Polymorphism (in C) [duplicate] - c

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How can I simulate OO-style polymorphism in C?
I'm trying to better understand the idea of polymorphism with examples from languages I know;
is there polymorphism in C?

This is Nekuromento's second example, factored in the way I consider idiomatic for object-oriented C:
animal.h
#ifndef ANIMAL_H_
#define ANIMAL_H_
struct animal
{
// make vtable_ a pointer so they can be shared between instances
// use _ to mark private members
const struct animal_vtable_ *vtable_;
const char *name;
};
struct animal_vtable_
{
const char *(*sound)(void);
};
// wrapper function
static inline const char *animal_sound(struct animal *animal)
{
return animal->vtable_->sound();
}
// make the vtables arrays so they can be used as pointers
extern const struct animal_vtable_ CAT[], DOG[];
#endif
cat.c
#include "animal.h"
static const char *sound(void)
{
return "meow!";
}
const struct animal_vtable_ CAT[] = { { sound } };
dog.c
#include "animal.h"
static const char *sound(void)
{
return "arf!";
}
const struct animal_vtable_ DOG[] = { { sound } };
main.c
#include "animal.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
struct animal kitty = { CAT, "Kitty" };
struct animal lassie = { DOG, "Lassie" };
printf("%s says %s\n", kitty.name, animal_sound(&kitty));
printf("%s says %s\n", lassie.name, animal_sound(&lassie));
return 0;
}
This is an example of runtime polymorphism as that's when method resolution happens.
C1x added generic selections, which make compile-time polymorphism via macros possible. The following example is taken from the C1x April draft, section 6.5.1.1 §5:
#define cbrt(X) _Generic((X), \
long double: cbrtl, \
default: cbrt, \
float: cbrtf \
)(X)
Type-generic macros for math functions were already available in C99 via the header tgmath.h, but there was no way for users to define their own macros without using compiler extensions.

Almost all implementations of runtime polymorphism in C will use function pointers, so this is the basic building block.
Here is a simple example when procedure runtime behavior changes depending on it's argument.
#include <stdio.h>
int tripple(int a) {
return 3 * a;
}
int square(int a) {
return a * a;
}
void transform(int array[], size_t len, int (*fun)(int)) {
size_t i = 0;
for(; i < len; ++i)
array[i] = fun(array[i]);
}
int main() {
int array[3] = {1, 2, 3};
transform(array, 3, &tripple);
transform(array, 3, &square);
size_t i = 0;
for (; i < 3; ++i)
printf("%d ", array[i]);
return 0;
}
Using function pointers you can create virtual tables and use it to create "objects" that will be treated uniformly, but behave differently at runtime.
#include <stdio.h>
struct animal_vtable {
const char* (*sound)();
};
struct animal {
struct animal_vtable methods;
const char* name;
};
const char* cat_sound() {
return "meow!";
}
const char* dog_sound() {
return "bark!";
}
void describe(struct animal *a) {
printf("%s makes \"%s\" sound.\n", a->name, a->methods.sound());
}
struct animal cat = {{&cat_sound}, "cat"};
struct animal dog = {{&dog_sound}, "dog"};
int main() {
describe(&cat);
describe(&dog);
return 0;
}

There's no intrinsic support for polymorphism in C, but there are design patterns, using function pointers, base 'class' (structure) casts, etc., that can provide a logical equivalent of dynamic dispatch. The GTK library is good example.

I guess, you already checked Wikipedia article on polymorphism.
In computer science, polymorphism is a programming language feature
that allows values of different data types to be handled using a
uniform interface.
According to that definition, no, C doesn't natively support polymorphism. For instance, there is no general function for acquiring absolute value of a number (abs and fabs are for integers and doubles respectively).
If you're also familiar with C++, take a look at OOP inheritance and templates - those are mechanisms for polymorphism there.

Related

Segmentation fault in cast struct in c

In an attempt to encapsulate struct members (in a similar way as discussed in this question), I created the code below.
In the code below, I have a c-struct, which contains methods to access members of the struct which are hidden (by being cast into a struct otherwise the same but without the hidden properties)
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct class {
int publicValue;
int (*getPV)();
void (*setPV)(int newPV);
} class;
typedef struct classSource {
int publicValue;
int apv;
int (*getPV)();
void (*setPV)(int newPV);
int PV;
} classSource;
class class_init() {
classSource cs;
cs.publicValue = 15;
cs.PV = 8;
int class_getPV() {
return cs.PV;
};
void class_setPV(int x) {
cs.PV = x;
};
cs.getPV = class_getPV;
cs.setPV = class_setPV;
class *c = (class*)(&cs);
return *c;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
class c = class_init();
c.setPV(3452);
printf("%d", c.publicValue);
printf("%d", c.getPV());
return 0;
}
When I run this, I get a segmentation fault error. However, I noticed that if I comment out certain lines of code, it (seems) to work okay:
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct class {
int publicValue;
int (*getPV)();
void (*setPV)(int newPV);
} class;
typedef struct classSource {
int publicValue;
int apv;
int (*getPV)();
void (*setPV)(int newPV);
int PV;
} classSource;
class class_init() {
classSource cs;
cs.publicValue = 15;
cs.PV = 8;
int class_getPV() {
return cs.PV;
};
void class_setPV(int x) {
cs.PV = x;
};
cs.getPV = class_getPV;
cs.setPV = class_setPV;
class *c = (class*)(&cs);
return *c;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
class c = class_init();
c.setPV(3452);
//printf("%d", c.publicValue);
printf("%d", c.getPV());
return 0;
}
I presume that it might have something to do with using the initializer to add the getter and setter methods to the struct, as those might overwrite memory.
Is what I am doing undefined behavior? Is there a way to fix this?
EDIT: With the help of the answer below, I have re-written the code. In case anyone wants to see the implementation, below is the revised code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct {
int pub;
} class;
typedef struct {
class public;
int PV;
} classSource;
int class_getPV(class *c) {
return ((classSource*)c)->PV;
}
void class_setPV(class *c, int newPV) {
((classSource*)c)->PV = newPV;
}
class *class_init() {
classSource *cs = malloc(sizeof(*cs));
if((void*)cs == (void*)NULL) {
printf("Error: malloc failed to allocate memory");
exit(1);
}
cs->public.pub = 10;
cs->PV = 8;
return &(cs->public);
}
int main() {
class *c = class_init();
class_setPV(c,4524);
printf("%d\n",class_getPV(c));
printf("%d\n",c->pub);
free(c);
return 0;
}
There are at least three separate problems in your code.
You don't actually have a "struct otherwise the same but without the hidden properties". Your class and classSource structs have their getPV and setPV members in different places. Internally member access boils down to byte offsets from the beginning of the struct. To have a fighting chance of working, your code would need to have a common initial prefix of members between the two struct types (i.e. get rid of int apv; or move it to the end).
You're returning a struct by value, which automatically makes a copy. You've reimplemented the object slicing problem: Because the return value has type class, only the members of class will be copied. The extra members of classSource have been "sliced off".
You're using nested functions. This is not a standard feature of C; GCC implements it as an extension and says:
If you try to call the nested function through its address after the containing function exits, all hell breaks loose.
This is exactly what's happening in your code: You're calling c.setPV(3452); and c.getPV after class_init has returned.
If you want to fix these problems, you'd have to:
Fix your struct definitions. At minimum all members of class need to appear at the beginning of classSource in the same order. Even if you do that, I'm not sure you wouldn't still run into undefined behavior (e.g. you might be violating an aliasing rule).
I'm somewhat sure that embedding one struct in the other would be OK, however:
typedef struct classSource {
class public;
int PV;
} classSource;
Now you can return &cs->public from your initializer, and your methods can cast the class * pointer back to classSource *. (I think this is OK because all struct pointers have the same size/representation, and X.public as the first member is guaranteed to have the same memory address as X.)
Change your code to use pointers instead. Returning a pointer to a struct avoids the slicing problem, but now you have to take care of memory management (malloc the struct and take care to free it later).
Don't use nested functions. Instead pass a pointer to the object to each method:
class *c = class_init();
c->setPV(c, 3452);
int x = c->getPV(c);
This is somewhat tedious, but this is what e.g. C++ does under the hood, essentially. Except C++ doesn't put function pointers in the objects themselves; there's no reason to when you can either use normal functions:
setPV(c, 3452);
int x = getPV(c);
... or use a separate (global, constant, singleton) struct that just stores pointers to methods (and no data). Each object then only contains a pointer to this struct of methods (this is known as a vtable):
struct classInterface {
void (*setPV)(class *, int);
int (*getPV)(const class *);
};
static const classInterface classSourceVtable = {
class_setPV, // these are normal functions, defined elsewhere
class_getPV
};
Method calls would look like this:
c->vtable->setPV(c, 1234);
int x = c->vtable->getPV(c);
But this is mainly useful if you have several different struct types that share a common public interface (class) and you want to write code that works uniformly on all of them.

What is the equivalent of class in pure C

In OOP languages, we have classes. Is there an equivalent to class in pure C?
There is none. This fact was the original motivation for the development of C++, back when C++ was called "C with Classes". The closest thing you can get is a struct.
There is a feature in C intended to facilitate a sort of pseudo-inheritance, but it doesn't come close to an actual object-oriented class system. A pointer to a struct can legally be cast to and from a pointer to the struct's first member, so you can sort of "extend" a struct type A by having another struct type B start with a member of type A.
For example, you can have a PyObject struct type and a bunch of struct types that all start with a PyObject member, say PyIntObject, PyDictObject, etc:
typedef struct {
...
} PyObject;
typedef struct {
PyObject ob_base;
// more members...
} PyIntObject;
typedef struct {
PyObject ob_base;
// more members...
} PyDictObject;
You could then pass PyIntObjects and PyDictObjects around with PyObject pointers and use the data in the PyObject part to tell what the type of the enclosing struct is.
As you may have guessed from the names, I've taken this example from Python, where this mechanism is used to implement Python's object-oriented type system on top of C.
There is nothing equivalent to classes. Its a totally different paradigm. You can use structures in C. Have to code accordingly to make structures do the job.
You can swap "Class" in C++ for "struct".
I'm not saying you should but one mans object is another mans struct with some functions that operate on that struct and where the first parameter to the function is the struct itself. Obviously C++ adds some extra bits. C and opaque pointers are also Objects and very useful ones at that.
#include <iostream>
struct Cat {
public:
Cat(int initialAge); // constructor
~Cat(); // destructor
int GetAge();
private: // begin private section
int itsAge; // member variable
};
Cat::Cat(int initialAge) {
itsAge = initialAge;
}
int Cat::GetAge() {
return itsAge;
}
int main(void) {
Cat *cat = new Cat(1);
std::cout << "This cat declared as a struct is " << cat->GetAge() << " years old" <<std::endl;
return 1;
}
You can achieve a similar thing in C with a bit more work... Header file is
#ifndef CAT_H
#define CAT_H
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct Cat Cat;
typedef struct CatOps {
int (* GetAge )();
} CatOps;
struct Cat {
void * obj;
CatOps * ops;
};
Cat * new_cat(int age);
void delete_cat(Cat * cat);
#endif /* CAT_H */
.c file is
#include "cat.h"
#include <assert.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef struct cat_obj {
int age;
} cat_obj;
int get_age();
static CatOps CAT_OPS = {
.GetAge = get_age,
};
Cat * new_cat(int age) {
Cat * imp;
cat_obj * obj;
imp = malloc(sizeof(*imp));
obj = malloc(sizeof(*obj));
imp->obj = obj;
imp->ops = &CAT_OPS;
return (Cat*)imp;
}
void delete_cat(Cat *cat) {
free(cat->obj);
free(cat);
}
static void get_age(Cat *cat) {
cat_obj *c = (cat_obj*)cat->obj;
}
Note, I've not tested it but if you know C/C++ you should recognize the idiom.

Complete encapsulation without malloc

I was experimenting with C11 and VLAs, trying to declare a struct variable on the stack with only an incomplete declaration. The objective is to provide a mechanism to create a variable of some struct type without showing the internals (like the PIMPL idiom) but without the need to create the variable on the heap and return a pointer to it. Also, if the struct layout changes, I don't want to recompile every file that uses the struct.
I have managed to program the following:
private.h:
#ifndef PRIVATE_H_
#define PRIVATE_H_
typedef struct A{
int value;
}A;
#endif /* PRIVATE_H_ */
public.h:
#ifndef PUBLIC_H_
#define PUBLIC_H_
typedef struct A A;
size_t A_getSizeOf(void);
void A_setValue(A * a, int value);
void A_printValue(A * a);
#endif /* PUBLIC_H_ */
implementation.c:
#include "private.h"
#include "stdio.h"
size_t A_getSizeOf(void)
{
return sizeof(A);
}
void A_setValue(A * a, int value)
{
a->value = value;
}
void A_printValue(A * a)
{
printf("%d\n", a->value);
}
main.c:
#include <stdalign.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include "public.h"
#define createOnStack(type, variable) \
alignas(max_align_t) char variable ## _stack[type ## _getSizeOf()]; \
type * variable = (type *)&variable ## _stack
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
createOnStack(A, var);
A_setValue(var, 5335);
A_printValue(var);
}
I have tested this code and it seems to work. However I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something (like aliasing, alignment or something like that) that could be dangerous or unportable, or could hurt performance. Also I want to know if there are better (portable) solutions to this problem in C.
This of course violates the effective typing rules (aka strict aliasing) because the C language does not allow an object of tye char [] to be accessed through a pointer that does not have that type (or a compatible one).
You could disable strict aliasing analysis via compiler flags like -fno-strict-aliasing or attributes like
#ifdef __GNUC__
#define MAY_ALIAS __attribute__((__may_alias__))
#else
#define MAY_ALIAS
#endif
(thanks go to R.. for pointing out the latter), but even if you do not do so, in practice everything should work just fine as long as you only ever use the variable's proper name to initialize the typed pointer.
Personally, I'd simplify your declarations to something along the lines of
#define stackbuffer(NAME, SIZE) \
_Alignas (max_align_t) char NAME[SIZE]
typedef struct Foo Foo;
extern const size_t SIZEOF_FOO;
stackbuffer(buffer, SIZEOF_FOO);
Foo *foo = (void *)buffer;
The alternative would be using the non-standard alloca(), but that 'function' comes with its own set of issues.
I am considering adopting a strategy similar to the following to solve essentially the same problem. Perhaps it will be of interest despite being a year late.
I wish to prevent clients of a struct from accessing the fields directly, in order to make it easier to reason about their state and easier to write reliable design contracts. I'd also prefer to avoid allocating small structures on the heap. But I can't afford a C11 public interface - much of the joy of C is that almost any code knows how to talk to C89.
To that end, consider the adequate application code:
#include "opaque.h"
int main(void)
{
opaque on_the_stack = create_opaque(42,3.14); // constructor
print_opaque(&on_the_stack);
delete_opaque(&on_the_stack); // destructor
return 0;
}
The opaque header is fairly nasty, but not completely absurd. Providing both create and delete functions is mostly for the sake of consistency with structs where calling the destructor actually matters.
/* opaque.h */
#ifndef OPAQUE_H
#define OPAQUE_H
/* max_align_t is not reliably available in stddef, esp. in c89 */
typedef union
{
int foo;
long long _longlong;
unsigned long long _ulonglong;
double _double;
void * _voidptr;
void (*_voidfuncptr)(void);
/* I believe the above types are sufficient */
} alignment_hack;
#define sizeof_opaque 16 /* Tedious to keep up to date */
typedef struct
{
union
{
char state [sizeof_opaque];
alignment_hack hack;
} private;
} opaque;
#undef sizeof_opaque /* minimise the scope of the macro */
void print_opaque(opaque * o);
opaque create_opaque(int foo, double bar);
void delete_opaque(opaque *);
#endif
Finally an implementation, which is welcome to use C11 as it's not the interface. _Static_assert(alignof...) is particularly reassuring. Several layers of static functions are used to indicate the obvious refinement of generating the wrap/unwrap layers. Pretty much the entire mess is amenable to code gen.
#include "opaque.h"
#include <stdalign.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
int foo;
double bar;
} opaque_impl;
/* Zero tolerance approach to letting the sizes drift */
_Static_assert(sizeof (opaque) == sizeof (opaque_impl), "Opaque size incorrect");
_Static_assert(alignof (opaque) == alignof (opaque_impl), "Opaque alignment incorrect");
static void print_opaque_impl(opaque_impl *o)
{
printf("Foo = %d and Bar = %g\n",o->foo,o->bar);
}
static void create_opaque_impl(opaque_impl * o, int foo, double bar)
{
o->foo = foo;
o->bar = bar;
}
static void create_opaque_hack(opaque * o, int foo, double bar)
{
opaque_impl * ptr = (opaque_impl*)o;
create_opaque_impl(ptr,foo,bar);
}
static void delete_opaque_impl(opaque_impl *o)
{
o->foo = 0;
o->bar = 0;
}
static void delete_opaque_hack(opaque * o)
{
opaque_impl * ptr = (opaque_impl*)o;
delete_opaque_impl(ptr);
}
void print_opaque(opaque * o)
{
return print_opaque_impl((opaque_impl*)o);
}
opaque create_opaque(int foo, double bar)
{
opaque tmp;
unsigned int i;
/* Useful to zero out padding */
for (i=0; i < sizeof (opaque_impl); i++)
{
tmp.private.state[i] = 0;
}
create_opaque_hack(&tmp,foo,bar);
return tmp;
}
void delete_opaque(opaque *o)
{
delete_opaque_hack(o);
}
The drawbacks I can see myself:
Changing the size define manually would be irritating
The casting should hinder optimisation (I haven't checked this yet)
This may violate strict pointer aliasing. Need to re-read the spec.
I am concerned about accidentally invoking undefined behaviour. I would also be interested in general feedback on the above, or whether it looks like a credible alternative to the inventive VLA technique in the question.

Accessing structure members without using dot operator

I don't even know, whether what I'm asking is something stupid or not. I am not asking you to write any code for me, but an idea to do something in a better way.
I have a struct with a large number of items like this:
typedef struct _myStruct
{
int int1;
char char1;
int int2;
:
:
int int50;
}myStruct;
I have another enumeration which has a single entry for each item in myStruct.
enum
{
eINT1,
eCHAR1,
eINT2,
:
:
eINT50
} PARAMETER_ID;
I want to write a function for each data type [say one for int, one for char, one for string etc], which return the value of a member of myStruct, when the PARAMETER_ID is given as input.
For example I need a int GetInt(PARAMETER_ID) function which return the value of int1 when eINT1 is passed as an argument. Similarly I am going to have char GetCharacter(PARAMETER_ID), float GetFloat(PARAMETER_ID) etc.
The number of items in the struct can be large. So using a switch-case for each item will not be a viable option.
Only other option I can think of is using the address of the structure variable and offsetof() function to calculate the address of the parameter and then by memcpying the required bytes into a variable. In that case I need to keep the offset of each parameter somewhere, but that is not a problem.
I am looking for alternate options to do this. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
A large switch is a good viable option.
You might also play preprocessor tricks.
You could have a mystruct.def file containing
INTFIELD(int1)
CHARFIELD(char1)
INTFIELD(int2)
etc... Then you would include it several times; to declare the structure:
struct _myStruct {
#define INTFIELD(F) int F;
#define CHARFIELD(F) char F;
#include "mystruct.def"
#undef INTFIELD
#undef CHARFIELD
};
To declare the enumeration (using e_int1 instead of eINT1)
enum field_en {
#define INTFIELD(F) e_##F,
#define CHARFIELD(F) e_##F,
#include "mystruct.def"
#undef INTFIELD
#undef CHARFIELD
};
To implement the accessor,
int get_int(struct _myStruct*s, enum field_en f)
{
switch (f) {
#define INTFIELD(F) case e_##F: return s->F;
#define CHARFIELD(F) /*nothing*/
#include "mystruct.def"
#undef INTFIELD
#undef CHARFIELD
default: return 0;
}}
I don't claim this is better or more readable code, but that kind of programming style does appear in some C or C++ programs (e.g. GCC internals with its gcc/tree.def)
If you code is a very large code base, and you are ready to spend days of work (e.g. because you have a lot of such struct and don't want to play such tricks) you might consider making a GCC extension with MELT (a high-level domain specific language to extend GCC) to help you; you probably can make a MELT extension to generate the accessor functions for you.
You could also convince your boss to generate both the struct, the enum and the accessor functions from an ad-hoc descriptive file (using awk, python or whatever). GCC does such tricks for its options file, e.g. gcc/common.opt
At last, if the header containing the _myStruct is so sacred that you are not allowed to touch it, and if it is very cleanly formatted, you might make an ad-hoc (e.g. awk) script to get that declaration and process it.
NB a good compiler optimizes dense switch statements as indexed jumps which take constant time, even for hundred of cases.
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
struct S
{
int int1;
char char1;
int int2;
char char2;
long long1;
} myStruct = {12345, 'A', 321, 'B', -1L};
enum
{
eINT1 = offsetof(struct S, int1),
eCHAR1 = offsetof(struct S, char1),
eINT2 = offsetof(struct S, int2),
eCHAR2 = offsetof(struct S, char2),
eLONG1 = offsetof(struct S, long1),
} PARAMETER_ID;
char GetChar(int para_id)
{
return *((char*)((char *)&myStruct + para_id));
}
int GetInt(int para_id)
{
return *((int*)((char *)&myStruct + para_id));
}
long GetLong(int para_id)
{
return *((long*)((char *)&myStruct + para_id));
}
void main(void)
{
printf("offsetof int1 = %d\n", eINT1);
printf("offsetof char1 = %d\n", eCHAR1);
printf("offsetof int2 = %d\n", eINT2);
printf("offsetof char2 = %d\n", eCHAR2);
printf("offsetof long1 = %d\n", eLONG1);
printf("int1 = %d\n", GetInt (eINT1));
printf("char1 = %c\n", GetChar(eCHAR1));
printf("int2 = %d\n", GetInt (eINT2));
printf("char2 = %c\n", GetChar(eCHAR2));
printf("long1 = %ld\n", GetLong(eLONG1));
}
You partially answer your own question, offsetof is meant to be used for this very purpose. You have to consider struct padding/alignment. I think you are looking for something similar to this:
#include <stddef.h> // size_t, offsetof
#include <string.h> // memcpy
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
int int1;
char char1;
int int2;
int int50;
} myStruct;
typedef enum
{
eINT1,
eCHAR1,
eINT2,
eINT50,
ITEMS_IN_STRUCT
} myEnum;
static const size_t MYSTRUCT_MEMBER_OFFSET [ITEMS_IN_STRUCT] =
{
offsetof(myStruct, int1),
offsetof(myStruct, char1),
offsetof(myStruct, int2),
offsetof(myStruct, int50),
};
static const myStruct MS;
static const size_t MYSTRUCT_MEMBER_SIZE [ITEMS_IN_STRUCT] =
{
sizeof(MS.int1),
sizeof(MS.char1),
sizeof(MS.int2),
sizeof(MS.int50)
};
void myStruct_get_member (void* result, const myStruct* ms, myEnum id)
{
memcpy (result,
(char*)ms + MYSTRUCT_MEMBER_OFFSET[id],
MYSTRUCT_MEMBER_SIZE[id]);
}

How can I simulate OO-style polymorphism in C?

Is there a way to write OO-like code in the C programming language?
See also:
Can you write object-oriented code in C?
Object-orientation in C
Found by searching on "[c] oo".
The first C++ compiler ("C with classes") would actually generate C code, so that's definitely doable.
Basically, your base class is a struct; derived structs must include the base struct at the first position, so that a pointer to the "derived" struct will also be a valid pointer to the base struct.
typedef struct {
data member_x;
} base;
typedef struct {
struct base;
data member_y;
} derived;
void function_on_base(struct base * a); // here I can pass both pointers to derived and to base
void function_on_derived(struct derived * b); // here I must pass a pointer to the derived class
The functions can be part of the structure as function pointers, so that a syntax like p->call(p) becomes possible, but you still have to explicitly pass a pointer to the struct to the function itself.
Common approach is to define struct with pointers to functions. This defines 'methods' which can be called on any type. Subtypes then set their own functions in this common structure, and return it.
For example, in linux kernel, there is struct:
struct inode_operations {
int (*create) (struct inode *,struct dentry *,int, struct nameidata *);
struct dentry * (*lookup) (struct inode *,struct dentry *,
struct nameidata *);
...
};
Each registered type of filesystem then registers its own functions for create, lookup, and remaining functions. Rest of code can than use generic inode_operations:
struct inode_operations *i_op;
i_op -> create(...);
C++ is not that far from C.
Classes are structures with a hidden pointer to a table of function pointers called VTable. The Vtable itself is static.
When types point to Vtables with the same structure but where pointers point to other implementation, you get polymorphism.
It is recommended to encapsulate the calls logic in function that take the struct as parameter to avoid code clutter.
You should also encapsulcte structures instantiation and initialisation in functions (this is equivalent to a C++ constructor) and deletion (destructor in C++). These are good practice anyway.
typedef struct
{
int (*SomeFunction)(TheClass* this, int i);
void (*OtherFunction)(TheClass* this, char* c);
} VTable;
typedef struct
{
VTable* pVTable;
int member;
} TheClass;
To call the method:
int CallSomeFunction(TheClass* this, int i)
{
(this->pVTable->SomeFunction)(this, i);
}
I looked at everyone elses' answers and came up with this:
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
int (*get)(void* this);
void (*set)(void* this, int i);
int member;
} TheClass;
int Get(void* this)
{
TheClass* This = (TheClass*)this;
return This->member;
}
void Set(void* this, int i)
{
TheClass* This = (TheClass*)this;
This->member = i;
}
void init(TheClass* this)
{
this->get = &Get;
this->set = &Set;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
TheClass name;
init(&name);
(name.set)(&name, 10);
printf("%d\n", (name.get)(&name));
return 0;
}
I hope that answers some questions.
Appendix B of the article Open Reusable Object Models, by Ian Piumarta and Alessandro Warth of VPRI is an implementation of an Object model in GNU C, about 140 lines of code. It's a fascinating read !
Here's the uncached version of the macro that sends messages to objects, using a GNU extension to C (statement expression):
struct object;
typedef struct object *oop;
typedef oop *(*method_t)(oop receiver, ...);
//...
#define send(RCV, MSG, ARGS...) ({ \
oop r = (oop)(RCV); \
method_t method = _bind(r, (MSG)); \
method(r, ##ARGS); \
})
In the same doc, have a look at the object, vtable, vtable_delegated and symbol structs, and the _bind and vtable_lookup functions.
Cheers!
What I usually like to do is to wrap the structs in another which contain meta information about the wrapped class and then build visitor like function lists acting on the generic struct. The advantage of this approach is that you don't need to modify the existing structures and you can create visitors for any subset of structs.
Take the usual example:
typedef struct {
char call[7] = "MIAO!\n";
} Cat;
typedef struct {
char call[6] = "BAU!\n";
} Dog;
We can wrap the 2 strutures in this new structure:
typedef struct {
const void * animal;
AnimalType type;
} Animal;
The type can be a simple int but let's not be lazy:
typedef enum {
ANIMAL_CAT = 0,
ANIMAL_DOG,
ANIMAL_COUNT
} AnimalType;
It would be nice to have some wrapping functions:
Animal catAsAnimal(const Cat * c) {
return (Animal){(void *)c, ANIMAL_CAT};
}
Animal dogAsAnimal(const Dog * d) {
return (Animal){(void *)d, ANIMAL_DOG};
}
Now we can define our "visitor":
void catCall ( Animal a ) {
Cat * c = (Cat *)a.animal;
printf(c->call);
}
void dogCall ( Animal a ) {
Dog * d = (Dog *)a.animal;
printf(d->call);
}
void (*animalCalls[ANIMAL_COUNT])(Animal)={&catCall, &dogCall};
Then the actual usage will be:
Cat cat;
Dog dog;
Animal animals[2];
animals[0] = catAsAnimal(&cat);
animals[1] = dogAsAnimal(&dog);
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
Animal a = animals[i];
animalCalls[a.type](a);
}
The disadvantage of this approach is that you have to wrap the structures every time you want to use it as a generic type.
The file functions fopen, fclose, fread are examples of OO code in C. Instead of the private data in class, they work on the FILE structure which is used to encapsulate the data and the C functions acts as an member class functions.
http://www.amazon.com/File-Structures-Object-Oriented-Approach-C/dp/0201874016
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
int x;
int z;
} base;
typedef struct {
base;
int y;
int x;
} derived;
void function_on_base( base * a) // here I can pass both pointers to derived and to base
{
printf("Class base [%d]\n",a->x);
printf("Class base [%d]\n",a->z);
}
void function_on_derived( derived * b) // here I must pass a pointer to the derived class
{
printf("Class derived [%d]\n",b->y);
printf("Class derived [%d]\n",b->x);
}
int main()
{
derived d;
base b;
printf("Teste de poliformismo\n");
b.x = 2;
d.y = 1;
b.z = 3;
d.x = 4;
function_on_base(&b);
function_on_base(&d);
function_on_derived(&b);
function_on_derived(&d);
return 0;
}
The output was:
Class base [3]
Class base [1]
Class base [4]
Class derived [2]
Class derived [3]
Class derived [1]
Class derived [4]
so it works, its a polymorphic code.
UncleZeiv explained about it at the beginning.
From Wikipedia:
In programming languages and type theory, polymorphism (from Greek πολύς, polys, "many, much" and μορφή, morphē, "form, shape") is the provision of a single interface to entities of different types.
So I would say the only way to implement it in C is by using variadic arguments along with some (semi)automatic type info management.
For example in C++ you can write (sorry for trivialness):
void add( int& result, int a1, int a2 );
void add( float& result, float a1, float a2 );
void add( double& result, double a1, double a2 );
In C, among other solutions, the best you can do is something like this:
int int_add( int a1, int a2 );
float float_add( float a1, fload a2 );
double double_add( double a1, double a2 );
void add( int typeinfo, void* result, ... );
Then you need:
to implement the "typeinfo" with enums/macros
to implement the latter function with stdarg.h stuff
to say goodbye to C static type checking
I am almost sure that any other implementation of polymorphism should look much like this very one.
The above answers, instead, seems to try to address inheritance more than polymorphism!
In order too build OO functionality in C, you can look at previous answers.
But, (as it has been asked in other questions redirected to this one) if you want to understand what polymorphism is, by examples in C language. Maybe I am wrong, but I can't think of anything as easy to understand as C pointers arithmetic. In my opinion, pointer arithmetic is inherently polymorphic in C. In the following example the same function (method in OO), namely the addition (+), will produce a different behavior depending on the properties of the input structures.
Example:
double a*;
char str*;
a=(double*)malloc(2*sizeof(double));
str=(char*)malloc(2*sizeof(char));
a=a+2; // make the pointer a, point 2*8 bytes ahead.
str=str+2; // make the pointer str, point 2*1 bytes ahead.
Disclaimer: I am very new at C and very much looking forward to being corrected and learn from other user's comments, or even completely erase this answer, should it be wrong. Many thanks,
A very crude example of simple function overloading, much can be achieved using variadic macros.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define SCOPE_EXIT(X) __attribute__((cleanup (X)))
struct A
{
int a;
};
struct B
{
int a, b;
};
typedef struct A * A_id;
typedef struct B * B_id;
A_id make_A()
{
return (A_id)malloc(sizeof(struct A));
}
void destroy_A(A_id * ptr)
{
free(*ptr);
*ptr = 0;
}
B_id make_B()
{
return (B_id)malloc(sizeof(struct B));
}
void destroy_B(B_id * ptr)
{
free(*ptr);
*ptr = 0;
}
void print_a(A_id ptr)
{
printf("print_a\n");
}
void print_b(B_id ptr)
{
printf("print_b\n");
}
#define print(X) _Generic((X),\
A_id : print_a, \
B_id : print_b\
)(X)
int main()
{
A_id aa SCOPE_EXIT(destroy_A) = make_A();
print(aa);
B_id bb SCOPE_EXIT(destroy_B) = make_B();
print(bb);
return 0;
}
Different implementations of functions is one of the key features of polymorphism, so you must use function pointers.
animal.h
typedef struct Animal {
const void (*jump)(struct Animal *self);
} Animal;
pig.h
#include "animal.h"
typedef struct {
Animal animal_interface;
char *name;
} Pig;
Pig *NewPig(char *name);
pig.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "pig.h"
static void PigJump(Animal *_self) {
Pig *self = (Pig *)_self;
printf("%s Pig jump.\n", self->name);
}
Pig *NewPig(char *name) {
Pig *self = (Pig *)malloc(sizeof(Pig));
self->animal_interface.jump = PigJump;
self->name = name;
return self;
}
main.c
#include "pig.h"
int main() {
Animal *a = &(NewPig("Peppa")->animal_interface);
Animal *b = &(NewPig("Daddy")->animal_interface);
a->jump(a);
b->jump(b);
return 0;
}
Output:
Peppa Pig jump.
Daddy Pig jump.
I have successfully achieved polymorphism in C so I felt like sharing my code. I have a struct Pas which "inherits" from struct Zivotinja (Pas means Dog, Zivotinja means Animal BTW).
In both Zivotinja and Pas the first field of the struct is the vTable.
Zivotinja has a vTable of the type ZivotinjaVTable, Pas has a vTable of the type PasVTable. So, we have
typedef struct ZivotinjaVTableStruct{
void (*ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji)(void *zivotinja);
int (*dajGodine) (void *zivotinja);
} ZivotinjaVTable;
typedef struct ZivotinjaStruct{
ZivotinjaVTable *vTable;
int godine;
} Zivotinja;
and we have
typedef struct PasVTableStruct{
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;
} Pas;
Don't worry about the names of the functions, that's not relevant.
Anyway, I then wrote functions for both of these vTables. How did I connect the vTables with the functions that I wrote for them? I created a global struct both for the ZivotinjaVTable and for the PasVTable. I created vTableZivotinjaGlobal and vTablePasGlobal which have function pointers of the functions that I wrote. Then I created functions Pas_new() and Zivotinja_new() which initialize vTable fields to point to these global vTable structs.
Notice the important details in the code above. The important thing is that vTables are the first fields in their structs. That way, when we write
Zivotinja *z = (Zivotinja*) Pas_new(/* init variables */);
z->vTable->someMethod(z);
the compiler knows that vTable is the first field in the Zivotinja struct, so when compiler reads z->vTable, it will go to the memory address to which the first 8 bytes of your struct z point to (or first 4 bytes, if you have a 32bit PC, but that is irrelevant for the point that I am making).
This is how I tricked the computer, since this z pointer is actually pointing to a Pas struct and since PasVTable *vTable is the first field of the Pas struct, after z->vTable we will actually be at the memory address of the pasVTableGlobal, instead of being at the memory address of the zivotinjaVTableGlobal.
Now, another very important detail, someMethod needs to be at the same spot both in the ZivotinjaVTable and in the PasVTable. What I mean is - if someMethod is the 2nd field in the ZivotinjaVTable then it needs to be the second field of the PasVTable. Why?
Because let's say someMethod is the second field of the ZivotinjaVTable, when the compiler reads z->vTable->someMethod(z); computer will take the second 8 bytes in the memory address z->vTable and it will put those 8 bytes into the instruction pointer (or second 4 bytes if you have a 32 bit PC, but again, this is not relevant). Computer "thinks" it is putting the second 8 bytes of the ZivotinjaVTable into the instruction pointer, but in reality it is putting the second 8 bytes of the PasVTable into the instruction pointer.
This is how the trick works, because the function that we want the computer to execute is also the second field (but of the PasVTable, not ZivotinjaVTable), the computer will "think" that it is executing the second function of the ZivotinjaVTable, but in reality it will be executing the second function of the PasVTable.
So, to recapitulate, vTables should be on the same spot in your structs and your structs should have corresponding methods at the same spots in their vTables.
Same goes for other fields of your structs. The second field of the Zivotinja struct matches the second field of the Pas struct, that way when you write
animal_which_is_actually_a_dog->age = 10;
You will trick the compiler in basically the same way as with vTables (you will trick it in the same way that I have described above).
Here is the entire code, in the main function you can write the following
Zivotinja *zivotinja = Zivotinja_new(10);
zivotinja->vTable->ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji(zivotinja);
Zivotinja *pas = Pas_new_sve(5, 50, "Milojko");
pas->vTable->ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji(pas);
int godine = pas->vTable->dajGodine(pas);
printf("The dog which was casted to an animal is %d years old.\n", godine);
Then this is the code for Zivotinja
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;
}
struct ZivotinjaVTableStruct zivotinjaVTableGlobal = {ispisiPodatkeOOvojZivotinji, dajGodineOveZivotinje};
Zivotinja* Zivotinja_new(int godine){
ZivotinjaVTable *vTable = &zivotinjaVTableGlobal;
Zivotinja *z = (Zivotinja*) malloc(sizeof(Zivotinja));
z->vTable = vTable;
z->godine = godine;
}
And finally, the code for Pas
typedef struct PasVTableStruct{
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;
} Pas;
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;
}
struct PasVTableStruct pasVTableGlobal = {
ispisiPodatkeOPsu,
dajGodinePsa,
daLiJeVlasnikStariji
};
Pas* Pas_new(int godine){
Pas *z = (Pas*) malloc(sizeof(Pas));
z->vTable = (&pasVTableGlobal);
}
Pas *Pas_new_sve(int godine, int godineVlasnika, char* imeVlasnika){
Pas *pas = (Pas*) malloc(sizeof(Pas));
pas->godine = godine;
pas->godineVlasnika = godineVlasnika;
pas->vlasnik = imeVlasnika;
pas->vTable = &pasVTableGlobal;
}

Resources