I've made a variant type to use instead of boost::variant. Mine works storing an index of the current type on a list of the possible types, and storing data in a byte array with enough space to store the biggest type.
unsigned char data[my_types::max_size];
int type;
Now, when I write a value to this variant type comes the trouble. I use the following:
template<typename T>
void set(T a) {
int t = type_index(T);
if (t != -1) {
type = t;
puts("writing atom data");
*((T *) data) = a; //THIS PART CRASHES!!!!
puts("did it!");
} else {
throw atom_bad_assignment;
}
}
The line that crashes is the one that stores data to the internal buffer. As you can see, I just cast the byte array directly to a pointer of the desired type. This gives me bad address signals and bus errors when trying to write some values.
I'm using GCC on a 64-bit system. How do I set the alignment for the byte array to make sure the address of the array is 64-bit aligned? (or properly aligned for any architecture I might port this project to).
EDIT: Thank you all, but the mistake was somewhere else. Apparently, Intel doesn't really care about alignment. Aligned stuff is faster but not mandatory, and the program works fine this way. My problem was I didn't clear the data buffer before writing stuff and this caused trouble with the constructors of some types. I will not, however, mark the question as answered, so more people can give me tips on alignment ;)
See http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.4/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html
unsigned char data[my_types::max_size] __attribute__ ((aligned));
int type;
I believe
#pragma pack(64)
will work on all modern compilers; it definitely works on GCC.
A more correct solution (that doesn't mess with packing globally) would be:
#pragma pack(push, 64)
// define union here
#pragma pack(pop)
Related
I am working in a legacy codebase with a large amount of Objective-C++ written using manual retain/release. Memory is managed using lots of C++ std::shared_ptr<NSMyCoolObjectiveCPointer>, with a suitable deleter passed in on construction that calls release on the contained object. This seems to work great; however, when enabling UBSan, it complains about misaligned pointers, usually when dereferencing the shared_ptrs to do some work.
I've searched for clues and/or solutions, but it's difficult to find technical discussion of the ins and outs of Objective-C object pointers, and even more difficult to find any discussion about Objective-C++, so here I am.
Here is a full Objective-C++ program that demonstrates my problem. When I run this on my Macbook with UBSan, I get a misaligned pointer issue in shared_ptr::operator*:
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import <memory>
class DateImpl {
public:
DateImpl(NSDate* date) : _date{[date retain], [](NSDate* date) { [date release]; }} {}
NSString* description() const { return [&*_date description]; }
private:
std::shared_ptr<NSDate> _date;
};
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
#autoreleasepool {
DateImpl date{[NSDate distantPast]};
NSLog(#"%#", date.description());
return 0;
}
}
I get this in the call to DateImpl::description:
runtime error: reference binding to misaligned address 0xe2b7fda734fc266f for type 'std::__1::shared_ptr<NSDate>::element_type' (aka 'NSDate'), which requires 8 byte alignment
0xe2b7fda734fc266f: note: pointer points here
<memory cannot be printed>
I suspect that there is something awry with the usage of &* to "cast" the shared_ptr<NSDate> to an NSDate*. I think I could probably work around this issue by using .get() on the shared_ptr instead, but I am genuinely curious about what is going on. Thanks for any feedback or hints!
There were some red herrings here: shared_ptr, manual retain/release, etc. But I ended up discovering that even this very simple code (with ARC enabled) causes the ubsan hit:
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
#autoreleasepool {
NSDate& d = *[NSDate distantPast];
NSLog(#"%#", &d);
}
return 0;
}
It seems to simply be an issue with [NSDate distantPast] (and, incidentally, [NSDate distantFuture], but not, for instance, [NSDate date]). I conclude that these must be singleton objects allocated sketchily/misaligned-ly somewhere in the depths of Foundation, and when you dereference them it causes a misaligned pointer read.
(Note it does not happen when the code is simply NSLog(#"%#", &*[NSDate distantPast]). I assume this is because the compiler simply collapses &* on a raw pointer into a no-op. It doesn't for the shared_ptr case in the original question because shared_ptr overloads operator*. Given this, I believe there is no easy way to make this happen in pure Objective-C, since you can't separate the & operation from the * operation, like you can when C++ references are involved [by storing the temporary result of * in an NSDate&].)
You are not supposed to ever use a "bare" NSDate type. Objective-C objects should always be used with a pointer-to-object type (e.g. NSDate *), and you are never supposed to get the "type behind the pointer".
In particular, on 64-bit platforms, Objective-C object pointers can sometimes not be valid pointers, but rather be "tagged pointers" which store the "value" of the object in certain bits of the pointer, rather than as an actual allocated object. You must always let the Objective-C runtime machinery deal with Objective-C object pointers. Dereferencing it as a regular C/C++ pointer can lead to undefined behavior.
I would like to program in threading building blocks with tasks. But how does one do the debugging in practice?
In general the print method is a solid technique for debugging programs.
In my experience with MPI parallelization, the right way to do logging is that each thread print its debugging information in its own file (say "debug_irank" with irank the rank in the MPI_COMM_WORLD) so that the logical errors can be found.
How can something similar be achieved with TBB? It is not clear how to access the thread number in the thread pool as this is obviously something internal to tbb.
Alternatively, one could add an additional index specifying the rank when a task is generated but this makes the code rather complicated since the whole program has to take care of that.
First, get the program working with 1 thread. To do this, construct a task_scheduler_init as the first thing in main, like this:
#include "tbb/tbb.h"
int main() {
tbb::task_scheduler_init init(1);
...
}
Be sure to compile with the macro TBB_USE_DEBUG set to 1 so that TBB's checking will be enabled.
If the single-threaded version works, but the multi-threaded version does not, consider using Intel Inspector to spot race conditions. Be sure to compile with TBB_USE_THREADING_TOOLS so that Inspector gets enough information.
Otherwise, I usually first start by adding assertions, because the machine can check assertions much faster than I can read log messages. If I am really puzzled about why an assertion is failing, I use printfs and task ids (not thread ids). Easiest way to create a task id is to allocate one by post-incrementing a tbb::atomic<size_t> and storing the result in the task.
If I'm having a really bad day and the printfs are changing program behavior so that the error does not show up, I use "delayed printfs". Stuff the printf arguments in a circular buffer, and run printf on the records later after the failure is detected. Typically for the buffer, I use an array of structs containing the format string and a few word-size values, and make the array size a power of two. Then an atomic increment and mask suffices to allocate slots. E.g., something like this:
const size_t bufSize = 1024;
struct record {
const char* format;
void *arg0, *arg1;
};
tbb::atomic<size_t> head;
record buf[bufSize];
void recf(const char* fmt, void* a, void* b) {
record* r = &buf[head++ & bufSize-1];
r->format = fmt;
r->arg0 = a;
r->arg1 = b;
}
void recf(const char* fmt, int a, int b) {
record* r = &buf[head++ & bufSize-1];
r->format = fmt;
r->arg0 = (void*)a;
r->arg1 = (void*)b;
}
The two recf routines record the format and the values. The casting is somewhat abusive, but on most architectures you can print the record correctly in practice with printf(r->format, r->arg0, r->arg1) even if the the 2nd overload of recf created the record.
~
~
I'm writing a program that must take user input to assign values to parts of a structure. I need to create a pointer to the structure that I will pass through as a one and only parameter for a function that will print each part of the structure individually. I also must malloc memory for the structure. As it is now, the program compiles and runs through main and asks the user for inputs. A segmentation fault occurs after the last user input is collected and when I'm assuming the call to the printContents function is run. Any help would be appreciated!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct info
{
char name[100], type;
int size;
long int stamp;
};
void printContents(struct info *iptr);
int main(void)
{
struct info *ptr=malloc(sizeof(struct info));
printf("Enter the type: \n");
scanf("%c", &(*ptr).type);
printf("Enter the filename: \n");
scanf("%s", (*ptr).name);
printf("Enter the access time: \n");
scanf("%d", &(*ptr).stamp);
printf("Enter the size: \n");
scanf("%d", &(*ptr).size);
printf("%c", (*ptr).type);
printContents(ptr);
}
void printContents(struct info *iptr)
{
printf("Filename %s Size %d Type[%s] Accessed # %d \n", (*iptr).name, (*iptr).size, (*iptr).type, (*iptr).stamp);
}
Check the operator precedence. Is this &(*ptr).type the thing you're trying to do? Maybe &((*ptr).type) ?
ptr->member is like access to structure variable right? Also same for scanf() usr &ptr->member to get value. For char input use only ptr->charmember .
First let's do it the hard way. We'll assume that the code is already written, the compiler tells us nothing useful, and we don't have a debugger. First we put in some diagnostic output statements, and we discover that the crash happens in printContents:
printf("testing four\n"); /* we see this, so the program gets this far */
printf("Filename %s Size %d Type[%s] Accessed # %d \n", (*iptr).name, (*iptr).size, (*iptr).type, (*iptr).stamp);
printf("testing five\n"); /* the program crashes before this */
If we still can't see the bug, we narrow the problem down by preparing a minimal compete example. (This is a very valuable skill.) We compile and run the code over and over, commenting things out. When we comment something out and the code still segfaults, we remove it entirely; but if commenting it out makes the problem go away, we put it back in. Eventually we get down to a minimal case:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
char type;
type = 'a';
printf("Type[%s]\n", type);
}
Now it should be obvious: when we printf("%s", x) something, printf expects x to be a string. That is, x should be a pointer to (i.e. the address of) the first element of a character array which ends with a null character. Instead we've given it a character (in this case 'a'), which it interprets as a number (in this case 97), and it tries to go to that address in memory and start reading; we're lucky to get nothing worse than a segfault. The fix is easy: decide whether type should be a char or a char[], if it's char then change the printf statement to "%c", if it's char[] then change its declaration.
Now an easy way. If we're using a good compiler like gcc, it will warn us that we're doing something fishy:
gcc foo.c -o foo
foo.c:35: warning: format ‘%s’ expects type ‘char *’, but argument 4 has type ‘int’
In future, there's a way you can save yourself all this trouble. Instead of writing a lot of code, getting a mysterious bug and backtracking, you can write in small increments. If you had added one term to that printf statement at a time, you would have seen exactly when the bug appeared, and which term was to blame.
Remember: start small and simple, add complexity a little at a time, test at every step, and never add to code that doesn't work.
I'm working with legacy code in VS2010 and moved many data structures from using short and float to using int and double, respectively, to fix many compiler warnings.
However, it seems like this broke the mfc serialization (CArchive), as I cannot read old serialized data anymore. I tried casting and using temporary variables, but the results are not encouraging. Some variables are read correctly, others look like overflowed values, so what I'm really looking for is a way to make sure the ">>" operator only reads a short or a float.
One option is reverting to the old structure of course, but if possible, I would like to stick with the "more modern" datatypes and fix the procedure reading the serialized data. Is this possible, and if so, how can it be done?
Try with using version schema:
IMPLEMENT_SERIAL(CMyObject, CObject, VERSIONABLE_SCHEMA| new_version_schema)
void CMyObject::Serialize(CArchive& ar)
{
if (ar.IsLoading())
{
int nVersion = ar.GetObjectSchema();
switch(nVersion)
{
case old_version_schema:
// read old types short and float convert them to int and double
break;
case new_version_schema:
// read new types int and double
break;
default:
// report unknown version of
// this object
break;
}
}
else
{
// new save with int and double
}
typedef struct Radios_Frequencia {
char tipo_radio[3];
int qt_radio;
int frequencia;
}Radiof;
typedef struct Radio_Cidade {
char nome_cidade[30];
char nome_radio[30];
char dono_radio[3];
int numero_horas;
int audiencia;
Radiof *fre;
}R_cidade;
void Cadastrar_Radio(R_cidade**q){
printf("%d\n",i);
q[0]=(R_cidade*)malloc(sizeof(R_cidade));
printf("informa a frequencia da radio\n");
scanf("%d",&q[0]->fre->frequencia); //problem here
printf("%d\n",q[0]->fre->frequencia); // problem here
}
i want to know why this function void Cadastrar_Radio(R_cidade**q) does not print the data
You allocated storage for your primary structure but not the secondary one. Change
q[0]=(R_cidade*)malloc(sizeof(R_cidade));
to:
q[0]=(R_cidade*)malloc(sizeof(R_cidade));
q[0]->fre = malloc(sizeof(Radiof));
which will allocate both. Without that, there's a very good chance that fre will point off into never-never land (as in "you can never never tell what's going to happen since it's undefined behaviour).
You've allocated some storage, but you've not properly initialized any of it.
You won't get anything reliable to print until you put reliable values into the structures.
Additionally, as PaxDiablo also pointed out, you've allocated the space for the R_cidade structure, but not for the Radiof component of it. You're using scanf() to read a value into space that has not been allocated; that is not reliable - undefined behaviour at best, but most usually core dump time.
Note that although the two types are linked, the C compiler most certainly doesn't do any allocation of Radiof simply because R_cidade mentions it. It can't tell whether the pointer in R_cidade is meant to be to a single structure or the start of an array of structures, for example, so it cannot tell how much space to allocate. Besides, you might not want to initialize that structure every time - you might be happy to have left pointing nowhere (a null pointer) except in some special circumstances known only to you.
You should also verify that the memory allocation succeeded, or use a memory allocator that guarantees never to return a null or invalid pointer. Classically, that might be a cover function for the standard malloc() function:
#undef NDEBUG
#include <assert.h>
void *emalloc(size_t nbytes)
{
void *space = malloc(nbytes);
assert(space != 0);
return(space);
}
That's crude but effective. I use non-crashing error reporting routines of my own devising in place of the assert:
#include "stderr.h"
void *emalloc(size_t nbytes)
{
void *space = malloc(nbytes);
if (space == 0)
err_error("Out of memory\n");
return space;
}