C variable variables - c

in PHP, I have something like
function doStuff($in, $value)
{
$var = "V_" . $in;
$$var = $value;
}
Is there a way to do something similar in C?
Basically I'm trying to figure out how to make a sort of library to make working with IO pins on an AVR easier. So for example, there would be a function to set a particular pin to an OUTPUT. That pin in the AVR is part of PORTB. Setting it to an output and giving it a value requires me to reference DDRB and PORTB constants and set their values. Rather than going through all of that, I'd like to be able to call a function such as SetMode(Pin #, Mode);. I just can't figure out how to do that.

Your question is still a little unclear (as indicated by the assortment of interpretations in the answers). I'm assuming that you want to refer to pins by physical pin number. If this is not correct, please clarify your question so we can provide better answers.
Here's roughly how I would do it if someone held a gun to my head:
DISCLAIMER: I have not tested this nor been particularly careful about checking documentation. The code is written for avr-gcc/avr-libc on Linux, though it may work elsewhere.
// Map from physical pin number to associated direction register.
volatile uint8_t *ddr_map[] = {
NULL, // Vcc, GND, or some other non-IO pin.
&DDRB,
&DDRB,
&DDRC,
// etc... Values will vary for different target chips.
};
// Map from physical pin number to port mask.
uint8_t mask_map[] = {
0x00,
_BV(0),
_BV(1),
_BV(0),
// etc... Values will vary for different target chips.
}
typedef enum {
IN,
OUT
} PinDir;
void setMode(int pin, PinDir dir) {
if(dir == OUT) {
*ddr_map[pin] |= mask_map[pin];
} else {
*ddr_map[pin] &= ~mask_map[pin];
}
}
See http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/FAQ.html#faq_port_pass
And here's why it's not a good idea:
It doesn't abstract away any meaningful behavior (it actually removes abstraction -- the physical pin number is lower level than the logical port/pin). Moreover, the physical pin number is not necessarily the same for different package formats. The pins of PORTB may not be assigned to the same physical pin numbers on a QFP package as a PDIP package. So this code is actually more confusing.
It adds overhead. You have an extra function call (which costs cycles and stack) and two (or more) arrays used for lookups (which cost flash and RAM on the AVR unless you take special measures, in which case they cost extra cycles and flash or EEPROM) not to mention all the indirections (array lookups, pointer dereferencing) and the extra compare and branch. In desktop & web development you would be right to laugh at my concern over such small costs, but on AVR that waste has considerably more impact. (NOTE: You might be able to convince the compiler to optimize some of this out, but if you are using -Os it will be difficult. And now you're worrying about even lower level details than before...)
The provided means of manipulating pins is not so complicated as to be worth hiding in this way. You should get comfortable with converting between hexadecimal and binary in your head (it's not hard). Even if you don't want to mess with hex, the _BV() macro makes pin manipulations pretty easy (or just use (1 << x) which is more portable and will be recognized by more programmers).
By the way, PORTB, DDRB, etc. are not constants. They are variables that are tied to specific addresses or registers. Trying to modify a constant with something like CONST_THINGY |= 0x03 would produce a compiler error.
Variable variables
C does not have the feature you described. It is a low level language (it is sometimes described as "high-level assembly") that doesn't provide many fancy features (by today's standards). This is why it is the language of choice for AVR -- you want to be close to the hardware, and you don't want lots of extra overhead.
What C does have is pointers. Based on your question and comments I would guess that you aren't very familiar with them, so here's a quick explanation:
The & operator returns a pointer to a variable, and is used like this: pointer = &variable;
* actually has a couple of uses.
The first is declaring a pointer variable (i.e. a variable that holds a pointer instead of an int, char, or float): int *pointer; Notice that you have to specify what type of variable it will point at.
The second use is what is called dereferencing a pointer. Basically, this means accessing a variable through the pointer. If pointer points at variable, *pointer = 42; will set variable equal to 42, and other_var = *pointer will set other_var to the value of variable.
There is also pointer arithmetic, but that's beyond the scope of this answer.
The point of all this is that you can effectively treat variables themselves like values, storing them and passing them around. You can't really modify them in any meaningful way other than manipulating their value, but you don't need to either.

in short, no, there aren't variable variables in C.
what you could do is make some type of hashmap of the variables, with the names as the key, and use that.

Preprocessor definitions or macros are typical ways of accomplishing your desired goal in C.

C has a macro feature, and it can be used like this
#define oof(a, b) a##b
int x1 = 5;
oof(x, 1) = 10;
printf("%d", x1); //prints 10
int oof(x, 2) = 2;
printf("%d", x2); //printf 2
It can be a function, it can use other functions, it can call other macros, etc.
And here '##' is the preprocessor operator which concatenates objects next to it.

When you say pin # you are referring to the actual pin number on the physical chip right ?
if it is. You could do this.
1- create a map function that takes in the pin number and returns and corresponding PORT and PIN
ex.
You want to access pin #1 on the chip
SetMode( int pinNumber, char mode ) {
typedef struct {
int pin;
int port;
}pinValues;
pinValues pinStruct;
mapPin( &pinStruct, pinNumber ); // this resolves the pin # on the chip to a port
// and pin.
GPIO_init( pinStruct, mode ); // this initializes the pin;
}
the mapPin function should be pretty simple just create one array containing the pin numbers
ex.
say the chip has only 4 pins
const char GPIO_pin[5] = { 1,2,3,4 };
and create a struct for the port and pin corresponding to each pin #
ex
typedef struct {
int pin;
int port;
}pinPort;
pinPort pinPortStruct[5] = { (PORTA,0), (PORTA,1), (PORTB,1), (PORTB,1) };
so pin # 1 corresponds to PORTA 0
so what you do is simply search though GPIO_pin and then return the struct that corresponds to that index
for( int i = 0;i <4; i++)
{
if( pin == GPIO_pin[i] )
return pinPortStruct[i];
}
I hope this is what you need.

All AVR registers have addresses. You can use the addresses for implementing generic functions.

Depending on how many pins/ports you are talking about, it might be easiest to use a case statement:
void SetMode(int pin, int mode) {
switch (pin) {
case PIN_A:
DDRA = mode;
PORTA = mode;
break;
case PIN_B:
DDRB = mode;
PORTB = mode;
break;
...
}
}
The constants PIN_A, PIN_B, etc can be defined through #define macros or an enum. One advantage to this approach is that you can refer to all of your ports/pins using similar notation even if you have to treat some of them differently than others (each case can be different). If you have a large number of pins/ports to deal with, then this might not be the optimal approach.

For the generic case, pointers are as close as you get. C does not necessarily have any concept of names at runtime, particularly on a microcontroller (some names typically exist in an OS with dynamic linking, but even there it's not required).
For the pin number scenario, lookup tables to figure out the port, bit in port, and so on for any given number can work. That is the technique employed by Arduino, which attempts to abstract away C++ programming on the AVR. They like renaming things, for instance calling PWM signals "analogWrite", C++ "wiring" and programs "sketches", and all I/O pins are numbered after their position on the development board. The downsides are the massive confusion as soon as you're programming something other than that first board, and having to figure out the side effects buried in their library when you want to do something low level.

Related

Unpermitted operand to operator '++' [MISRA 2012 Rule 10.1, required]

I am trying to fix the Misra warning for the modules written by others. I observed that ++ operation is being used on the enum.
I referred SE question which talks on the same topic. How do I resolve this error? Do I need to suggest the module owner, to change the implementation?
#include <stdio.h>
typedef enum
{
COMPARE = 0,
INCONSISTENT = 10,
WRITE,
READ,
FINISHED
}TestsType;
static TestsType CurrentTest;
void fun1(void)
{
if(READ != CurrentTest)
{
CurrentTest++;
}
else
{
CurrentTest = FINISHED;
}
}
int main(void) {
// your code goes here
CurrentTest = COMPARE;
fun1();
printf("%d", CurrentTest);
return 0;
}
I kept the enum like this in code purposefully to understand any impact. However, in actual code, it is as below.
typedef enum
{
COMPARE,
INCONSISTENT,
WRITE,
READ,
FINISHED
}TestsType;
Incrementing an enum is just wrong!
enums were added to the language as a better alternative to #define for a number of constants, and were considered ints in other respects (i.e. a const array of ints). To enforce anything more would require run-time checking.
As enum values don't have to be contiguous, incrementing them makes no sense when they're treated as integers. If a compiler does allow it, it thinks it's incrementing an int, which can mean your value doesn't correspond to any value in the enum afterwards.
So my advice is "don't do it" even if a particular compiler lets you. Rewrite it to something explicit.
If you want to cycle through a particular range of states represented by contiguous integers, you CAN use an enum but only if you make its values contiguous too. Put lots of warnings about the definition explaining not to tinker. Then increment an int representing the state, which can then be compared to the enum safely.
The whole point of using a standard like MISRA is to avoid risky code. And there's no question but that incrementing enums is risky.
If you've got some code that increments enums, and it works well (under all conditions), it's only because of a number of interlocked assumptions and conventions which probably aren't all written down and which almost certainly won't be obvious to (and honored by) a later maintenance programmer.
So, indeed, there is no simple fix for this. Any simple fix (which might get your MISRA checker to shut up) will likely leave the inherent risks in the practice all intact -- that is, you might satisfy the letter of MISRA, but not the spirit (which is obviously backwards).
So yes, you should require (not just suggest) that the module owner change the implementation.
What might the revised implementation look like? I think it should have one or more of the following aspects:
Use an int and some #defined constants.
Have a separate, encapsulated function to map from one state to the next.
Use an explicit transition table to map one state to the next.
If there is a large number of states, and if most of them follow in sequence, such that a +1 increment would nicely encapsulate this (more cleanly and reliably than a bunch of arbitrary state transitions), go ahead and use a +1 increment, but with some accompanying assertions to ensure that the various assumptions hold. For example:
enum state {
OFF = 0,
LOW = 3,
MEDIUM,
HIGH,
EXCEPTIONAL = 10
};
/* States LOW..HIGH are assumed to be contiguous. Make sure you keep them so! */
/* If (and only if) you add or subtract states to the contiguous list, */
/* make sure to also update N_CONTIGUOUS_STATES. */
#define N_CONTIGUOUS_STATES 3
enum state nextstate(enum state oldstate)
{
/* Normally performing arithmetic on enums is wrong. */
/* We're doing so here in a careful, controlled, constrained way, */
/* limited just to the values LOW..HIGH which we're calling "contiguous". */
assert((int)LOW + N_CONTIGUOUS_STATES - 1 == (int)HIGH);
if(oldstate >= LOW && oldstate < HIGH) {
return (enum state)((int)oldstate + 1);
} else {
/* perform arbitrary mappings between other states */
}
}
The intent here is both to document what's going on, and ensure that if a later maintenance programmer changes the enum definition in any way that breaks the assumption that there are some consecutive states between which straight incrementation is allowed, the assertion will fail.
...But I hasten to add that this is not a complete solution. An even more important guarantee to preserve is that every state transition is handled, and this is even easier to violate if a later maintenance programmer adds new states but forgets to update the transition mappings. One good way to have the compiler help you guarantee this is to use a switch statement, although this then just about forces you to make every transition explicit (that is, not to use the +1 shortcut):
enum state nextstate(enum state oldstate)
{
switch(oldstate) {
case OFF: return ... ;
case LOW: return MEDIUM;
case MEDIUM: return HIGH;
case HIGH: return ... ;
case EXCEPTIONAL: return ... ;
}
}
The advantage of using a switch is that modern compilers will warn you if you leave an enum value out of a switch like this.

Cannot write to screen memory in C

I am very new to C, it's my second high-level programming language after Java. I have gotten most of the basics down, but for whatever reason I am unable to write a single character to screen memory.
This program is compiled using Turbo C for DOS on an Am486-DX4-100 running at 120mhz. The graphics card is a very standard VLB Diamond Multimedia Stealth SE using a Trio32 chip.
For an OS I am running PC-DOS 2000 with an ISO codepage loaded. I am running in standard MDA/CGA/EGA/VGA style 80 column text mode with colour.
Here is the program as I have it written:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
unsigned short int *Video = (unsigned short int *)0xB8000;
*Video = 0x0402;
getchar();
return 0;
}
As I stated, I am very new to C, so I apologize if my error seems obvious, I was unable to find a solid source on how to do this that I could understand.
To my knowledge, in real mode on the x86 platform, the screen memory for text mode starts at 0xB8000. Each character is stored in two bytes, one for the character, and one for the background/foreground. The idea is to write the value 0x0402 (which should be a red smiling face) to 0xB8000. This should put it at the top left of the screen.
I have taken into account the possibility that the screen may be scrolling, and thus immediately removing my character upon execution in two ways. To resolve this issue, I have tried:
Repeatedly write this value using a loop
Write it a bit further down.
I can read and print the value I wrote to memory, so it's obviously still somewhere in memory, but for whatever reason I do not get anything onscreen. I'm obviously doing something wrong, however I do not know what could be the issue. If any other details are needed, please ask. Thank you for any possible help you can give.
In real mode to address the first full 1MiB of memory a mechanism called 20-bit segment:offset addressing is used. 0xb8000 is a physical memory address. You need to use something called a far pointer that allows you to address memory with real mode segmentation. The different types of pointers are described in this Stackoverflow Answer
0xb8000 can be represented as a segment of 0xb800 and an offset of 0x0000. The calculation to get physical address is segment*16+offset. 0xb800*16+0x0000=0xb8000. With this in mind you can include dos.h and use the MK_FP C macro to initialize a far pointer to such an address given segment and offset.
From the documentation MK_FP is defined as:
MK_FP() Make a Far Pointer
#include <dos.h>
void far *MK_FP(seg,off);
unsigned seg; Segment
unsigned off; Offset
MK_FP() is a macro that makes a far pointer from its component segment 'seg' and offset 'off' parts.
Returns: A far pointer.
Your code could be written like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <dos.h>
int main(void) {
unsigned short int far *Video = (unsigned short int far *)MK_FP(0xB800,0x0000);
*Video = 0x0402;
getchar();
return 0;
}
The memory segment adress depends on the video mode used:
0xA0000 for EGA/VGA graphics modes (64 KB)
0xB0000 for monochrome text mode (32 KB)
0xB8000 for color text mode and CGA-compatible graphics modes (32 KB)
To directly access vram you need a 32 bit-pointer to hold segement and offset address otherwise you would mess up your heap. This usually leads to undefined behaviour.
char far *Video = (char far *)0xb8000000;
See also: What are near, far and huge pointers?
As #stacker pointed-out, in the 16-bit environment you need to assign the pointer carefully. AFAIK you need to put FAR keyword (my gosh, what a nostalgia).
Also make sure you don't compile in so-called "Huge" memory model. It's incompatible with far addressing, because every 32-bit pointer is automatically "normalized" to 20 bits. Try selecting "Large" memory model.

Place function instructions successively in program memory

Say I have a program which controls some Christmas lights (this isn't the actual application, only an example). These lights have a few different calculations to determine whether a light, i, will be lit in a given frame, t. Each of i and t is a uint8_t, so it can be assumed that there are 256 lights and t will loop each 256 frames. Some light patterns could be the following:
int flash(uint8_t t, uint8_t i) {
return t&1;}
int alternate(uint8_t t, uint8_t i) {
return i&1 == t&1;}
int loop(uint8_t t, uint8_t i) {
return i == t;}
If I then wanted to implement a mode-changing system that would loop through these modes, I could use a function pointer array int (*modes)(uint8_t, uint8_t)[3]. But, since these are all such short functions, is there any way I could instead force the compiler to place the functions directly after one another in program memory, sort of like an inline array?
The idea would be that to access one of these functions wouldn't require evaluating the pointer, and you could instead tell the processor the correct function is at modes + pitch*mode where pitch is the spacing between functions (at least the length of the longest).
I ask more out of curiosity than requirement, because I doubt this would actually cause much of a speed improvement.
What you are asking for is not directly available in C. But such logic can be possible in assembler, and C compilers might utilize different assembler tricks depending on CPU, optimization level etc. Try to just make the logic small and compact, mark the different functions as static, and use an switch() block in C and look at the assembler the compiler generates.
You could use a switch statement, like:
#define FLASH 1
#define ALTERNATE 2
#define LOOP 3
int patternexecute(uint8_t t, uint8_t i, int pattern)
{
switch (pattern) {
case FLASH: return t&1;
case ALTERNATE: return i&1 == t&1;
case LOOP: return i == t;
}
return 0;
}

Standard C: Storing arrays in off-chip RAM

I would like to know if I can choose the storage location of arrays in c. There are a couple of questions already on here with some helpful info, but I'm looking for some extra info.
I have an embedded system with a soft-core ARM cortex implemented on an FPGA.
Upon start-up code is loaded from memory and executed by the processor. My code is in assembley and contains some c functions. One particular function is a uART interrupt which I have included below
void UART_ISR()
{
int count, n=1000, t1=0, t2=1, display=0, y, z;
int x[1000]; //storage array for first 1000 terms of Fibonacci series
x[1] = t1;
x[2] = t2;
printf("\n\nFibonacci Series: \n\n %d \n %d \n ", t1, t2);
count=2; /* count=2 because first two terms are already displayed. */
while (count<n)
{
display=t1+t2;
t1=t2;
t2=display;
x[count] = t2;
++count;
printf(" %d \n",display);
}
printf("\n\n Finished. Sequence written to memory. Reading sequence from memory.....:\n\n");
for (z=0; z<10000; z++){} // Delay
for (y=0; y<1000; y++) { //Read variables from memory
printf("%d \n",x[y]);
}
}
So basically the first 1000 values of the Fibonacci series are printed and stored in array X and then values from the array are printed to the screen again after a short delay.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the values in the array X are stored on the stack as they are computed in the for loop and retrieved from the stack when the array is read from memory.
Here is he memory map of the system
0x0000_0000 to 0x0000_0be0 is the code
0x0000_0be0 to 0x0010_0be0 is 1MB heap
0x0010_0be0 to 0x0014_0be0 is 256KB stack
0x0014_0be0 to 0x03F_FFFF is of-chip RAM
Is there a function in c that allows me to store the array X in the off-chip ram for later retrieval?
Please let me know if you need any more info
Thanks very much for helping
--W
No, not "in C" as in "specified by the language".
The C language doesn't care about where things are stored, it specifies nothing about the existance of RAM at particular addresses.
But, actual implementations in the form of compilers, assemblers and linkers, often care a great deal about this.
With gcc for instance, you can use the section variable attribute to force a variable into a particular section.
You can then control the linker to map that section to a particular memory area.
UPDATE:
The other way to do this is manually, by not letting the compiler in on the secret and doing it yourself.
Something like:
int *external_array = (int *) 0x00140be0;
memcpy(external_array, x, sizeof x);
will copy the required number of bytes to the external memory. You can then read it back by swapping the two first arguments in the memcpy() call.
Note that this is way more manual, low-level and fragile, compared to letting the compiler/linker dynamic duo Just Make it Work for you.
Also, it seems very unlikely that you want to do all of that work from an ISR.

Designing Around a Large Number of Discrete Functions in C

Greetings and salutations,
I am looking for information regrading design patterns for working with a large number of functions in C99.
Background:
I am working on a complete G-Code interpreter for my pet project, a desktop CNC mill. Currently, commands are sent over a serial interface to an AVR microcontroller. These commands are then parsed and executed to make the milling head move. a typical example of a line might look like
N01 F5.0 G90 M48 G1 X1 Y2 Z3
where G90, M48, and G1 are "action" codes and F5.0, X1, Y2, Z3 are parameters (N01 is the optional line number and is ignored). Currently the parsing is coming along swimmingly, but now it is time to make the machine actually move.
For each of the G and M codes, a specific action needs to be taken. This ranges from controlled motion to coolant activation/deactivation, to performing canned cycles. To this end, my current design features a function that uses a switch to select the proper function and return a pointer to that function which can then be used to call the individual code's function at the proper time.
Questions:
1) Is there a better way to resolve an arbitrary code to its respective function than a switch statement? Note that this is being implemented on a microcontroller and memory is EXTREMELY tight (2K total). I have considered a lookup table but, unfortunately, the code distribution is sparse leading to a lot of wasted space. There are ~100 distinct codes and sub-codes.
2) How does one go about function pointers in C when the names (and possibly signatures) may change? If the function signatures are different, is this even possible?
3) Assuming the functions have the same signature (which is where I am leaning), is there a way to typedef a generic type of that signature to be passed around and called from?
My apologies for the scattered questioning. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
1) Perfect hashing may be used to map the keywords to token numbers (opcodes) , which can be used to index a table of function pointers. The number of required arguments can also be put in this table.
2) You don's want overloaded / heterogeneous functions. Optional arguments might be possible.
3) your only choice is to use varargs, IMHO
I'm not an expert on embedded systems, but I have experience with VLSI. So sorry if I'm stating the obvious.
The function-pointer approach is probably the best way. But you'll need to either:
Arrange all your action codes to be consecutive in address.
Implement an action code decoder similar to an opcode decoder in a normal processor.
The first option is probably the better way (simple and small memory footprint). But if you can't control your action codes, you'll need to implement a decoder via another lookup table.
I'm not entirely sure on what you mean by "function signature". Function pointers should just be a number - which the compiler resolves.
EDIT:
Either way, I think two lookup tables (1 for function pointers, and one for decoder) is still going to be much smaller than a large switch statement. For varying parameters, use "dummy" parameters to make them all consistent. I'm not sure what the consequences of force casting everything to void-pointers to structs will be on an embedded processor.
EDIT 2:
Actually, a decoder can't be implementated with just a lookup table if the opcode space is too large. My mistake there. So 1 is really the only viable option.
Is there a better way ... than a switch statement?
Make a list of all valid action codes (a constant in program memory, so it doesn't use any of your scarce RAM), and sequentially compare each one with the received code. Perhaps reserve index "0" to mean "unknown action code".
For example:
// Warning: untested code.
typedef int (*ActionFunctionPointer)( int, int, char * );
struct parse_item{
const char action_letter;
const int action_number; // you might be able to get away with a single byte here, if none of your actions are above 255.
// alas, http://reprap.org/wiki/G-code mentions a "M501" code.
const ActionFunctionPointer action_function_pointer;
};
int m0_handler( int speed, int extrude_rate, char * message ){ // M0: Stop
speed_x = 0; speed_y = 0; speed_z = 0; speed_e = 0;
}
int g4_handler ( int dwell_time, int extrude_rate, char * message ){ // G4: Dwell
delay(dwell_time);
}
const struct parse_item parse_table[] = {
{ '\0', 0, unrecognized_action } // special error-handler
{ 'M', 0, m0_handler }, // M0: Stop
// ...
{ 'G', 4, g4_handler }, // G4: Dwell
{ '\0', 0, unrecognized_action } // special error-handler
}
ActionFunctionPointer get_action_function_pointer( char * buffer ){
char letter = get_letter( buffer );
int action_number = get_number( buffer );
int index = 0;
ActionFunctionPointer f = 0;
do{
index++;
if( (letter == parse_table[index].action_letter ) and
(action_number == parse_table[index].action_number) ){
f = parse_table[index].action_function_pointer;
};
if('\0' == parse_table[index].action_letter ){
index = 0;
f = unrecognized_action;
};
}while(0 == f);
return f;
}
How does one go about function pointers in C when the names (and
possibly signatures) may change? If the function signatures are
different, is this even possible?
It's possible to create a function pointer in C that (at different times) points to functions with more or less parameters (different signatures) using varargs.
Alternatively, you can force all the functions that might possibly be pointed to by that function pointer to all have exactly the same parameters and return value (the same signature) by adding "dummy" parameters to the functions that require fewer parameters than the others.
In my experience, the "dummy parameters" approach seems to be easier to understand and use less memory than the varargs approach.
Is there a way to typedef a generic type of that signature
to be passed around and called from?
Yes.
Pretty much all the code I've ever seen that uses function pointers
also creates a typedef to refer to that particular type of function.
(Except, of course, for Obfuscated contest entries).
See the above example and Wikibooks: C programming: pointers to functions for details.
p.s.:
Is there some reason you are re-inventing the wheel?
Could maybe perhaps one of the following pre-existing G-code interpreters for the AVR work for you, perhaps with a little tweaking?
FiveD,
Sprinter,
Marlin,
Teacup Firmware,
sjfw,
Makerbot,
or
Grbl?
(See http://reprap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_RepRap_Firmwares ).

Resources