I'm just learning D. Looks like a great language, but I can't find any info about the file I/O functions. I may be being dim (I'm good at that!), so could somebody point me in the right direction, please?
Thanks
Basically, you use the File structure from std.stdio.
import std.stdio;
void writeTest() {
auto f = File("1.txt", "w"); // create a file for writing,
scope(exit) f.close(); // and close the file when we're done.
// (optional)
f.writeln("foo"); // write 2 lines of text to it.
f.writeln("bar");
}
void readTest() {
auto f = File("1.txt"); // open file for reading,
scope(exit) f.close(); // and close the file when we're done.
// (optional)
foreach (str; f.byLine) // read every line in the file,
writeln(":: ", str); // and print it out.
}
void main() {
writeTest();
readTest();
}
What about the std.stdio module?
For stuff related specifically to files (file attributes, reading/writing a file in one go), look in std.file. For stuff that generalizes to standard streams (stdin, stdout, stderr) look in std.stdio. You can use std.stdio.File for both physical disk files and standard streams. Don't use std.stream, as this is scheduled for deprecation and doesn't work with ranges (D's equivalent to iterators).
Personally I find C-style file I/O favourable. I find it one of the most clear to use I/O's, especially if you work with binary files. Even in C++ I don't use streams, beside added safety it's just plain clumsy (much as I prefer printf over streams, excellent how D has a type-safe printf!).
Related
These terms may not be 100% accurate, but I'm using the GCC compiler and POSIX library. I have C code compiled with the SQLite amalgamation file to a single executable.
In the user interface that exchanges JSON messages with the C program, I'd like to make it possible for users to copy the SQLite database files they create through the C program, and copy a full directory/folder.
Thus far, I've been able to rename and move files and folders programmatically.
I've read many questions and answers here, at Microsoft's C runtime library, and other places but I must be missing the fundamental points. I'm using regular old C, not C++ or C#.
My question is are there POSIX functions similar to rename(), _mkdir(), rmdir(), remove(), _stat(), that allow for programmatic copying of files and folders in Windows and Linux?
If not, can one just make a new folder and/or file and fread/fwrite the bytes from the original file to the new file?
I am primarily concerned with copying SQLite database files, although I wouldn't mind knowing the answer in general also.
Is this answer an adequate method?
Is the system() function a poor method? It seems to work quite well. However, it took awhile to figure out how to stop the messages, such as "copied 2 files" from being sent to stdout and shutting down the requesting application since it's not well-formed JSON. This answer explains how and has a link to Microsoft "Using command redirection operators". A /q in xcopy may or may not be necessary also, but certainly didn't do the job alone.
Thank you very much for any direction you may be able to provide.
The question that someone suggested as an answer and placed the little submission box on this question is one that I had already linked to in my question. I don't mean to be rude but, if it had answered my question, I would not have written this one. Thank you whoever you are for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it.
I don't see how that would be a better option than using system() because with the right parameters all the sub-directories and files of a single parent folder can be copied in one statement without having to iterate through all of them manually. Is there any reason why it would not be better to use system() apart from the fact that code will need to be different for each OS?
Handling errors are a bit different because system() doesn't return an errno but an exit code; however, the errors can be redirected from stderr to a file and pulled from there, when necessary
rename(): posix
_mkdir(): not posix. You want mkdir which is. mkdir takes two arguments, the second of which should usually be 077.
rmdir(): posix
remove(): posix
_stat(): not posix, you want stat() which is.
_stat and _mkdir are called as such on the Windows C library because they're not quite compatible with the modern Unix calls. _mkdir is missing an argument, and _stat looks like a very old version of the Unix call. You'll have trouble on Windows with files larger than 2GB.
You could do:
#ifdef _WIN32
int mkdir(const char *path, int mode) { return _mkdir(path); } /* In the original C we could have #defined this but that doesn't work anymore */
#define stat _stat64
#endif
but if you do so, test it like crazy.
In the end, you're going to be copying stuff with stdio; this loop works. (beware the linked answer; it has bugs that'll bite ya.)
int copyfile(const char *src, const char *dst)
{
const int bufsz = 65536;
char *buf = malloc(bufsz);
if (!buf) return -1; /* like mkdir, rmdir, return 0 for success, -1 for failure */
FILE *hin = fopen(src, "rb");
if (!hin) { free(buf); return -1; }
FILE *hout = fopen(dst, "wb");
if (!hout) { free(buf); fclose(hin); return -1; }
size_t buflen;
while ((buflen = fread(buf, 1, bufsz)) > 0) {
if (buflen != fwrite(buf, 1, buflen)) {
fclose(hout);
fclose(hin);
free(buf);
return -1; /* IO error writing data */
}
}
free(buf);
int r = ferror(hin) ? -1 : 0; /* check if fread had indicated IO error on input */
fclose(hin);
return r | (fclose(hout) ? -1 : 0); /* final case: check if IO error flushing buffer -- don't omit this it really can happen; calling `fflush()` won't help. */
}
I fully understand that tmpnam has been deprecated and would like to remove it from a function in an existing file that prevents me from building the project. However, since I am not familiar with it and am unable to experiment with it, I am not sure how best to replicate this functionality.
if ((myfileName = tmpnam(NULL)) == NULL) { return APP_ERROR }
I read the information on tmpnam here but the best I can come up with is to use something like:
if (tmpnam_r == NULL) { return APP_ERROR }
However, since I cannot compile with tmpnam and am unfamiliar with the code in question, I am not confident in properly capturing the original intent.
As best as I can tell, this appears to be testing if the file exists, and if not, simply returns an error, as the next step consists of copying content into myfileName, which should presumably exist following the above check.
The problem with tmpnam() is that it generates a name that is unique and does not exist when it returns, but that name is not guaranteed to be unique by the time you use it in a call to fopen() (or open()).
The key feature of the mkstemp() function is that it creates and opens a file with the new name, so that there isn't a TOCTOU (time of check, time of use) vulnerability. This cuts down the avenues for security risks.
Code designed to use tmpnam() usually needs a file name, so using tmpfile() is usually not an option; it doesn't provide a way to find the file name. If you don't need the file name then using tmpfile() works well and is Standard C, so it is widely available.
The specific case of tmpnam() and tmpnam_s() is interesting. Although tmpnam_s() avoids some string-related problems, it does not change the behaviour of tmpnam() in the way that causes the security problems addressed by mkstemp(). So, independent of the portability issues that arise from attempting to use tmpnam_s() (or any of the other *_s() functions from Annex K of the C11 or C18 standards), it doesn't fix the problem that causes tmpnam() to be deprecated.
You can arrange to use mkstemp() instead of tmpnam() and close the file descriptor before continuing with the other code:
tmpnam(name); // Replace this
int fd = mkstemp(name); // With this…
if (fd >= 0)
close(fd);
It's not great, but it does ensure the file is created, which reduces the security vulnerabilities a bit, but not as much as using the file descriptor directly. You could (should) wrap that into a function.
Note that the mkstemp() returns a file descriptor; if you want a file stream, you can use fdopen() to create a file stream from the file descriptor. And if that fails, you probably want to remove the file (with remove() or unlink()).
So, that gives you a need for fmkstemp():
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* mkstemp() */
#include <unistd.h> /* close() */
extern FILE *fmkstemp(char *name); /* Add to a convenient header file */
FILE *fmkstemp(char *name)
{
int fd = mkstemp(name);
FILE *fp = 0;
if (fd >= 0)
{
fp = fdopen(fd, "w+");
if (fp == 0)
{
close(fd);
unlink(name);
}
}
return(fp);
}
Note that after you've used fmkstemp(), you use fclose() to close the file stream (and, behind the scenes, that closes the file descriptor).
Don't forget to remove the temporary file before exit. That's where a function registered with atexit() or one of its variants can be useful.
Is there is a way to write to txt file from an e (hardware language) code and then to write to the same file from a C code ?
In general, access to files is controlled by the Operating System.
Any number of programs, running on any number of separate processes can access the same file if they use the locking & synchronization methods provided by the Operating System.
This will typically involve opening the file in a Shared or Exclusive mode, opening it for Reading, Writing or both, and setting buffering options. It may also involve sharing a lock-mechanism, such as a mutex, between different programs.
You can have C code like following:
static FILE *f = NULL;
void cwrite() {
if (f == NULL)
f = fopen("ec.txt", "a");
fprintf(f, "print from C\n");
}
And then use it from e together with e write:
routine cwrite();
extend sys {
!f: file;
run() is also {
f = files.open("ec.txt", "a", "Text file");
for i from 0 to 100 {
files.write(f, "print from e");
cwrite();
};
};
};
However, the tricky part is that on linux level, fopen in C and files.open in e create separate file descriptors for exactly the same file, and this can lead to very weird result.
To make it synced, you should either keep your file closed when not writing (which might mean unneeded performance overhead), or really write only from one language, and when you need to write from another - send it as a string to the one that actually does that, you only need to define some simple API for that.
I want to write audio data to stdout, preferably using libsndfile. When I output WAV to /dev/stdout I manage to write the header, but then I get an error
Error : could not open file : /dev/stdout
System error : Illegal seek.
I assume this is related to http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/FAQ.html#Q017, some file formats cannot be written without seeks. However, when I try to output SF_FORMAT_AU | SF_FORMAT_PCM_16 instead, I still get the same Illegal seek error.
Are there any audio file formats that can be written completely without seeking?
I'm using Linux.
EDIT: It might be obvious, but RAW format works (without seeking). Unfortunately I need a format that has meta information like sample rate.
You should finish reading that FAQ... the link you give us has all the answers.
However, there is at least one file format (AU) which is specifically designed to be written to a pipe.
So use AU instead of WAV.
Also make sure that you open the SNDFILE object with sf_open_fd, and not sf_open_virtual (or sf_open):
SNDFILE* sf_open_fd (int fd, int mode, SF_INFO *sfinfo, int close_desc) ;
SNDFILE* sf_open_virtual (SF_VIRTUAL_IO *sfvirtual, int mode, SF_INFO *sfinfo,
void *user_data) ;
If you use sf_open_fd, then libsndfile will use fstat to determine whether the file descriptor is a pipe or a regular file. If you use sf_open_virtual or sf_open, it will assume that the file is seekable. This appears to be a flaw in libsndfile, but you should be using sf_open_fd anyway.
Footnote: Don't open /dev/stdout to get standard output; it is already open and there is no need to open it again. Use file descriptor STDOUT_FILENO.
Ended outputting an "infinite" wav header, and then writing raw PCM data for as long as the audio lasts. Not really valid, but most players seem to understand anyway.
The wav header is here, in case anyone wants it: https://gist.github.com/1428176
You could write to a temp file (perhaps in /tmp), let the libsnd seek to modify the .wav(RIFF) header of the temp file, and then, after libsnd has closed the file, stream the temp file out to stdout.
How can one create a new file descriptor from an existing file descriptor such that the new descriptor does not share the same internal file structure/entry in the file table? Specifically attributes such as file offset (and preferably permissions, sharing and modes) should not be shared between the new and old file descriptors.
Under both Windows and Linux, dup() will duplicate the file descriptor, but both descriptors still point to the same file structure in the process' file table. Any seeking on either descriptor will adjust the position for the other descriptors as well.
Note
I've since received answers for both Windows and Linux and adjusted the question a little too often, which has made it difficult for people to answer. I'll adjust my votes and accept the cleanest answer which covers both Windows and Linux. Apologies to all, I'm still new to the SO paradigm. Thanks for the great answers!
So basically, what you really want is to be given a file descriptor, and basically open the same file over again, to get a separate position, sharing, mode, etc. And you want to do this on Windows (where the "file descriptor" is basically a foreign object, not something used directly by the OS or the run-time library at all.
Amazingly enough, there is a way to do that, at least with MS VC++. All but two steps of it use only the Win32 API so porting to other compilers/libraries should be fairly reasonable (I think most supply versions of those two functions). Those are for converting a Unix-style file descriptor to a native Win32 file handle, and converting a native Win32 file handle back to a Unix-style file descriptor.
Convert file-descriptor to native file handle with _get_osfhandle()
Get a name for the file with GetFileInformationByHandleEx(FILE_NAME_INFO)1
Use CreateFile to open a new handle to that file
Create a file descriptor for that handle with _open_osfhandle()
Et voilà, we have a new file descriptor referring to the same file, but with its own permissions, position, etc.
Toward the end of your question, you make it sound like you also want the "permissions", but that doesn't seem to make any real sense -- the permissions attach to the file itself, not to how the file is opened, so opening or reopening the file has no effect on the file's permissions. If you really want to know the, you can get it with GetFileInformationByHandle, but be aware that file permissions in Windows are quite a bit different from the (traditional) file permissions in Unix. Unix has owner/group/world permissions on all files, and most systems also have ACLs (though there's more variation in how they work). Windows either has no permissions at all (e.g., files on FAT or FAT32) or else uses ACLs (e.g., files on NTFS), but nothing that's really equivalent to the traditional owner/group/world permissions most people are accustomed to on Unix.
Perhaps you're using "permissions" to refer to whether the file was open for reading, writing, or both. Getting that is considerably uglier than any of the preceding. The problem is that most of it is in the library, not Win32, so there's probably no way to do it that will be even close to portable between compilers. With MS VC++ 9.0 SP1 (not guaranteed for any other compiler) you can do this:
#include <stdio.h>
int get_perms(int fd) {
int i;
FILE * base = __iob_func();
for (i=0; i<_IOB_ENTRIES; i++)
if (base[i]._file == fd)
return base[i]._flag; // we've found our file
return 0; // file wasn't found.
}
Since this involved some spelunking, I wrote a quick test to verify that it might actually work:
#ifdef TEST
#include <io.h>
void show_perms(int perms, char const *caption) {
printf("File opened for %s\n", caption);
printf("Read permission = %d\n", (perms & _IOREAD)!=0);
printf("Write permission = %d\n", (perms & _IOWRT)!=0);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
FILE *file1, *file2;
int perms1, perms2;
file1=fopen(argv[1], "w");
perms1 = get_perms(_fileno(file1));
fclose(file1);
file2=fopen(argv[1], "r");
perms2 = get_perms(_fileno(file2));
fclose(file2);
show_perms(perms1, "writing");
show_perms(perms2, "reading");
return 0;
}
#endif
And the results seem to indicate success:
File opened for writing
Read permission = 0
Write permission = 1
File opened for reading
Read permission = 1
Write permission = 0
You can then test that returned flag against _IOREAD, _IOWRT, and _IORW, which are defined in stdio.h. Despite my previous warnings, I should probably point out that I suspect (though I certainly can't guarantee) that this part of the library is fairly stable, so the real chances of major changes are probably fairly minimal.
In the other direction, however, there's basically no chance at all that it'll work with any other library. It could (but certainly isn't guaranteed to) work with the other compilers that use the MS library, such as Intel, MinGW or Comeau using MS VC++ as its back-end. Of those, I'd say the most likely to work would be Comeau, and the least likely MinGW (but that's only a guess; there's a good chance it won't work with any of them).
Requires the redistributable Win32 FileID API Library
So, I recommend reading up on this a little more. The dup() and related functions serve to create a duplicate value in the file descriptor table pointing to the same entry in the open file table. This is intended to have the same offset. If you call open(), you will create a new entry the open file table.
It doesn't make any sense to create a duplicate of a file descriptor and that new file descriptor have a different offset in the open file table (this seems to contradict what the word "duplicate" means).
I'm not sure what your question is actually. I mean, it isn't the same thing as a duplicate. You could read:
/proc/self/fd/[descriptor]
and get the string that was used to open that file descriptor; bear in mind this may provide some pitfalls, some of which you actually noted in your observation of calling open() again.
Maybe you can explain a little more and I can try to update to help.
Why don't you just open the file a second time with open() or CreateFile() on windows? This gives you all freedom of different access rights and separate offset.
This of course has the drawback that you you can not open the file exclusively, but it solves your problem very simply.