In C++, I'd like to be able to simulate "plugins" without dynamic library loading. I found a way to hook up a function inside a static library to my executable without referencing it, but I'm unsure this is correct.
Because global symbols are initialised before the translation unit main function, I may write something like:
int _ = []()
{
std::cout << "hook" << std::endl;
return 0;
} ();
The combination of lambda + IIFE pattern + safe initialisation works, but since I've never encountered that kind of technique, I'm worried about undefined behaviours or compiler-specific details. Is there anything better?
What you show is legal C++. In general, initialization of global variables can be used to run code outside of main(). There are caveats, namely the "static initialization order fiasco" -- as mentioned in the link you provide.
You haven't seen it because it's frowned upon. You're using global variables to run code outside of main(). Many such attempts have ended in frustration.
Related
• The function will be inline; that is, the compiler will try to generate code for the function at each point of call rather than using function-call instructions to use common code. This can be a significant performance advantage for functions, such as month(), that hardly do anything but
are used a lot.
• All uses of the class will have to be recompiled whenever we make a change to the body of an inlined function. If the function body is out of the class declaration, recompilation of users is needed only when the class declaration is itself changed. Not recompiling when the body is
changed can be a huge advantage in large programs.
• The class definition gets larger. Consequently, it can be harder to find the members among the member function definitions.
All uses of the class will have to be recompiled whenever we make a change to the body of an inlined function. If the function body is out of the class declaration, recompilation of users is needed only when the class declaration is itself changed. Not recompiling when the body is
changed can be a huge advantage in large programs.
I don't know what the book is trying to say exactly in this point. What do we mean by "have to be recompiled" and "recompilation is needed only when the class declaration is itself changed"
I suppose, from the context, that the quoted part discusses the pros & cons of putting member definitions inside the class declaration.
Suppose you have class X. You have to declare it somewhere. In a typical scenario, it will be placed in a header file whose only role will be to hold this declaration. Let's call it x.h.
A class usually has member functions. Now you can choose to either put them inside the header file inside the class declaration or in a separate file (typically: x.cpp).
Solution 1:
// file x.h contains everything
class X
{
public:
X() { std::cout << "X() has been hit\n"; }
};
Solution 2:
// file x.h contains only the declaration(s)
class X
{
public:
X();
};
// file x.cpp contains the class member definitions
#include "x.h"
X::X() { std::cout << "X() has been hit\n"; }
Whichever solution you use, you surely have some code that uses your class, and typically it is located in a different source file(s), e.g.:
// main.cpp
#include "x.h"
int main()
{
X x;
}
The first thing to notice: the user (here: main.cpp) looks the same whether you choose Solution 1 or 2. This is great. Now, here comes the message Bjarne wants to tell you: consider how changes to the class code will impact the users.
In Solution 1 you've packed everything into the header file. Any change to the class, even so apparently harmless as adding a new member function or just changing class formatting (you know, tabs, spaces, etc.) or adding a comment will force the compiler to recompile main.cpp. Why? Professional C++ programs are composed of many, many source files and their compilation is controlled and executed by special utility programs, like cmake, make, and many others. They simply look at the timestamps of the files that make up the program. Any change is a signal to recompile. Header files are never compiled, but all source files (= *.cpp) that include them (even indirectly, via other header files) have to be recompiled. This explains this:
All uses of the class will have to be recompiled whenever we make a change to the body of an inlined function.
(just to be sure: all class member functions declared inside the class declaration are considered inline by default). Here, main.cpp is an example of a "uses" mentioned above.
In Solution 2, file main.cpp will be recompiled only if x.h has been changed (in any way). If a programmer touches only x.cpp, then main.cpp will not be recompiled, because (a) C++ is designed in such a way to allow it and (b) professional C++ programs use other programs (I've mentioned above) that facilitate the efficient compilation of even large C++ programs. To be explicit: they are not compiled using commands like g++ *.cpp that can be found in some introductory C++ textbooks.
One final remark. The inline keyword was introduced essentially to allow Solution 1. Solution 2 is the original C language way. Solution 1 is sometimes used in C++ for better performance (but modern compilers can in many situations do the same job without it) and very often for templates (which are absent in C). Solution 1 is the most common way of programming templates, Solution 2 is typical for "ordinary" member functions. What Bjarne writes about is extremely important for library designers, I hope now you understand why.
How do you do "inline functions" in C#? I don't think I understand the concept. Are they like anonymous methods? Like lambda functions?
Note: The answers almost entirely deal with the ability to inline functions, i.e. "a manual or compiler optimization that replaces a function call site with the body of the callee." If you are interested in anonymous (a.k.a. lambda) functions, see #jalf's answer or What is this 'Lambda' everyone keeps speaking of?.
Finally in .NET 4.5, the CLR allows one to hint/suggest1 method inlining using MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining value. It is also available in the Mono's trunk (committed today).
// The full attribute usage is in mscorlib.dll,
// so should not need to include extra references
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
...
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
void MyMethod(...)
1. Previously "force" was used here. I'll try to clarify the term. As in the comments and the documentation, The method should be inlined if possible. Especially considering Mono (which is open), there are some mono-specific technical limitations considering inlining or more general one (like virtual functions). Overall, yes, this is a hint to compiler, but I guess that is what was asked for.
Inline methods are simply a compiler optimization where the code of a function is rolled into the caller.
There's no mechanism by which to do this in C#, and they're to be used sparingly in languages where they are supported -- if you don't know why they should be used somewhere, they shouldn't be.
Edit: To clarify, there are two major reasons they need to be used sparingly:
It's easy to make massive binaries by using inline in cases where it's not necessary
The compiler tends to know better than you do when something should, from a performance standpoint, be inlined
It's best to leave things alone and let the compiler do its work, then profile and figure out if inline is the best solution for you. Of course, some things just make sense to be inlined (mathematical operators particularly), but letting the compiler handle it is typically the best practice.
Update: Per konrad.kruczynski's answer, the following is true for versions of .NET up to and including 4.0.
You can use the MethodImplAttribute class to prevent a method from being inlined...
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]
void SomeMethod()
{
// ...
}
...but there is no way to do the opposite and force it to be inlined.
You're mixing up two separate concepts. Function inlining is a compiler optimization which has no impact on the semantics. A function behaves the same whether it's inlined or not.
On the other hand, lambda functions are purely a semantic concept. There is no requirement on how they should be implemented or executed, as long as they follow the behavior set out in the language spec. They can be inlined if the JIT compiler feels like it, or not if it doesn't.
There is no inline keyword in C#, because it's an optimization that can usually be left to the compiler, especially in JIT'ed languages. The JIT compiler has access to runtime statistics which enables it to decide what to inline much more efficiently than you can when writing the code. A function will be inlined if the compiler decides to, and there's nothing you can do about it either way. :)
Cody has it right, but I want to provide an example of what an inline function is.
Let's say you have this code:
private void OutputItem(string x)
{
Console.WriteLine(x);
//maybe encapsulate additional logic to decide
// whether to also write the message to Trace or a log file
}
public IList<string> BuildListAndOutput(IEnumerable<string> x)
{ // let's pretend IEnumerable<T>.ToList() doesn't exist for the moment
IList<string> result = new List<string>();
foreach(string y in x)
{
result.Add(y);
OutputItem(y);
}
return result;
}
The compilerJust-In-Time optimizer could choose to alter the code to avoid repeatedly placing a call to OutputItem() on the stack, so that it would be as if you had written the code like this instead:
public IList<string> BuildListAndOutput(IEnumerable<string> x)
{
IList<string> result = new List<string>();
foreach(string y in x)
{
result.Add(y);
// full OutputItem() implementation is placed here
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
return result;
}
In this case, we would say the OutputItem() function was inlined. Note that it might do this even if the OutputItem() is called from other places as well.
Edited to show a scenario more-likely to be inlined.
Do you mean inline functions in the C++ sense? In which the contents of a normal function are automatically copied inline into the callsite? The end effect being that no function call actually happens when calling a function.
Example:
inline int Add(int left, int right) { return left + right; }
If so then no, there is no C# equivalent to this.
Or Do you mean functions that are declared within another function? If so then yes, C# supports this via anonymous methods or lambda expressions.
Example:
static void Example() {
Func<int,int,int> add = (x,y) => x + y;
var result = add(4,6); // 10
}
Yes Exactly, the only distinction is the fact it returns a value.
Simplification (not using expressions):
List<T>.ForEach Takes an action, it doesn't expect a return result.
So an Action<T> delegate would suffice.. say:
List<T>.ForEach(param => Console.WriteLine(param));
is the same as saying:
List<T>.ForEach(delegate(T param) { Console.WriteLine(param); });
the difference is that the param type and delegate decleration are inferred by usage and the braces aren't required on a simple inline method.
Where as
List<T>.Where Takes a function, expecting a result.
So an Function<T, bool> would be expected:
List<T>.Where(param => param.Value == SomeExpectedComparison);
which is the same as:
List<T>.Where(delegate(T param) { return param.Value == SomeExpectedComparison; });
You can also declare these methods inline and asign them to variables IE:
Action myAction = () => Console.WriteLine("I'm doing something Nifty!");
myAction();
or
Function<object, string> myFunction = theObject => theObject.ToString();
string myString = myFunction(someObject);
I hope this helps.
The statement "its best to leave these things alone and let the compiler do the work.." (Cody Brocious) is complete rubish. I have been programming high performance game code for 20 years, and I have yet to come across a compiler that is 'smart enough' to know which code should be inlined (functions) or not. It would be useful to have a "inline" statement in c#, truth is that the compiler just doesnt have all the information it needs to determine which function should be always inlined or not without the "inline" hint. Sure if the function is small (accessor) then it might be automatically inlined, but what if it is a few lines of code? Nonesense, the compiler has no way of knowing, you cant just leave that up to the compiler for optimized code (beyond algorithims).
There are occasions where I do wish to force code to be in-lined.
For example if I have a complex routine where there are a large number of decisions made within a highly iterative block and those decisions result in similar but slightly differing actions to be carried out. Consider for example, a complex (non DB driven) sort comparer where the sorting algorythm sorts the elements according to a number of different unrelated criteria such as one might do if they were sorting words according to gramatical as well as semantic criteria for a fast language recognition system. I would tend to write helper functions to handle those actions in order to maintain the readability and modularity of the source code.
I know that those helper functions should be in-lined because that is the way that the code would be written if it never had to be understood by a human. I would certainly want to ensure in this case that there were no function calling overhead.
I know this question is about C#. However, you can write inline functions in .NET with F#. see: Use of `inline` in F#
No, there is no such construct in C#, but the .NET JIT compiler could decide to do inline function calls on JIT time. But i actually don't know if it is really doing such optimizations.
(I think it should :-))
In case your assemblies will be ngen-ed, you might want to take a look at TargetedPatchingOptOut. This will help ngen decide whether to inline methods. MSDN reference
It is still only a declarative hint to optimize though, not an imperative command.
Lambda expressions are inline functions! I think, that C# doesn`t have a extra attribute like inline or something like that!
I have some code which depends on some include files which are partly defined at the start of source files (which is usual) and others which are used within functions.
I typical example for that are the OpenFOAM solver sources.
Because the scheme of this code is highly procedural, but I want to put all this into a class which provides init(), run() and maybe release(), I plan to put some of the variables into the classes as private making them members.
I don't want to modify the included files because they belong to a library.
The reason for using a class is that other routines classes run together with this code.
Here is the thing. init() must prepare some variable and there situations that theses variables (being type of other clases) not explicit constructors and special arguments. It is called once. run() is called several times. The procedural code has a loop only and the contents of that loop are put into the run() method.
So the best solution was to put these variables into std::unique_ptr and init can construct whatever it needs to. Obviously with that trick the variable signature changed, so I created a second declaration of a reference like this:
std::unique_ptr<volScalarField> mp_p;
volScalarField &p = *mp_p;
Now this is a bit tedious so I created a macro
FOAMPTR(volVectorField, p)
which does all the work for me:
#define FOAMPTR(TYPE,NAME) std::unique_ptr<TYPE> mp_##NAME; TYPE &NAME=*mp_##NAME
It works pretty well, but I'm not fan of macros in general, especially if you need to debug code.
Now my question is: Is there a better way to tackle this and use something else like a template definition which might do all the magic?
Edit: With 'works pretty well' I mean, that the compiler can translate that. The reference though still is invalid.
Edit: Okay, I solved the invalid pointer problem using two Macros:
#define FOAMPTR(TYPE,NAME) std::unique_ptr<TYPE> mp_##NAME
#define FETCHFOAMREF(NAME) auto &NAME=*mp_##NAME
Now I put FOAMPTR(TYPE,NAME) to the member and I get my unique ptrs. In the run() method the second macro FETCHFOAMREF(NAME) is used. Of course init() must be sure to correctly initialize the object or else the program is going to crash.
I still leave the question open because I'm not satisfied with that solution.
I'm currently doing some research on the STL, especially for printing the STL content during debug. I know there are many different approaches.
Like:
http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/STLSupport
or using a shared library to print the content of a container
What I'm currently looking for is, why g++ deletes functions, which are not used for example I have following code and use the compile setting g++ -g main.cpp -o main.o.
include <vector>
include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
std::vector<int> vec;
vec.push_back(10);
vec.push_back(20);
vec.push_back(30);
return;
}
So when I debug this code I will see that I can't use print vec.front(). The message I receive is:
Cannot evaluate function -- may be inlined
Therefore I tried to use the setting -fkeep-inline-functions, but no changes.
When i use nm main.o | grep front I see that there is no line entry for the method .front(). Doing the same again but, with an extra vec.front() entry within my code I can use print vec.front(), and using nm main.o | grep front where I see the entry
0000000000401834 W _ZNSt6vectorIiSaIiEE5frontEv
Can someone explain me how I can keep all functions within my code without loosing them. I think, that dead functions do not get deleted as long as I don't set optimize settings or do following.
How to tell compiler to NOT optimize certain code away?
Why I need it: Current Python implementations use the internal STL implementation to print the content of a container, but it would be much more interesting to use functions which are defined by ISO/IEC 14882. I know it's possible to write a shared library, which can be compiled to your actual code before you debug it, to maintain that you have all STL functions, but who wants to compile an extra lib to its code, before debugging. It would also be interesting to know if there are some advantages and disadvantages of this two approaches (Shared Lib. and Python)?
What's exactly a dead function, isn't it a function which is available in my source code but isn't used?
There are two cases to consider:
int unused_function() { return 42; }
int main() { return 0; }
If you compile above program, the unused_function is dead -- never called. However, it would still be present in the final executable (even with optimization [1]).
Now consider this:
template <typename T> int unused_function(T*) { return 42; }
int main() { return 0; }
In this case, unused_function will not be present, even when you turn off all optimizations.
Why? Because the template is not a "real" function. It's a prototype, from which the compiler can create "real" functions (called "template instantiation") -- one for each type T. Since you've never used unused_function, the compiler didn't create any "real" instances of it.
You can request that the compiler explicitly instantiate all functions in a given class, with explicit instantiation request, like so:
#include <vector>
template class std::vector<int>;
int main() { return 0; }
Now, even though none of the vector functions are used, they are all instantiated into the final binary.
[1] If you are using the GNU ld (or gold), you could still get rid of unused_function in this case, by compiling with -ffunction-sections and linking with -Wl,--gc-sections.
Thanks for your answer. Just to repeat, template functions don't get initiated by the gcc, because they are prototypes. Only when the function is used or it gets explicitly initiated it will be available within my executable.
So what we have mentioned until yet is :
function definition int unusedFunc() { return 10; }
function prototype int protypeFunc(); (just to break it down)
What happens when you inline functions? I always thought, that the function will be inserted within my source code, but now I read, that compilers often decide what to do on their own. (Sounds strange, because their must be rule). It doesn't matter if you use the keyword inline, for example.
inline int inlineFunc() { return 10; }
A friend of mine also told me that he hasn't had access to addresses of functions, although he hasn't used inline. Are there any function types I forgot? He also told me that their should be differences within the object data format.
#edit - forgot:
nested functions
function pointers
overloaded functions
I'm currently writing a Linux Kernel module which depends on the Linux Security Modules (LSM) at the moment it is nothing really, I just wanted to print out a simple message whenever a file is opened. The problem is: To register to the hook I need the function register_security, which - I found out after googleing - isn't exported anymore and thus can't be used by loadable kernel modules - only by modules which are compiled directly into the kernel.
Of course this makes sense for a security module, but it suckes for me developing.
So now the question to you: Is there a way of patching my module into the kernel? I mean, I don't want to recompile my kernel after every bugfix or for every minor change. I could live with rebooting my pc for every new try, but recompiling would take a little bit to long I guess..
Edit: Hm, noone yet :( I just had an idea, maybe someone can tell me if it's good or not: Can't I just add the EXPORT_SYMBOL in the kernel source for the functions I need, then recompile it and then add my code as a module? Of course this would be just for testing and debugging
Can't you just use fsnotify in kernel, or fanotify from user space?
It's not generally a good idea to export functions that the author didn't think it would be a good idea to export. If you call a function that isn't part of the public interface and that function has a side effect, you will probably break things. Besides, your module won't work on other machines, but maybe you don't care about this.
No, there is not. When a symbol is not exported, the in-kernel linker will not be able to find it. But adding the export to the kernel you use for testing should be OK. You can add your module to the export list by adding it to ./include/linux/Kbuild.
Also if testing in (user-mode-linux)[http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/] or in virtual box, recompiling whole kernel might not be that big problem.
This may be a bit late as I see your question a while back. What I found to be a good solution is to write a module that you compile into the kernel and just exports the couple of functions you what to play with.
For example
//REGISTER FILE_PERMISSION
static void k_register_file_permission(int (*my_file_permission) (struct file *file, int mask)) {
my_file_permission_func = my_file_permission;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(k_register_file_permission);
Then you can just call k_register_file_permission from your kernel module, handy durring the development process.
You would also need a function like
int k_file_permission (struct file *file, int mask) {
if(my_file_permission_func == NULL)
{
//do nothing
}
else
{
return my_file_permission_func(file, mask);
}
return 0;
}
That you would register with the LSM at boot time.