32-bit value and taking a void pointer as parameter. You pass a different kind of function pointer, function pointer casts aren't allowed in C, nor am I sure what sort of madness Windows will execute if it gets a different function pointer than what it expects. You invoke undefined behavior. This can cause your program to crash or behave in unexpected or random ways.
You need to change your thread function to DWORD WINAPI thread (LPVOID param);
I've seen both of the following two styles of declaring opaque types in C APIs. What are the various ways to declare opaque structs/pointers in C? Is there any clear advantage to using one style over the other?
Option 1
// foo.h
typedef struct foo * fooRef;
void doStuff(fooRef f);
// foo.c
struct foo {
int x;
int y;
};
Option 2
// foo.h
typedef struct _foo foo;
void doStuff(foo *f);
// foo.c
struct _foo {
int x;
int y;
};
My vote is for the third option that mouviciel posted then deleted:
I have seen a third way:
// foo.h
struct foo;
void doStuff(struct foo *f);
// foo.c
struct foo {
int x;
int y;
};
If you really can't stand typing the struct keyword, typedef struct foo foo; (note: get rid of the useless and problematic underscore) is acceptable. But whatever you do, never use typedef to define names for pointer types. It hides the extremely important piece of information that variables of this type reference an object which could be modified whenever you pass them to functions, and it makes dealing with differently-qualified (for instance, const-qualified) versions of the pointer a major pain.
Option 1.5 ("Object-based" C Architecture):
I am accustomed to using Option 1, except where you name your reference with _h to signify it is a "handle" to a C-style "object" of this given C "class". Then, you ensure your function prototypes use const wherever the content of this object "handle" is an input only, and cannot be changed, and don't use const wherever the content can be changed. So, do this style:
// -------------
// my_module.h
// -------------
// An opaque pointer (handle) to a C-style "object" of "class" type
// "my_module" (struct my_module_s *, or my_module_h):
typedef struct my_module_s *my_module_h;
void doStuff1(my_module_h my_module);
void doStuff2(const my_module_h my_module);
// -------------
// my_module.c
// -------------
// Definition of the opaque struct "object" of C-style "class" "my_module".
struct my_module_s
{
int int1;
int int2;
float f1;
// etc. etc--add more "private" member variables as you see fit
};
Here's a full example using opaque pointers in C to create objects. The following architecture might be called "object-based C":
//==============================================================================================
// my_module.h
//==============================================================================================
// An opaque pointer (handle) to a C-style "object" of "class" type "my_module" (struct
// my_module_s *, or my_module_h):
typedef struct my_module_s *my_module_h;
// Create a new "object" of "class" "my_module": A function that takes a *pointer to* an
// "object" handle, `malloc`s memory for a new copy of the opaque `struct my_module_s`, then
// points the user's input handle (via its passed-in pointer) to this newly-created "object" of
// "class" "my_module".
void my_module_open(my_module_h * my_module_h_p);
// A function that takes this "object" (via its handle) as an input only and cannot modify it
void my_module_do_stuff1(const my_module_h my_module);
// A function that can modify the private content of this "object" (via its handle) (but still
// cannot modify the handle itself)
void my_module_do_stuff2(my_module_h my_module);
// Destroy the passed-in "object" of "class" type "my_module": A function that can close this
// object by stopping all operations, as required, and `free`ing its memory.
void my_module_close(my_module_h my_module);
//==============================================================================================
// my_module.c
//==============================================================================================
// Definition of the opaque struct "object" of C-style "class" "my_module".
// - NB: Since this is an opaque struct (declared in the header but not defined until the source
// file), it has the following 2 important properties:
// 1) It permits data hiding, wherein you end up with the equivalent of a C++ "class" with only
// *private* member variables.
// 2) Objects of this "class" can only be dynamically allocated. No static allocation is
// possible since any module including the header file does not know the contents of *nor the
// size of* (this is the critical part) this "class" (ie: C struct).
struct my_module_s
{
int my_private_int1;
int my_private_int2;
float my_private_float;
// etc. etc--add more "private" member variables as you see fit
};
void my_module_open(my_module_h * my_module_h_p)
{
// Ensure the passed-in pointer is not NULL (since it is a core dump/segmentation fault to
// try to dereference a NULL pointer)
if (!my_module_h_p)
{
// Print some error or store some error code here, and return it at the end of the
// function instead of returning void.
goto done;
}
// Now allocate the actual memory for a new my_module C object from the heap, thereby
// dynamically creating this C-style "object".
my_module_h my_module; // Create a local object handle (pointer to a struct)
// Dynamically allocate memory for the full contents of the struct "object"
my_module = malloc(sizeof(*my_module));
if (!my_module)
{
// Malloc failed due to out-of-memory. Print some error or store some error code here,
// and return it at the end of the function instead of returning void.
goto done;
}
// Initialize all memory to zero (OR just use `calloc()` instead of `malloc()` above!)
memset(my_module, 0, sizeof(*my_module));
// Now pass out this object to the user, and exit.
*my_module_h_p = my_module;
done:
}
void my_module_do_stuff1(const my_module_h my_module)
{
// Ensure my_module is not a NULL pointer.
if (!my_module)
{
goto done;
}
// Do stuff where you use my_module private "member" variables.
// Ex: use `my_module->my_private_int1` here, or `my_module->my_private_float`, etc.
done:
}
void my_module_do_stuff2(my_module_h my_module)
{
// Ensure my_module is not a NULL pointer.
if (!my_module)
{
goto done;
}
// Do stuff where you use AND UPDATE my_module private "member" variables.
// Ex:
my_module->my_private_int1 = 7;
my_module->my_private_float = 3.14159;
// Etc.
done:
}
void my_module_close(my_module_h my_module)
{
// Ensure my_module is not a NULL pointer.
if (!my_module)
{
goto done;
}
free(my_module);
done:
}
Simplified example usage:
#include "my_module.h"
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
bool exit_now = false;
// setup/initialization
my_module_h my_module = NULL;
// For safety-critical and real-time embedded systems, it is **critical** that you ONLY call
// the `_open()` functions during **initialization**, but NOT during normal run-time,
// so that once the system is initialized and up-and-running, you can safely know that
// no more dynamic-memory allocation, which is non-deterministic and can lead to crashes,
// will occur.
my_module_open(&my_module);
// Ensure initialization was successful and `my_module` is no longer NULL.
if (!my_module)
{
// await connection of debugger, or automatic system power reset by watchdog
log_errors_and_enter_infinite_loop();
}
// run the program in this infinite main loop
while (exit_now == false)
{
my_module_do_stuff1(my_module);
my_module_do_stuff2(my_module);
}
// program clean-up; will only be reached in this case in the event of a major system
// problem, which triggers the infinite main loop above to `break` or exit via the
// `exit_now` variable
my_module_close(my_module);
// for microcontrollers or other low-level embedded systems, we can never return,
// so enter infinite loop instead
while (true) {}; // await reset by watchdog
return 0;
}
The only improvements beyond this would be to:
Implement full error handling and return the error instead of void. Ex:
/// #brief my_module error codes
typedef enum my_module_error_e
{
/// No error
MY_MODULE_ERROR_OK = 0,
/// Invalid Arguments (ex: NULL pointer passed in where a valid pointer is required)
MY_MODULE_ERROR_INVARG,
/// Out of memory
MY_MODULE_ERROR_NOMEM,
/// etc. etc.
MY_MODULE_ERROR_PROBLEM1,
} my_module_error_t;
Now, instead of returning a void type in all of the functions above and below, return a my_module_error_t error type instead!
Add a configuration struct called my_module_config_t to the .h file, and pass it in to the open function to update internal variables when you create a new object. This helps encapsulate all configuration variables in a single struct for cleanliness when calling _open().
Example:
//--------------------
// my_module.h
//--------------------
// my_module configuration struct
typedef struct my_module_config_s
{
int my_config_param_int;
float my_config_param_float;
} my_module_config_t;
my_module_error_t my_module_open(my_module_h * my_module_h_p,
const my_module_config_t *config);
//--------------------
// my_module.c
//--------------------
my_module_error_t my_module_open(my_module_h * my_module_h_p,
const my_module_config_t *config)
{
my_module_error_t err = MY_MODULE_ERROR_OK;
// Ensure the passed-in pointer is not NULL (since it is a core dump/segmentation fault
// to try to dereference a NULL pointer)
if (!my_module_h_p)
{
// Print some error or store some error code here, and return it at the end of the
// function instead of returning void. Ex:
err = MY_MODULE_ERROR_INVARG;
goto done;
}
// Now allocate the actual memory for a new my_module C object from the heap, thereby
// dynamically creating this C-style "object".
my_module_h my_module; // Create a local object handle (pointer to a struct)
// Dynamically allocate memory for the full contents of the struct "object"
my_module = malloc(sizeof(*my_module));
if (!my_module)
{
// Malloc failed due to out-of-memory. Print some error or store some error code
// here, and return it at the end of the function instead of returning void. Ex:
err = MY_MODULE_ERROR_NOMEM;
goto done;
}
// Initialize all memory to zero (OR just use `calloc()` instead of `malloc()` above!)
memset(my_module, 0, sizeof(*my_module));
// Now initialize the object with values per the config struct passed in. Set these
// private variables inside `my_module` to whatever they need to be. You get the idea...
my_module->my_private_int1 = config->my_config_param_int;
my_module->my_private_int2 = config->my_config_param_int*3/2;
my_module->my_private_float = config->my_config_param_float;
// etc etc
// Now pass out this object handle to the user, and exit.
*my_module_h_p = my_module;
done:
return err;
}
And usage:
my_module_error_t err = MY_MODULE_ERROR_OK;
my_module_h my_module = NULL;
my_module_config_t my_module_config =
{
.my_config_param_int = 7,
.my_config_param_float = 13.1278,
};
err = my_module_open(&my_module, &my_module_config);
if (err != MY_MODULE_ERROR_OK)
{
switch (err)
{
case MY_MODULE_ERROR_INVARG:
printf("MY_MODULE_ERROR_INVARG\n");
break;
case MY_MODULE_ERROR_NOMEM:
printf("MY_MODULE_ERROR_NOMEM\n");
break;
case MY_MODULE_ERROR_PROBLEM1:
printf("MY_MODULE_ERROR_PROBLEM1\n");
break;
case MY_MODULE_ERROR_OK:
// not reachable, but included so that when you compile with
// `-Wall -Wextra -Werror`, the compiler will fail to build if you forget to handle
// any of the error codes in this switch statement.
break;
}
// Do whatever else you need to in the event of an error, here. Ex:
// await connection of debugger, or automatic system power reset by watchdog
while (true) {};
}
// ...continue other module initialization, and enter main loop
See also:
[another answer of mine which references my answer above] Architectural considerations and approaches to opaque structs and data hiding in C
Additional reading on object-based C architecture:
Providing helper functions when rolling out own structures
Additional reading and justification for valid usage of goto in error handling for professional code:
An argument in favor of the use of goto in C for error handling: https://github.com/ElectricRCAircraftGuy/eRCaGuy_dotfiles/blob/master/Research_General/goto_for_error_handling_in_C/readme.md
*****EXCELLENT ARTICLE showing the virtues of using goto in error handling in C: "Using goto for error handling in C" - https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2009/04/27/using-goto-for-error-handling-in-c
Valid use of goto for error management in C?
Error handling in C code
Search terms to make more googlable: opaque pointer in C, opaque struct in C, typedef enum in C, error handling in C, c architecture, object-based c architecture, dynamic memory allocation at initialization architecture in c
bar(const fooRef) declares an immutable address as argument. bar(const foo *) declares an address of an immutable foo as argument.
For this reason, I tend to prefer option 2. I.e., the presented interface type is one where cv-ness can be specified at each level of indirection. Of course one can sidestep the option 1 library writer and just use foo, opening yourself to all sorts of horror when the library writer changes the implementation. (I.e., the option 1 library writer only perceives that fooRef is part of the invariant interface and that foo can come, go, be altered, whatever. The option 2 library writer perceives that foo is part of the invariant interface.)
I'm more surprised that no one's suggested combined typedef/struct constructions.
typedef struct { ... } foo;
Option 3: Give people choice
/* foo.h */
typedef struct PersonInstance PersonInstance;
typedef struct PersonInstance * PersonHandle;
typedef const struct PersonInstance * ConstPersonHandle;
void saveStuff (PersonHandle person);
int readStuff (ConstPersonHandle person);
...
/* foo.c */
struct PersonInstance {
int a;
int b;
...
};
...