I was trying to understand how programs use variables and I just got to ask some thing. I am using the following snippet to explain my question.
int x=10;
int *p;
p=&x; // now p stores the address of the variable x
Here P points to (holds the address of) X. And P itself has an address. I thought that there should be another pointer which points to this pointer. If so where is that pointer residing? Is this a file system concept? Similarly in the below case:
int x=10;
Where does our program find the address of the variable X so that it can access the value stored at the address referenced by x. Is X it self acting as a pointer? If so, again there should be a way to access the address of X which holds an address that holds an integer value 10.
If I am right: for every variable declared, there is a pointer (or may be an index table) that points to the address of the variable so that we can use the value at an address referenced by the declared variable. So my question will be where is that?
If I am wrong : my question will be help me to understand it better?
When you build a program, the compiler (and in some cases the linker) replaces every variable name with either a memory address or a register.
So the executable image of your program (for example, exe file on Windows), does not contain any of those variables, just plain memory addresses and registers.
Related
In Rust variables are immutable by default, i.e., they don't vary but are not constants (as noted here).
Do they retain the name "variable" just by convention, or is there another reason why the term "variable" is maintained?
It should be noted that the term mut in Rust was hotly debated before stabilization with some arguing that it should be called excl or uniq. The matter is that the mut in in let mut x and &mut x are two completely different things.
let mut x declares that x is mutable, in the sense that it can be re-assigned, but also that one can take a &mut reference of it; which is best called an exclusive or unique reference. It is quite possible in Rust in some cases to mutate through a shared reference in the case of std::cell::Cell, for instance, and not all operations that require an exclusive reference involve mutation. An operation that requires an exclusive reference is simply one that would be unsafe with a shared one; Cell is designed in such a way that it is not, by strictly controlling under what conditions mutation can occur.
In theory, the two functions of let mut x could have different keywords, but they are compressed into one for simplicity. Rust could in theory be designed with mut and excl being different keywords, and allowing for let excl x, which would be a variable wherefrom one could take an exclusive reference, but not mutate.
One can also have variables that are not declared with mut, in particular in function calls. In a signature like fn func ( x : u32 ), x is not mutable, but it is variable, because it a different x can be passed every single time.
The let mut x type of "mutable" is purely a lint and, in theory, unnecessary for Rust to work — any currently working Rust program will continue to work if all non-mutable variables be made mutable. It's simply considered bad practice to do so and the compiler will warn the programmer whenever he make a variable mutable that isn't necessary to be mutable; this helps catching unintended bugs. This is absolutely not the case with exclusive and shared references, which are necessary to be distinguished and more than just a lint.
Here "variable" means "factor involved in computation" not "varying". This is from the mathematical principle where expressions like f(x) include x, a variable, as a part of the equation.
In Rust, like with other languages, you'll need variables (e.g. input) that affects how the program runs, otherwise your program would only ever behave in a singular, specific way, producing the same output each time.
You'll need to think of what variables change during processing and which do not. Those that do not need to change do not need to be declared mutable.
Regardless of if or when they change, they're still considered variables.
In C++ you'll have things like const int x which is a constant (read-only) variable, so the term can take on all sorts of specific meanings.
Is the term immutable variable just a convention?
By definition every... definition of a word is a convention, language, meaning of the word, change by time, is unique for every people that live, you can take 100 peoples and end with 100 difference definition of 1 word. That why we often start scientific paper by defining word that could be miss understand in the paper. Trying to clarify as much as possible. Rust does not differs that why we have The Reference
We have a specific section for variable
A variable is a component of a stack frame, either a named function
parameter, an anonymous temporary, or a named local variable.
A local variable (or stack-local allocation) holds a value directly,
allocated within the stack's memory. The value is a part of the stack
frame.
Local variables are immutable unless declared otherwise. For example:
let mut x = ....
Function parameters are immutable unless declared with mut. The mut
keyword applies only to the following parameter. For example: |mut x,
y| and fn f(mut x: Box, y: Box) declare one mutable variable
x and one immutable variable y.
Local variables are not initialized when allocated. Instead, the
entire frame worth of local variables are allocated, on frame-entry,
in an uninitialized state. Subsequent statements within a function may
or may not initialize the local variables. Local variables can be used
only after they have been initialized through all reachable control
flow paths.
So there is not much to add, variable in rust is clearly defined, it doesn't matter if your definition doesn't match or you find a definition of variable that doesn't match Rust one. In the context of Rust, variable is that. If you want to ask about opinion about this choice then it's off topic as opinion oriented. But, wiki definition make Rust definition quite standard both from mathematics view than computer science:
Variable (computer science), a symbolic name associated with a value and whose associated value may be changed
Variable (mathematics), a symbol that represents a quantity in a mathematical expression, as used in many sciences
A program variable is an abstraction of a computer memory cell or collection
of cells. Programmers often think of variable names as names for memory locations, but there is much more to a variable than just a name.
In this case, what is an anonymous variable?
What does the below statement mean?
Variables without names are called anonymous variables.
Can you provide language specific examples for the same?
In C++, reference variable to const can be initialized by constant.
In this point, temporary variable is created in memory to grab the constant.
const int &ref = 3;
like this. so we can call this temporary variable to "anonymous variable".
Variables are where you store you values. 'Variable Name' is the usually the easiest (and more human-like) way to locate your value.For example, if I am a variable, you can get my value by calling my name, and the combination of my value and my name is called 'variable'.
However, not all variables need a name.Sometimes you just use them once and don't need them anymore; and in that case, a name is unnecessary.
The example given by #BAE HA RAM is a telling one,in which case you don't need a name for the value but ref to it by a pointer(But still got a name for that pointer)..
There are also many other anonymous things, anonymous type, anonymous function and so on. Most of them are created to avoid too many meaningless names for the things that you only need to run once.
I'd like to know which language you are using, so more specific example can be given...
void
f
()
{
int a[1];
int b;
int c;
int d[1];
}
I have found that these local variables, for this example, are not pushed on to the stack in order. b and c are pushed in the order of their declaration, but, a and d are grouped together. So the compiler is allocating arrays differently from any other built in type or object.
Is this a C/C++ requirement or gcc implementation detail?
The C standard says nothing about the order in which local variables are allocated. It doesn't even use the word "stack". It only requires that local variables have a lifetime that begins on entry to the nearest enclosing block (basically when execution reaches the {) and ends on exit from that block (reaching the }), and that each object has a unique address. It does acknowledge that two unrelated variables might happen to be adjacent in memory (for obscure technical reasons involving pointer arithmetic), but doesn't say when this might happen.
The order in which variables are allocated is entirely up to the whim of the compiler, and you should not write code that depends on any particular ordering. A compiler might lay out local variables in the order in which they're declared, or alphabetically by name, or it might group some variables together if that happens to result in faster code.
If you need to variables to be allocated in a particular order, you can wrap them in an array or a structure.
(If you were to look at the generated machine code, you'd most likely find that the variables are not "pushed onto the stack" one by one. Instead, the compiler will probably generate a single instruction to adjust the stack pointer by a certain number of bytes, effectively allocating a single chunk of memory to hold all the local variables for the function or block. Code that accesses a given variable will then use its offset within the stack frame.)
And since your function doesn't do anything with its local variables, the compiler might just not bother allocating space for them at all, particularly if you request optimization with -O3 or something similar.
The compiler can order the local variables however it wants. It may even choose to either not allocate them at all (for example, if they're not used, or are optimized away through propagation/ciscizing/keeping in register/etc) or allocate the same stack location for multiple locals that have disjoint live ranges.
There is no common implementation detail to outline how a particular compiler does it, as it may change at any time.
Typically, compilers will try to group similar sized variables (and/or alignments) together to minimize wasted space through "gaps", but there are so many other factors involved.
structs and arrays have slightly different requirements, but that's beyond the scope of this question I believe.
I have a pointer to an array or to a variable. I want to get the name of that array or variable. How to get this in LLVM?
I am trying to instrument a function to which an array or variable is passed through pointer. I want to get the name of that array or variable argument. I am instrumenting my functions using LLVM.
You need to use debug information for that, because otherwise names from the original C code do not get represented in LLVM IR, in the general case. See the debug info document. In particular, look in the sections about "#llvm.dbg.declare" and "Global Value Descriptors"
I am curious to know if there is any way to find a global variable at runtime, much like NSClassFromString. The variable, a BOOL, is defined in a static library and I found the name by using "nm" which gave this output: "0001924d b _gStartSessionCalled". When debugging in XCode I can add an expression "gStartSessionCalled" and see the value change as the app is running.
What I want to do is find the value of gStartSessionCalled and also change the value. I know it's kind of weird to do this but please disregard the reason why.
The lowercase letter "b" in the nm output
0001924d b _gStartSessionCalled
indicates that gStartSessionCalled is a local (non-external) symbol. It could for example be defined as
static BOOL gStartSessionCalled;
in your library. As far as I know, you cannot access local symbols from outside the object file in which it they are defined.
The debugger can use the symbol table to find the address and display the variable, but the linker refuses to link against a local symbol from a different object file.
A global variable is not an Objective-C specific construct. It is plain C and you can access every global variable when knowing its name by declaring it like
extern <type> <name>;
e.g. in your case
extern BOOL gStartSessionCalled;
…
gStartSessionCalled = YES;
Update:
If you do not know the name of the variable at compile time, you still may find the symbols address at runtime using something like dlsym. I don't know if it is the same on MacOS as on Linux, but there will be something similar.