If I have a prototype that is declared as:
void foo(int (*fi)(void *, void *))
And I call the function with something like this:
foo(int (*)(void*, void*)(bool_expr ? func1 : func2));
Where func1 and func2 are defined as follows:
int func1(char *s1, char *s2);
int func2(int *i1, int *i2);
Is the function call casting one of the functions (func1 ^ func2) to the type of the function required by foo? Could I also make the prototype for foo look like:
void foo(int (*)(void *, void *))
According to C specification, casting function pointers results in unspecified behavior, but many compilers (e.g. gcc) do what you expect them to do, because function pointer is just an address in memory. Just to be safe, I would re-declare func1 and func2 to take void*, and then cast these pointers to char* and int* as required.
In GCC, this expression:
bool_expr ? func1 : func2
gives this warning:
warning: pointer type mismatch in conditional expression
even if you don't turn on special warnings.
What's more, GCC resolves this pointer-type mismatch by casting both expressions to void *; so then, when you try to cast it back (either explicitly, with (int (*)(void*, void*)), or implicitly, by passing it to foo), it gives this warning:
warning: ISO C forbids conversion of object pointer to function pointer type
if you enable pedantry. (The reason that ISO C forbids this is that a function pointer does not have to be implemented, internally, as a pointer to a memory location, so it may not have the same size and whatnot as a regular "object" pointer.)
That said, this:
foo((bool_expr ? (int (*)(void*, void*))func1 : (int (*)(void*, void*))func2));
should be relatively safe, provided that foo is passing valid char pointers to func1 or valid int pointers to func2.
And I would guess that, on a system where function pointers are truly incompatible with void *, a compiler wouldn't resolve the mismatch bool_expr ? func1 : func2 in favor of void * (though I haven't consulted the spec on this).
As commented the code as posted did not compile.
FWIW, this compiles and executes as you would expect with VC2010:
int func1(char *s1, char *s2) { printf("func1\n"); return 0; }
int func2(int *i1, int *i2) { printf("func2\n"); return 0; }
void foo(int (*)(void *, void *));
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
foo(2 == argc ? (int(*)(void*,void*))func1 :
(int(*)(void*,void*))func2);
return 0;
}
void foo(int (*a)(void *, void *))
{
a((void*)0, (void*)0);
}
Related
I am trying to call a c function with a const matrix argument using a const cast, but can't find the syntax that stops the gcc compiler complaining. The code below compiles without complaining if all "const " casts are removed. The quesion is similar to C function const multidimensional-array argument strange warning but no fully satisfactory solution was offered there. In the following code, if the first call to g() works, then the second call to g() should also work, since it is syntactically identical. But it does not. The second version of g() is preferred, because it does not require knowing in advance the type of the matrix.
/* file t.c */
void f(const int a[2]) {/*empty*/}
void g(const int b[2][2]) {/*empty*/}
int main()
{
int a[2];
int b[2][2];
f((const int (*)) a); /* ok */
f((const typeof(&a[0])) a); /* ok */
g((const int (*)[2]) b); /* ok */
g((const typeof(&b[0])) b); /* compiler complains */
}
$ gcc -o t t.c
t.c: In function ‘main’:
t.c:13:2: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘g’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
g((const typeof(&b[0])) b); /* compiler complains */
^
t.c:3:10: note: expected ‘const int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int (*)[2]’
void g(const int b[2][2]) {/*empty*/}
Yes, this lack of possibility to call a function with const 2D arrays with a non-const argument is really a defect in the C specification.
To move around it remember that
void g(const int b[2][2]) {/*empty*/}
is rewritten as
void g(const int (*b)[2]) {/*empty*/}
so this shows you how you'd have to convert, to a const int (*)[2], that is a pointer to an array of 2 double.
g( (const int (*)[2])b );
The const in the declaration header means that the function cannot change the contents of the argument. It is an information to the caller(compiler) and programmer. So there is no reason to make a const typecast then calling the function. It is totally superfluous.
for knowledge sake, I would like to know if something like this is possible:
2 function:
static int func1(int *a, int b){
...
}
static int func2(double *a, int b){
...
}
I would like to declare a function pointer and point it to one of these function. However the arguments of these functions are of different type. So I tried:
static int (*func_ptr)(void *arg1, int arg2);
static void *Argument1;
static int Argument2=5;
int main(){
double arg1_d;;
int arg1_i;
...
if(want_func2){
Argument1=(double *) &arg1_d;
func_ptr=func2;
run(func_ptr);
}
else{
Argument1=(int *) &arg1_i;
func_ptr=func1;
run(func_ptr);
}
return 0;
}
static int run(int *(function)(void *,int )){
function(Argument1,Argument2);
}
However, when compiling I get the warning:
warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
when
func_ptr=func2;
func_ptr=func1;
Is there anyway to create a function pointer with a generic type argument?
You are on the right track. But, in order to achieve what you want, your functions should have a void* parameter and cast it internally to int or double.
No. You need the if...else to use such a thing correctly anyway, so just store separate function pointers and use the correct pointer in each piece of code.
First off I'm primarily a Java programmer, but I've been tasked with doing some network stuff in C. I've got a function with the following signature:
foo(int, void (*) (int, char *, int))
It's the void (*) that's throwing me for a loop. This is supposed to call another function (static)
bar(int, char *, int)
Now am I right in thinking that foo wants a pointer to bar with whatever variables I need at the time?
Calling
foo(1,myfunction(1,&anCharArray,10));
fails with a number of errors.
If anyone has any links to good articles on pointers that would also help.
foo(1,myfunction(1,&anCharArray,10))
fails with a number of errors.
Try instead:
foo(1, myfunction)
The second parameter of foo function is a function pointer but you were passing the return value of a function call.
The void (*)(int, char *, int) is an anonymous parameter of type 'pointer to function returning void and taking three arguments: an int, a char * and another int'. You need to pass the name of such a function (in your case, bar) as the second argument to the function foo. Personally, I'd prefer to see the declaration of foo written with a return type and names for parameters, and the declaration of bar() should also have a return type and names for the parameters. The names do not have to match between function declaration and definition, but it is not usually regarded as good style to vary the names between them.
void foo(int num, void (*func)(int num, char *str, int len));
static void bar(int num, char *str, int len);
You can then call:
foo(10, bar);
Inside foo(), you will have code such as:
void foo(int num, void (*func)(int num, char *str, int len))
{
char str[] = "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious";
(*func)(num, str, strlen(str));
}
Or, if you're new school (not an archaic relic like me), then:
void foo(int num, void (*func)(int num, char *str, int len))
{
char str[] = "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious";
func(num, str, strlen(str));
}
These are equivalent. I still prefer the explicit "I'm calling a function via a pointer to function" notation, but it isn't necessary and modern style tends to avoid it.
While following some tutorials and reading about function pointers I learned that evidently assigning a void pointer to a function pointer in ISO C is undefined, is there any way to resolve the warning I receive during compile time (e.g. a better way of coding it) or should I just ignore it?
Warning:
ISO C forbids assignment between function pointer and 'void *' [-pedantic]
Example Code:
void *(*funcPtr)();
funcPtr = GetPointer();
GetPointer is a function that returns a void pointer E.G.
void *GetPointer();
In tlpi-book I found this trick very interesting:
#include <dlfcn.h>
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
...
void (*funcp)(void); /* Pointer to function with no arguments */
...
*(void **) (&funcp) = dlsym(libHandle, argv[2]);
}
No. The compiler is right, and you too: in C89 and C99, you can't convert between data pointers (which void * is) and function pointers, so the only way for resolving the warning is returning a function pointer from the function.
(Note, however, that in practice this works despite the warning, and even there's this inconsistency in the standard library - the dlsym() function is used for obtaining function pointers, but it returns void * - so essentially you can ignore the warning. It will work, although strictly speaking the behavior is undefined here.)
I encountered this problem using glib. Glib data structures, such as GSList usually have a field called void *data. I wanted to store functions in a list and got a bunch of errors similar to this:
warning: ISO C forbids passing argument 2 of ‘g_slist_append’ between function pointer and ‘void *’ [-pedantic]
This example generates a bunch of warnings using gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic
typedef int (* func) (int);
int mult2(int x)
{
return x + x;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
GSList *functions = NULL;
func f;
functions = g_slist_append(functions, mult2);
f = (func *) functions->data;
printf("%d\n", f(10));
return 0;
}
So I wrapped the function in a struct and all the warnings go away:
struct funcstruct {
int (* func) (int);
};
int mult2(int x)
{
return x + x;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
GSList *functions = NULL;
struct funcstruct p;
p.func = mult2;
functions = g_slist_append(functions, &p);
p = * (struct funcstruct *) functions->data;
printf("%d\n", p.func(10));
return 0;
}
It's arguable that this is quite a bit of extra code to make a few warnings disappear, but I don't like my code to generate warnings. Also, the above are toy examples. In the real code I'm writing, it turns out to be quite useful to wrap the list of functions in a struct.
I'd be interested to hear if this is problematic or if there's a better way of doing it.
I'm having trouble compiling the example program presented in section 5.11 of the book. I have removed most of the code and left only the relevant stuff.
#define MAXLINES 5000
char *lineptr[MAXLINES];
void qsort1(void *lineptr[], int left, int right, int (*comp)(void *, void *));
int numcmp(char *, char *);
main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int numeric = 1;
/* ... */
qsort1((void**) lineptr, 0, 100, (int (*)(void*, void*))(numeric ? numcmp : strcmp));
}
void qsort1(void *v[], int left, int right, int (*comp)(void *, void *)) {
/* ... */
}
int numcmp(char *s1, char *s2) {
/* ... */
}
The problem is that the code doesn't compile (I'm using Digital Mars compiler). The error I get is this:
qsort1((void**) lineptr, 0, nlines - 1, (int (*)(void*, void*))(numeric
? numcmp : strcmp));
^
go.c(19) : Error: need explicit cast to convert
from: int (*C func)(char const *,char const *)
to : int (*C func)(char *,char *)
--- errorlevel 1
There must be something wrong with the declarations although I pasted the code from the book correctly. I don't know enough to make the right changes (the section about the function pointers could certainly have been written more extensively).
EDIT: I should have mentioned that I'm reading the ANSI version of the book.
I think the error comes from the fact that old C did not know const yet: strcmp there took two pointers to non-const characters (char *) i think (which could be the reason why it compiled back then, but not with your compiler). However, nowadays strcmp takes char const* (const char* is the same thing). Change your function prototype to this:
int numcmp(char const*, char const*);
That's a common problem :)
The following line tells qsort to expect a pointer to a function with two void* parameters. Unfortunately, strcmp takes two non-modifiable strings hence it's signature is
int (*comp)(const char*, const char*)
instead of what you have:
int (*comp)(void *, void *)
Change the signature of both qsort1 and numeric:
qsort1(void *v[], int left, int right, int (*comp)(const void *, const void *))
and:
int numcmp(const char*, const char*)
The standard function pointer expected by qsort() or bsearch() has the prototype:
int comparator(const void *v1, const void *v2);
The qsort1() defined in the code expects:
int comparator(void *v1, void *v2);
The comparator functions defined in the code do not have that prototype, and there is no automatic conversion between different function pointer types.
So, fixes for qsort1() are either:
Introduce a cast: (int (*)(void *, void *)), or
Rewrite the comparators:
int numcmp(void *v1, void *v2)
{
char *s1 = v1;
char *s2 = v2;
...
}
int str_cmp(void *v1, void *v2) // Note new function name!
{
return(strcmp(v1, v2));
}
Obviously, the call to qsort1() would reference str_cmp instead of strcmp. The authors sought to avoid an intermediate function, but run foul of the (legitimately) fussier compilers in use nowadays.
The standard version of qsort() would require a bunch of const qualifiers, as in the first version of this answer.
Note that strcmp takes two const arguments, whereas your numcmp does not. Therefore, the two functions' types do not match, and the ? : operator will complain.
Do one of:
change numcmp to match the strcmp prototype in terms of constness
push the (int (*)(void*, void*)) cast inside the ? :, e.g.
numeric ? (int (*)(void*, void*))numcmp : (int (*)(void*, void*))strcmp
Its been awhile since I have done any pure C programming, I'm not certain on the new standard.
However casting to void ** creates a pointer to a pointer where the function requires a pointer to an array. Sure, they are the same thing internally, but strong typechecking will catch that as an error.
rewrite the qsort to accept ** instead of *[] and you should be ok.