I'm still learning C++, and I'm doing some API work, but I'm, having trouble parsing this pointer arrangement.
void* data;
res = npt.receive(0x1007, params, 1, response, (void**)&data, size);
uint32_t* op = (uint32_t*)data;
uint32_t num = *op;
op++;
Can anyone explain what is going on with that void pointer? I see it being defined, it does something in the res line(maybe initialized?), then it's copied to an uint32 pointer, and dereferenced in num. Can anyone help me parse the (void**)&data declaration?
Pay attention when you use the void pointer:
The void type of pointer is a special type of pointer. In C++, void represents the absence of type. Therefore, void pointers are pointers that point to a value that has no type (and thus also an undetermined length and undetermined dereferencing properties).
This gives void pointers a great flexibility, by being able to point to any data type, from an integer value or a float to a string of characters. In exchange, they have a great limitation: the data pointed to by them cannot be directly dereferenced (which is logical, since we have no type to dereference to), and for that reason, any address in a void pointer needs to be transformed into some other pointer type that points to a concrete data type before being dereferenced.
From C++ reference
Firstly: What is npt?
Secondly: Guessing what npt could be some explanation:
// Declare a pointer to void named data
void* data;
// npt.receive takes as 5th parameter a pointer to pointer to void,
// which is why you provide the address of the void* using &data.
// The void ** appears to be unnecessary unless the data type of the
// param is not void **
// What is "npt"?
res = npt.receive(0x1007, params, 1, response, (void**)&data, size);
// ~.receive initialized data with contents.
// Now make the uint32_t data usable by casting void * to uint32_t*
uint32_t* op = (uint32_t*)data;
// Use the data by dereferencing it.
uint32_t num = *op;
// Pointer arithmetic: Move the pointer by sizeof(uint32_t).
// Did receive fill in an array?
op++;
Update
Signature of receive is:
<whatever return type> receive(uint16_t code, uint32_t* params, uint8_t nparam, Container& response, void** data, uint32_t& size)
So the data parameter is of type void** already so the explicit type cast to void** using (void**) is not necessary.
Considering the usage, the received data appears to be an array of uint32_t values IN THIS CASE!
Void as a type means no type and no type information regarding size and alignment is available, but is mandatory for lexical and syntactical consistency.
In conjunction with the *, it can be used as a pointer to data of unknown type and must be explicitly cast to another type (adds type information) before any use.
You usually have a void* or void** in an API, if you dont know the specific data type or only received plain byte data.
To understand this please read up C type erasure using void*
Please read up as basics before:
Dynamically allocated C arrays.
Pointers and Pointer Arithmetics.
From the code, ntp.receive tells you whether it receives anything successfully in the return code but it also needs to give you what it receives. It has a pointer that it wants to pass back, so you have to tell it where that pointer is so that it can fill it, hence (void **), a pointer to a pointer, being the address of your pointer, &data.
When you have received it, you know as the developer that what it points to is actually a uint_32 value so you copy the void pointer into one that points to a uint_32. In fact, this step is unnecessary since you could have cast the uint_32 pointer to void** in the above call but we'll let that slide.
Now that you have told the compiler that the pointer points to a 32 bit number, you can take the number on the other end of that pointer (*op) and store it in a local variable. Again, unnecessary, as *op could be used anywhere num is subsequently used.
Hope this helps.
Related
I found a compiler error that I can not understand why it happens only for std::map with std::unique_ptr.
Assume we have the follow unoredered map object and an iteration code for it:
std::unordered_map<uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>> map;
for (const std::pair<uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>>& item : map)
{
// do something
}
That's compiled well, but if we use unique pointer instead the shared pointer as follows, then we get a compiler error about the iteration pair type:
std::unordered_map<uint32_t, std::unique_ptr<char>> map;
for (const std::pair<uint32_t, std::unique_ptr<char>>& item : map)
{
// do something
}
error C2440: 'initializing': cannot convert from 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>' to
'const std::pair<uint32_t,std::unique_ptr<char,std::default_delete<_Ty>>>
Following this error, we can just add 'const' to the key type and it is compiled.
for (const std::pair<const uint32_t, std::unique_ptr<char>>& item : map)
^^^
|||
Why is this compiling error happens just for unique pointer?
A friend gave me the answer and I'm sharing.
The answer lies in the concept of implicit conversion(copy) a compiler is allowed to do.
Lets see the follow simple example:
const char x = 4;
const char& r = x; // r is reference for x. Checking their addresses yields the same
// address.
const int& ir = c; // implicit creation of object + conversion(copy).
// ir is different type of x, therefor compiler does implicit
// conversion(copy): it creates behind the scene an object of int,
// convert x into this temporary object. The temporary int object is
// then bound to the reference ir. Checking addresses of ir and x
// yields different addresses because ir is reference of the temporary
// object, not to x
So even we use reference - planning for just pointing on an existing object,
we may actually have an object construction + copy (if the types are different and there is conversion between them).
The same happens in the loop I gave in the question:
std::unordered_map<uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>> map;
for (const std::pair<uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>>& item : map)
{
// do something
}
while the real object held by the map is of type of
std::pair<const uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>>
the loop uses reference of different type:
std::pair<uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>>
and therefor, behind the scene, for every iteration, a new temporary object is implicitly constructed and a copy operation for conversion is done.
Not only that it isn't efficient, but it also failed to be compiled when the value is unique_ptr because the conversion does copy and unique_ptr can not be copied.
Thats why using 'auto' may save you such mistakes,
std::unordered_map<uint32_t, std::shared_ptr<char>> map;
for (const auto& item : map)
{
// do something
}
I myself sometimes prefer to play and use the explicit form instead 'auto' in order to face such problems and learn :)
Ok, muddling though Stack on the particulars about void*, books like The C Programming Language (K&R) and The C++ Programming Language (Stroustrup). What have I learned? That void* is a generic pointer with no type inferred. It requires a cast to any defined type and printing void* just yields the address.
What else do I know? void* can't be dereferenced and thus far remains the one item in C/C++ from which I have discovered much written about but little understanding imparted.
I understand that it must be cast such as *(char*)void* but what makes no sense to me for a generic pointer is that I must somehow already know what type I need in order to grab a value. I'm a Java programmer; I understand generic types but this is something I struggle with.
So I wrote some code
typedef struct node
{
void* data;
node* link;
}Node;
typedef struct list
{
Node* head;
}List;
Node* add_new(void* data, Node* link);
void show(Node* head);
Node* add_new(void* data, Node* link)
{
Node* newNode = new Node();
newNode->data = data;
newNode->link = link;
return newNode;
}
void show(Node* head)
{
while (head != nullptr)
{
std::cout << head->data;
head = head->link;
}
}
int main()
{
List list;
list.head = nullptr;
list.head = add_new("My Name", list.head);
list.head = add_new("Your Name", list.head);
list.head = add_new("Our Name", list.head);
show(list.head);
fgetc(stdin);
return 0;
}
I'll handle the memory deallocation later. Assuming I have no understanding of the type stored in void*, how do I get the value out? This implies I already need to know the type, and this reveals nothing about the generic nature of void* while I follow what is here although still no understanding.
Why am I expecting void* to cooperate and the compiler to automatically cast out the type that is hidden internally in some register on the heap or stack?
I'll handle the memory deallocation later. Assuming I have no understanding of the type stored in void*, how do I get the value out?
You can't. You must know the valid types that the pointer can be cast to before you can dereference it.
Here are couple of options for using a generic type:
If you are able to use a C++17 compiler, you may use std::any.
If you are able to use the boost libraries, you may use boost::any.
Unlike Java, you are working with memory pointers in C/C++. There is no encapsulation whatsoever. The void * type means the variable is an address in memory. Anything can be stored there. With a type like int * you tell the compiler what you are referring to. Besides the compiler knows the size of the type (say 4 bytes for int) and the address will be a multiple of 4 in that case (granularity/memory alignment). On top, if you give the compiler the type it will perform consistency checks at compilation time. Not after. This is not happening with void *.
In a nutshell, you are working bare metal. The types are compiler directives and do not hold runtime information. Nor does it track the objects you are dynamically creating. It is merely a segment in memory that is allocated where you can eventually store anything.
The main reason to use void* is that different things may be pointed at. Thus, I may pass in an int* or Node* or anything else. But unless you know either the type or the length, you can't do anything with it.
But if you know the length, you can handle the memory pointed at without knowing the type. Casting it as a char* is used because it is a single byte, so if I have a void* and a number of bytes, I can copy the memory somewhere else, or zero it out.
Additionally, if it is a pointer to a class, but you don't know if it is a parent or inherited class, you may be able to assume one and find out a flag inside the data which tells you which one. But no matter what, when you want to do much beyond passing it to another function, you need to cast it as something. char* is just the easiest single byte value to use.
Your confusion derived from habit to deal with Java programs. Java code is set of instruction for a virtual machine, where function of RAM is given to a sort of database, which stores name, type, size and data of each object. Programming language you're learning now is meant to be compiled into instruction for CPU, with same organization of memory as underlying OS have. Existing model used by C and C++ languages is some abstract built on top of most of popular OSes in way that code would work effectively after being compiled for that platform and OS. Naturally that organization doesn't involve string data about type, except for famous RTTI in C++.
For your case RTTI cannot be used directly, unless you would create a wrapper around your naked pointer, which would store the data.
In fact C++ library contains a vast collection of container class templates that are useable and portable, if they are defined by ISO standard. 3/4 of standard is just description of library often referred as STL. Use of them is preferable over working with naked pointers, unless you mean to create own container for some reason. For particular task only C++17 standard offered std::any class, previously present in boost library. Naturally, it is possible to reimplement it, or, in some cases, to replace by std::variant.
Assuming I have no understanding of the type stored in void*, how do I get the value out
You don't.
What you can do is record the type stored in the void*.
In c, void* is used to pass around a binary chunk of data that points at something through one layer of abstraction, and recieve it at the other end, casting it back to the type that the code knows it will be passed.
void do_callback( void(*pfun)(void*), void* pdata ) {
pfun(pdata);
}
void print_int( void* pint ) {
printf( "%d", *(int*)pint );
}
int main() {
int x = 7;
do_callback( print_int, &x );
}
here, we forget thet ype of &x, pass it through do_callback.
It is later passed to code inside do_callback or elsewhere that knows that the void* is actually an int*. So it casts it back and uses it as an int.
The void* and the consumer void(*)(void*) are coupled. The above code is "provably correct", but the proof does not lie in the type system; instead, it depends on the fact we only use that void* in a context that knows it is an int*.
In C++ you can use void* similarly. But you can also get fancy.
Suppose you want a pointer to anything printable. Something is printable if it can be << to a std::ostream.
struct printable {
void const* ptr = 0;
void(*print_f)(std::ostream&, void const*) = 0;
printable() {}
printable(printable&&)=default;
printable(printable const&)=default;
printable& operator=(printable&&)=default;
printable& operator=(printable const&)=default;
template<class T,std::size_t N>
printable( T(&t)[N] ):
ptr( t ),
print_f( []( std::ostream& os, void const* pt) {
T* ptr = (T*)pt;
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
os << ptr[i];
})
{}
template<std::size_t N>
printable( char(&t)[N] ):
ptr( t ),
print_f( []( std::ostream& os, void const* pt) {
os << (char const*)pt;
})
{}
template<class T,
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_same<std::decay_t<T>, printable>{}, int> =0
>
printable( T&& t ):
ptr( std::addressof(t) ),
print_f( []( std::ostream& os, void const* pt) {
os << *(std::remove_reference_t<T>*)pt;
})
{}
friend
std::ostream& operator<<( std::ostream& os, printable self ) {
self.print_f( os, self.ptr );
return os;
}
explicit operator bool()const{ return print_f; }
};
what I just did is a technique called "type erasure" in C++ (vaguely similar to Java type erasure).
void send_to_log( printable p ) {
std::cerr << p;
}
Live example.
Here we created an ad-hoc "virtual" interface to the concept of printing on a type.
The type need not support any actual interface (no binary layout requirements), it just has to support a certain syntax.
We create our own virtual dispatch table system for an arbitrary type.
This is used in the C++ standard library. In c++11 there is std::function<Signature>, and in c++17 there is std::any.
std::any is void* that knows how to destroy and copy its contents, and if you know the type you can cast it back to the original type. You can also query it and ask it if it a specific type.
Mixing std::any with the above type-erasure techinque lets you create regular types (that behave like values, not references) with arbitrary duck-typed interfaces.
When receiving data on wire and sending it to upper applications, normally, in C style, we have a struct for example with a void*:
struct SData{
//... len, size, version, msg type, ...
void* payload;
}
Later in the code, after error checking and mallocating, ..., we can do something as:
if(msgType == type1){
struct SType1* ptr = (struct SType1*) SData->payload;
}
In C++, an attempt to use unique_ptr fails in the following snippet:
struct SData{
// .. len, size, version, msg type, ...
std::unique_ptr<void> payload;
}
But as you know, this will cause:
error: static assertion failed: can't delete pointer to incomplete type
Is there a way to use smart pointers to handle this?
One solution I found is here:
Should std::unique_ptr<void> be permitted
Which requires creating a custom deleter:
void HandleDeleter(HANDLE h)
{
if (h) CloseHandle(h);
}
using
UniHandle = unique_ptr<void, function<void(HANDLE)>>;
This will require significantly more additional code (compared to the simple unsafe C Style), since for each type of payload there has to be some logic added.
This will require significantly more additional code (compared to the simple unsafe C Style), since for each type of payload there has to be some logic added.
The additional complexity is only calling the added destructors. You could use a function pointer instead of std::function since no closure state should ever be used.
If you don't want destructors, but only to add RAII to the C idiom, then use a custom deleter which simply does operator delete or std::free.
I'm working on socket programming.. my code executes the way I want it to, I'm able to use it. BUT it gives me a warning on compilation.
I compile using
gcc server1.c -o server1 -lpthread
And I get the warning
warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
This error comes for the following code
int newsockfd;
newsockfd = (int)newsockfdd; //this line
And I'm using newsockfdd (which is int) in the following chunk of code
if (pthread_create(&threadID[i++], NULL, serverThread, (void *)(intptr_t)newsockfdd) != 0)
{
perror("Thread create error");
}
As you can probably tell, the code is not written too well (I am working on making it better). I know that this warning comes because of something to do with the size of int. But I really dunno how to fix it. Before I put in (intptr_t) in the pthread_create statement, it was showing a warning on that line, but that time the warning was
warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
It seems like there should be a simple fix to this? But I can't find it. I'm using Ubuntu 64-bit. Is that a reason for the warning?
As has been established in the comments, the situation is (modulo renaming to avoid confusing occurrences of newsockfdd as passed argument or received parameter)
void *serverThread(void *arg) {
// ...
int newsockfd = (int)arg;
// ...
}
and in main (or a function called from there)
// ...
int newsockfdd = whatever;
// ...
if (pthread_create(&threadID[i++], NULL, serverThread, (void *)(intptr_t)newsockfdd) != 0)
// ..
So when the int newsockfdd is passed as an argument to serverThread, it is cast to a void*. Originally, that cast was direct, but the intermediate cast to intptr_t was inserted to remove the warning about the cast to pointer from integer of different size.
And in serverThread, the received void* is cast to int, resulting in the warning about the cast from pointer to integer of different size.
That warning could probably also be removed by inserting an intermediate cast to intptr_t.
But, while the standard allows casting integers to pointers and vice versa, the results are implementation-defined and there's no guarantee that int -> void* -> int round-trips (although, a footnote in the standard says
The mapping functions for converting a pointer to an integer or an integer to a pointer are intended to
be consistent with the addressing structure of the execution environment.
so probably it will round-trip and work as intended in this case - but it would likely not work [only for values of small enough absolute value] if the size of a void* is smaller than that of the integer type [consider long long -> void* -> long long on 32-bit systems]).
The proper fix is to avoid the casting between integers and pointers,
void *serverThread(void *arg) {
// ... check that arg isn't NULL
int newsockfd = *(int *)arg;
// ...
}
in severThread, cast the received pointer to a pointer of appropriate type, and read the pointed-to value, and in main
if// ...
int newsockfdd = whatever;
// ...
if (pthread_create(&threadID[i++], NULL, serverThread, &newsockfdd) != 0)
pass the address of newsockfdd.
One caveat: if serverThread is called from multiple places, the calls in all these places need to be fixed.
I would like to use MS function to send data.
I didnt find examples where they send other type of data other than const char * .
I tried to send a int, or other, but I failed.
WSASend() and send() both function only take a Char* parameters.
How should i proceed ?
Thanks
Its just a pointer to a buffer, this buffer may contains anything you want.
This char pointer is actually an address to a bytes array, this function requires a length parameter too.
An integer is a 2/4 (short/long) bytes value,
Then if you want to send an integer variable (for example) you have to pass its address, and its length.
WSASend and send are simple functions that send a memory block.
I assume you are talking about C, you have to understand that C's char variables are bytes - 8 bits block, char variables contain any value between 0 and 255.
A pointer to a char var is an address to a byte (which maybe the first cell of a bytes array).
I think thats what confuses you.
I hope you understand.
The const char* parameter indicates that the function is taking a pointer to bytes. Witch really seems to be the result of the original socket api designers being pedantic - C has a generic type to handle any kind of pointer without explicit casts: void*.
You could make a convenience wrapper for send like this - which would allow you to send any (contiguous) thing you can make a pointer to:
int MySend(SOCKET s, const void* buf, int len,int flags)
{
return send(s,(const char*)buf,len,flags);
}
Using void* in place of char* actually makes the api safer, as it can now detect when you do something stupid:
int x=0x1234;
send(s,(const char*)x,sizeof(x),0); // looks right, but is wrong.
mysend(s,x,sizeof(x),0); // this version correctly fails
mysend(s,&x,sizeof(x),0); // correct - pass a pointer to the buffer to send.
WSASend is a bit more tricky to make a convenience wapper for as you have to pass it an array of structs that contain the char*'s - but again its a case of defining an equivalent struct with const void*'s in place of the const char*'s and then casting the data structures to the WSA types in the convenience wrapper. Get it right once, and the rest of the program becomes much easier to determine correct as you don't need casts everywhere hiding potential bugs.