I am using windows programming with C++ and have below code:
class A
{
public:
virtual void Func1 () {}
void Func2 () {}
}
class B : public A
{
public:
__override virtual void Func1 () {}
}
I made a double linked list of B objects using LIST_ENTRY and tried to visit an element in this list in below way:
LIST_ENTRY * pEntry; // I got this pointer using RemoveHeadList
A * pA;
pA = CONTAINING_RECORD (pEntry, A, m_le);
pA->Func2 (); // works fine
pA->Func1 (); // Access violation
As you see, the pointer retrieved using CONTAINING_RECORD cannot call a virtual function. What could be wrong? Thanks for any help.
From what I can see in the code, CONTAINING_RECORD is returning an invalid pointer. Show us the code for it. Func2 wprks just by chance, because is not dependant on the this pointer, but is nevertheless ilegal.
Related
C++Builder 10.4.2
I created a TFrame with a pure virtual function. Then derived another TFrame from that one, but did not override the base class virtual function.
I expected to get compiler errors, but did not.
Is the behavior not implemented in VCL classes?
this is code:
// create a frame from File/New..., add a pure virtual function
class TFrame4 : public TFrame
{
__published: // IDE-managed Components
private: // User declarations
public: // User declarations
__fastcall TFrame4(TComponent* Owner);
virtual void func() = 0;
};
extern PACKAGE TFrame4 *Frame4;
// derive a frame from it, put it on the main form. compile/run
without error
class TFrame5 : public TFrame4
{
__published: // IDE-managed Components
private: // User declarations
public: // User declarations
__fastcall TFrame5(TComponent* Owner);
};
extern PACKAGE TFrame5 *Frame5;
This occurs because TFrame is created by the VCL framework, which is written in Delphi. So the object never meets the C++ 'new' keyword.
Try to create a "dummy" object, isolated in a separate namespace. This object will never really be created but it suffices to trigger the C++ compiler test for concrete usage of abstract classes.
For example:
namespace Test {
// this will never really created
new TFrame5( nullptr ); // <- should trigger an error
}
See also:
https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-28329
Regards
I've seen some answers on StackOverflow regarding this. In my c project, I am using the main function and a child function. The child function is written in a separate .c file, with its header file included in the main file.
#include<stdio.h>
struct student
{
int t1;
float e1;
};
typedef struct student stu;
#include"struct_demo.h"
void main()
{
stu s1;
stu *r1=&s1;
s1.t1=10;
s1.e1=172.1;
struct_demo(r1);
}
And the function struct_demo.c is as follows
#include"stdio.h"
void struct_demo(stu *s1)
{
s1->e1=9;
printf("%d",s1->e1);
}
The header file for the function struct_demo is
#ifndef STRUCT_DEMO_H_
#define STRUCT_DEMO_H_
void struct_demo(stu *s1);
#endif /* STRUCT_DEMO_H_ */
My compiler is showing errors in the child function
expression must have pointer-to-struct-or-union type
identifier stu is undefined
The same program when executed without the use of separate .c files (with functions written in a single .c file under separate function) works. Where am I going wrong?
struct student
{
int t1;
float e1;
};
typedef struct student stu;
Move this code struct_demo.h since the struct_demo.h doesn't know what is stu
for parsing the address you need to do
myStructure* myFunction(structure* myStructure)
{
//some opperation
return myStructure;
}
this way you are parsing the address of that structure but be careful when initializing it you will have to use calloc to make room in memory for it because at this point that pointer can go anywhere.
I am doing a C++/CX runtime wrapper, and I need pass C++/CX Object pointer to native C. How do I do it, and convert the native pointer back to C++/CX Object reference type?
void XClassA::do(XClass ^ B)
{
void * ptr = (void*)(B); // how to convert it?
}
And also, C++/CX uses Reference Counting, if I cast the Object reference to native pointer, how do I manage the pointer life cycle?
update (request from #Hans Passant)
Background of the question,
Native C
I am trying to use C++/CX wrap Native C library (not C++) as Windows Runtime Component. Native c has many callback functions which declared as the following,
for example,
//declare in native c
typedef int (GetData*)(void *, char* arg1, size_t arg2);
void * is a pointer to object instance.
and the callback will be executed in native c during runtime.
We expect Application(C#/C++CX ...) to implement the method.
WinRT wrapper (C++/CX)
my idea is the following,
(1) Provide interface to Application
// XRtWrapperNamespace
public interface class XWinRtDataWrapper
{
//declare in base class
void getData(IVector<byte> ^ data);
}
to let Application implement the function. As I cannot export native data type, I provide IVector to get data from Application.
(2) Declare a global callback function to convert IVector<byte>^ to native data type char *, like following,
// when Native C executes callback function,
// it will forward in the method in C++/CX.
// The method calls the implementation method via object pointer.
// (And here is my my question)
void XRtWrapperNamespace::callbackWrapper(void * ptr, char *, int length)
{
// create Vector to save "out" data
auto data = ref new Vector<byte>();
// I expect I could call the implementation from Application.
ptr->getData(data); // bad example.
// convert IVector data to char *
// ...
}
My question is
How do I keep windows object reference to native C?
It looks impossible, but any solution to do it?
Application (example)
//Application
public ref class XAppData: public XWinRtDataWrapper
{
public:
virtual void getData(IVector<byte> ^ data)
{
//implementation here
}
}
You are not on the right track. I'll assume you #include a c header in your component:
extern "C" {
#include "native.h"
}
And this header contains:
typedef int (* GetData)(void* buffer, int buflen);
void initialize(GetData callback);
Where the initialize() function must be called to initialize the C code, setting the callback function pointer. And that you want the client code to directly write into buffer whose allocated size is buflen. Some sort of error indication would be useful, as well as allowing the client code to specify how many bytes it actually wrote into the buffer. Thus the int return value.
The equivalent of function pointers in WinRT are delegates. So you'll want to declare one that matches your C function pointer in functionality. In your .cpp file write:
using namespace Platform;
namespace YourNamespace {
public delegate int GetDataDelegate(WriteOnlyArray<byte>^ buffer);
// More here...
}
There are two basic ways to let the client code use the delegate. You can add a method that lets the client set the delegate, equivalent to way initialize() works. Or you can raise an event, the more WinRT-centric way. I'll use an event. Note that instancing is an issue, their is no decent mapping from having multiple component objects to a single C function pointer. I'll gloss this over by declaring the event static. Writing the ref class declaration:
public ref class MyComponent sealed
{
public:
MyComponent();
static event GetDataDelegate^ GetData;
private:
static int GetDataImpl(void* buffer, int buflen);
};
The class constructor needs to initialize the C code:
MyComponent::MyComponent() {
initialize(GetDataImpl);
}
And we need the little adapter method that makes the C callback raise the event so the client code can fill the buffer:
int MyComponent::GetDataImpl(void* buffer, int buflen) {
return GetData(ArrayReference<byte>((byte*)buffer, buflen));
}
I have a genetic algorithm and i'm traying to evaluate a population of chromosome on GPU :
class chromosome
{
int fitness;
int gene(int pos) { .... };
};
class eval
{
public :
__global__ doEval(Chromosome *population)
{
....
int jobid = population[tid].gene(X);
population[tid].fitness = Z;
....
}
};
int main()
{
Chromosome *dev_population;
Eval eval;
eval.doEval<<<1,N>>>(dev_population);
}
and i have this errors :
ga3.cu(121): warning: inline qualifier ignored for "global" function
ga3.cu(121): error: illegal combination of memory qualifiers
ga3.cu(323): error: a pointer to a bound function may only be used to call the function
ga3.cu(398): warning: nested comment is not allowed
where are the problems ?
i remove Eval class and left only doEval function , and make device host gene() , like this :
\__device\__ \__host\__ gene()
{....};
\__global\__ doEval(Chromosome *population)
{
....
int jobid = population[tid].gene(X);
population[tid].fitness = Z;
....
}
int main()
{
Chromosome *dev_population;
doEval<<<1,N>>>(dev_population);
}
but now i have have other errors , and it's not compile :
/usr/include/c++/4.6/iomanip(66): error: expected an expression
/usr/include/c++/4.6/iomanip(96): error: expected an expression
/usr/include/c++/4.6/iomanip(127): error: expected an expression
/usr/include/c++/4.6/iomanip(195): error: expected an expression
/usr/include/c++/4.6/iomanip(225): error: expected an expression
5 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/tmpxft_00006fe9_00000000-4_ga3.cpp1.ii".
There are two problems here, one soluble, the other one not.
It is illegal in CUDA for a __global__ function (ie. kernel) to be defined as a class member function. So doEval can never be defined as a member of eval. You are free to call a kernel in a structure or class member function, but a kernel cannot be a member function. You will have to redesign this class, there is no work around.
Any function called device code must be explicitly denoted as a device function and be instantiated and compiled for the device. This applies to both regular functions and class member functions. All functions are treated by nvcc as host functions unless identified as otherwise. You can, therefore, fix this error by doing something like the following:
class chromosome
{
int fitness;
__device__ __host__ int gene(int pos) { .... };
};
Note that every function called by gene must also have a valid device definition for the code to successfully compile.
Partial template specialization is one of the most important concepts for generic programming in C++. For example: to implement a generic swap function:
template <typename T>
void swap(T &x, T &y) {
const T tmp = x;
y = x;
x = tmp;
}
To specialize it for a vector to support O(1) swap:
template <typename T, class Alloc>
void swap(vector<T, Alloc> &x, vector<T, Alloc> &y) { x.swap(y); }
So you can always get optimal performance when you call swap(x, y) in a generic function;
Much appreciated, if you can post the equivalent (or the canonical example of partial specialization of the language if the language doesn't support the swap concept) in alternative languages.
EDIT: so it looks like many people who answered/commented really don't known what partial specialization is, and that the generic swap example seems to get in the way of understanding by some people. A more general example would be:
template <typename T>
void foo(T x) { generic_foo(x); }
A partial specialization would be:
template <typename T>
void foo(vector<T> x) { partially_specialized_algo_for_vector(x); }
A complete specialization would be:
void foo(vector<bool> bitmap) { special_algo_for_bitmap(bitmap); }
Why this is important? because you can call foo(anything) in a generic function:
template <typename T>
void bar(T x) {
// stuff...
foo(x);
// more stuff...
}
and get the most appropriate implementation at compile time. This is one way for C++ to achieve abstraction w/ minimal performance penalty.
Hope it helps clearing up the concept of "partial specialization". In a way, this is how C++ do type pattern matching without needing the explicit pattern matching syntax (say the match keyword in Ocaml/F#), which sometimes gets in the way for generic programming.
D supports partial specialization:
Language overview
Template feature comparison (with C++ 98 and 0x).
(scan for "partial" in the above links).
The second link in particular will give you a very detailed breakdown of what you can do with template specialization, not only in D but in C++ as well.
Here's a D specific example of swap. It should print out the message for the swap specialized for the Thing class.
import std.stdio; // for writefln
// Class with swap method
class Thing(T)
{
public:
this(T thing)
{
this.thing = thing;
}
// Implementation is the same as generic swap, but it will be called instead.
void swap(Thing that)
{
const T tmp = this.thing;
this.thing = that.thing;
that.thing = tmp;
}
public:
T thing;
}
// Swap generic function
void swap(T)(ref T lhs, ref T rhs)
{
writefln("Generic swap.");
const T tmp = lhs;
lhs = rhs;
rhs = tmp;
}
void swap(T : Thing!(U))(ref T lhs, ref T rhs)
{
writefln("Specialized swap method for Things.");
lhs.swap(rhs);
}
// Test case
int main()
{
auto v1 = new Thing!(int)(10);
auto v2 = new Thing!(int)(20);
assert (v1.thing == 10);
assert (v2.thing == 20);
swap(v1, v2);
assert (v1.thing == 20);
assert (v2.thing == 10);
return 0;
}
I am afraid that C# does not support partial template specialization.
Partial template specialization means:
You have a base class with two or more templates (generics / type parameters).
The type parameters would be <T, S>
In a derived (specialized) class you indicate the type of one of the type parameters.
The type parameters could look like this <T, int>.
So when someone uses (instantiates an object of) the class where the last type parameter is an int, the derived class is used.
Haskell has overlapping instances as an extension:
class Sizable a where
size :: a -> Int
instance Collection c => Sizable c where
size = length . toList
is a function to find size of any collection, which can have more specific instances:
instance Sizable (Seq a) where
size = Seq.length
See also Advanced Overlap on HaskellWiki.
Actually, you can (not quite; see below) do it in C# with extension methods:
public Count (this IEnumerable<T> seq) {
int n = 0;
foreach (T t in seq)
n++;
return n;
}
public Count (this T[] arr) {
return arr.Length;
}
Then calling array.Count() will use the specialised version. "Not quite" is because the resolution depends on the static type of array, not on the run-time type. I.e. this will use the more general version:
IEnumerable<int> array = SomethingThatReturnsAnArray();
return array.Count();
C#:
void Swap<T>(ref T a, ref T b) {
var c = a;
a = b;
b = c;
}
I guess the (pure) Haskell-version would be:
swap :: a -> b -> (b,a)
swap a b = (b, a)
Java has generics, which allow you to do similar sorts of things.