I have a D module which I hope contains public and private parts. I have tried using the keywords private and static before function definitions. I have a function that I wish to make externally-callable / public and ideally I would like it to be inlined at the call-site. This function calls other module-internal functions that are intended to be private, i.e. not externally callable. Calls to these are successfully inlined within the module and a lot of the cruft is disposed of by CTFE plus known-constant propagation. However the GDC compiler also generates copies of these internal routines, even though they have been inlined where needed and they are not supposed to be externally callable. I'm compiling with -O3 -frelease. What should I be doing - should I expect this even if I use static and/or private?
I have also taken a brief look at this thread concerning GCC hoping for insight.
As I mentioned earlier, I've tried both using private and static on these internal functions, but I can't seem to suppress the code generation. I could understand this if a debugger needed to have copies of these routines to set breakpoints in. I need to stress that this could perhaps be sorted out somehow at link-time, for all I know. I haven't tried linking the program, I'm just looking at the generated code in the Matt Godbolt D Compiler Explorer using GDC. Everything can be made into templates with a zero-length list of template parameters (e.g. auto my_fn()( in arg_t x ) ), tried that, it doesn't help but does no harm.
A couple of other things to try: I could try and make a static class with private parts, as a way of implementing a package, Ada-style. (Needs to be single-instance strictly.) I've never done any C++, only massive amounts of asm and C professionally. So that would be a learning curve.
The only other thing I can think of is to use nested function definitions, Pascal/Ada-style, move the internal routines to be inside the body of their callers. But that has a whole lot of disadvantages.
Rough example
module junk;
auto my_public_fn() { return my_private_fn(); }
private
static // 'static' and/or 'private', tried both
auto my_private_fn() { xxx ; return whatever; }
I just had a short discussion with Iain about this and implementing this is not as simple as it seems.
First of all static has many meanings in D, but the C meaning of translation unit local function is not one of them ;-)
So marking these functions as private seems intuitive. After all, if you can't access a function from outside of the translation unit and you never leak an address to the function why not remove it? It could be either completely unused or inlined into all callers in this case.
Now here's the catch: We can't know for sure if a function is unused:
private void fooPrivate() {}
/*template*/ void fooPublic()()
{
fooPrivate();
}
When compiling the file GDC knows nothing about the fooPublic template (as templates can only be fully analyzed when instantiated), so fooPrivate appears to be unused. When later using fooPublic in a different file GDC will rely on fooPrivate being already emitted in the original source - after all it's not a template so it's not being emitted into the new module.
There might be workarounds but this whole problem seems nontrivial. We could also introduce a custom gcc.attribute attribute for this. It would cause the same problems with templates, but as it's a specific annotation for one usecase (unlike private) we could rely on the user to do the right thing.
Related
I write a library, this library includes a function void f() this function is a one line function and when I compile the library to shared object with -O3 gcc optimization flag it is inlined. I call it in a critical place in the code (must be as fast as possible) and I don't want to call it not inlined (hits performance substantially). The problem is that this function is part of the API that my library exposes so when library users link with my library and call this function they get undefined reference linkage error. Is there a way for my code to use the function inlined but still instantiate it in the object file so library users will be able to link and use it? (When I say "instantiate it in the object file" I mean I'd like to see it when I run objdump -t on the shared object). Just to make it clear, I'm not interested in a solution to wrap it with a function
void F() __attribute__((noinline)) { f(); }
Because I have many functions like that and I don't want to keep a copy for every function due to the enormous amount of overhead. I'm looking for a way to tell the compiler to use it inline when the definition is available to it, but still instantiate the function in the object file, so library users can link to with it too.
Check out this How can I tell gcc not to inline a function?
I found this solution the most appropriate. I'd like to note the main thing is that the code inside the library is still inlined so there is no performance penalty but users can still use the API as all functions have instantiation
Also another possible solution in the compilation level is to use -fkeep-inline-functions gcc switch which also instantiates inline functions and and uses them inlined where possible (unlike -fno-inline switch). The main problem with this switch is that if your code is heavily templated compilation time is much longer and the binary product becomes much bigger
I know that the override contextual keyword was introduced to write safer code (by checking for a virtual function with the same signature) but I don't feel good about it, because it seems to be redundant for me to write override every time I want to override a virtual function.
Is it a bad practice to not use override contextual keyword for 99% of cases? Why/when should I have to use it (a compiler warning is not enough when we are hiding a virtual function mistakenly)?
EDIT: In other words; what is the advantage of using the override contextual keyword in C++11 while we always had a compiler warning if we were hiding a virtual function mistakenly in C++03 (without using override contextual keyword)?
The override keyword is totally useful and I would recommend using it all the time.
If you misspell your virtual function it will compile fine but at runtime the program will call the wrong function. It will call the base class function rather than your override.
It can be a really difficult bug to find:
#include <iostream>
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
virtual int func()
{
// do stuff for bases
return 3;
}
};
class Derived
: public Base
{
public:
virtual int finc() // WHOOPS MISSPELLED, override would prevent this
{
// do stuff for deriveds
return 8;
}
};
int main()
{
Base* base = new Derived;
std::cout << base->func() << std::endl;
delete base;
}
Annotations are what you call contextual keywords, they serve as clarification, to make sure anyone who reads the code realizes it is a function that overrides a function in a superclass or a interface.
The compiler can also give a warning if the originally overridden feature was removed, in which case you might want to think about removing your function as well.
As far as I know, nothing bad happens if you ommit anotations. It's neither right nor wrong. Like you stated correctly already: annotations are introduced to write safer code.
However: They won't change your code in any functional way.
If you work as a single programmer on your own project it might not matter wheter you use them or not. It is however good practice to stick to one style (i.e. either you use it, or you don't use it. Anything inbetween like sometimes using it and sometimes not only causes confusion)
If you work in a Team you should discuss the topic with your teammates and decide wheter you all use it or not.
What is the advantage of using override contextual keyword in C++11 while we always had a compiler warning if we were hiding a virtual function mistakenly
Nearly none!?
But:
It depends on how much warnings will be accepted by your build rules. If you say, every warning MUST be fixed, you will get the same result UNTIL you are using a compiler which give you the warning.
We have decided to always use override and remove virtual on overriding methods. So the "overhead" is zero and the code is portable in the meaning of "give an error" on misuse.
I personally like this new feature, because it makes the language clearer. If you say this is an override, it will be checked! And if we want to add a new method with different signature, we will NOT get a false positive warning, which is important in your scenario!
I'm writing a MATLAB application which has many functions spread over different files. I have a logger, which is a struct with a function pointer, and I use it to log information for the user to see (that is, which function is currently executing, calculation results, etc.). The reason I use a struct for my logger and not simply fprintf() is that I could easily replace it with an XML logger, HTML logger, etc. in the future.
Since my code is composed of many functions calling each other, I declared my logger struct as global, so I don't have to pass it to all my many functions. However, everywhere I look I see that global variables are evil incarnate in MATLAB and will slow my program down considerably.
Is there a way to have variables available across files without necessarily passing them as input parameters, and without suffering from severe performance penalty?
You can also use persistent keyword inside a file, and allocate the logger there.
It is similar in some ways to the static keyword in C++. It is also an implementation of the Singleton pattern.
function CallLogger(st)
persistent logger;
if isempty(logger)
%Allocate new logger
end
logger.disp(st);
end
It is better than global because
1. No one can destroy your logger without your knowledge.
2. No one even knows about this object, because it is limited to the function scope
By the way, I don't agree that global has a performance issue. It is just not a good practice, in terms of Software Engineering.
Better than invoking persistent variables in a function (which, for example, won't be saved if you save and then reload your workspace) would be to move from function + struct to object: that is, you should look into MATLAB's object oriented programming.
I create class libraries, some which are used by others around the world, and now that I'm starting to use Visual Studio 2010 I'm wondering how good idea it is for me to switch to using code contracts, instead of regular old-style if-statements.
ie. instead of this:
if (fileName == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fileName");
use this:
Contract.Requires(fileName != null);
The reason I'm asking is that I know that the static checker is not available to me, so I'm a bit nervous about some assumptions that I make, that the compiler cannot verify. This might lead to the class library not compiling for someone that downloads it, when they have the static checker. This, coupled with the fact that I cannot even reproduce the problem, would make it tiresome to fix, and I would gather that it doesn't speak volumes to the quality of my class library if it seemingly doesn't even compile out of the box.
So I have a few questions:
Is the static checker on by default if you have access to it? Or is there a setting I need to switch on in the class library (and since I don't have the static checker, I won't)
Are my fears unwarranted? Is the above scenario a real problem?
Any advice would be welcome.
Edit: Let me clarify what I mean.
Let's say I have the following method in a class:
public void LogToFile(string fileName, string message)
{
Contracts.Requires(fileName != null);
// log to the file here
}
and then I have this code:
public void Log(string message)
{
var targetProvider = IoC.Resolve<IFileLogTargetProvider>();
var fileName = targetProvider.GetTargetFileName();
LogToFile(fileName, message);
}
Now, here, IoC kicks in, resolves some "random" class, that provides me with a filename. Let's say that for this library, there is no possible way that I can get back a class that won't give me a non-null filename, however, due to the nature of the IoC call, the static analysis is unable to verify this, and thus might assume that a possible value could be null.
Hence, the static analysis might conclude that there is a risk of the LogToFile method being called with a null argument, and thus fail to build.
I understand that I can add assumptions to the code, saying that the compiler should take it as given that the fileName I get back from that method will never be null, but if I don't have the static analyzer (VS2010 Professional), the above code would compile for me, and thus I might leave this as a sleeping bug for someone with Ultimate to find. In other words, there would be no compile-time warning that there might be a problem here, so I might release the library as-is.
So is this a real scenario and problem?
When both your LogToFile and Log methods are part of your library, it is possible that your Log method will not compile, once you turn on the static checker. This of course will also happen when you supply code to others that compile your code using the static checker. However, as far as I know, your client's static checker will not validate the internals of the assembly you ship. It will statically check their own code against the public API of your assembly. So as long as you just ship the DLL, you'd be okay.
Of course there is a change of shipping a library that has a very annoying API for users that actually have the static checker enabled, so I think it is advisable to only ship your library with the contract definitions, if you tested the usability of the API both with and without the static checker.
Please be warned about changing the existing if (cond) throw ex calls to Contracts.Requires(cond) calls for public API calls that you have already shipped in a previous release. Note that the Requires method throws a different exception (a RequiresViolationException if I recall correctly) than what you'd normally throw (a ArgumentException). In that situation, use the Contract.Requires overload. This way your API interface stays unchanged.
First, the static checker is really (as I understand it) only available in the ultimate/academic editions - so unless everyone in your organization uses it they may not be warned if they are potentially violating an invariant.
Second, while the static analysis is impressive it cannot always find all paths that may lead to violation of the invariant. However, the good news here is that the Requires contract is retained at runtime - it is processed in an IL-transformation step - so the check exists at both compile time and runtime. In this way it is equivalent (but superior) to a regular if() check.
You can read more about the runtime rewriting that code contract compilation performs here, you can also read the detailed manual here.
EDIT: Based on what I can glean from the manual, I suspect the situation you describe is indeed possible. However, I thought that these would be warninings rather than compilation errors - and you can suppress them using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage(). Consumers of your code who have the static verifier can also mark specific cases to be ignored - but that could certainly be inconvenient if there are a lot of them. I will try to find some time later today to put together a definitive test of your scenario (I don't have access to the static verifier at the moment).
There's an excellent blog here that is almost exclusively dedicated to code contracts which (if you haven't yet seen) may have some content that interests you.
No; the static analyzer will never prevent compilation from succeeding (unless it crashes!).
The static analyzer will warn you about unproven pre-/post-conditions, but doesn't stop compilation.
Every so often, I'm done modifying a piece of code and I would like to "lock" or make a region of code "read only". That way, the only way I can modify the code is if I unlock it first. Is there any way to do this?
The easiest way which would work in many cases is to make it a partial type - i.e. a single class whose source code is spread across multiple files. You could then make one file read-only and the other writable.
To declare a partial type, you just use the partial contextual keyword in the declaration:
// MyClass.First.cs:
public partial class MyClass
{
void Foo()
{
Bar();
}
void Baz()
{
}
}
// MyClass.Second.cs:
public partial class MyClass
{
void Bar()
{
Baz();
}
}
As you can see, it ends up as if the source was all in the same file - you can call methods declared in one file from the other with no problems.
Compile it into into a library dll and make it available for reference in other projects.
Split up the code into separate files and then check into a source control system?
Given your rebuttal to partial classes... there is no way that I know of in a single file, short of documentation. Other options?
inheritance; but the protected code in the base-class (in an assembly you control); inheritors can only call the public/protected members
postsharp - stick the protected logic in attributes declared externally
However, both of these still require multiple files (and probably multiple assemblies).
I thought about this, but I would prefer to keep the class in one file. – danmine
Sorry, mac. A bit of voodoo as a SVN pre-commit might catch it but otherwise no solution other than // if you change this code you are fired
This is totally unnecessary if you're using a version control system. Because once you've checked it in, it doesn't matter what part of the code you edit, you can always diff or roll back. Heck, you could accidentally wipe out all the source code and still get it back.
I'm getting a really bad "code smell" from the fact that you want to lock certain parts of the code. I'm guessing that maybe you're doing too much in one class, in which case, refactor it to a proper set of classes. The fact that, after the 10+ years visual studio has existed, this feature isn't available, should suggest that perhaps your desire to do this is a result of poor design.