I am doing a stimulation of dead-code remover in a very simpler manner.
For that my Idea is to,
Step 1: Read the input C-Program line by line and store it in a doubly linked-list or Array.(Since deletion and insertion will be easier than in file operations).
Doubt:Is my approach correct? If so, How to minimize traversing a Linked-List each time.
Step 2: Analyzing of the read strings will be done in parallel, and tables are created to maintain variables names and their details, functions and their calls,etc.,
Step 3: Searching will be done for each entries in the variable table, and the variables will be replaced by its that time's value(as it has).
(E.g.)
i=0;
if(i==3) will be replaced by if(0==3).
But on situation like..
get(a);
i=a;
if(i){}
here,'i' will not be replaced since it depends on another variable. 'a' will not be replaced since it depends on user input.
Doubt: if user input is,
if(5*5+6){print hello;} ,
it surely will be unnecessary check. How can i solve this expression to simplify the code as
{
print hello;
}
Step 4: Strings will be searched for if(0),while(0) etc., and using stack, the action block is removed. if(0){//this will be removed*/}
Step 5:(E.g) function foo(){/**/} ... if(0) foo(); ..., Once all the dead codes are removed, foo()'s entry in the function table is checked to get no.of.times it gets referred in the code. If it is 0, that function has to be removed using the same stack method.
Step 6: In the remaining functions, the lines below the return statements (if any) are removed except the '}'. This removal is done till the end of the function. The end of the function is identified using stack.
Step 7: And I will assume that my dead-free code is ready now. Store the linked-list or array in an output file.
My Questions are..
1.Whether my idea will be meaningful? or will it be implementable? How
can I improve this algorithm?
2.While i am trying to implement this idea, I have to deal more with string
manipulations rather than removing dead-codes. Is any way to reduce
string manipulations in this algorithm.
Do not do it this way. C is a free-form language, and trying to process it line-by-line will result in supporting a subset of C that is so ridiculously restricted that it doesn't deserve the name.
What you need to do is to write a proper parser. There is copious literature about that out there. Find out which textbook your school uses for its compiler-construction course, and work through that -- or just take the course! Only when you've got the parser down should you even begin to consider semantics. Then do your work on abstract syntax trees instead of strings. Alternatively, find an already written and tested parser for C that you can reuse (but you'll still need to learn quite a bit in order to integrate it with your own processing).
If you end up writing the parser yourself, and it's only for your own edification, consider using a simpler language than C as your subject. Even though C at is core is fairly compact as languages go, getting all details of the declaration syntax right is surprisingly tricky, and will probably detract you from what you're actually interested in. And the presence of the preprocessor is an issue in itself which can make it very difficult to design meaningful source-to-source transformations.
By the way, the transformations you sketch are known in the trade as "constant propagation", or (in a more ambitious variants that will clone functions and loop bodies when they have differing constant inputs) "partial evaluation". Googling those terms may be interesting.
Related
For a certain time now, I'm looking to build a logging framework in C (not C++!), but for small microcontrollers or devices with a small footprint of some sort. For this, I've had the idea of hashing the strings that are being logged to a certain value and just saving the hashed value with the timestamp instead of the complete ASCII string. The hash can then be correlated with a 'database' file that would be generated from an external process that parses the strings out of the C source files and saves the logged strings along with the hash value.
After doing a little bit of research, this idea is not new, but I do not find an implementation of this idea in C. In other languages, this idea has been worked out, but that is not the goal of my exercise. An example may be this talk where the same concept has been worked out in C++: youtube.com/watch?v=Dt0vx-7e_B0
Some of the requirements that I've set myself for this library are the following:
as portable C code as possible
COMPILE TIME optimization/hashing for the string hash conversion, it should be equivalent to just printf("%d\n", hashed_value) for a single log statement. (Assuming no parameters/arguments for this particular logging statement).
arguments can be passed to the logging statement similar to the printf function.
user can define their own output function (being console, file descriptor, sending the data directly over an UART connection,...)
fast to run!! fast to compile is nice to have, but it should not be terribly slow.
very easy to use, no very complicated API to use the library.
But to achieve this in C, what is a good approach? I've tried several things now, but do not seem to have found a good method of achieving this.
An overview of things I've tried so far, along with the drawbacks are:
Full pre-processor string hashing: did get it working, but the compile time is terribly slow. Also, this code does not feel to be very portable over multiple C compilers.
Semi pre-processor string hashing: The idea was to generate a hash for each string and make an external header file with the defines in of each string with their hash value. The problem here is that I cannot figure out a way of converting the string to the correct define preprocessor value.
Letting go of the default logging macro with a string pointer: Instead of working with the most used method of LOG_DEBUG("Some logging statement"), converting it with an external parser to /*LOG_DEBUG("Some logging statement") */ LOG_RAW(45). This solves the problem of hashing the string since the hash will be replaced by the external parser with the correct hash, but is not the cleanest to read since the original statement will be a comment.
Also expanding this idea to take care of arguments proved to be tricky. How to take care of multiple types of variables as efficiently as possible?
I've tried some other methods but all without success. Especially when I want to add arguments to log the value of a variable, for example, it gets very complicated, and I do not get the required result...
I'm writing an intepreter for a new programming language. The language's syntax is very simple and the "system library" commands are treated as simple identifiers (even if is no special construct, but a function like everything else - only pre-defined internally). And no, this is not yet-another-one of the 1 million Lisp's out there.
The question is:
Should I have the Lexer catch them, or should I do it in the AST-construction code?
What I've done so far:
I tried recognizing all of them in my Lexer script, and they are a lot already - over 200. I send the same token back to Bison (SYSTEM_CMD) only with a different value (basically a numeric index pointing to the array of system commands where they are all stored).
As an approach, I think this makes it much faster than having to look up every single one of them in a hash and see if it's a system command.
The thing is the Lexer is getting quite huge (in term of resulting binary filesize I mean) rather fast. And I obviously don't like it.
Given that my focus is something both lightning-fast (I'm already quite good with that) and small enough to be embedded, what would be the most recommended approach?
I am currently working on a command line interface for a particle simulator. Its parser takes reads input in the following format:
[command] [argument]* (-[flag] [flag argument])
Currently, the command is sent through a conditional block, compared to various known commands and its corresponding data packet is sent to the matching function. This, however, seems clunky, inefficient and inelegant.
I am thinking about using a hashmap instead, with a string representation of a command as the key and a function pointer as the value. The function referenced would then be sent a data packet containing arguments, flags, etc.
Is a hash map overkill in this situation? Does the extra infrastructure required to implement one outweigh the potential benefits? I am aiming for speed, elegance, function, and, since this is an open-source project, extensibility.
Thanks for the help.
You might want to consider the Ternary Search Tree. It has good performnce, efficient use of storage; and you don't need a hash function or a collision strategy.
The linked Bentley/Sedgwick article is a very thorough-yet-readable explanation of the accompanying C source.
I've been using a TST for name-lookup in the past 3 versions of my postscript interpreter. The only changes that have been needed have been due to changes in memory management. Here's a version I modified (lightly) to use explicit pointers. I use yet another version in my postscript interpreter, any of the xpost2*.zip versions, in the file core.c, which uses byte-offsets for pointers (have to be added to the user-memory byte-pointer to yield a real pointer).
Speed gained will probably be minimal, but you could hash the command to convert it to a number and then use a switch statement. Faster than a hash map.
Say I have a C program which wants to call a very simple Lua function with two strings (let's say two comma separated lists, returning true if the lists intersect at all, false if not).
The obvious way to do this is to push them onto the stack with lua_pushstring, which works fine, however, from the doc it looks like lua_pushstring but makes a copy of the string for Lua to work with.
That means that to cross over to the Lua function is going to require two string copies which I could avoid by rewriting the Lua function in C. Is there any way to arrange things so that the existing C strings could be reused on the Lua side for the sake of performance (or would the strcpy cost pale into insignificance anyway)?
From my investigation so far (my first couple of hours looking seriously at Lua), lite userdata seems like the sort of thing I want, but in the form of a string.
No. You cannot forbid Lua making a copy of the string when you call lua_pushstring().
Reason: Unless, the internal garbage collector would not be able to free unused memory (like your 2 input strings).
Even if you use the light user data functionality (which would be an overkill in this case), you would have to use lua_pushstring() later, when the Lua program asks for the string.
Hmm.. You could certainly write some C functions so that the work is being done on the C side, but as the other answer points out, you might get stuck pushing the string or sections of it in anyways.
Of note: Lua only stores strings once when they are brought in. i.e.: if I have 1 string containing "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" and I push it into Lua, and there are no other string objects that contain that string, it will make a new copy of it. If, on the other hand, I've already inserted it, you'll just get a pointer to that first string so equality checks are pretty cheap. Importing those strings can be a little expensive, I would guess, if this is done at a high frequency, however comparisons, again, are cheap.
I would try profiling what you're implementing and see if the performance is up to your expectations or not.
As the Lua Performance Tips document (which I recommend reading if you are thinking about maximizing performance with Lua), the two programming maxims related to optimizing are:
Rule #1: Don’t do it.
Rule #2: Don’t do it yet. (for experts only)
(in c90) (linux)
input:
sqrt(2 - sin(3*A/B)^2.5) + 0.5*(C*~(D) + 3.11 +B)
a
b /*there are values for a,b,c,d */
c
d
input:
cos(2 - asin(3*A/B)^2.5) +cos(0.5*(C*~(D)) + 3.11 +B)
a
b /*there are values for a,b,c,d */
c
d
input:
sqrt(2 - sin(3*A/B)^2.5)/(0.5*(C*~(D)) + sin(3.11) +ln(B))
/*max lenght of formula is 250 characters*/
a
b /*there are values for a,b,c,d */
c /*each variable with set of floating numbers*/
d
As you can see infix formula in the input depends on user.
My program will take a formula and n-tuples value.
Then it calculate the results for each value of a,b,c and d.
If you wonder I am saying ;outcome of program is graph.
/sometimes,I think i will take input and store in string.
then another idea is arise " I should store formula in the struct"
but ı don't know how I can construct
the code on the base of structure./
really, I don't know way how to store the formula in program code so that
I can do my job.
can you show me?
/* a,b,c,d is letters
cos,sin,sqrt,ln is function*/
You need to write a lexical analyzer to tokenize the input (break it into its component parts--operators, punctuators, identifiers, etc.). Inevitably, you'll end up with some sequence of tokens.
After that, there are a number of ways to evaluate the input. One of the easiest ways to do this is to convert the expression to postfix using the shunting yard algorithm (evaluation of a postfix expression is Easy with a capital E).
You should look up "abstract syntax trees" and "expression trees" as well as "lexical analysis", "syntax", "parse", and "compiler theory". Reading text input and getting meaning from it is quite difficult for most things (though we often try to make sure we have simple input).
The first step in generating a parser is to write down the grammar for your input language. In this case your input language is some Mathematical expressions, so you would do something like:
expr => <function_identifier> ( stmt )
( stmt )
<variable_identifier>
<numerical_constant>
stmt => expr <operator> stmt
(I haven't written a grammar like this {look up BNF and EBNF} in a few years so I've probably made some glaring errors that someone else will kindly point out)
This can get a lot more complicated depending on how you handle operator precedence (multiply and device before add and subtract type stuff), but the point of the grammar in this case is to help you to write a parser.
There are tools that will help you do this (yacc, bison, antlr, and others) but you can do it by hand as well. There are many many ways to go about doing this, but they all have one thing in common -- a stack. Processing a language such as this requires something called a push down automaton, which is just a fancy way of saying something that can make decisions based on new input, a current state, and the top item of the stack. The decisions that it can make include pushing, popping, changing state, and combining (turning 2+3 into 5 is a form of combining). Combining is usually referred to as a production because it produces a result.
Of the various common types of parsers you will almost certainly start out with a recursive decent parser. They are usually written directly in a general purpose programming language, such as C. This type of parser is made up of several (often many) functions that call each other, and they end up using the system stack as the push down automaton stack.
Another thing you will need to do is to write down the different types of words and operators that make up your language. These words and operators are called lexemes and represent the tokens of your language. I represented these tokens in the grammar <like_this>, except for the parenthesis which represented themselves.
You will most likely want to describe your lexemes with a set of regular expressions. You should be familiar with these if you use grep, sed, awk, or perl. They are a way of describing what is known as a regular language which can be processed by something known as a Finite State Automaton. That is just a fancy way of saying that it is a program that can make a decision about changing state by considering only its current state and the next input (the next character of input). For example part of your lexical description might be:
[A-Z] variable-identifier
sqrt function-identifier
log function-identifier
[0-9]+ unsigned-literal
+ operator
- operator
There are also tools which can generate code for this. lex which is one of these is highly integrated with the parser generating program yacc, but since you are trying to learn you can also write your own tokenizer/lexical analysis code in C.
After you have done all of this (it will probably take you quite a while) you will need to have your parser build a tree to represent the expressions and grammar of the input. In the simple case of expression evaluation (like writing a simple command line calculator program) you could have your parser evaluate the formula as it processed the input, but for your case, as I understand it, you will need to make a tree (or Reverse Polish representation, but trees are easier in my opinion).
Then after you have read the values for the variables you can traverse the tree and calculate an actual number.
Possibly the easiest thing to do is use an embedded language like Lua or Python, for both of which the interpreter is written in C. Unfortunately, if you go the Lua route you'll have to convert the binary operations to function calls, in which case it's likely easier to use Python. So I'll go down that path.
If you just want to output the result to the console this is really easy and you won't even have to delve too deep in Python embedding. Since, then you only have to write a single line program in Python to output the value.
Here is the Python code you could use:
exec "import math;A=<vala>;B=<valb>;C=<valc>;D=<vald>;print <formula>".replace("^", "**").replace("log","math.log").replace("ln", "math.log").replace("sin","math.sin").replace("sqrt", "math.sqrt").replace("cos","math.cos")
Note the replaces are done in Python, since I'm quite sure it's easier to do this in Python and not C. Also note, that if you want to use xor('^') you'll have to remove .replace("^","**") and use ** for powering.
I don't know enough C to be able to tell you how to generate this string in C, but after you have, you can use the following program to run it:
#include <Python.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
char* progstr = "...";
Py_Initialize();
PyRun_SimpleString(progstr);
Py_Finalize();
return 0;
}
You can look up more information about embedding Python in C here: Python Extension and Embedding Documentation
If you need to use the result of the calculation in your program there are ways to read this value from Python, but you'll have to read up on them yourself.
Also, you should review your posts to SO and other posts regarding Binary Trees. Implement this using a tree structure. Traverse as infix to evaluate. There have been some excellent answers to tree questions.
If you need to store this (for persistance as in a file), I suggest XML. Parsing XML should make you really appreciate how easy your assignment is.
Check out this post:
http://blog.barvinograd.com/2011/03/online-function-grapher-formula-parser-part-2/
It uses ANTLR library for parsing math expression, this one specifically uses JavaScript output but ANTLR has many outputs such as Java, Ruby, C++, C# and you should be able to use the grammar in the post for any output language.