I am trying to create a simple nim wrapper around the Clever Audio Plugin c library.
In c there is an enum of format flags that can be activated using bitwise operations.
summary of the c code
# definitions
enum clap_note_dialect {
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_CLAP = 1 << 0,
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI = 1 << 1,
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI_MPE = 1 << 2,
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI2 = 1 << 3,
};
typedef struct clap_note_port_info {
...
uint32_t supported_dialects; // bitfield, see clap_note_dialect
...
} clap_note_port_info_t;
# implementation
info->supported_dialects =
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_CLAP | CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI_MPE | CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI2;
using c2nim I get the following nim code:
type
clap_note_dialect* = enum
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_CLAP = 1 shl 0,
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI = 1 shl 1,
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI_MPE = 1 shl 2,
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI2 = 1 shl 3
clap_note_port_info* {.bycopy.} = object
...
supported_dialects*: uint32 ## bitfield, see clap_note_dialect
# implementation:
info.supported_dialects = CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_CLAP or CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI_MPE or
CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI2
When compiling I get an mismatch error and message that "expression 'CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_CLAP' is of type: clap_note_dialect"
How can I let nim know that my enum should be uint32 values?
Note that you may also use an enum set in Nim when you have to wrap C enums that are used as ored bits. I did that in the GTK wrapper. You can find an example at the end of the the "Sets" section here: https://ssalewski.de/nimprogramming.html#_sets
But some care is necessary, so for plain and ugly wrappers, or unexperienced people, using distinct ints may be another solution.
This fix came from user Vindaar on the Nim #main discord channel:
"in order to or the enum values you'll want to wrap them in an ord, so:"
info.supported_dialects = ord(CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_CLAP) or ord(CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI_MPE) or ord(CLAP_NOTE_DIALECT_MIDI2)
I have been reading this upvoted answer on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/a/26129960/12311164
It says that replacing wait(delay, units); in SC_THREAD to next_trigger(delay, units) in SC_METHOD works.
But when I tried, it does not work. I am trying to build adder module with 2 ns output delay. Instead of having a 2 ns output delay, the adder output is getting updated every 2 ns.
Design:
#include "systemc.h"
#define WIDTH 4
SC_MODULE(adder) {
sc_in<sc_uint<WIDTH> > A, B;
sc_out<sc_uint<WIDTH> > OUT;
void add(){
sc_time t1 = sc_time_stamp();
int current_time = t1.value();
int intermediate = A.read() + B.read();
next_trigger(2, SC_NS);
OUT.write(intermediate);
cout << " SC_METHOD add triggered at "<<sc_time_stamp() <<endl;
}
SC_CTOR(adder){
SC_METHOD(add);
sensitive << A << B;
}
};
I know how to simulate delay using 2 techniques: sc_event and SC_METHOD and the wait statement in SC_THREAD, but I would like to simulate the delay using next_trigger(). I have read the Language Reference Manual, but could not figure how to do it.
Simulated on EDA Playground here: https://edaplayground.com/x/dFzc
I think I need to trigger 2 NS after the inputs change, how to do that?
You will have to track state manually:
sc_uint<WIDTH> intermediate;
void add(){
if (A->event() || B->event() || sc_delta_count() == 0) {
intermediate = A.read() + B.read();
next_trigger(2, SC_NS);
} else {
OUT->write(intermediate);
}
}
The problem is that using next_trigger doesn't magically transform your SC_METHOD into SC_THREAD. In general, I find any usage of next_trigger inconvenient and there are better ways of doing this using sc_event.
I wrote a function containing array as argument,
and call it by passing value of array as follows.
void arraytest(int a[])
{
// changed the array a
a[0] = a[0] + a[1];
a[1] = a[0] - a[1];
a[0] = a[0] - a[1];
}
void main()
{
int arr[] = {1, 2};
printf("%d \t %d", arr[0], arr[1]);
arraytest(arr);
printf("\n After calling fun arr contains: %d\t %d", arr[0], arr[1]);
}
What I found is though I am calling arraytest() function by passing values, the original copy of int arr[] is changed.
Can you please explain why?
When passing an array as a parameter, this
void arraytest(int a[])
means exactly the same as
void arraytest(int *a)
so you are modifying the values in main.
For historical reasons, arrays are not first class citizens and cannot be passed by value.
For passing 2D (or higher multidimensional) arrays instead, see my other answers here:
How to pass a multidimensional [C-style] array to a function in C and C++, and here:
How to pass a multidimensional array to a function in C++ only, via std::vector<std::vector<int>>&
Passing 1D arrays as function parameters in C (and C++)
1. Standard array usage in C with natural type decay (adjustment) from array to ptr
#Bo Persson correctly states in his great answer here:
When passing an array as a parameter, this
void arraytest(int a[])
means exactly the same as
void arraytest(int *a)
Let me add some comments to add clarity to those two code snippets:
// param is array of ints; the arg passed automatically "adjusts" (frequently said
// informally as "decays") from `int []` (array of ints) to `int *`
// (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[])
// ptr to int
void arraytest(int *a)
However, let me add also that the above two forms also:
mean exactly the same as
// array of 0 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [0]`
// (array of zero ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[0])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 1 int; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [1]`
// (array of 1 int) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[1])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 2 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [2]`
// (array of 2 ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[2])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 1000 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [1000]`
// (array of 1000 ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[1000])
etc.
In every single one of the array examples above, and as shown in the example calls in the code just below, the input parameter type adjusts (decays) to an int *, and can be called with no warnings and no errors, even with build options -Wall -Wextra -Werror turned on (see my repo here for details on these 3 build options), like this:
int array1[2];
int * array2 = array1;
// works fine because `array1` automatically decays from an array type
// to a pointer type: `int *`
arraytest(array1);
// works fine because `array2` is already an `int *`
arraytest(array2);
As a matter of fact, the "size" value ([0], [1], [2], [1000], etc.) inside the array parameter here is apparently just for aesthetic/self-documentation purposes, and can be any positive integer (size_t type I think) you want!
In practice, however, you should use it to specify the minimum size of the array you expect the function to receive, so that when writing code it's easy for you to track and verify. The MISRA-C-2012 standard (buy/download the 236-pg 2012-version PDF of the standard for £15.00 here) goes so far as to state (emphasis added):
Rule 17.5 The function argument corresponding to a parameter declared to have an array type shall have an appropriate number of elements.
...
If a parameter is declared as an array with a specified size, the corresponding argument in each function call should point into an object that has at least as many elements as the array.
...
The use of an array declarator for a function parameter specifies the function interface more clearly than using a pointer. The minimum number of elements expected by the function is explicitly stated, whereas this is not possible with a pointer.
In other words, they recommend using the explicit size format, even though the C standard technically doesn't enforce it--it at least helps clarify to you as a developer, and to others using the code, what size array the function is expecting you to pass in.
2. Forcing type safety on arrays in C
(Not recommended (correction: sometimes recommended, especially for fixed-size multi-dimensional arrays), but possible. See my brief argument against doing this at the end. Also, for my multi-dimensional-array [ex: 2D array] version of this, see my answer here.)
As #Winger Sendon points out in a comment below my answer, we can force C to treat an array type to be different based on the array size!
First, you must recognize that in my example just above, using the int array1[2]; like this: arraytest(array1); causes array1 to automatically decay into an int *. HOWEVER, if you take the address of array1 instead and call arraytest(&array1), you get completely different behavior! Now, it does NOT decay into an int *! This is because if you take the address of an array then you already have a pointer type, and pointer types do NOT adjust to other pointer types. Only array types adjust to pointer types. So instead, the type of &array1 is int (*)[2], which means "pointer to an array of size 2 of int", or "pointer to an array of size 2 of type int", or said also as "pointer to an array of 2 ints". So, you can FORCE C to check for type safety on an array by passing explicit pointers to arrays, like this:
// `a` is of type `int (*)[2]`, which means "pointer to array of 2 ints";
// since it is already a ptr, it can NOT automatically decay further
// to any other type of ptr
void arraytest(int (*a)[2])
{
// my function here
}
This syntax is hard to read, but similar to that of a function pointer. The online tool, cdecl, tells us that int (*a)[2] means: "declare a as pointer to array 2 of int" (pointer to array of 2 ints). Do NOT confuse this with the version withOUT parenthesis: int * a[2], which means: "declare a as array 2 of pointer to int" (AKA: array of 2 pointers to int, AKA: array of 2 int*s).
Now, this function REQUIRES you to call it with the address operator (&) like this, using as an input parameter a POINTER TO AN ARRAY OF THE CORRECT SIZE!:
int array1[2];
// ok, since the type of `array1` is `int (*)[2]` (ptr to array of
// 2 ints)
arraytest(&array1); // you must use the & operator here to prevent
// `array1` from otherwise automatically decaying
// into `int *`, which is the WRONG input type here!
This, however, will produce a warning:
int array1[2];
// WARNING! Wrong type since the type of `array1` decays to `int *`:
// main.c:32:15: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from
// incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
// main.c:22:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
arraytest(array1); // (missing & operator)
You may test this code here.
To force the C compiler to turn this warning into an error, so that you MUST always call arraytest(&array1); using only an input array of the corrrect size and type (int array1[2]; in this case), add -Werror to your build options. If running the test code above on onlinegdb.com, do this by clicking the gear icon in the top-right and click on "Extra Compiler Flags" to type this option in. Now, this warning:
main.c:34:15: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
main.c:24:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
will turn into this build error:
main.c: In function ‘main’:
main.c:34:15: error: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
arraytest(array1); // warning!
^~~~~~
main.c:24:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
void arraytest(int (*a)[2])
^~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Note that you can also create "type safe" pointers to arrays of a given size, like this:
int array[2]; // variable `array` is of type `int [2]`, or "array of 2 ints"
// `array_p` is a "type safe" ptr to array of size 2 of int; ie: its type
// is `int (*)[2]`, which can also be stated: "ptr to array of 2 ints"
int (*array_p)[2] = &array;
...but I do NOT necessarily recommend this (using these "type safe" arrays in C), as it reminds me a lot of the C++ antics used to force type safety everywhere, at the exceptionally high cost of language syntax complexity, verbosity, and difficulty architecting code, and which I dislike and have ranted about many times before (ex: see "My Thoughts on C++" here).
For additional tests and experimentation, see also the link just below.
References
See links above. Also:
My code experimentation online: https://onlinegdb.com/B1RsrBDFD
See also:
My answer on multi-dimensional arrays (ex: 2D arrays) which expounds upon the above, and uses the "type safety" approach for multi-dimensional arrays where it makes sense: How to pass a multidimensional array to a function in C and C++
If you want to pass a single-dimension array as an argument in a function, you would have to declare a formal parameter in one of following three ways and all three declaration methods produce similar results because each tells the compiler that an integer pointer is going to be received.
int func(int arr[], ...){
.
.
.
}
int func(int arr[SIZE], ...){
.
.
.
}
int func(int* arr, ...){
.
.
.
}
So, you are modifying the original values.
Thanks !!!
Passing a multidimensional array as argument to a function.
Passing an one dim array as argument is more or less trivial.
Let's take a look on more interesting case of passing a 2 dim array.
In C you can't use a pointer to pointer construct (int **) instead of 2 dim array.
Let's make an example:
void assignZeros(int(*arr)[5], const int rows) {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
*(*(arr + i) + j) = 0;
// or equivalent assignment
arr[i][j] = 0;
}
}
Here I have specified a function that takes as first argument a pointer to an array of 5 integers.
I can pass as argument any 2 dim array that has 5 columns:
int arr1[1][5]
int arr1[2][5]
...
int arr1[20][5]
...
You may come to an idea to define a more general function that can accept any 2 dim array and change the function signature as follows:
void assignZeros(int ** arr, const int rows, const int cols) {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
*(*(arr + i) + j) = 0;
}
}
}
This code would compile but you will get a runtime error when trying to assign the values in the same way as in the first function.
So in C a multidimensional arrays are not the same as pointers to pointers ... to pointers. An int(*arr)[5] is a pointer to array of 5 elements,
an int(*arr)[6] is a pointer to array of 6 elements, and they are a pointers to different types!
Well, how to define functions arguments for higher dimensions? Simple, we just follow the pattern!
Here is the same function adjusted to take an array of 3 dimensions:
void assignZeros2(int(*arr)[4][5], const int dim1, const int dim2, const int dim3) {
for (int i = 0; i < dim1; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < dim2; j++) {
for (int k = 0; k < dim3; k++) {
*(*(*(arr + i) + j) + k) = 0;
// or equivalent assignment
arr[i][j][k] = 0;
}
}
}
}
How you would expect, it can take as argument any 3 dim arrays that have in the second dimensions 4 elements and in the third dimension 5 elements. Anything like this would be OK:
arr[1][4][5]
arr[2][4][5]
...
arr[10][4][5]
...
But we have to specify all dimensions sizes up to the first one.
You are not passing the array as copy. It is only a pointer pointing to the address where the first element of the array is in memory.
You are passing the address of the first element of the array
You are passing the value of the memory location of the first member of the array.
Therefore when you start modifying the array inside the function, you are modifying the original array.
Remember that a[1] is *(a+1).
Arrays in C are converted, in most of the cases, to a pointer to the first element of the array itself. And more in detail arrays passed into functions are always converted into pointers.
Here a quote from K&R2nd:
When an array name is passed to a function, what is passed is the
location of the initial element. Within the called function, this
argument is a local variable, and so an array name parameter is a
pointer, that is, a variable containing an address.
Writing:
void arraytest(int a[])
has the same meaning as writing:
void arraytest(int *a)
So despite you are not writing it explicitly it is as you are passing a pointer and so you are modifying the values in the main.
For more I really suggest reading this.
Moreover, you can find other answers on SO here
In C, except for a few special cases, an array reference always "decays" to a pointer to the first element of the array. Therefore, it isn't possible to pass an array "by value". An array in a function call will be passed to the function as a pointer, which is analogous to passing the array by reference.
EDIT: There are three such special cases where an array does not decay to a pointer to it's first element:
sizeof a is not the same as sizeof (&a[0]).
&a is not the same as &(&a[0]) (and not quite the same as &a[0]).
char b[] = "foo" is not the same as char b[] = &("foo").
Arrays are always passed by reference if you use a[] or *a:
int* printSquares(int a[], int size, int e[]) {
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
e[i] = i * i;
}
return e;
}
int* printSquares(int *a, int size, int e[]) {
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
e[i] = i * i;
}
return e;
}
An array can also be called as a decay pointer.
Usually when we put a variable name in the printf statement the value gets printed in case of an array it decays to the address of the first element, Therefore calling it as a decay pointer.
And we can only pass the decay pointer to a function.
Array as a formal parameter like Mr.Bo said int arr[] or int arr[10] is equivalent to the int *arr;
They will have there own 4 bytes of memory space and storing the decay pointer received.and we do pointer arithmetic on them.
I wrote a shortest path code in Graphchi and I wanted to print the output of that in a file. I was trying to use the template shown in the examples but I get error if I use the sameway of writing to a file as in other examples.
I have got stuck here. As the output I just want to print (vertex id,its minimum distance from source).
How can i do that.
Here is example how you can output values of all vertices to the console. It is easy to modify it to write the output to a file. Note that if you can handle binary files, GraphChi already has the vertex values in a file: .B.vout, where is sizeof(VertexDataType).
1) You need to define a callback-function, which will take vertex id and value as parameter
class OutputVertexCallback : public VCallback<VertexDataType> {
public:
virtual void callback(vid_t vertex_id, VertexDataType &value) {
std::cout << vertex_id << "=" << value << std::endl;
}
};
2) Then you need to call foreach_vertices() as follows to get the output:
OutputVertexCallback callback;
foreach_vertices<VertexDataType>(filename, 0, engine.num_vertices(), callback);
I've got a series of OpenCv generated YAML files and would like to parse them with yaml-cpp
I'm doing okay on simple stuff, but the matrix representation is proving difficult.
# Center of table
tableCenter: !!opencv-matrix
rows: 1
cols: 2
dt: f
data: [ 240, 240]
This should map into the vector
240
240
with type float. My code looks like:
#include "yaml.h"
#include <fstream>
#include <string>
struct Matrix {
int x;
};
void operator >> (const YAML::Node& node, Matrix& matrix) {
unsigned rows;
node["rows"] >> rows;
}
int main()
{
std::ifstream fin("monsters.yaml");
YAML::Parser parser(fin);
YAML::Node doc;
Matrix m;
doc["tableCenter"] >> m;
return 0;
}
But I get
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'YAML::BadDereference'
what(): yaml-cpp: error at line 0, column 0: bad dereference
Abort trap
I searched around for some documentation for yaml-cpp, but there doesn't seem to be any, aside from a short introductory example on parsing and emitting. Unfortunately, neither of these two help in this particular circumstance.
As I understand, the !! indicate that this is a user-defined type, but I don't see with yaml-cpp how to parse that.
You have to tell yaml-cpp how to parse this type. Since C++ isn't dynamically typed, it can't detect what data type you want and create it from scratch - you have to tell it directly. Tagging a node is really only for yourself, not for the parser (it'll just faithfully store it for you).
I'm not really sure how an OpenCV matrix is stored, but if it's something like this:
class Matrix {
public:
Matrix(unsigned r, unsigned c, const std::vector<float>& d): rows(r), cols(c), data(d) { /* init */ }
Matrix(const Matrix&) { /* copy */ }
~Matrix() { /* delete */ }
Matrix& operator = (const Matrix&) { /* assign */ }
private:
unsigned rows, cols;
std::vector<float> data;
};
then you can write something like
void operator >> (const YAML::Node& node, Matrix& matrix) {
unsigned rows, cols;
std::vector<float> data;
node["rows"] >> rows;
node["cols"] >> cols;
node["data"] >> data;
matrix = Matrix(rows, cols, data);
}
Edit It appears that you're ok up until here; but you're missing the step where the parser loads the information into the YAML::Node. Instead, se it like:
std::ifstream fin("monsters.yaml");
YAML::Parser parser(fin);
YAML::Node doc;
parser.GetNextDocument(doc); // <-- this line was missing!
Matrix m;
doc["tableCenter"] >> m;
Note: I'm guessing dt: f means "data type is float". If that's the case, it'll really depend on how the Matrix class handles this. If you have a different class for each data type (or a templated class), you'll have to read that field first, and then choose which type to instantiate. (If you know it'll always be float, that'll make your life easier, of course.)