Design Pattern in C - Reading from multiple devices and interfaces - c

I'm need to implement a few functions that read messages from different devices that have different interface possibilities and different message structure. (but the messages have pretty much the same data)
Eg
Device_A {
message type: A
iface 1: tcp
}
Device_B {
message type: B
iface 1: serial
iface 2: tcp
}
... and so on
In my main...
struct msg_data;
while(user_wants_to_read) {
read_msg(); // reads and sets data in msg_data
do_work(msg_data);
}
In an OO Language I would use the strategy pattern. I think I could do this with a void* read_func;?
I'm inexperienced in C and I want to learn to program this like a good C programmer would do. What sort of design pattern/functions should I implement?

It sounds like you got two or more different abstractions to solve for:
Different stream sources (TCP vs. Serial). Is the the TCP protocol the same for device A and device B?
Different message types that are structurally different but semantically the same.
Different device classes (device A vs Device B)
I would focus on a strategy pattern with factories for reading from a stream. And then perhaps an adapter or strategy pattern for getting more data into message objects. But I wouldn't get held up on "which design pattern". More likely, just think in terms of interfaces.
So to start, perhaps abstracting out the serial and TCP streaming into different implementations with the same interface. One implementation that knows how connect and read bytes from a TCP socket without regard to the message contents. Another that knows how to read from a serial port. They should have the same "interface". Here's a lightweight example of a a "byte stream interface" with some hacked up socket code thrown. Forgive me if this doesn't compile. I might have a typo valid in C++ by wrong in C. In any case, it's just an example demonstrating interfaces through function table pointers.
My thinking on suggesting this is, "how would I implement this in C++?" And then I'm transposing my answer to pure "C". (Note: I'm likely making some declaration mistakes below.)
struct ByteStreamer;
typedef int (*ReadFunc)(ByteStreamer*, char* buffer, int count);
typedef int (*OpenFunc)(ByteStreamer*, char* url); // maybe 'open' isn't needed if it's handled by the factory
typedef int (*CloseFunc)(ByteStreamer*);
typedef void (*DisposeFunc)(ByteStreamer*);
typedef struct _ByteStreamer
{
ReadFunc readfunc;
OpenFunc openfunc;
CloseFunc closefunc;
DisposeFunc dispose;
// private data meant for the "class"
void* instancedata;
} ByteStreamer;
struct _tcpconnection
{
int socket;
sockaddr_in addrRemote;
} TCPConnection;
struct _serialconnection
{
int filehandle;
int baud;
} SerialConnection;
// ---------------------------------------
ByteStream* CreateStreamForTCP(const sockaddr_in *pAddr) // pass additional parameter as needed
{
ByteStreamer* pStream = (ByteStreamre*)malloc(sizeof(ByteStreamer));
TCPConnection* pTCPConnection = (TCPConnection*)malloc(sizeof(TCPConnection*));
pTCPConnection->socket = -1;
pTCPConnection->addrRemote = *pAddr;
pStream->instancedata = pTCPConnection;
pStream->ReadFunc = TCPRead;
pStream->OpenFunc = TCPOpen;
pStream->CloseFunc = TCPClose;
pStream->DisposeFunc = TCPDispose;
pStream->type = STREAM_TYPE_TCP;
return pStream;
}
int TCPRead(ByteStream* pStream, char* buffer, int count)
{
return recv(((TCPConnection*)pStream->instancedata)->socket, buffer, count, 0);
}
int TCPOpen(ByteStream* pStream, char* url)
{
// it's up to you if you want to encapsulate the socket address in url or in the instance data
TCPConnection* pConn = (TCPConnection*)(pStream->instancedata);
int sock = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
connect(&pConn->addrRemote, sizeof(pConn->addrRemote));
return (pConn->sock >= 0); // true/false return;
}
void TCPClose(ByteStream* pStream)
{
TCPConnection* pConn = (TCPConnection*)(pStream->instancedata);
close(pConn->sock);
}
void TCPDispose(ByteStream* pStream)
{
free(pStream->instancedata);
free(pStream);
}
Now replace all the TCP code above with an equivalent serial port implementation. It would also be a good idea to implement a "file stream" (or "in memory stream") version of the ByteStream struct. Because it will be very useful in unit tests for higher level code.
So after you get all the byte stream implementations worked out, then move onto parsing device specific messages.
typedef struct _Message_A
{
// A specific data fields
} Message_A;
struct _Message_B
{
// B specific data fields
} Message_B;
struct Message
{
// commonality between Message_A and Message_B
};
typedef (*ReadMessageFromStream)(MessageReader* pReader, Message* pMsg); // pStream is an in-param, pMSg is an out-param.
typedef (*MessageReaderDispose)();
struct MessageReader
{
ReadMessageFromStream reader;
MessageReaderDispose dispose;
// -----------------------------
ByteStream* pStream;
void *instancedata;
};
// function to read a "Message_A" from a stream - and then transpose it to the generic Message type
int ReadMessage_A(ByteStream* pStream, Message* pMsg);
// function to read a "Message_B" from a stream - and then transpose it to the generic Message type
int ReadMessage_B(ByteStream* pStream, Message* pMsg);
So what's really cool about implementing ReadMessage_A and ReadMessage_B is that you can pass that "file stream" implementation of ByteStream and make some really good unit tests. So when you plug in the TCP or serial version, it has a high chance of just working (assuming your TCP and serial code are tested seperately).
And then perhaps a factory method off each class for creating the uber ReadMessageFromStream:
MessageReader* CreateTCPReaderForDeviceA(DeviceA* pA, sockaddr_in* pAddr)
{
MessageReader *pMR = (vMessageReader*)malloc(sizeof(MessageReader));
pMR->pStream = CreateStreamForTCP(pAddr);
pMR->pStream->Open();
pMR->reader = ReadMessage_A;
return pMR;
}
MessageReader* CreateSerialReaderForDeviceB(DeviceB* pB, int comport)
{
MessageReader *pMR = (vMessageReader*)malloc(sizeof(MessageReader));
pMR->pStream = CreateStreamForSerial(comport);
pMR->pStream->Open();
pMR->reader = ReadMessage_B;
return pMR;
}
And then your main loop looks something like the following:
if ((type == DEVICE_A) && (source == TCP))
pReader = CreateTCPReaderForDeviceA(pDevice, &addr)
else if ((type == DEVICE_B) && (source == SERIAL))
pReader = CreateSerialReaderForDeviceB(pDeviceB, 1);
// read the message
Message msg;
pReader->reader(pReader, &msg);
pReader->Dispose(); // free all the data allocated and close connections/files
Wooh.... I'm tired of typing this point. hope this helps.

I would agree with #rsaxvc. Function pointers are probably the best way to go about this. A google search turned up this: Strategy pattern in C

And for your message struct, you could use nested struct to emulate OO class inheritance
struct base {
// common members
}
struct child1 {
struct base;
// other data members
}
or simplely:
struct child2 {
// same data members as base
// other data members
}
use a base* parameter

Related

Code repetition when working with structures

I am writing an app in C which takes responses from server, parses them and stores them in memory to do something later with that data. Server protocol is based on simple commands which looks like <Name of the command>#<arg1>#<arg2>...<argn>#%.
I decided to store those commands in my program the following way. I have a base structure message, which looks like this:
struct message
{
enum message_type type;
void *msg;
};
Enum looks like this:
enum message_type
{
MSG1,
MSG2,
...
MSGN
};
And the specific messages:
struct specific_message
{
int arg1;
char *arg2;
...
type argn;
};
To do some operations with these messages I have huge switch in functions, like:
struct message *create_message(enum message_type type)
{
struct message *res;
res = malloc(sizeof(*res));
res->type = type;
switch(type)
{
case MSG1: res->msg = create_msg1(); break;
...
case MSGN: res->msg = create_msgn(); break;
default: fprintf(stderr, "Unknown msg\n"); free(res); return NULL;
}
return res;
}
And specific ones look almost the same(for example if the field is a pointer it is initialized with NULL, if int with -1 etc...)
At first i done it myself by hand, but after writing several such functions i decided to write a script, which gets structs from header and generates such functions(initialization of fields in specific messages, destroying specific messages, copying, etc...).
It works fine, but the size of the implementation file becames very big(it is around 1000 lines now, and it is just the creation, copying and destruction). And I can't write those via a macro(well at least i don't know how), because macros don't know anything about the layout of the structure. So the whole file becomes repetitive.
I thought about different approaches, for example to have just the base message structure which would contain command type, number of arguments and array of char*, which would contain those arguments in string form. But then I need to add all this logic for retrieving the arguments I need from this array and casting it to the type I need. So I thought it wouldn't scale.
Is there another approach I could use?

create a non-trivial device mapper target

I am trying to write a remapping target for usage with DM.
I followed instructions from several places (including this Answer) all essentially giving the same code.
This is ok, but not enough for me.
I need to modify "in transit" data of struct bio being remapped.
This means I need to make a deep-clone of the bio, including the data; apparently the provided functions (e.g.: bio_clone_bioset()) do not copy data at all, but point iovec's to the original pages/offsets.
I tried some variations of the following scheme:
void
mt_copy(struct bio *dst, struct bio *src) {
struct bvec_iter src_iter, dst_iter;
struct bio_vec src_bv, dst_bv;
void *src_p, *dst_p;
unsigned bytes;
unsigned salt;
src_iter = src->bi_iter;
dst_iter = dst->bi_iter;
salt = src_iter.bi_sector;
while (1) {
if (!src_iter.bi_size) {
break;
}
if (!dst_iter.bi_size) {
break;
}
src_bv = bio_iter_iovec(src, src_iter);
dst_bv = bio_iter_iovec(dst, dst_iter);
bytes = min(src_bv.bv_len, dst_bv.bv_len);
src_p = kmap_atomic(src_bv.bv_page);
dst_p = kmap_atomic(dst_bv.bv_page);
memcpy(dst_p + dst_bv.bv_offset, src_p + src_bv.bv_offset, bytes);
kunmap_atomic(dst_p);
kunmap_atomic(src_p);
bio_advance_iter(src, &src_iter, bytes);
bio_advance_iter(dst, &dst_iter, bytes);
}
}
static struct bio *
mt_clone(struct bio *bio) {
struct bio *clone;
clone = bio_clone_bioset(bio, GFP_KERNEL, NULL);
if (!clone) {
return NULL;
}
if (bio_alloc_pages(clone, GFP_KERNEL)) {
bio_put(clone);
return NULL;
}
clone->bi_private = bio;
if (bio_data_dir(bio) == WRITE) {
mt_copy(clone, bio);
}
return clone;
}
static int
mt_map(struct dm_target *ti, struct bio *bio) {
struct mt_private *mdt = (struct mt_private *) ti->private;
bio->bi_bdev = mdt->dev->bdev;
bio = mt_clone(bio);
submit_bio(bio->bi_rw, bio);
return DM_MAPIO_SUBMITTED;
}
This, however, does not work.
When I submit_bio() using the cloned bio I do not get the .end_io call and the calling task becomes blocked ("INFO: task mount:488 blocked for more than 120 seconds."). This with a READ request consisting of a single iovec (1024 bytes). In this case, of course the in buffers do not need copying because they should be overwritten; I need to copy back the incoming data unto the original buffers after the request has completed... but I don't get there.
I'm quite evidently missing some piece, but I'm unable to understand what.
Note: I didn't do any optimization (e.g.: use smarter allocation strategies) specifically because I need to get the basics first.
Note: I corrected a mistake (thanks #RuslanRLaishev), unfortunately ininfluent; see my own answer.
It's correct ?
if (bio_alloc_pages(**bio**, GFP_KERNEL)) {
bio_put(clone);
return NULL;
}
or
if (bio_alloc_pages(**clone**, GFP_KERNEL)) {
bio_put(bio);
return NULL;
}
It turns out bio_clone_bioset() and friends do not copy the callback address to call when request is over.
Trivial solution is to add clone->bi_end_io = bio->bi_end_io; before the end of mt_clone().
Unfortunately this is not enough to make the code functional because it turns out upper layers can spawn thousands of inflight requests (i.e.: requests queued and preprocessed before the previous ones complete) leading to memory starvation. Trying to slow upper layers by returning DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE does not seem to work (see: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/410525/130498). This has nothing to do with current question, however.

Update global C struct using only one function without passing whole data structure

I am developing a database access layer to store data of software subsystems. The database interface has two functions, database_get() and database_set(). They take two arguments, first is a ID that identifies the software component and the second argument is a typedef struct that holds the new settings for this software component. Then i have:
#define COMPONENT1_ID 7
typedef struct
{
int member1;
char member2;
char member3;
} COMPONENT1_STRUCT_T ;
I can store and retrieve persistent data calling the database_set(COMPONENT1_ID, (void *) &new_struct) and database_get(COMPONENT1_ID, (void *) &new_struct) functions. It works the same for storing data from any other software subsystem using this database.
Now i am developing APIs to manage this software subsystems. This APIs are used by the user interfaces. The API of a software subsystem is taking care of performing all the logic behind the component and also calling the database to make its data persistent. I have developed a function for the API which carries out the operation and finally call a function like this:
int save_new_member1_db(int member1);
{
COMPONENT1_STRUCT_T new_setting;
database_get(COMPONENT1_ID, (void *)&new_setting);
new_setting.member1 = member1;
database_set(COMPONENT1_ID, (void *)&new_setting);
}
I wonder if i can avoid creating a new function to update each member data in the database.
Also I dont want a big function taking the whole struct or all members of the struct if it means the subsystem API gets reduced to one function. The subsystem can be a LED display and its API could be different methods doing one thing as update_led_display_color(const LED_DISPLAY_COLOR new color), update_led_display_font(const LED_DISPLAY_FONT cur_font), get_led_display_font(LED_DISPLAY_FONT *cur_font) ...
You are going to need some kind of mapping between a symbolic constant representing a member and information you need to set that member. You could use something like your "COMPONENT1_ID" for each member and have an array of size+offset information for each member like so:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <string.h>
// in header file (or wherever so that it is visible to
// the definition of "Test_save_member" and not a part of
// the subsystem API)
#define TEST_ID 7
// in a c file (in your database implementation, I assume)
typedef struct
{
int mem1;
char mem2;
char mem3;
} Test;
// for sure in header file exposed in your subsystem API
typedef enum
{
MEM1,
MEM2,
MEM3,
NUM_MEMBERS
} TestMember;
// in c file (in your database implementation, I assume again)
typedef struct
{
size_t offset;
size_t size;
} MemberInfo;
static MemberInfo member_info[NUM_MEMBERS] =
{
{ offsetof(Test, mem1), sizeof(int) },
{ offsetof(Test, mem2), sizeof(char) },
{ offsetof(Test, mem3), sizeof(char) }
};
// also a part of your subsystem API
int Test_save_member(TestMember member, void* value)
{
if (!value || member < 0 || member >= NUM_MEMBERS))
return 0;
Test new_setting;
database_get(TEST_ID, (void *)&new_setting);
MemberInfo info = member_info[member];
memcpy((char*)(&new_setting) + info.offset, value, info.size);
database_set(TEST_ID, (void *)&new_setting);
return 1;
}
// subsystem API usage
int main(void)
{
int new_mem1 = 5;
Test_save_member(MEM1, &new_mem1);
return 0;
}
Depending upon whether you want to edit your database functions, the amount of coupling you want to deal with, etc, this could change drastically; I don't think, however, that you can get away without some type of mapping given the constraints you mentioned.
This particular implementation would disallow passing literals, but that shouldn't be too big of an issue (to deal with or work around).

How do I create a "netlink" between kernel and userspace?

I want to use netlink to communicate between an application and kernel space. My Linux kernel version is 2.6.28, and the following is my wrong code:
nf_sock=netlink_kernel_create(NL_PROTO,0,nl_user_skb,THIS_MODULE);
The abbreviated error message is:
error: too few arguments to function 'netlink_kernel_create'
In the file <linux/netlink.h>, the function netlink_kernel_create() is defined as
extern struct sock *netlink_kernel_create(struct net *net,int unit,unsigned int groups,void (*input)(struct sk_buff *skb),struct mutex *cb_mutex,struct module *module)
I don't understand what to use for the first argument, net. Can someone explain what I should use here?
A struct net contains information about the network namespace, a set of network resources available to processes. Note that there could be multiple network namespaces (i.e. multiple instances of the networking stack), but most drivers use the init_net namespace.
Your call should probably look something like the following
nf_sock = netlink_kernel_create(&init_net,
NETLINK_USERSOCK,
0,
nl_rcv_func,
NULL,
THIS_MODULE);
where nl_rcv_func is a function taking struct sk_buff *skb as the only argument and processes the received netlink message.
You seem to have been following a guide such as this one, which (being from 2005) might well have been outpaced by the development of the kernel. It seems the internal API to create a netlink from the kernel side has changed.
Either check the Documentation/ folder in your local kernel tree for some (hopefully fresher) documentation, or read the code itself. You could also trawl the Linux Kernel mailing list archives for any mention of the changes that seem to have happened.
Here is the actual implemntation as of 2.6.29, if you'd rather puzzle it out backwards (and haven't already checked this in your own tree, of course).
Yes, struct net is indeed for net namespace, but it is not proper to always use init_net, you should register your own pernet_operations, like this:
static struct pernet_operations fib_net_ops = {
.init = fib_net_init,
.exit = fib_net_exit,
};
static int __net_init fib_net_init(struct net *net)
{
int error;
#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_CLASSID
net->ipv4.fib_num_tclassid_users = 0;
#endif
error = ip_fib_net_init(net);
if (error < 0)
goto out;
error = nl_fib_lookup_init(net);
if (error < 0)
goto out_nlfl;
error = fib_proc_init(net);
if (error < 0)
goto out_proc;
out:
return error;
out_proc:
nl_fib_lookup_exit(net);
out_nlfl:
ip_fib_net_exit(net);
goto out;
}
static int __net_init nl_fib_lookup_init(struct net *net)
{
struct sock *sk;
struct netlink_kernel_cfg cfg = {
.input = nl_fib_input,
};
sk = netlink_kernel_create(net, NETLINK_FIB_LOOKUP, &cfg);
if (sk == NULL)
return -EAFNOSUPPORT;
net->ipv4.fibnl = sk;
return 0;
}
and finally:
register_pernet_subsys(&fib_net_ops);
I would suggest ioctl for kernel/user communication. The ioctl interface is standard and the chance of been updated between kernels is small.

Object-orientation in C

What would be a set of nifty preprocessor hacks (ANSI C89/ISO C90 compatible) which enable some kind of ugly (but usable) object-orientation in C?
I am familiar with a few different object-oriented languages, so please don't respond with answers like "Learn C++!". I have read "Object-Oriented Programming With ANSI C" (beware: PDF format) and several other interesting solutions, but I'm mostly interested in yours :-)!
See also Can you write object oriented code in C?
I would advise against preprocessor (ab)use to try and make C syntax more like that of another more object-oriented language. At the most basic level, you just use plain structs as objects and pass them around by pointers:
struct monkey
{
float age;
bool is_male;
int happiness;
};
void monkey_dance(struct monkey *monkey)
{
/* do a little dance */
}
To get things like inheritance and polymorphism, you have to work a little harder. You can do manual inheritance by having the first member of a structure be an instance of the superclass, and then you can cast around pointers to base and derived classes freely:
struct base
{
/* base class members */
};
struct derived
{
struct base super;
/* derived class members */
};
struct derived d;
struct base *base_ptr = (struct base *)&d; // upcast
struct derived *derived_ptr = (struct derived *)base_ptr; // downcast
To get polymorphism (i.e. virtual functions), you use function pointers, and optionally function pointer tables, also known as virtual tables or vtables:
struct base;
struct base_vtable
{
void (*dance)(struct base *);
void (*jump)(struct base *, int how_high);
};
struct base
{
struct base_vtable *vtable;
/* base members */
};
void base_dance(struct base *b)
{
b->vtable->dance(b);
}
void base_jump(struct base *b, int how_high)
{
b->vtable->jump(b, how_high);
}
struct derived1
{
struct base super;
/* derived1 members */
};
void derived1_dance(struct derived1 *d)
{
/* implementation of derived1's dance function */
}
void derived1_jump(struct derived1 *d, int how_high)
{
/* implementation of derived 1's jump function */
}
/* global vtable for derived1 */
struct base_vtable derived1_vtable =
{
&derived1_dance, /* you might get a warning here about incompatible pointer types */
&derived1_jump /* you can ignore it, or perform a cast to get rid of it */
};
void derived1_init(struct derived1 *d)
{
d->super.vtable = &derived1_vtable;
/* init base members d->super.foo */
/* init derived1 members d->foo */
}
struct derived2
{
struct base super;
/* derived2 members */
};
void derived2_dance(struct derived2 *d)
{
/* implementation of derived2's dance function */
}
void derived2_jump(struct derived2 *d, int how_high)
{
/* implementation of derived2's jump function */
}
struct base_vtable derived2_vtable =
{
&derived2_dance,
&derived2_jump
};
void derived2_init(struct derived2 *d)
{
d->super.vtable = &derived2_vtable;
/* init base members d->super.foo */
/* init derived1 members d->foo */
}
int main(void)
{
/* OK! We're done with our declarations, now we can finally do some
polymorphism in C */
struct derived1 d1;
derived1_init(&d1);
struct derived2 d2;
derived2_init(&d2);
struct base *b1_ptr = (struct base *)&d1;
struct base *b2_ptr = (struct base *)&d2;
base_dance(b1_ptr); /* calls derived1_dance */
base_dance(b2_ptr); /* calls derived2_dance */
base_jump(b1_ptr, 42); /* calls derived1_jump */
base_jump(b2_ptr, 42); /* calls derived2_jump */
return 0;
}
And that's how you do polymorphism in C. It ain't pretty, but it does the job. There are some sticky issues involving pointer casts between base and derived classes, which are safe as long as the base class is the first member of the derived class. Multiple inheritance is much harder - in that case, in order to case between base classes other than the first, you need to manually adjust your pointers based on the proper offsets, which is really tricky and error-prone.
Another (tricky) thing you can do is change the dynamic type of an object at runtime! You just reassign it a new vtable pointer. You can even selectively change some of the virtual functions while keeping others, creating new hybrid types. Just be careful to create a new vtable instead of modifying the global vtable, otherwise you'll accidentally affect all objects of a given type.
I once worked with a C library that was implemented in a way that struck me as quite elegant. They had written, in C, a way to define objects, then inherit from them so that they were as extensible as a C++ object. The basic idea was this:
Each object had its own file
Public functions and variables are defined in the .h file for an object
Private variables and functions were only located in the .c file
To "inherit" a new struct is created with the first member of the struct being the object to inherit from
Inheriting is difficult to describe, but basically it was this:
struct vehicle {
int power;
int weight;
}
Then in another file:
struct van {
struct vehicle base;
int cubic_size;
}
Then you could have a van created in memory, and being used by code that only knew about vehicles:
struct van my_van;
struct vehicle *something = &my_van;
vehicle_function( something );
It worked beautifully, and the .h files defined exactly what you should be able to do with each object.
C Object System (COS) sounds promising (it's still in alpha version). It tries to keep minimal the available concepts for the sake of simplicity and flexibility: uniform object oriented programming including open classes, metaclasses, property metaclasses, generics, multimethods, delegation, ownership, exceptions, contracts and closures. There is a draft paper (PDF) that describes it.
Exception in C is a C89 implementation of the TRY-CATCH-FINALLY found in other OO languages. It comes with a testsuite and some examples.
Both by Laurent Deniau, which is working a lot on OOP in C.
The GNOME desktop for Linux is written in object-oriented C, and it has an object model called "GObject" which supports properties, inheritance, polymorphism, as well as some other goodies like references, event handling (called "signals"), runtime typing, private data, etc.
It includes preprocessor hacks to do things like typecasting around in the class hierarchy, etc. Here's an example class I wrote for GNOME (things like gchar are typedefs):
Class Source
Class Header
Inside the GObject structure there's a GType integer which is used as a magic number for GLib's dynamic typing system (you can cast the entire struct to a "GType" to find it's type).
Slightly off-topic, but the original C++ compiler, Cfront, compiled C++ to C and then to assembler.
Preserved here.
If you think of methods called on objects as static methods that pass an implicit 'this' into the function it can make thinking OO in C easier.
For example:
String s = "hi";
System.out.println(s.length());
becomes:
string s = "hi";
printf(length(s)); // pass in s, as an implicit this
Or something like that.
I used to do this kind of thing in C, before I knew what OOP was.
Following is an example, which implements a data-buffer which grows on demand, given a minimum size, increment and maximum size. This particular implementation was "element" based, which is to say it was designed to allow a list-like collection of any C type, not just a variable length byte-buffer.
The idea is that the object is instantiated using the xxx_crt() and deleted using xxx_dlt(). Each of the "member" methods takes a specifically typed pointer to operate on.
I implemented a linked list, cyclic buffer, and a number of other things in this manner.
I must confess, I have never given any thought on how to implement inheritance with this approach. I imagine that some blend of that offered by Kieveli might be a good path.
dtb.c:
#include <limits.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static void dtb_xlt(void *dst, const void *src, vint len, const byte *tbl);
DTABUF *dtb_crt(vint minsiz,vint incsiz,vint maxsiz) {
DTABUF *dbp;
if(!minsiz) { return NULL; }
if(!incsiz) { incsiz=minsiz; }
if(!maxsiz || maxsiz<minsiz) { maxsiz=minsiz; }
if(minsiz+incsiz>maxsiz) { incsiz=maxsiz-minsiz; }
if((dbp=(DTABUF*)malloc(sizeof(*dbp))) == NULL) { return NULL; }
memset(dbp,0,sizeof(*dbp));
dbp->min=minsiz;
dbp->inc=incsiz;
dbp->max=maxsiz;
dbp->siz=minsiz;
dbp->cur=0;
if((dbp->dta=(byte*)malloc((vuns)minsiz)) == NULL) { free(dbp); return NULL; }
return dbp;
}
DTABUF *dtb_dlt(DTABUF *dbp) {
if(dbp) {
free(dbp->dta);
free(dbp);
}
return NULL;
}
vint dtb_adddta(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const void *dtaptr,vint dtalen) {
if(!dbp) { errno=EINVAL; return -1; }
if(dtalen==-1) { dtalen=(vint)strlen((byte*)dtaptr); }
if((dbp->cur + dtalen) > dbp->siz) {
void *newdta;
vint newsiz;
if((dbp->siz+dbp->inc)>=(dbp->cur+dtalen)) { newsiz=dbp->siz+dbp->inc; }
else { newsiz=dbp->cur+dtalen; }
if(newsiz>dbp->max) { errno=ETRUNC; return -1; }
if((newdta=realloc(dbp->dta,(vuns)newsiz))==NULL) { return -1; }
dbp->dta=newdta; dbp->siz=newsiz;
}
if(dtalen) {
if(xlt256) { dtb_xlt(((byte*)dbp->dta+dbp->cur),dtaptr,dtalen,xlt256); }
else { memcpy(((byte*)dbp->dta+dbp->cur),dtaptr,(vuns)dtalen); }
dbp->cur+=dtalen;
}
return 0;
}
static void dtb_xlt(void *dst,const void *src,vint len,const byte *tbl) {
byte *sp,*dp;
for(sp=(byte*)src,dp=(byte*)dst; len; len--,sp++,dp++) { *dp=tbl[*sp]; }
}
vint dtb_addtxt(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const byte *format,...) {
byte textÝ501¨;
va_list ap;
vint len;
va_start(ap,format); len=sprintf_len(format,ap)-1; va_end(ap);
if(len<0 || len>=sizeof(text)) { sprintf_safe(text,sizeof(text),"STRTOOLNG: %s",format); len=(int)strlen(text); }
else { va_start(ap,format); vsprintf(text,format,ap); va_end(ap); }
return dtb_adddta(dbp,xlt256,text,len);
}
vint dtb_rmvdta(DTABUF *dbp,vint len) {
if(!dbp) { errno=EINVAL; return -1; }
if(len > dbp->cur) { len=dbp->cur; }
dbp->cur-=len;
return 0;
}
vint dtb_reset(DTABUF *dbp) {
if(!dbp) { errno=EINVAL; return -1; }
dbp->cur=0;
if(dbp->siz > dbp->min) {
byte *newdta;
if((newdta=(byte*)realloc(dbp->dta,(vuns)dbp->min))==NULL) {
free(dbp->dta); dbp->dta=null; dbp->siz=0;
return -1;
}
dbp->dta=newdta; dbp->siz=dbp->min;
}
return 0;
}
void *dtb_elmptr(DTABUF *dbp,vint elmidx,vint elmlen) {
if(!elmlen || (elmidx*elmlen)>=dbp->cur) { return NULL; }
return ((byte*)dbp->dta+(elmidx*elmlen));
}
dtb.h
typedef _Packed struct {
vint min; /* initial size */
vint inc; /* increment size */
vint max; /* maximum size */
vint siz; /* current size */
vint cur; /* current data length */
void *dta; /* data pointer */
} DTABUF;
#define dtb_dtaptr(mDBP) (mDBP->dta)
#define dtb_dtalen(mDBP) (mDBP->cur)
DTABUF *dtb_crt(vint minsiz,vint incsiz,vint maxsiz);
DTABUF *dtb_dlt(DTABUF *dbp);
vint dtb_adddta(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const void *dtaptr,vint dtalen);
vint dtb_addtxt(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const byte *format,...);
vint dtb_rmvdta(DTABUF *dbp,vint len);
vint dtb_reset(DTABUF *dbp);
void *dtb_elmptr(DTABUF *dbp,vint elmidx,vint elmlen);
PS: vint was simply a typedef of int - I used it to remind me that it's length was variable from platform to platform (for porting).
I think what Adam Rosenfield posted is the correct way of doing OOP in C. I'd like to add that what he shows is the implementation of the object. In other words the actual implementation would be put in the .c file, while the interface would be put in the header .h file. For example, using the monkey example above:
The interface would look like:
//monkey.h
struct _monkey;
typedef struct _monkey monkey;
//memory management
monkey * monkey_new();
int monkey_delete(monkey *thisobj);
//methods
void monkey_dance(monkey *thisobj);
You can see in the interface .h file you are only defining prototypes. You can then compile the implementation part " .c file" into a static or dynamic library. This creates encapsulation and also you can change the implementation at will. The user of your object needs to know almost nothing about the implementation of it. This also places focus on the overall design of the object.
It's my personal belief that oop is a way of conceptualizing your code structure and reusability and has really nothing to do with those other things that are added to c++ like overloading or templates. Yes those are very nice useful features but they are not representative of what object oriented programming really is.
ffmpeg (a toolkit for video processing) is written in straight C (and assembly language), but using an object-oriented style. It's full of structs with function pointers. There are a set of factory functions that initialize the structs with the appropriate "method" pointers.
If you really thinks catefully, even standard C library use OOP - consider FILE * as an example: fopen() initializes an FILE * object, and you use it use member methods fscanf(), fprintf(), fread(), fwrite() and others, and eventually finalize it with fclose().
You can also go with the pseudo-Objective-C way which is not difficult as well:
typedef void *Class;
typedef struct __class_Foo
{
Class isa;
int ivar;
} Foo;
typedef struct __meta_Foo
{
Foo *(*alloc)(void);
Foo *(*init)(Foo *self);
int (*ivar)(Foo *self);
void (*setIvar)(Foo *self);
} meta_Foo;
meta_Foo *class_Foo;
void __meta_Foo_init(void) __attribute__((constructor));
void __meta_Foo_init(void)
{
class_Foo = malloc(sizeof(meta_Foo));
if (class_Foo)
{
class_Foo = {__imp_Foo_alloc, __imp_Foo_init, __imp_Foo_ivar, __imp_Foo_setIvar};
}
}
Foo *__imp_Foo_alloc(void)
{
Foo *foo = malloc(sizeof(Foo));
if (foo)
{
memset(foo, 0, sizeof(Foo));
foo->isa = class_Foo;
}
return foo;
}
Foo *__imp_Foo_init(Foo *self)
{
if (self)
{
self->ivar = 42;
}
return self;
}
// ...
To use:
int main(void)
{
Foo *foo = (class_Foo->init)((class_Foo->alloc)());
printf("%d\n", (foo->isa->ivar)(foo)); // 42
foo->isa->setIvar(foo, 60);
printf("%d\n", (foo->isa->ivar)(foo)); // 60
free(foo);
}
This is what may be resulted from some Objective-C code like this, if a pretty-old Objective-C-to-C translator is used:
#interface Foo : NSObject
{
int ivar;
}
- (int)ivar;
- (void)setIvar:(int)ivar;
#end
#implementation Foo
- (id)init
{
if (self = [super init])
{
ivar = 42;
}
return self;
}
#end
int main(void)
{
Foo *foo = [[Foo alloc] init];
printf("%d\n", [foo ivar]);
[foo setIvar:60];
printf("%d\n", [foo ivar]);
[foo release];
}
My recommendation: keep it simple. One of the biggest issues I have is maintaining older software (sometimes over 10 years old). If the code is not simple, it can be difficult. Yes, one can write very useful OOP with polymorphism in C, but it can be difficult to read.
I prefer simple objects that encapsulate some well-defined functionality. A great example of this is GLIB2, for example a hash table:
GHastTable* my_hash = g_hash_table_new(g_str_hash, g_str_equal);
int size = g_hash_table_size(my_hash);
...
g_hash_table_remove(my_hash, some_key);
The keys are:
Simple architecture and design pattern
Achieves basic OOP encapsulation.
Easy to implement, read, understand, and maintain
I'm a bit late to the party here but I like to avoid both macro extremes - too many or too much obfuscates code, but a couple obvious macros can make the OOP code easier to develop and read:
/*
* OOP in C
*
* gcc -o oop oop.c
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
struct obj2d {
float x; // object center x
float y; // object center y
float (* area)(void *);
};
#define X(obj) (obj)->b1.x
#define Y(obj) (obj)->b1.y
#define AREA(obj) (obj)->b1.area(obj)
void *
_new_obj2d(int size, void * areafn)
{
struct obj2d * x = calloc(1, size);
x->area = areafn;
// obj2d constructor code ...
return x;
}
// --------------------------------------------------------
struct rectangle {
struct obj2d b1; // base class
float width;
float height;
float rotation;
};
#define WIDTH(obj) (obj)->width
#define HEIGHT(obj) (obj)->height
float rectangle_area(struct rectangle * self)
{
return self->width * self->height;
}
#define NEW_rectangle() _new_obj2d(sizeof(struct rectangle), rectangle_area)
// --------------------------------------------------------
struct triangle {
struct obj2d b1;
// deliberately unfinished to test error messages
};
#define NEW_triangle() _new_obj2d(sizeof(struct triangle), triangle_area)
// --------------------------------------------------------
struct circle {
struct obj2d b1;
float radius;
};
#define RADIUS(obj) (obj)->radius
float circle_area(struct circle * self)
{
return M_PI * self->radius * self->radius;
}
#define NEW_circle() _new_obj2d(sizeof(struct circle), circle_area)
// --------------------------------------------------------
#define NEW(objname) (struct objname *) NEW_##objname()
int
main(int ac, char * av[])
{
struct rectangle * obj1 = NEW(rectangle);
struct circle * obj2 = NEW(circle);
X(obj1) = 1;
Y(obj1) = 1;
// your decision as to which of these is clearer, but note above that
// macros also hide the fact that a member is in the base class
WIDTH(obj1) = 2;
obj1->height = 3;
printf("obj1 position (%f,%f) area %f\n", X(obj1), Y(obj1), AREA(obj1));
X(obj2) = 10;
Y(obj2) = 10;
RADIUS(obj2) = 1.5;
printf("obj2 position (%f,%f) area %f\n", X(obj2), Y(obj2), AREA(obj2));
// WIDTH(obj2) = 2; // error: struct circle has no member named width
// struct triangle * obj3 = NEW(triangle); // error: triangle_area undefined
}
I think this has a good balance, and the errors it generates (at least with default gcc 6.3 options) for some of the more likely mistakes are helpful instead of confusing. The whole point is to improve programmer productivity no?
#include "triangle.h"
#include "rectangle.h"
#include "polygon.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
Triangle tr1= CTriangle->new();
Rectangle rc1= CRectangle->new();
tr1->width= rc1->width= 3.2;
tr1->height= rc1->height= 4.1;
CPolygon->printArea((Polygon)tr1);
printf("\n");
CPolygon->printArea((Polygon)rc1);
}
Output:
6.56
13.12
Here is a show of what is OO programming with C.
This is real, pure C, no preprocessor macros. We have inheritance,
polymorphism and data encapsulation (including data private to classes or objects).
There is no chance for protected qualifier equivalent, that is,
private data is private down the innheritance chain too.
But this is not an inconvenience because I don't think it is necessary.
CPolygon is not instantiated because we only use it to manipulate objects
of down the innheritance chain that have common aspects but different
implementation of them (Polymorphism).
If I were going to write OOP in C I would probably go with a pseudo-Pimpl design. Instead of passing pointers to structs, you end up passing pointers to pointers to structs. This makes the content opaque and facilitates polymorphism and inheritance.
The real problem with OOP in C is what happens when variables exit scope. There are no compiler-generated destructors and that can cause issues. Macros can possibly help, but it is always going to be ugly to look at.
I'm also working on this based on a macro solution. So it is for the bravest only, I guess ;-) But it is quite nice already, and I'm already working on a few projects on top of it.
It works so that you first define a separate header file for each class. Like this:
#define CLASS Point
#define BUILD_JSON
#define Point__define \
METHOD(Point,public,int,move_up,(int steps)) \
METHOD(Point,public,void,draw) \
\
VAR(read,int,x,JSON(json_int)) \
VAR(read,int,y,JSON(json_int)) \
To implement the class, you create a header file for it and a C file where you implement the methods:
METHOD(Point,public,void,draw)
{
printf("point at %d,%d\n", self->x, self->y);
}
In the header you created for the class, you include other headers you need and define types etc. related to the class. In both the class header and in the C file you include the class specification file (see the first code example) and an X-macro. These X-macros (1,2,3 etc.) will expand the code to the actual class structs and other declarations.
To inherit a class, #define SUPER supername and add supername__define \ as the first line in the class definition. Both must be there. There is also JSON support, signals, abstract classes, etc.
To create an object, just use W_NEW(classname, .x=1, .y=2,...). The initialization is based on struct initialization introduced in C11. It works nicely and everything not listed is set to zero.
To call a method, use W_CALL(o,method)(1,2,3). It looks like a higher order function call but it is just a macro. It expands to ((o)->klass->method(o,1,2,3)) which is a really nice hack.
See Documentation and the code itself.
Since the framework needs some boilerplate code, I wrote a Perl script (wobject) that does the job. If you use that, you can just write
class Point
public int move_up(int steps)
public void draw()
read int x
read int y
and it will create the class specification file, class header, and a C file, which includes Point_impl.c where you implement the class. It saves quite a lot of work, if you have many simple classes but still everything is in C. wobject is a very simple regular expression based scanner which is easy to adapt to specific needs, or to be rewritten from scratch.
Another way to program in an object oriented style with C is to use a code generator which transforms a domain specific language to C. As it's done with TypeScript and JavaScript to bring OOP to js.
I'd suggest you to try out COOP
It features Classes, Inheritance, Exceptions, Memory management, its own Unit Testing Framework for C, and more.
All of this while maintaining type safety and (many parts of the) intellisence!
And, yes, it uses Macro magics to do it.
#Adam Rosenfield has a very good explanation of how to achieve OOP with C
Besides, I would recommend you to read
1) pjsip
A very good C library for VoIP. You can learn how it achieves OOP though structs and function pointer tables
2) iOS Runtime
Learn how iOS Runtime powers Objective C. It achieves OOP through isa pointer, meta class
For me object orientation in C should have these features:
Encapsulation and data hiding (can be achieved using structs/opaque pointers)
Inheritance and support for polymorphism (single inheritance can be achieved using structs - make sure the abstract base is not instantiable)
Constructor and destructor functionality (not easy to achieve)
Type checking (at least for user-defined types as C doesn't enforce any)
Reference counting (or something to implement RAII)
Limited support for exception handling (setjmp and longjmp)
On top of the above it should rely on ANSI/ISO specifications and should not rely on compiler-specific functionality.
Look at http://ldeniau.web.cern.ch/ldeniau/html/oopc/oopc.html. If nothing else reading through the documentation is an enlightening experience.
If you need to write a little code
try this: https://github.com/fulminati/class-framework
#include "class-framework.h"
CLASS (People) {
int age;
};
int main()
{
People *p = NEW (People);
p->age = 10;
printf("%d\n", p->age);
}
The open-source Dynace project does exactly that. It's at https://github.com/blakemcbride/Dynace
I have managed to implement inheritance and polymorphism in C.
I can do single inheritance with virtual tables and I can implement multiple interfaces with a technique where the struct that implements an interface simply creates the interface struct by giving it its own methods and a pointer to itself. The interface struct then calls these methods and, among other parameters, it passes them the pointer to the struct which created the implementation of the interface.
When it comes to inheriting non abstract classes, I have achieved that with virtual tables, I have already explained inheritance with virtual tables in this answer. The code from that answer doesn't allow implementation of multiple interfaces. In this answer however, I changed my code so that it allows implementation of multiple interfaces. Here is the entire code that I posted on github. I will post the code here as well but maybe it is more readable on github, as I put the code in multiple files.
Here is the code, I have structs Zivotinja, Pas, Automobil and the struct MozeProizvestiZvuk. This last struct is an interface. Pas and Automobil implement it. Struct Pas also inherits from Zivotinja.
Here is the code for the main function
Pas *pas = Pas_new_sve(4, 20, "some dog name");
MozeProizvestiZvuk *mozeProizvestiZvuk = pas->getMozeProizvestiZvuk(pas);
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk(mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk(mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
printf("number of times it made noise = %d\n", mozeProizvestiZvuk->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk(mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste));
Automobil *automobil = Automobil_new("Sandero", 2009);
MozeProizvestiZvuk *zvukAutomobil = automobil->getMozeProizvestiZvuk(automobil);
for(int i=0; i<3; i++){
zvukAutomobil->proizvediZvuk(zvukAutomobil->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
}
printf("number of times it made noise = %d\n", zvukAutomobil->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk(zvukAutomobil->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste));
Zivotinja *zivotinja = Zivotinja_new(10);
zivotinja->vTable->ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji(zivotinja);
zivotinja->vTable->obrisi(&zivotinja);
Zivotinja *pasKaoZivotinja = Pas_new_sve(5, 50, "Milojko");
pasKaoZivotinja->vTable->ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji(pasKaoZivotinja);
int godine = pasKaoZivotinja->vTable->dajGodine(pasKaoZivotinja);
printf("age of the dog which was upcasted to an animal = %d \n", godine);
pasKaoZivotinja->vTable->obrisi(&pasKaoZivotinja);
Here is the MozeProizvestiZvuk.h file
#ifndef MOZE_PROIZVESTI_ZVUK_H
#define MOZE_PROIZVESTI_ZVUK_H
typedef struct MozeProizvestiZvukStruct{
void (*proizvediZvuk)(void *strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
unsigned int (*getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk)(void *strukturaKojaImplementiraInterfejs);
void *strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste;
}MozeProizvestiZvuk;
#endif
Here is the Automobil struct which implements this interface.
#include"MozeProizvestiZvuk.h"
#include<stdlib.h>
typedef struct AutomobilStruct{
const char *naziv;
int godinaProizvodnje;
unsigned int kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* (*getMozeProizvestiZvuk)(struct AutomobilStruct *_this);
}Automobil;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Automobil_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Automobil *automobil);
Automobil* Automobil_new(const char* naziv, int godiste){
Automobil *automobil = (Automobil*) malloc(sizeof(Automobil));
automobil->naziv = naziv;
automobil->godinaProizvodnje = godiste;
automobil->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = 0;
automobil->getMozeProizvestiZvuk = Automobil_getMozeProizvestiZvuk;
return automobil;
}
void Automobil_delete(Automobil **adresaAutomobilPointera){
free(*adresaAutomobilPointera);
*adresaAutomobilPointera = NULL;
}
unsigned int Automobil_getKolikoJeZvukovaProizveo(Automobil *automobil){
return automobil->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
}
void Automobil_proizvediZvuk(Automobil *automobil){
printf("Automobil koji se zove %s, godiste %d proizvodi zvuk. \n", automobil->naziv, automobil->godinaProizvodnje);
automobil->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk++;
}
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Automobil_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Automobil *automobil){
MozeProizvestiZvuk *mozeProizvestiZvuk = (MozeProizvestiZvuk*) malloc(sizeof(MozeProizvestiZvuk));
mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste = automobil;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk = Automobil_proizvediZvuk;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = Automobil_getKolikoJeZvukovaProizveo;
return mozeProizvestiZvuk;
}
Here is the Zivotinja struct, this struct doesn't inherit from anything, neither does it implement any interfaces, but the struct Pas will inherit from Zivotinja.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
typedef struct ZivotinjaVTableStruct{
void (*ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji)(void *zivotinja);
int (*dajGodine) (void *zivotinja);
} ZivotinjaVTable;
typedef struct ZivotinjaStruct{
ZivotinjaVTable *vTable;
int godine;
} Zivotinja;
void ispisiPodatkeOOvojZivotinji(Zivotinja* zivotinja){
printf("Ova zivotinja ima %d godina. \n", zivotinja->godine);
}
int dajGodineOveZivotinje(Zivotinja *z){
return z->godine;
}
void Zivotinja_obrisi(Zivotinja **adresaPointeraKaZivotinji){
Zivotinja *zivotinjaZaBrisanje = *adresaPointeraKaZivotinji;
free(zivotinjaZaBrisanje);
*adresaPointeraKaZivotinji = NULL;
}
struct ZivotinjaVTableStruct zivotinjaVTableGlobal = {Zivotinja_obrisi, ispisiPodatkeOOvojZivotinji, dajGodineOveZivotinje};
Zivotinja* Zivotinja_new(int godine){
ZivotinjaVTable *vTable = &zivotinjaVTableGlobal;
Zivotinja *z = (Zivotinja*) malloc(sizeof(Zivotinja));
z->vTable = vTable;
z->godine = godine;
}
And finally, here is the struct Pas which inherits from Zivotinja and implements MozeProizvestiZvuk interface.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<stdbool.h>
#include"Zivotinja.h"
#include"MozeProizvestiZvuk.h"
typedef struct PasVTableStruct{
bool (*obrisi)(void **Pas);
void (*ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji)(void *Pas);
int (*dajGodine) (void *Pas);
bool (*daLiJeVlasnikStariji) (void *Pas);
} PasVTable;
typedef struct PasStruct{
PasVTable *vTable;
int godine;
const char* vlasnik;
int godineVlasnika;
unsigned int kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* (*getMozeProizvestiZvuk)(struct PasStruct *_this);
} Pas;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Pas *_this);
void ispisiPodatkeOPsu(void *pasVoid){
Pas *pas = (Pas*)pasVoid;
printf("Pas ima %d godina, vlasnik se zove %s, vlasnik ima %d godina. \n", pas->godine, pas->vlasnik, pas->godineVlasnika);
}
int dajGodinePsa(void *pasVoid){
Pas *pas = (Pas*) pasVoid;
return pas->godine;
}
bool daLiJeVlasnikStariji(Pas *pas){
return pas->godineVlasnika >= pas->godine;
}
void Pas_obrisi(Pas **adresaPointeraPsa){
Pas *pasZaBrisanje = *adresaPointeraPsa;
free(pasZaBrisanje);
*adresaPointeraPsa = NULL;
}
struct PasVTableStruct pasVTableGlobal = {
Pas_obrisi,
ispisiPodatkeOPsu,
dajGodinePsa,
daLiJeVlasnikStariji
};
Pas* Pas_new(int godine){
Pas *z = (Pas*) malloc(sizeof(Pas));
z->godine = godine;
z->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = 0;
z->vTable = (&pasVTableGlobal);
z->getMozeProizvestiZvuk = Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk;
return z;
}
Pas *Pas_new_sve(int godine, int godineVlasnika, char* imeVlasnika){
Pas *pas = (Pas*) malloc(sizeof(Pas));
pas->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = 0;
pas->godine = godine;
pas->godineVlasnika = godineVlasnika;
pas->vlasnik = imeVlasnika;
pas->vTable = &pasVTableGlobal;
pas->getMozeProizvestiZvuk = Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk;
return pas;
}
unsigned int Pas_getBrojZvukova(Pas *_this){
return _this->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
}
void Pas_proizvediZvuk(Pas *_this){
printf("Pas godina %d, vlasnika %s je proizveo zvuk.\n", _this->godine, _this->vlasnik);
_this->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk++;
}
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Pas *_this){
MozeProizvestiZvuk *mozeProizvestiZvuk = (MozeProizvestiZvuk*) malloc(sizeof(MozeProizvestiZvuk));
mozeProizvestiZvuk->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = Pas_getBrojZvukova;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk = Pas_proizvediZvuk;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste = _this;
return mozeProizvestiZvuk;
}

Resources