I have a structure in C and I called that structure in my go program. If that structure throws any error it terminates my go program like below
orderbook.h
-------------
#ifndef _ORDERBOOK_H
#define _ORDERBOOK_H
typedef struct order order;
struct order {
int tradeid;
int side;
int symbol;
double amount;
double price;
};
orderbook.c
--------------
include "orderbook.h"
order* order_place(char *side,double amount,double price,char symbol[19])
{
struct order *tradeorder= calloc(1000000,sizeof(struct order));//Initlize the structure
//My internal code which place an order
clob_ord_t o=unxs_order(c, (clob_ord_t){CLOB_TYPE_LMT,parsed_side, amount, .lmt =price, .usr = (uintptr_t)out},NANPX);
if (o.qty.dis + o.qty.hid > 0.dd) {
/* put remainder of order into book */
i = clob_add(c, o);
//printf("orderid..%lu\n", i.usr);
printf("orderid..%s\n", i.usr);
insertMap(hashTable, i.usr, i);
// printMap(hashTable);
flag=true;
tradeorder[0].orderstatus=1;
tradeorder[0].orderid=offerid;
tradeorder[0].side=sid;
tradeorder[0].symbol=atoi(symbol);
tradeorder[0].amount=(double)o.qty.dis;
tradeorder[0].price=price;
}
return tradeorder; //return the structure
}
main.go
---------
o:=C.order_place(C.CString("ASK"),C.double(12.0),C.double(1.0),C.CString("1")) //this line may get an exception If some wrong parameter to pass otherwise returns correct value
If I put correct parameter to order_pace function from go there is no issue, If I pass some incorrect parameter then In get an exception an it terminates the go server. Now I need to handle that exception so that my server remain running irrespective of an exception.
You can't catch the fatal fault, and it isn't safe to continue after your C code throws a fault (unlike Go). The running program is in an undefined potentially dangerous state. The safest thing to do is shutdown the program and/or let it crash.
You must check for errors within C.order_place and return an error on failure. Eg, return NULL.
A few other recommendations:
Allocate struct order via Go to rely on the garbage collector to simplify memory management.
var order C.struct_order
C.order_place(&order, side, ...)
Always free strings allocated via C.CString once they are no longer needed.
cstr := C.CString("test")
C.free(unsafe.Pointer(cstr))
Depending on your platform, you can simplify debugging with improved stack traces by importing cgosymbolizer. This adds support for C stack traces.
import _ "github.com/ianlancetaylor/cgosymbolizer"
You probably should use char *symbol instead of char symbol[19] in your example since C.CString returns a pointer to an arbitrarily long C string, not a pointer to an array of 19 chars.
As a thought exercise I am trying to implement an iterative tree (binary or binary search tree) copy function.
It is my understanding that it can be achieved trivially:
with a single stack
without using a wrapper (that contains references to the copy and original nodes)
without a node having a reference to it's parent (would a parent reference in a node be counter to a true definition of a tree [which I believe is a DAG]?)
I have written different implementations that meet the inverse of the above constraints but I am uncertain how to approach the problem with the constraints.
I did not see anything in Algorithms 4/e and have not seen anything online (beyond statements of how trivial it is). I considered using the concepts from in order and post order of a current/previous var but I did not see a way to track accurately when popping the stack. I also briefly considered a hash map but I feel this is still just extra storage like the extra stack.
Any help in understanding the concepts/idioms behind the approach that I am not seeing is gratefully received.
Thanks in advance.
Edit:
Some requests for what I've tried so far. Here is the 2 stack solution which I believe is supposed to be able to turn into the 1 stack the most trivially.
It's written in C++. I am new to the language (but not programming) and teaching myself using C++ Primer 5/e (Lippman, Lajole, Moo) [C++11] and the internet. If any of the code from a language perspective is wrong, please let me know (although I'm aware Code Review Stack Exchange is the place for an actual review).
I have a template Node that is used by other parts of the code.
template<typename T>
struct Node;
typedef Node<std::string> tree_node;
typedef std::shared_ptr<tree_node> shared_ptr_node;
template<typename T>
struct Node final {
public:
const T value;
const shared_ptr_node &left = m_left;
const shared_ptr_node &right = m_right;
Node(const T value, const shared_ptr_node left = nullptr, const shared_ptr_node right = nullptr) : value(value), m_left(left), m_right (right) {}
void updateLeft(const shared_ptr_node node) {
m_left = node;
}
void updateRight(const shared_ptr_node node) {
m_right = node;
}
private:
shared_ptr_node m_left;
shared_ptr_node m_right;
};
And then the 2 stack implementation.
shared_ptr_node iterativeCopy2Stacks(const shared_ptr_node &node) {
const shared_ptr_node newRoot = std::make_shared<tree_node>(node->value);
std::stack<const shared_ptr_node> s;
s.push(node);
std::stack<const shared_ptr_node> copyS;
copyS.push(newRoot);
shared_ptr_node original = nullptr;
shared_ptr_node copy = nullptr;
while (!s.empty()) {
original = s.top();
s.pop();
copy = copyS.top();
copyS.pop();
if (original->right) {
s.push(original->right);
copy->updateRight(std::make_shared<tree_node>(original->right->value));
copyS.push(copy->right);
}
if (original->left) {
s.push(original->left);
copy->updateLeft(std::make_shared<tree_node>(original->left->value));
copyS.push(copy->left);
}
}
return newRoot;
}
I'm not fluent in c++, so you'll have to settle with pseudocode:
node copy(treenode n):
if n == null
return null
node tmp = clone(n) //no deep clone!!!
stack s
s.push(tmp)
while !s.empty():
node n = s.pop()
if n.left != null:
n.left = clone(n.left)
s.push(n.left)
if n.right != null:
n.right = clone(n.right)
s.push(n.right)
return tmp
Note that clone(node) is not a deep-clone. The basic idea is to start with a shallow-clone of the root, then iterate over all children of that node and replace those nodes (still references to the original node) by shallow copies, replace those nodes children, etc.. This algorithm traverses the tree in a DFS-manner. In case you prefer BFS (for whatever reason) you could just replace the stack by a queue. Another advantage of this code: it can be altered with a few minor changes to work for arbitrary trees.
A recursive version of this algorithm (in case you prefer recursive code over my horrible prosa):
node copyRec(node n):
if n.left != null:
n.left = clone(n.left)
copyRec(n.left)
if n.right != null:
n.right = clone(n.right)
copyRec(n.right)
return n
node copy(node n):
return copyRec(clone(n))
EDIT:
If you want to have a look at working code, I've created an implementation in python.
I'm trying to write an implementation of union-find in Rust. This is famously very simple to implement in languages like C, while still having a complex run time analysis.
I'm having trouble getting Rust's mutex semantics to allow iterative hand-over-hand locking.
Here's how I got where I am now.
First, this is a very simple implementation of part of the structure I want in C:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node {
struct node * parent;
};
struct node * create(struct node * parent) {
struct node * ans = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
ans->parent = parent;
return ans;
}
struct node * find_root(struct node * x) {
while (x->parent) {
x = x->parent;
}
return x;
}
int main() {
struct node * foo = create(NULL);
struct node * bar = create(foo);
struct node * baz = create(bar);
baz->parent = find_root(bar);
}
Note that the structure of the pointers is that of an inverted tree; multiple pointers may point at a single location, and there are no cycles.
At this point, there is no path compression.
Here is a Rust translation. I chose to use Rust's reference-counted pointer type to support the inverted tree type I referenced above.
Note that this implementation is much more verbose, possibly due to the increased safety that Rust offers, but possibly due to my inexperience with Rust.
use std::rc::Rc;
struct Node {
parent: Option<Rc<Node>>
}
fn create(parent: Option<Rc<Node>>) -> Node {
Node {parent: parent.clone()}
}
fn find_root(x: Rc<Node>) -> Rc<Node> {
let mut ans = x.clone();
while ans.parent.is_some() {
ans = ans.parent.clone().unwrap();
}
ans
}
fn main() {
let foo = Rc::new(create(None));
let bar = Rc::new(create(Some(foo.clone())));
let mut prebaz = create(Some(bar.clone()));
prebaz.parent = Some(find_root(bar.clone()));
}
Path compression re-parents each node along a path to the root every time find_root is called. To add this feature to the C code, only two new small functions are needed:
void change_root(struct node * x, struct node * root) {
while (x) {
struct node * tmp = x->parent;
x->parent = root;
x = tmp;
}
}
struct node * root(struct node * x) {
struct node * ans = find_root(x);
change_root(x, ans);
return ans;
}
The function change_root does all the re-parenting, while the function root is just a wrapper to use the results of find_root to re-parent the nodes on the path to the root.
In order to do this in Rust, I decided I would have to use a Mutex rather than just a reference counted pointer, since the Rc interface only allows mutable access by copy-on-write when more than one pointer to the item is live. As a result, all of the code would have to change. Before even getting to the path compression part, I got hung up on find_root:
use std::sync::{Mutex,Arc};
struct Node {
parent: Option<Arc<Mutex<Node>>>
}
fn create(parent: Option<Arc<Mutex<Node>>>) -> Node {
Node {parent: parent.clone()}
}
fn find_root(x: Arc<Mutex<Node>>) -> Arc<Mutex<Node>> {
let mut ans = x.clone();
let mut inner = ans.lock();
while inner.parent.is_some() {
ans = inner.parent.clone().unwrap();
inner = ans.lock();
}
ans.clone()
}
This produces the error (with 0.12.0)
error: cannot assign to `ans` because it is borrowed
ans = inner.parent.clone().unwrap();
note: borrow of `ans` occurs here
let mut inner = ans.lock();
What I think I need here is hand-over-hand locking. For the path A -> B -> C -> ..., I need to lock A, lock B, unlock A, lock C, unlock B, ... Of course, I could keep all of the locks open: lock A, lock B, lock C, ... unlock C, unlock B, unlock A, but this seems inefficient.
However, Mutex does not offer unlock, and uses RAII instead. How can I achieve hand-over-hand locking in Rust without being able to directly call unlock?
EDIT: As the comments noted, I could use Rc<RefCell<Node>> rather than Arc<Mutex<Node>>. Doing so leads to the same compiler error.
For clarity about what I'm trying to avoid by using hand-over-hand locking, here is a RefCell version that compiles but used space linear in the length of the path.
fn find_root(x: Rc<RefCell<Node>>) -> Rc<RefCell<Node>> {
let mut inner : RefMut<Node> = x.borrow_mut();
if inner.parent.is_some() {
find_root(inner.parent.clone().unwrap())
} else {
x.clone()
}
}
We can pretty easily do full hand-over-hand locking as we traverse this list using just a bit of unsafe, which is necessary to tell the borrow checker a small bit of insight that we are aware of, but that it can't know.
But first, let's clearly formulate the problem:
We want to traverse a linked list whose nodes are stored as Arc<Mutex<Node>> to get the last node in the list
We need to lock each node in the list as we go along the way such that another concurrent traversal has to follow strictly behind us and cannot muck with our progress.
Before we get into the nitty-gritty details, let's try to write the signature for this function:
fn find_root(node: Arc<Mutex<Node>>) -> Arc<Mutex<Node>>;
Now that we know our goal, we can start to get into the implementation - here's a first attempt:
fn find_root(incoming: Arc<Mutex<Node>>) -> Arc<Mutex<Node>> {
// We have to separate this from incoming since the lock must
// be borrowed from incoming, not this local node.
let mut node = incoming.clone();
let mut lock = incoming.lock();
// Could use while let but that leads to borrowing issues.
while lock.parent.is_some() {
node = lock.parent.as_ref().unwrap().clone(); // !! uh-oh !!
lock = node.lock();
}
node
}
If we try to compile this, rustc will error on the line marked !! uh-oh !!, telling us that we can't move out of node while lock still exists, since lock is borrowing node. This is not a spurious error! The data in lock might go away as soon as node does - it's only because we know that we can keep the data lock is pointing to valid and in the same memory location even if we move node that we can fix this.
The key insight here is that the lifetime of data contained within an Arc is dynamic, and it is hard for the borrow checker to make the inferences we can about exactly how long data inside an Arc is valid.
This happens every once in a while when writing rust; you have more knowledge about the lifetime and organization of your data than rustc, and you want to be able to express that knowledge to the compiler, effectively saying "trust me". Enter: unsafe - our way of telling the compiler that we know more than it, and it should allow us to inform it of the guarantees that we know but it doesn't.
In this case, the guarantee is pretty simple - we are going to replace node while lock still exists, but we are not going to ensure that the data inside lock continues to be valid even though node goes away. To express this guarantee we can use mem::transmute, a function which allows us to reinterpret the type of any variable, by just using it to change the lifetime of the lock returned by node to be slightly longer than it actually is.
To make sure we keep our promise, we are going to use another handoff variable to hold node while we reassign lock - even though this moves node (changing its address) and the borrow checker will be angry at us, we know it's ok since lock doesn't point at node, it points at data inside of node, whose address (in this case, since it's behind an Arc) will not change.
Before we get to the solution, it's important to note that the trick we are using here is only valid because we are using an Arc. The borrow checker is warning us of a possibly serious error - if the Mutex was held inline and not in an Arc, this error would be a correct prevention of a use-after-free, where the MutexGuard held in lock would attempt to unlock a Mutex which has already been dropped, or at least moved to another memory location.
use std::mem;
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
fn find_root(incoming: Arc<Mutex<Node>>) -> Arc<Mutex<Node>> {
let mut node = incoming.clone();
let mut handoff_node;
let mut lock = incoming.lock().unwrap();
// Could use while let but that leads to borrowing issues.
while lock.parent.is_some() {
// Keep the data in node around by holding on to this `Arc`.
handoff_node = node;
node = lock.parent.as_ref().unwrap().clone();
// We are going to move out of node while this lock is still around,
// but since we kept the data around it's ok.
lock = unsafe { mem::transmute(node.lock().unwrap()) };
}
node
}
And, just like that, rustc is happy, and we have hand-over-hand locking, since the last lock is released only after we have acquired the new lock!
There is one unanswered question in this implementation which I have not yet received an answer too, which is whether the drop of the old value and assignment of a new value to a variable is a guaranteed to be atomic - if not, there is a race condition where the old lock is released before the new lock is acquired in the assignment of lock. It's pretty trivial to work around this by just having another holdover_lock variable and moving the old lock into it before reassigning, then dropping it after reassigning lock.
Hopefully this fully addresses your question and shows how unsafe can be used to work around "deficiencies" in the borrow checker when you really do know more. I would still like to want that the cases where you know more than the borrow checker are rare, and transmuting lifetimes is not "usual" behavior.
Using Mutex in this way, as you can see, is pretty complex and you have to deal with many, many, possible sources of a race condition and I may not even have caught all of them! Unless you really need this structure to be accessible from many threads, it would probably be best to just use Rc and RefCell, if you need it, as this makes things much easier.
I believe this to fit the criteria of hand-over-hand locking.
use std::sync::Mutex;
fn main() {
// Create a set of mutexes to lock hand-over-hand
let mutexes = Vec::from_fn(4, |_| Mutex::new(false));
// Lock the first one
let val_0 = mutexes[0].lock();
if !*val_0 {
// Lock the second one
let mut val_1 = mutexes[1].lock();
// Unlock the first one
drop(val_0);
// Do logic
*val_1 = true;
}
for mutex in mutexes.iter() {
println!("{}" , *mutex.lock());
}
}
Edit #1
Does it work when access to lock n+1 is guarded by lock n?
If you mean something that could be shaped like the following, then I think the answer is no.
struct Level {
data: bool,
child: Option<Mutex<Box<Level>>>,
}
However, it is sensible that this should not work. When you wrap an object in a mutex, then you are saying "The entire object is safe". You can't say both "the entire pie is safe" and "I'm eating the stuff below the crust" at the same time. Perhaps you jettison the safety by creating a Mutex<()> and lock that?
This is still not the answer your literal question of to how to do hand-over-hand locking, which should only be important in a concurrent setting (or if someone else forced you to use Mutex references to nodes). It is instead how to do this with Rc and RefCell, which you seem to be interested in.
RefCell only allows mutable writes when one mutable reference is held. Importantly, the Rc<RefCell<Node>> objects are not mutable references. The mutable references it is talking about are the results from calling borrow_mut() on the Rc<RefCell<Node>>object, and as long as you do that in a limited scope (e.g. the body of the while loop), you'll be fine.
The important thing happening in path compression is that the next Rc object will keep the rest of the chain alive while you swing the parent pointer for node to point at root. However, it is not a reference in the Rust sense of the word.
struct Node
{
parent: Option<Rc<RefCell<Node>>>
}
fn find_root(mut node: Rc<RefCell<Node>>) -> Rc<RefCell<Node>>
{
while let Some(parent) = node.borrow().parent.clone()
{
node = parent;
}
return node;
}
fn path_compress(mut node: Rc<RefCell<Node>>, root: Rc<RefCell<Node>>)
{
while node.borrow().parent.is_some()
{
let next = node.borrow().parent.clone().unwrap();
node.borrow_mut().parent = Some(root.clone());
node = next;
}
}
This runs fine for me with the test harness I used, though there may still be bugs. It certainly compiles and runs without a panic! due to trying to borrow_mut() something that is already borrowed. It may actually produce the right answer, that's up to you.
On IRC, Jonathan Reem pointed out that inner is borrowing until the end of its lexical scope, which is too far for what I was asking. Inlining it produces the following, which compiles without error:
fn find_root(x: Arc<Mutex<Node>>) -> Arc<Mutex<Node>> {
let mut ans = x.clone();
while ans.lock().parent.is_some() {
ans = ans.lock().parent.clone().unwrap();
}
ans
}
EDIT: As Francis Gagné points out, this has a race condition, since the lock doesn't extend long enough. Here's a modified version that only has one lock() call; perhaps it is not vulnerable to the same problem.
fn find_root(x: Arc<Mutex<Node>>) -> Arc<Mutex<Node>> {
let mut ans = x.clone();
loop {
ans = {
let tmp = ans.lock();
match tmp.parent.clone() {
None => break,
Some(z) => z
}
}
}
ans
}
EDIT 2: This only holds one lock at a time, and so is racey. I still don't know how to do hand-over-hand locking.
As pointed out by Frank Sherry and others, you shouldn't use Arc/Mutex when single threaded. But his code was outdated, so here is the new one (for version 1.0.0alpha2).
This does not take linear space either (like the recursive code given in the question).
struct Node {
parent: Option<Rc<RefCell<Node>>>
}
fn find_root(node: Rc<RefCell<Node>>) -> Rc<RefCell<Node>> {
let mut ans = node.clone(); // Rc<RefCell<Node>>
loop {
ans = {
let ans_ref = ans.borrow(); // std::cell::Ref<Node>
match ans_ref.parent.clone() {
None => break,
Some(z) => z
}
} // ans_ref goes out of scope, and ans becomes mutable
}
ans
}
fn path_compress(mut node: Rc<RefCell<Node>>, root: Rc<RefCell<Node>>) {
while node.borrow().parent.is_some() {
let next = {
let node_ref = node.borrow();
node_ref.parent.clone().unwrap()
};
node.borrow_mut().parent = Some(root.clone());
// RefMut<Node> from borrow_mut() is out of scope here...
node = next; // therefore we can mutate node
}
}
Note for beginners: Pointers are automatically dereferenced by dot operator. ans.borrow() actually means (*ans).borrow(). I intentionally used different styles for the two functions.
Although not the answer to your literal question (hand-over locking), union-find with weighted-union and path-compression can be very simple in Rust:
fn unionfind<I: Iterator<(uint, uint)>>(mut iterator: I, nodes: uint) -> Vec<uint>
{
let mut root = Vec::from_fn(nodes, |x| x);
let mut rank = Vec::from_elem(nodes, 0u8);
for (mut x, mut y) in iterator
{
// find roots for x and y; do path compression on look-ups
while (x != root[x]) { root[x] = root[root[x]]; x = root[x]; }
while (y != root[y]) { root[y] = root[root[y]]; y = root[y]; }
if x != y
{
// weighted union swings roots
match rank[x].cmp(&rank[y])
{
Less => root[x] = y,
Greater => root[y] = x,
Equal =>
{
root[y] = x;
rank[x] += 1
},
}
}
}
}
Maybe the meta-point is that the union-find algorithm may not be the best place to handle node ownership, and by using references to existing memory (in this case, by just using uint identifiers for the nodes) without affecting the lifecycle of the nodes makes for a much simpler implementation, if you can get away with it of course.
the device driver I'm working on is implementing a virtual device. The logic
is as follows:
static struct net_device_ops virt_net_ops = {
.ndo_init = virt_net_init,
.ndo_open = virt_net_open,
.ndo_stop = virt_net_stop,
.ndo_do_ioctl = virt_net_ioctl,
.ndo_get_stats = virt_net_get_stats,
.ndo_start_xmit = virt_net_start_xmit,
};
...
struct net_device *dev;
struct my_dev *virt;
dev = alloc_netdev(..);
/* check for NULL */
virt = netdev_priv(dev);
dev->netdev_ops = &virt_net_ops;
SET_ETHTOOL_OPS(dev, &virt_ethtool_ops);
dev_net_set(dev, net);
virt->magic = MY_VIRT_DEV_MAGIC;
ret = register_netdev(dev);
if (ret) {
printk("register_netdev failed\n");
free_netdev(dev);
return ret;
}
...
What happens is that somewhere somehow the pointer net_device_ops in
'net_dev' gets corrupted, i.e.
1) create the device the first time (allocated net_dev, init the fields
including net_device_ops,which is
initialized with a static structure containing function pointers), register
the device with the kernel invoking register_netdev() - OK
2) attempt to create the device with the same name again, repeat the above
steps, call register_netdev() which will return negative and we
free_netdev(dev) and return error to the caller.
And between these two events the pointer to net_device_ops has changed,
although nowhere in the code it is done explicitly except the initialization
phase.
The kernel version is 2.6.31.8, platform MIPS. Communication channel between the user space and the kernel is implemented via netlink sockets.
Could anybody suggest what possibly can go wrong?
Appreciate any advices, thanks.
Mark
"The bug is somewhere else. "
The second device should not interact with the existing one. If you register_netdev with an existing name, nevertheless the ndo_init virtual function is called first before the condition is detected and -EEXIST is returned. Maybe your init function does something nasty involving some global variables. (For example, does the code assume there is one device, and stash a global pointer to it during initialization?)
Why does the following code throw an exception when getting to the second scanf_s after entering an number to put into the struct.
This by no means represents a complete linked list implementation.
Not sure how to get onto the next scanf_s when having entered the value? Any ideas?
EDIT: Updated code with suggested solution, but still get an AccessViolationException after first scanf_s
Code:
struct node
{
char name[20];
int age;
float height;
node *nxt;
};
int FillInLinkedList(node* temp)
{
int result;
temp = new node;
printf("Please enter name of the person");
result = scanf_s("%s", temp->name);
printf("Please enter persons age");
result = scanf_s("%d", &temp->age); // Exception here...
printf("Please enter persons height");
result = scanf_s("%f", &temp->height);
temp->nxt = NULL;
if (result >0)
return 1;
else return 0;
}
// calling code
int main(array<System::String ^> ^args)
{
node temp;
FillInLinkedList(&temp);
...
You are using scanf_s with incorrect parameters. Take a look at the examples in the MSDN documentation for the function. It requires that you pass in the size of the buffer after the buffer for all string or character parameters. So
result = scanf_s("%s", temp->name);
should be:
result = scanf_s("%s", temp->name, 20);
The first call to scanf_s is reading garbage off the stack because it is looking for another parameter and possibly corrupting memory.
There is no compiler error because scanf_s uses a variable argument list - the function doesn't have a fixed number of parameters so the compiler has no idea what scanf_s is expecting.
You need
result = scanf_s("%d", &temp->age);
and
result = scanf_s("%f", &temp->height);
Reason is that sscanf (and friends) requires a pointer to the output variable so it can store the result there.
BTW, you have a similar problem with the parameter temp of your function. Since you're changing the pointer (and not just the contents of what it points to), you need to pass a double pointer so that the changes will be visible outside your function:
int FillInLinkedList(node** temp)
And then of course you'll have to make the necessary changes inside the function.
scanf() stores data into variables, so you need to pass the address of the variable (or its pointer)Example:
char string[10];
int n;
scanf("%s", string); //string actually points to address of
//first element of string array
scanf("%d", &n); // &n is the address of the variable 'n'
%19c should be %s
temp->age should be &temp-age
temp->height should be &temp->height
Your compiler should be warning you
about these errors
I believe you need to pass parameters to scanf() functions by address. i.e. &temp->age
otherwise temp-age will be interpreted as a pointer, which will most likely crash your program.