Can anyone pls tell me that how to use lua_pop() function correctly in C++.
Should I call it when I use a lua_get*() function ? like.
lua_getglobal(L, "something");
lua_pop(L, 1);
or how to use it ? Will the garbage collector clear those stuff after the threshold ? Thanks.
You call lua_pop() to remove items from the Lua stack. For simple functions, this can be entirely unnecessary since the core will clean up the stack as part of handling the return values.
For more complex functions, and especially for C code that is calling into Lua, you will often need to pop things from the stack to prevent the stack from growing indefinitely.
The lua_getglobal() function adds one item to the stack when called, which is either nil if the global doesn't exist or the value of the named global variable. Having a copy of that value on the stack protects it from the garbage collector as long as it is there. That value needs to remain on the stack as long as it is in use by the C code that retrieved it, because if the global were modified, the copy on the stack might be the only remaining reference.
So the general patterns for using a global are something like these:
void doMyEvent(lua_State *L) {
lua_getglobal(L, "MyEvent");
lua_call(L, 0, 0); /* pops the function and 0 parameters, pushes 0 results */
}
double getGlobalDouble(lua_State *L, const char *name) {
double d;
lua_getglobal(L,name);
d = lua_tonumber(L,1); /* extracts the value, leaves stack unchanged */
lua_pop(L,1); /* pop the value to leave stack balanced */
return d;
}
char *copyGlobalString(lua_State *L, const char *name) {
char *s = NULL;
lua_getglobal(L,name);
if (!lua_isnil(L,-1))
s = strdup(lua_tostring(L,-1));
lua_pop(L,1);
return s;
}
In the last example, I am careful to copy the content of the string because the pointer returned by lua_tostring() is only guaranteed to be valid as long as the value remains on the stack. The requires that a caller of copyGlobalString() is responsible for calling free() later.
Note too that recent editions of the Lua manual include a notation along with each function that identifies the number of stack entries consumed, and the number pushed. This helps avoid unexpected stack growth.
Related
I was writing programs to count the time of page faults in a linux system. More precisely, the time kernel execute the function __do_page_fault.
And somehow I wrote two global variables, named pfcount_at_beg and pfcount_at_end, which increase once when the function __do_page_fault is executed at different locations of the function.
To illustrate, the modified function goes as:
unsigned long pfcount_at_beg = 0;
unsigned long pfcount_at_end = 0;
static void __kprobes
__do_page_fault(...)
{
struct vm_area_sruct *vma;
... // VARIABLES DEFINITION
unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE;
pfcount_at_beg++; // I add THIS
...
...
// ORIGINAL CODE OF THE FUNCTION
...
pfcount_at_end++; // I add THIS
}
I expected that the value of pfcount_at_end is smaller than the value of pfcount_at_beg.
Because, I think, every time kernel executes the instructions of code pfcount_at_end++, it must have executed pfcount_at_beg++(Every function starts at the very beginning of the code).
On the other hand, as there are many conditional return between these two lines of code.
However, the result turns out oppositely. The value of pfcount_at_end is larger than the value of pfcount_at_beg.
I use printk to print these kernel variables through a self-defined syscall. And I wrote the user level program to call the system call.
Here is my simple syscall and user-level program:
// syscall
asmlinkage int sys_mysyscall(void)
{
printk( KERN_INFO "total pf_at_beg%lu\ntotal pf_at_end%lu\n", pfcount_at_beg, pfcount_at_end)
return 0;
}
// user-level program
#include<linux/unistd.h>
#include<sys/syscall.h>
#define __NR_mysyscall 223
int main()
{
syscall(__NR_mysyscall);
return 0;
}
Is there anybody who knows what exactly happened during this?
Just now I modified the code, to make pfcount_at_beg and pfcount_at_end static. However the result did not change, i.e. the value of pfcount_at_end is larger than the value of pfcount_at_beg.
So possibly it might be caused by in-atomic operation of increment. Would it be better if I use read-write lock?
The ++ operator is not garanteed to be atomic, so your counters may suffer concurrent access and have incorrect values. You should protect your increment as a critical section, or use the atomic_t type defined in <asm/atomic.h>, and its related atomic_set() and atomic_add() functions (and a lot more).
Not directly connected to your issue, but using a specific syscall is overkill (but maybe it is an exercise). A lighter solution could be to use a /proc entry (also an interesting exercise).
I'm a little bit confused regarding string memory usage in c++.
Is it good reassign *PChar to NULL second time? Will assigned first time to *PChar string memory be released?
char * fnc(int g)
{
...
}
char *PChar = NULL;
PChar=fnc(1);
if (PChar) { sprintf(s,"%s",PChar); } ;
*PChar = NULL;
PChar=fnc(2);
if (PChar) { sprintf(s,"%s",PChar); } ;
First things first. The following statement is not what you intend:
*PChar = NULL;
PChar=fnc(2);
You are NOT assigning null to the pointer, but putting value zero (0) to the first character of the said buffer. You might be willing to do:
PChar = NULL;
PChar=fnc(2);
As a good programming practice, yes you should assign a pointer to null after it is used (AND possibility memory-deallocated). But assigning a pointer to null will not free the memory - the pointer will not point to allocated memory, but to non-existent memory location. You need to call delete if it was allocated using new, or need to call free if allocated by malloc.
As for the given statement, the compiler would anyway remove the following statement, as the process of optimization:
// PChar = NULL;
PChar=fnc(2);
You need to be very careful while using pointers, and assignment to it with a statically allocated data or dynamically allocated buffer!
I would suggest declaring a buffer of the PChar type and pass pointer to this buffer in a function call.
Good programming practice cals for passing also the allowed length of the buffer that should be checked in th function.
#define MAX_PCHAR_LEN 1024 // or constant const DWORD . . .
PChar PCharbuf[MAX_PCHAR_LEN] = {0}; // initialize array with 0s
//make a call
fnc (&PCharbuf, MAX_PCHAR_LEN, 2); // whatever 2 means
This way you do not have to worry about who allocates and who released memory, since release is automatic after PCharbuf goes out of scope.
I get error segmentation fault because of the free() at the end of this equation...
don't I have to free the temporary variable *stck? Or since it's a local pointer and
was never assigned a memory space via malloc, the compiler cleans it up for me?
void * push(void * _stck)
{
stack * stck = (stack*)_stck;//temp stack
int task_per_thread = 0; //number of push per thread
pthread_mutex_lock(stck->mutex);
while(stck->head == MAX_STACK -1 )
{
pthread_cond_wait(stck->has_space,stck->mutex);
}
while(task_per_thread <= (MAX_STACK/MAX_THREADS)&&
(stck->head < MAX_STACK) &&
(stck->item < MAX_STACK)//this is the amount of pushes
//we want to execute
)
{ //store actual value into stack
stck->list[stck->head]=stck->item+1;
stck->head = stck->head + 1;
stck->item = stck->item + 1;
task_per_thread = task_per_thread+1;
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(stck->mutex);
pthread_cond_signal(stck->has_element);
free(stck);
return NULL;
}
Edit: You totally changed the question so my old answer doesn't really make sense anymore. I'll try to answer the new one (old answer still below) but for reference, next time please just ask a new question instead of changing an old one.
stck is a pointer that you set to point to the same memory as _stck points to. A pointer does not imply allocating memory, it just points to memory that is already (hopefully) allocated. When you do for example
char* a = malloc(10); // Allocate memory and save the pointer in a.
char* b = a; // Just make b point to the same memory block too.
free(a); // Free the malloc'd memory block.
free(b); // Free the same memory block again.
you free the same memory twice.
-- old answer
In push, you're setting stck to point to the same memory block as _stck, and at the end of the call you free stack (thereby calling free() on your common stack once from each thread)
Remove the free() call and, at least for me, it does not crash anymore. Deallocating the stack should probably be done in main() after joining all the threads.
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;
}
I've got a strange problem and really don't understand what's going on.
I made my application multi-threaded using the MFC multithreadclasses.
Everything works well so far, but now:
Somewhere in the beginning of the code I create the threads:
m_bucketCreator = new BucketCreator(128,128,32);
CEvent* updateEvent = new CEvent(FALSE, FALSE);
CWinThread** threads = new CWinThread*[numThreads];
for(int i=0; i<8; i++){
threads[i]=AfxBeginThread(&MyClass::threadfunction, updateEvent);
m_activeRenderThreads++;
}
this creates 8 threads working on this function:
UINT MyClass::threadfunction( LPVOID params ) //executed in new Thread
{
Bucket* bucket=m_bucketCreator.getNextBucket();
...do something with bucket...
delete bucket;
}
m_bucketCreator is a static member. Now I get some thread error in the deconstructor of Bucket on the attempt to delete a buffer (however, the way I understand it this buffer should be in the memory of this thread, so I don't get why there is an error). On the attempt of delete[] buffer, the error happens in _CrtIsValidHeapPointer() in dbgheap.c.
Visual studio outputs the message that it trapped a halting point and this can be either due to heap corruption or because the user pressed f12 (I didn't ;) )
class BucketCreator {
public:
BucketCreator();
~BucketCreator(void);
void init(int resX, int resY, int bucketSize);
Bucket* getNextBucket(){
Bucket* bucket=NULL;
//enter critical section
CSingleLock singleLock(&m_criticalSection);
singleLock.Lock();
int height = min(m_resolutionY-m_nextY,m_bucketSize);
int width = min(m_resolutionX-m_nextX,m_bucketSize);
bucket = new Bucket(width, height);
//leave critical section
singleLock.Unlock();
return bucket;
}
private:
int m_resolutionX;
int m_resolutionY;
int m_bucketSize;
int m_nextX;
int m_nextY;
//multithreading:
CCriticalSection m_criticalSection;
};
and class Bucket:
class Bucket : public CObject{
DECLARE_DYNAMIC(RenderBucket)
public:
Bucket(int a_resX, int a_resY){
resX = a_resX;
resY = a_resY;
buffer = new float[3 * resX * resY];
int buffersize = 3*resX * resY;
for (int i=0; i<buffersize; i++){
buffer[i] = 0;
}
}
~Bucket(void){
delete[] buffer;
buffer=NULL;
}
int getResX(){return resX;}
int getResY(){return resY;}
float* getBuffer(){return buffer;}
private:
int resX;
int resY;
float* buffer;
Bucket& operator = (const Bucket& other) { /*..*/}
Bucket(const Bucket& other) {/*..*/}
};
Can anyone tell me what could be the problem here?
edit: this is the other static function I'm calling from the threads. Is this safe to do?
static std::vector<Vector3> generate_poisson(double width, double height, double min_dist, int k, std::vector<std::vector<Vector3> > existingPoints)
{
CSingleLock singleLock(&m_criticalSection);
singleLock.Lock();
std::vector<Vector3> samplePoints = std::vector<Vector3>();
...fill the vector...
singleLock.Unlock();
return samplePoints;
}
All the previous replies are sound. For the copy constructor, make sure that it doesn't just copy the buffer pointer, otherwise that will cause the problem. It needs to allocate a new buffer, not the pointer value, which would cause an error in 'delete'. But I don't get the impression that the copy contructor will get called in your code.
I've looked at the code and I am not seeing any error in it as is. Note that the thread synchronization isn't even necessary in this GetNextBucket code, since it's returning a local variable and those are pre-thread.
Errors in ValidateHeapPointer occur because something has corrupted the heap, which happens when a pointer writes past a block of memory. Often it's a for() loop that goes too far, a buffer that wasn't allocated large enough, etc.
The error is reported during a call to 'delete' because that's when the heap is validated for bugs in debug mode. However, the error has occurred before that time, it just happens that the heap is checked only in 'new' and 'delete'. Also, it isn't necessarily related to the 'Bucket' class.
What you need to need to find this bug, short of using tools like BoundsChecker or HeapValidator, is comment out sections of your code until it goes away, and then you'll find the offending code.
There is another method to narrow down the problem. In debug mode, include in your code, and sprinkle calls to _CrtCheckMemory() at various points of interest. That will generate the error when the heap is corrupted. Simply move the calls in your code to narrow down at what point the corruption begins to occur.
I don't know which version of Visual C++ you are using. If you're using a earlier one like VC++ 6.0, make sure that you are using the Multitreaded DLL version of the C Run Time Library in the compiler option.
You're constructing a RenderBucket. Are you sure you're calling the 'Bucket' class's constructor from there? It should look like this:
class RenderBucket : public Bucket {
RenderBucket( int a_resX, int a_resY )
: Bucket( a_resX, a_resY )
{
}
}
Initializers in the Bucket class to set the buffer to NULL is a good idea... Also making the Default constructor and copy constructor private will help to make double sure those aren't being used. Remember.. the compiler will create these automatically if you don't:
Bucket(); <-- default constructor
Bucket( int a_resx = 0, int a_resy = 0 ) <-- Another way to make your default constructor
Bucket(const class Bucket &B) <-- copy constructor
You haven't made a private copy constructor, or any default constructor. If class Bucket is constructed via one of these implicitly-defined methods, buffer will either be uninitialized, or it will be a copied pointer made by a copy constructor.
The copy constructor for class Bucket is Bucket(const Bucket &B) -- if you do not explicitly declare a copy constructor, the compiler will generate a "naive" copy constructor for you.
In particular, if this object is assigned, returned, or otherwise copied, the copy constructor will copy the pointer to a new object. Eventually, both objects' destructors will attempt to delete[] the same pointer and the second attempt will be a double deletion, a type of heap corruption.
I recommend you make class Bucket's copy constructor private, which will cause attempted copy construction to generate a compile error. As an alternative, you could implement a copy constructor which allocates new space for the copied buffer.
Exactly the same applies to the assignment operator, operator=.
The need for a copy constructor is one of the 55 tips in Scott Meyer's excellent book, Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve Your Programs and Designs:
This book should be required reading for all C++ programmers.
If you add:
class Bucket {
/* Existing code as-is ... */
private:
Bucket() { buffer = NULL; } // No default construction
Bucket(const Bucket &B) { ; } // No copy construction
Bucket& operator= (const Bucket &B) {;} // No assignment
}
and re-compile, you are likely to find your problem.
There is also another possibility: If your code contains other uses of new and delete, then it is possible these other uses of allocated memory are corrupting the linked-list structure which defines the heap memory. It is common to detect this corruption during a call to delete, because delete must utilize these data structures.