I came across an example for a C-function declared as:
static inline CGPoint SOCGPointAdd(const CGPoint a, const CGPoint b) {
return CGPointMake(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y);
}
Until now, I declared utility C-functions in .h files and implemented them in .m files, just like this:
CGPoint SOCGPointAdd(const CGPoint a, const CGPoint b) {
return CGPointMake(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y);
}
I can use this function "inline" anywhere I want and it should also be "static" because it's not associated with any object, like an Objective-c method. What is the point / advantage of specifying "static" and "inline"?
inline does not mean you can use the function “inline” (it is normal to use functions inside other functions; you do not need inline for that); it encourages the compiler to build the function into the code where it is used (generally with the goal of improving execution speed).
static means the function name is not externally linked. If the function were not declared static, the compiler is required to make it externally visible, so that it can be linked with other object modules. To do this, the compiler must include a separate non-inline instance of the function. By declaring the function static, you are permitting all instances of it to be inlined in the current module, possibly leaving no separate instance.
static inline is usually used with small functions that are better done in the calling routine than by using a call mechanism, simply because they are so short and fast that actually doing them is better than calling a separate copy. E.g.:
static inline double square(double x) { return x*x; }
If the storage class is extern, the identifier has external linkage and the inline definition also provides the external definition. If the storage class is static, the identifier has internal linkage and the inline definition is invisible in other translation units.
By declaring a function inline, you can direct the compiler to integrate that function's code into the code for its callers (to replace the complete code of that function directly into the place from where it was called). This makes execution faster by eliminating the function-call overhead. That's why inline functions should be very short.
In C, inline means that it is an inline definition. It doesn't have internal linkage, it has no linkage. It never reaches the linker, which means that if the compiler doesn't use that inline definition to inline every single reference to the function in the compilation unit, then there will be a local linker error if a symbol with the same name (C uses unmangled identifiers) with external linkage is not exported by another translation unit in the compilation. The actual inlining of references to the function by the compiler is exclusively controlled by the optimisation flag or __attribute__((always_inline))
There is no difference between static inline and static, both do not inline the function, and provide the function in the assembly output on -O0 as an internal linkage symbol to the linker, and both inline and optimise out the inclusion of the function in the assembly output on -O1. static inline does have one quirk in that you can use a non-static inline prototype before it, except this prototype is ignored and isn't used as a forward declaration (but using a non-static prototype before a static function is an error).
inline (GCC <5.0, which used -std=gnu90 / gnu89 as default) / extern inline (GCC 5.0 onwards, which uses -std=gnu11): This is a compiler only inline definition. Externally visible function emittance (in the assembly output for use of the assembler and linker) for this inline definition does not occur. If all references to the function in the file are not actually inlined by the compiler (and inlining occurs on higher optimisation levels or if you use __attribute__((always_inline)) inline float func()), then there will be a local linker error if the compiler does not emit the external definition to the linker (and if a symbol with the same name with external linkage is not exported by another translation unit). This allows for an inline definition and an out-of-line function of the same symbol to be defined separately, one with inline and the other out-of-line, but not in the same translation unit as the compiler will confuse them, and an out of line definitition will be treated as a redefinition error. Inline definitions are only ever visible to the compiler and each translation unit can have their own. Inline definitions cannot be exported to other files because inline definitions do not reach the linking stage. In order to achieve this at compile-time, the inline definition can be in a header file and included in each translation unit. This means that the use of inline is a compiler directive and extern/static refer to the out-of-line version produced for the linker. If the function is not defined in the translation unit, it cannot be inlined because it's left to the linker. If the function is defined but not inline, then the compiler will use this version if it decides to inline
extern inline (GCC <5.0) / inline (GCC >5.0): an externally visible function is emitted for this inline definition regardless of whether it is inlined or not meaning this specifier can only be used in one of the translation units. This is intuitively the opposite of 'extern'
static inline: locally visible out-of-line function is emitted by the compiler to the assembly output with a local directive for the assembler for this compiler inline definition, but may be optimised out on higher optimisation levels if all the functions are able to be inlined; it will never allow a linker error to result. It behaves identically to static because the compiler will inline the static definition on higher optimisation levels just like static inline.
An inline function that isn't static shouldn't contain non-const static storage duration variables or access static file-scope variables, this will produce a compiler warning. This is because the inline and out-of-line versions of the function will have distinct static variables if the out-of-line version is provided from a different translation unit. The compiler may inline some functions, not emit a local symbol to be linked to those references, and leave the linkage to the linker which might find an external function symbol, which is assumed to be the same function as it has the same identifier. So it reminds the programmer that it should logically be const because modifying and reading the static will result in undefined behaviour; if the compiler inlines this function reference, it will read a fresh static value in the function rather than the one written to in a previous call to the function, where that previous reference to the function was one that wasn't inlined, hence the variable that was written to in the previous call would have been one provided by a different translation unit. In this instance, it results in a copy local to each translation unit and a global copy and it is undefined as to which copy is being accessed. Making it const ensures that all the copies are identical and will never change with respect to each other, making the behaviour defined and known.
Using an inline / extern inline prototype before/after a non-inline definition means that the prototype is ignored.
Using an inline prototype before an inline definition is how to prototype an inline function without side effects, declaring an inline prototype after the inline definition changes nothing unless the storage specifier changes.
Using an extern inline / extern / regular prototype before/after an inline definition is identical to an extern inline definition; it is a hint that provides an external out-of-line definition of the function, using the inline definition.
Using extern inline / inline on a prototype without a definition in the file but it is referenced in the file results in inline being ignored an then it behaves as a regular prototype (extern / regular, which are identical)
Using a static inline / static on a prototype without a definition in the file but it is referenced in the file results in correct linkage and correct type usage but a compiler warning saying that the function with internal linkage has not been defined (so it uses an external definition)
Using a regular / extern / extern inline prototype before a static inline or static definition is a 'static declaration of 'func' follows non-static declaration' error; using it after does nothing and they are ignored. Using a static or static inline prototype before/after a static inline definition is allowed. Using an inline prototype before a static inline definition is ignored and will not act as a forward declaration. This is the only way in which static inline differs from static as a regular prototype before a static definition results in an error, but this does not.
Using a static inline prototype before a regular / extern / static / static inline / extern inline definition results in static inline overriding the specifiers and acts as correctly as a forward declaration.
__attribute__((always_inline)) always inlines the function symbol in the translation unit, and uses this definition. The attribute can only be used on definitions. The storage / inline specifiers are unaffected by this and can be used with it.
Inline functions are for defining in header files.Small functions are defined in header files.
It should be static so that it can acess only static members.
Related
In this simple code example...
fun testLocalFunctions() {
aLocalFun() //compiler error: unresolved reference at aLocalFun
fun aLocalFun() {}
aLocalFun() //no error
}
Elsewhere in the language, using a function before definition is allowed. But for local functions, that does not appear to be the case. Refering to the Kotlin Language Specification, the section on Local Functions is still marked "TODO".
Since this sort of constraint does not hold for other types of functions (top-level and member functions), is this a bug?
(Granted, local variable declarations must occur before use, so the same constraint on local functions is not unreasonable. Is there a definitive, preferably authoritative source document that discusses this behavior?)
It's not a bug, it is the designed behavior.
When you use a symbol (variable, type or function name) in an expression, the symbol is resolved against some scope. If we simplify the scheme, the scope is formed by the package, the imports, the outer declarations (e.g. other members of the type) and, if the expression is placed inside a function, the scope also includes the local declarations that precede the expression.
So, you can't use a local function until it's declared just like you cannot use a local variable that is not declared up to that point: it's just out of scope.
I'm currently trying to reduce the size of my main function in a GLSL OpenGL ES shader on iOS. Therefore I extracted some helper functions and declared and compiled them in a different shader object. Afterwards I wanted to re-link them back together by using glAttachShader before linking the program that then is used for rendering. All the setup is already done, unfortunately the shader containing my main function won't compile since it can't find the reference to the functions declared in a separate shader. How do I tell the compiler to include the references?
There is some mixed up terminology in your question. There are two related but different constructs involved here:
A function declaration (aka prototype), which only declares the return type, function name, and arguments. It has the form:
returnType functionName(type0 arg0, type1 arg1, ..., typen argn);
A function definition, which has all parts of the declaration, as well as the body that implements the function. It has the form:
returnType functionName(type0 arg0, type1 arg1, ..., typen argn) {
// do some computation
return returnValue;
}
If you split off function implementations into different shaders, the function definition is in that separate shader that contains the actual code for the function. But you will still need a declaration in the shader that contains the main function, or any other shader that calls it.
Once the function is declared, you can call it, even if the implementation is in a different shader. From the spec:
All functions must be either declared with a prototype or defined with a body before they are called.
Assuming I'm including a header file in my precompiled header that includes a bunch of inline functions to be used as helpers wherever needed in any of the project's TUs -- what would be the correct way to write those inlines?
1) as static inlines? e.g.:
static inline BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar)
{
// ...
}
2) as extern inlines? e.g.:
in Shared.h
extern inline BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar);
in Shared.m
inline BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar)
{
// ...
}
My intention with inlines is to:
make the code less verbose by encapsulating common instructions
to centralize the code they contain to aid with future maintenance
to use them instead of macros for the sake of type safety
to be able to have return values
So far I have only seen variant 1) in the wild.
I have read (sadly can't find it anymore) that variant 1) does not accurately move the inline function's body into the callers but rather creates a new function, and that only extern inline ensures that kind of behavior.
Skipping whether you should be inlining at all for the reasons you give, the standard way to inline in Cocoa is to use the predefined macro NS_INLINE - use it either in the source file using the function or in an imported header. So your example becomes:
NS_INLINE BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar)
For GCC/Clang the macro uses static and the always_inline attribute.
Most (maybe all) compilers won't inline extern inline as they operate on a single compile unit at a time - a source file along with all its includes.
make the code less verbose by encapsulating common instructions
Non-inline functions do that as well...
to centralize the code they contain to aid with future maintenance
then you should have non-inline functions, don't you think?
to use them instead of macros for the sake of type safety
to be able to have return values
those seem OK to me.
Well, when I write inline functions, I usually make them static - that's typically how it's done. (Else you can get all sorts of mysterious linker errors if you're not careful enough.) It's important to note that inline does not affect the visibility of a function, so if you want to use it in multiple files, you need the static modifier.
An extern inline function does not make a lot of sense. If you have only one implementation of the function, that defeats the purpose of inline. If you use link-time optimization (where cross-file inlining is done by the linker), then the inline hint for the compiler is not very useful anyway.
only extern inline insures that kind of behavior.
It doesn't "ensure" anything at all. There's no portable way to force inlining - in fact, most modern compilers ignore the keyword completely and use heuristics instead to decide when to inline. In GNU C, you can force inlining using the __attribute__((always_inline)) attribute, but unless you have a very good reason for that, you shouldn't be doing it.
I was just fooling around in Xcode and I discovered that the following statement compiles and it doesn't even raise a warning let alone an error:
static static static int static long static var[5];
What's up with that? Does this make it super-DUPER static? :)
All joking aside, why does the compiler permit repeating the static modifier? Is there actually a reason to allow people to do this or were the people who wrote the compiler too lazy to make this raise an error?
I'm not an Objective-C developer, but does the language allow for an arbitrary ordering of modifiers (e.g. static volatile extern)? If so, then it's probably a benign bug in the compiler that after reading a modifier ("static" in this case) returns to a state where it accepts any modifier terminal again, and will do until it encounters the variable's type. Continual static declarations wouldn't contradict any prior modifiers so it wouldn't raise any errors; so based on this I would expect volatile volatile volatile int x; to also work.
For C 2011, The following applies:
Section 6.7.1 Paragraph 2
At most, one storage-class specifier may be given in the declaration specifiers in a declaration, except that _Thread_local may appear with static or extern.
And storage class specifiers are defined as:
storage-class-specifier:
typedef
extern
static
_Thread_local
auto
register
So for C 2011, that should be illegal.
As to Objective C, I have no idea where to find a language specification, so I can't help you there.
I have a static library say "A.lib" which contains a function int foo(). I have another dll say "B.dll" which consumes A.lib and uses the function foo() and also exports some other functions. Is it possible to export the function int foo() (imported from A.lib) from B.dll so that it can be consumed in a third dll say "C.dll".
I want to know whether it is possible or not, I dont want workarounds like making A.lib available to the C.dll. Also, I am not concerned if this is a bad design or not.
Thanks very much for your patience to read this through.
I had the same requirement - just found a different solution:
Assuming that A.lib has an A.h (that is consumed by source files used to build B.dll e.g. assuming that A.h contains prototypes for functions contained in A.lib), just add the following in A.h:
#pragma comment(linker, "/export:_foo")
This will instruct the linker to export foo() when building B.dll. Note the leading underscore - it is there because that's the true name of the symbol for foo() contained in A.lib (use dumpbin /symbols A.lib | findstr foo to see it). In my example foo() was using the __cdecl calling convention, but if you use __stdcall() or compile as C++, you'll get different name decoration, so you'll have to adjust the #pragma statement above as a result.
It doesn't matter if A.h gets included by many source files in B.dll - the linker doesn't complain if the exact same definition is made multiple times.
One "advantage" to this approach is that you don't even have to use the __declspec(dllexport) specifier on foo() in A.lib ...
Yes, it's possible but any code example is language dependent.
(for example in C you may simply export a function with the same name and C.dll will see it)