Accessing return by pointer out of function - c++11

I have the following function
std::tuple<int,val*>Socket::recv(val* values ) // const
{
char buf [ MAXRECV + 1 ];
memset ( buf, 0, MAXRECV + 1 );
int status = ::recv ( m_sock, buf, MAXRECV, 0 );
if ( status == -1 )
{
std::cout << "status == -1 errno == " << errno << " in Socket::recv\n";
// return std::make_tuple(0,NULL);//this is not working
}
else if ( status == 0 )
{
//return std::make_tuple(0,NULL); //this is not working
}
else
{
struct val* values=(struct val*) buf;
if(!std::isnan(values->val1) &&
!std::isnan(values->val2) &&
!std::isnan(values->val3) &&
!std::isnan(values->val4),
!std::isnan(values->val5),
!std::isnan(values->val6))
printf("received:%f %f %f %f %f %f\n", values->val1, values->val2,
values->val3, values->val4, values->val5, values->val6);
return std::make_tuple(status,values);
}
}
The received values are printed out in to standard output correctly within the function.
But when I try to access these received values out of the function by calling as follows what I get is all 0's.[after creating Socket rcvd object]
Would you tell me how to access these values outside the function?
1.
std::cout << std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)->val1)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)->val2)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)->val3)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)->val4)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)->val5)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)->val6)
<< std::endl;
2.
std::cout << std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values).val1)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values).val2)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values).val3)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values).val4)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values).val5)
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values).val6)
<< std::endl;
3.
std::cout << std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)[0])
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)[1])
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)[2])
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)[3])
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)[4])
<< std::get<1>(rcvd.recv(&values)[5])
<< std::endl;
where "values" comes from
struct val {
val1;
val2;
val3;
val4;
val5;
val6;} values;
All the three options of calling the function or access the struct val could not work for me.
Would you tell me
how to access these received values externally from any function?
how to return zero to struct pointer [NULL is not working ] when status is 0 or -1

Try
return std::make_tuple<int, val*>(0, nullptr);
The type of tuple is deduced from arguments, so by using 0,NULL you are actually using the null constant wich is evaluted to 0 and hence deduced type is <int,int>.
By the way, I see no reason for using NULL in C++11, if you need that really for some reason then cast NULL to val*
static_cast<val*>(NULL);
EDIT:
Other viable alternatives are
val* nullval = nullptr;
return std::make_tuple(0, nullval);
Or
return std::make_tuple(0, static_cast<val*>(nullptr));
Or (as comment suggest)
return {0, nullptr};
Choose the one that seems more clear to you.

You are lucky that the outside function is printing zeroes. It might have as well just dumped the core on you :)
What you are doing is accessing a buffer, that was created on a stack, after that stack was released (once the function's execution finished). That is HIGHLY UNSAFE and, pretty much, illegal.
Instead what you should do is allocate your data buffer in a 'free memory", using functions like malloc (in C) or operator new/new[] (in C++).
The quick fix is to replace the line
char buf [ MAXRECV + 1 ];
with
char * buf = new char [ MAXRECV + 1 ];
And when you do a type casting on line
struct val* values=(struct val*) buf;
you really ought to be sure that what you do is correct. If the sizeof() of you struct val is more than the sizeof(char[MAXRECV + 1]) you'll get in memory access troubles.
After you are done using the returned data buffer don't forget to release it with a call to free (in C) or delete/delete[] (in C++). Otherwise you'd have what is called a memory leak.

Related

Why does this C++ closure produce different outputs?

I am trying to learn the concept of closures in C++. I have the following code.
std::function<void(void)> closureWrapper2()
{
int x = 10;
return [&x](){x += 1; std::cout << "Value in the closure: " << x << std::endl;};
}
int main()
{
std::function<void(void)> func2 = closureWrapper2();
// std::cout << "---" << std::endl;
func2();
func2();
func2();
}
Output
Value in the closure: 11
Value in the closure: 12
Value in the closure: 13
Now if I uncomment the cout statement I get the following output.
Output
---
Value in the closure: 32765
Value in the closure: 32766
Value in the closure: 32767
Can anyone please explain why printing something before the function calls changes the output?
std::function<void(void)> closureWrapper2()
{
int x = 10;
return [&x](){x += 1; std::cout << "Value in the closure: " << x << std::endl;};
}
It's undefined behaviour(a) to dereference a pointer to, or use a reference to, an object after that object no longer exists. That's what you're doing here. You capture a reference to x then attempt to use it after x has ceased to exist.
It's a local (automatic storage duration) variable inside closureWrapper2() so ceases to exist when that function exits.
That may appear to work without the cout line but that doesn't make it any less undefined. Putting the cout line is almost certainly modifying the stack where x was originally stored, changing the starting value.
You can get a similar effect with (in my environment):
void otherFn() { int abc = 97, def = 42, ghi = 9; std::cout << abc+def+ghi << '\n'; }
int main()
{
std::function<void(void)> func2 = closureWrapper2();
otherFn();
func2();
func2();
func2();
}
This indicates that the original value is definitely being overwritten by the abc variable in otherFn():
148
Value in the closure: 98
Value in the closure: 99
Value in the closure: 100
I had to try varying numbers of arguments as the stack frames for the closureWrapper2() and otherFn() are most likely different. Calling cout.operator<<() is likely to go through a number of stack levels to achieve its end so will be more likely to overwrite the original value.
(a) This is the solution to your problem, of course: don't do undefined behaviour :-)

c++ : unordered map with pair of string_viewes

Here is a code snippet I have :
struct PairHasher {
size_t operator()(const std::pair<std::string_view, std::string_view>& stop_stop) const {
return hasher(stop_stop.first) + 37*hasher(stop_stop.second);
}
std::hash<std::string_view> hasher;
};
BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(unordered_map_string_view_pair_must_be_ok, TestCaseStartStopMessager)
{
const std::vector<std::string> from_stops = {"from_0", "from_1", "from_2"};
const std::vector<std::string> to_stops = {"to_0", "to_1", "to_2"};
std::unordered_map<std::pair<std::string_view, std::string_view>, std::int32_t, TransportCatalogue::PairHasher> distance_between_stops;
for ( std::size_t idx = 0; idx < from_stops.size(); ++idx) {
std::cout << from_stops[idx] << " : " << to_stops[idx] << std::endl;
distance_between_stops[std::pair(from_stops[idx], to_stops[idx])] = idx;
}
std::cout << "MAP CONTENT :" << std::endl;
for (auto const& x : distance_between_stops)
{
std::cout << x.first.first << " : " << x.first.second << std::endl;
}
}
I expect to see 3 pairs inside the container, but there is only 1 concerning to the output :
MAP CONTENT :
from_2 : to_2
So, where are two more pair lost? What am I doing wrong?
Moving my comment to an answer.
This is pretty sneaky. I noticed in Compiler Explorer that changing:
distance_between_stops[std::pair(from_stops[idx], to_stops[idx])] = idx;
to
distance_between_stops[std::pair(std::string_view{from_stops[idx]}, std::string_view{to_stops[idx]})] = idx;
fixes the bug. This hints that the problem lies in some implicit string -> string_view conversion. And indeed that is the case, but it is hidden behind one extra layer.
std::pair(from_stops[idx], to_stops[idx]) creates a std::pair<std::string, std::string>, but distance_between_stops requires a std::pair<std::string_view, std::string_view>. When we insert values into the map, this conversion happens implicitly via overload #5 here:
template <class U1, class U2>
constexpr pair(pair<U1, U2>&& p);
Initializes first with std::forward<U1>(p.first) and second with std::forward<U2>(p.second).
This constructor participates in overload resolution if and only if std::is_constructible_v<first_type, U1&&> and std::is_constructible_v<second_type, U2&&> are both true.
This constructor is explicit if and only if std::is_convertible_v<U1&&, first_type> is false or std::is_convertible_v<U2&&, second_type> is false.
(For reference, std::is_constructible_v<std::string_view, std::string&&> and std::is_convertible_v<std::string&&, std::string_view> are both true, so we know this overload is viable and implicit.)
See the problem yet? When we use the map's operator[], it has to do an implicit conversion to create a key with the proper type. This implicit conversion constructs a pair of string_views that are viewing the temporary memory from the local pair of strings, not the underlying strings in the vector. In other words, it is conceptually similar to:
std::string_view foo(const std::string& s) {
std::string temp = s + " foo";
return temp;
}
int main() {
std::string_view sv = foo("hello");
std::cout << sv << "\n";
}
Clang emits a warning for this small example, but not OP's full example, which is unfortunate:
warning: address of stack memory associated with local variable 'temp' returned [-Wreturn-stack-address]
return temp;
^~~~

C++ Struct attributes can change within function, but remain unchanged outside scope of function

I'm working on a self imposed challenge which involves implementing a linked list and an append function for it, which is giving me issues seemingly related to variable scope.
The append function loops through each link element until it reads a NULL value and then changes the data value associated with that link to the function input. The test outputs within the function seem to show it is working as intended, but when performing the same test outside the function, even after it is called gives a different output.
template <class T>
struct atom{
T data;
atom<T>* link = NULL;
};
template <class T>
void append_LL(atom<T> first, T input_data){
atom<T>* current_node = &first;
atom<T>* next_node = current_node->link;
int i = 0;
while (i < 4 && next_node != NULL) {
current_node = next_node;
next_node = next_node->link;
i ++;
}
current_node->data = input_data;
current_node->link = (atom<T>*)malloc(sizeof(atom<T>));
cout << "leaving node as: " << current_node->data << endl; //outputs 5
cout << "input nodes data: " << first.data << endl; //outputs 5
}
int main() {
int dd = 5;
atom<int> linked_list;
linked_list.data = 999;
append_LL(linked_list, dd);
cout << linked_list.data << endl; //outputs 999
}
Because you are not sending the same atom. You see the program is making a copy of the linked_list in the main function and sending that copy to the function.
If you want to modify the same linked_list then change
void append_LL(atom<T> first, T input_data){
to
void append_LL(atom<T> &first, T input_data){
That way you are sending the really atom not a copy of it.

return type of decltype(*this)

I think I might have missed the subtlety in move construction because when I change the line Foo copy(*this); to decltype(*this) copy(*this);, I am thoroughly surprised by the output.
I checked it against, clang++-3.5 and g++-4.9, with the same behavior.
Would really appreciate a quick tip from the C++11 guru.
Update: Just forced the compiler to print the type of decltype(*this), it is actually a reference type i.e. Foo&.
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int a): val(a) {}
operator int() { return val; }
auto& operator++() {
val++;
return *this;
}
auto operator++(int) {
//Foo copy(*this);
decltype(*this) copy(*this);
++(*this);
return copy;
}
private:
int val;
};
int main()
{
Foo foo=1;
cout << "foo++ = " << foo++ << "\n";
cout << "foo++ = " << foo++ << "\n";
cout << "foo = " << foo << "\n";
return 0;
}
The output
foo++ = 2
foo++ = 3
foo = 3
There seems to be a confusion as to why decltyp(*this) is Foo& and not Foo in your case. Firstly, think about dereferencing a pointer always resulting in a reference to the pointed to object.
temp = *ptr // this would work if dereferencing returned by value or by reference
*ptr = expr // this would only work if dereferencing results in a reference.
Now decltype(expr) always gives you exactly the same type as the expr. For you *this is of type Foo&.
If you want type deduction without it resulting in a reference use auto instead of decltype, so:
auto copy(*this);
instead of
decltype(*this) copy(*this);
Also I don't know why your question is talking about move construction so much as there is no move involved anywhere.

Boost Spirit - Parser Capturing Unwanted Text

I have a simple struct
// in namespace client
struct UnaryExpression
{
std::string key;
SomeEnums::CompareType op;
};
SomeEnums::CompareType is an enum where I define a symbol table as such:
struct UnaryOps : bsq::symbols<char, SomeEnums::CompareType>
{
UnaryOps() : bsq::symbols<char, SomeEnums::CompareType>(std::string("UnaryOps"))
{
add("exists", SomeEnums::Exists)
("nexists", SomeEnums::NotExists);
}
};
I have two different ways I want to parse the struct, which I asked about in another thread and got to work (mostly).
My grammar looks as follows:
template<typename Iterator>
struct test_parser : bsq::grammar<Iterator, client::UnaryExpression(), bsq::ascii::space_type>
{
test_parser()
: test_parser::base_type(unaryExp, std::string("Test"))
{
using bsq::no_case;
key %= bsq::lexeme[bsq::alnum >> +(bsq::alnum | bsq::char_('.'))];
unaryExp %= unaryE | unaryF;
unaryE %= key >> no_case[unaryOps];
unaryF %= no_case[unaryOps] >> '(' >> key >> ')';
};
UnaryOps unaryOps;
bsq::rule<Iterator, std::string(), bsq::ascii::space_type> key;
bsq::rule<Iterator, client::UnaryExpression(), bsq::ascii::space_type> unaryExp;
bsq::rule<Iterator, client::UnaryExpression(), bsq::ascii::space_type> unaryE;
bsq::rule<Iterator, client::UnaryFunction(), bsq::ascii::space_type> unaryF;
};
And I'm parsing the code using the following logic:
bool r = phrase_parse(iter, end, parser, bsq::ascii::space, exp);
if (r && iter == end)
{
std::cout << "-------------------------\n";
std::cout << "Parsing succeeded\n";
std::cout << "key: " << exp.key << "\n";
std::cout << "op : " << exp.op << "\n";
std::cout << "-------------------------\n";
}
This all works fine if I do the input like foo exists and exp.key equals "foo" and exp.op equals the corresponding enum value (in this case 0). Something like foo1 nexists also works.
However, that second rule doesn't work like I expect. If I give it input of nexists(foo) then I get the following output:
-------------------------
Parsing succeeded
key: nexistsfoo
op : 1
-------------------------
It seems that the enum value is getting set appropriately but I can't figure out why the "nexsts" is getting prepended to the key string. Can someone please tell me how I can fix my rule so that the key would equal just 'foo' with the second rule?
I have posted a copy of the stripped down code that illustrates my problem here: http://pastebin.com/402M9iTS

Resources